Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[awty]

God needed a bride...

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you think that differential survival and reproduction rates based on heritable traits of variable fitness requires that there be a god -or- that consciousness be fundamental?

[Jal]

God needed a bride...

Can you even summarize on what grounds I postulated that premise? And explain why you seem to consider it illogical?

Maybe you just didn't comprehend my position.

[The Grand Nudger]

The most fantastic grounds, with fabulous grass, and a cute little balloon arch?

[Jal]

Why do you think that differential survival and reproduction rates based on heritable traits of variable fitness requires that there be a god -or- that consciousness be fundamental?

I didn't say they required a God. I said merely said that domino determinism won't suffice to explain the pursuit of food, clothing, safety, and shelter.

This entails at minimum a pansychism antithetical to a wholly reductionistic domino-effect determnism.  Let alone account for self-awareness.

[Ravenshire]

You think I'm trying to impress you?!?

You think quite highly of yourself. As I said, I'm here for the LOLs.

No, I think you're smart enough to realize that your shallow posts won't fool me.

I think you are trying to put on a show for the other atheists monitoring this thread, hoping that if you shrug off my arguments with an air of superiority, they won't feel any need to address them.  I am hoping that such pretenses won't fool them.

Seriously?!? I really don't give that much of a shit about you or your silly ideas. Sometimes I just get bored.

You're persistent, I'll give you that, but you suck at reading others, and at reading for comprehension.

[Jal]

The most fantastic grounds, with fabulous grass, and a cute little balloon arch?

I am not asking you to accept those grounds. I am not asking you to believe in God.  I am challenging you to impugn the internal logical consistency of my theodicy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why, why does it entail that, and how does panpsychism explain it?

[Jal]

No, I think you're smart enough to realize that your shallow posts won't fool me.

I think you are trying to put on a show for the other atheists monitoring this thread, hoping that if you shrug off my arguments with an air of superiority, they won't feel any need to address them.  I am hoping that such pretenses won't fool them.

Seriously?!? I really don't give that much of a shit about you or your silly ideas. Sometimes I just get bored.

You're persistent, I'll give you that, but you suck at reading others, and at reading for comprehension.

You haven't demonstrated anything silly about my beliefs. Do you even know the fundamentals of Chritian epistemology? 

I honestly find it hard to believe that somone who knows those fundamentals can consider them internally unreasonable or inconsistent.

[Ravenshire]

The most fantastic grounds, with fabulous grass, and a cute little balloon arch?

I am not asking you to accept those grounds. I am not asking you to believe in God.  I am challenging you to impugn the internal logical consistency of my theodicy.

You really don't understand how this stuff works. You're the one coming here with a claim. It's on you to show the veracity of the claim. It is not on anyone here to prove it wrong. It's called the burden of proof and it's the onus of making a positive claim.