☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[Alex K]

Nothing left to do here...

[The Joker]

Point dismissed on saying this is flawed, as no reason given.

Thread dismissed on the basis of stubborn repetition after several clearly missed rebuttals of the same points in previous threads.

You gave no reason in the other threads,  you just said it is wrong.

[Jesster]

Thread dismissed on the basis of stubborn repetition after several clearly missed rebuttals of the same points in previous threads.

You gave no reason in the other threads,  you just said it is wrong.

I'm talking about this thread, fucker.

You repeated the same shit in this thread that you've said before. You didn't need to open a new thread to keep the same conversation going.

[The Joker]

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose,

But you cannot do that.

Case dismissed.

The Joker Wrote:
The easiest and simplest way to prove God's existence is to provide evidence of its existence. But there is lot lot easier way to do it. Disapprove the theory of Naturalistic Evolution and this automatically Proves God's existence or Prove Evolution and you automatically disapprove God's existence.

The two options.

A)Prove Naturalistic Evolution to be true and you take out God's existence because this shows a natural explanation of how everything came into existence without the assistance of the supernatural.
B)Take out Naturalistic Evolution and the existence of God is automatically Proven.

Because it's either,

A):We came here by an accident without true meaning or purpose, but we are just some random living organism in space, Or
B):God created us with a meaning and purpose to life, not including our private wants.

But it also depends on ones honesty as well, not just the evidence, no amount of evidence is going to convince someone who is unwilling to accept it. So we must look at ii, in both ways.

A) Is there convincing evidence for Naturalistic Evolution?
or
B) Is there convincing evidence against Naturalistic Evolution?

When atheists say, the burden of Proof is on the theist to provide the evidence for Gods existence. There is a twist to the game you see, a theist may say the burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident, see the problem? So, we must check both sides.

The burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident.

---

You gave no reason in the other threads,  you just said it is wrong.

I'm talking about this thread, f******.

You repeated the same s**** in this thread that you've said before. You didn't need to open a new thread to keep the same conversation going.

Easy there with the insults I'm not offended and besides why get angry, doesn't this prove that you are being passionate to disapprove God's existence?

Again you proved no point, other than say it's flawed. Please demonstrate how?

---

The Ouji board is "a" prove of the spiritual realm. There's like hundreds of YouTube videos of people giving testimony that the Ouija Board really does work!

[Jesster]

I'm talking about this thread, FUCK.

You repeated the same SHIT in this thread that you've said before. You didn't need to open a new thread to keep the same conversation going.

Easy there with the insults I'm not offended and besides why get angry, doesn't this prove that you are being passionate to disapprove God's existence?

Again you proved no point, other than say it's flawed. Please demonstrate how?

Shit

Fuck

Cunt

That's not anger. Those are just words. Get over it and stop being so salty.

Also, atheism has nothing to do with evolution. This has been explained to you. You are also providing a false dichotomy. It is not "either evolution or god." There could be other possibilities. Both could be wrong or both could be true. Backing up or disproving one has nothing to do with the other.

The burden of proof for evolution is also not on atheists. It's only on the person specifically trying to make a claim for evolution.

[houseofcantor]

The burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident.

Well, there's me, convinced that the OP doesn't know the meaning of any of the words he just posted. I remember seeing this video one time where there was this happy, trippy music with stars and galaxies floating by when all of a sudden this voice screams "this is not evolution!" I lol'd. In fact, I just lol'd again.

[vorlon13]

Well, this is a good news bad news kinda post:

upon consideration of The Jokers opening post, there is, after all a strong case there.

(that's the good news part)

The bad news part is the universe has Yucatec's finger prints, so to speak, all over it.

And Yucatec is NOT the Abrahamic deity.  


Too bad, so sad.



Praise Yucatec !!!

[The Joker]

The burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident.

Well, there's me, convinced that the OP doesn't know the meaning of any of the words he just posted. I remember seeing this video one time where there was this happy, trippy music with stars and galaxies floating by when all of a sudden this voice screams "this is not evolution!" I lol'd. In fact, I just lol'd again.

Ok. Lets see what you know about evolution.

What do you mean by evolution?
What do you mean by theory?
How did life originate?
What is meant by a fact in science?

[PETE_ROSE]

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.[/color]

I see several problems.

First of all, the use of pointing out to theists that " it doesn't mean god did it", is in response to their attempts at disproving evolution. But what it seems like you may not be fully understanding is, that if evolution were to be proven wrong, our existence could be due to some other natural process.

You are the one proposing a false dichotomy. "It's either evolution or a god". But it could be, either evolution, or some other natural process yet discovered.

"Magic" does not become the second best choice, if one natural process is eliminated.

Next up on the list of problems with your OP is this phrase: 'accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose'. This is a strawman. Please take note of the word "selection" in the phrase "natural selection". Evolutionary traits are SELECTED by environmental pressure, not by accident. Just like dog breed traits are not accidental.

If we are products of our environment why are we not all covered in fur still?

[PETE_ROSE]

Burden of proof is total legalistic bs. What about preponderance of evidence for the most logical conclusion?