Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Paleophyte]

Yahweh isn't a Creator. He's a creation. A god cobbled together from ignorance and superstition so that our ancestors could explain thunder.

Sheer assertion. Regardless of how many man-made religions exist, it's not absolute proof that every religion is man-made.

Evidence. We even have the Samaritans, the people that branched off of Judaism before the first destruction of the temple and the exile in Babylon. We have the history of your God. He's silly. Your religion is manmade. We have the receipts.

[Deesse23]

Sheer assertion. Regardless of how many man-made religions exist, it's not absolute proof that every religion is man-made.

Evidence. We even have the Samaritans, the people that branched off of Judaism before the first destruction of the temple and the exile in Babylon. We have the history of your God. He's silly. Your religion is manmade. We have the receipts.

Have you considered nuh-uh?

[Jal]

Yes in that context, that's exactly the belief I was referring to. It's not my fault you lack sensitivity to context.

I pointed out in post #265 that your tautology is vacuously true.  Because it is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve, you can put anything on the tail of that and it's still a tautology.  "If it's impossible for me to disbelieve religion X, then God does not exist" is a true tautology.  This stems from the fact that you believe things that are contradictory, that it is impossible to choose to disbelieve, and that it is always possible to choose.  This is what's known as logical explosion, wherein believing contradictory things furnishes the fuel to believe anything no matter how absurd.  Perhaps you should have listened when I pointed it out the first time.  But you didn't, because you're not actually listening, you're just spewing a bunch of bullshit and lies while pretending to be listening and having an open mind.  That is what is known as arguing in bad faith.

Wow. For someone who purports to be so superior to me in logic and argumentation, you've got at least one huge non-sequitur there.

"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Really? When I am conversating with a circle of friends face to face, I find it impossible to disbelieve in their existence.
And they don't even have direct control over my brain. I have defined saving faith as a facial revelation of Yahweh, PLUS His direct influence on my brain.
Therefore you're being pretty narrow-minded and short-sighted to rule out invincible belief. 


"It is never the case that it is impossible to disbelieve." Again, really? What are your thoughts on Descartes' cogito ergo sum?   You find it easy to disbelieve your own existence?

[Jal]

Oddly your post 733 is a set of excerpts discoursing on the Inward Witness responsible for our alleged invincible belief.

Did you cite those texts to refute your own statements? I'm a bit confused.

[Jal]

I am no getting this post.  Are you saying I was a member of a forum called Biologos?

I don't recall such, but of course I am plagued with a terrible memory. Just in case, I applied for a password reset, but seems nothing came, not even to my spam box.

[Jal]

Not sure if you were reluctant to answer my last question. 
So in the meantime, I'll try another explanation.

You seem to think that a deterministic domino effect will suffice. Let's understand what that means. It means that, if the species is to survive,  blind causality must move the mammal towards food and drink, and force it to ingest this sustenance, on a regular, timely basis. And not too little, and not too much, e.g. drinking too much water at one meal can kill you, it happened a while back to a mother of two. 

Fine. Let's speculate that such occurs deterministically/ randomly, often enough to preserve the species.  (This coincidence is beyond my wildest imagination, but let's humor the idea for a moment). Did you notice something? No  hunger or thirst is needed in this domino effect. There is no apriori correlation between hunger and food-consumption. The chips just fall where they may.

Which contradicts mammalian experience. In real life, there IS a clear correlation between the two. Therefore determinism falls shorts of providing a complete picture of the world.

I'll add 'a priori' to the list of terms you don't understand.  There is no reason determinism would require there to be an a priori correlation.  This is you committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

But that wasn't the argument. It's not that DETERMINISM needs the correlation, i.e., such correlation is not part of determinism's definition.

Which is precisely the problem for the species. To survive the frailty of life and the ravages of Nature, the species NEED such correlations.  Therefore determinism is false. THAT is the argument.

[Jal]

Evidence. We even have the Samaritans, the people that branched off of Judaism before the first destruction of the temple and the exile in Babylon. We have the history of your God. He's silly. Your religion is manmade. We have the receipts.

Have you considered nuh-uh?

Obviously a million branches/strands of false religions doesn't prove that all strands are false. 

Moreover, I don't see where either you or Paleophyte, on this thread, have shown anything "silly" about Yahweh.

I'll admit that Yahweh has probably done a few things I don't understand. But I don't see anything unjust, and I don't recall anything that is unambiguously silly.

[Jal]

An Idealist critiquing panpsychism.  I'm not sure if I am quite ready to dismiss Idealism as idiocy, but it sure sounds that way.

The matter around us isn't real, it's just someone's ideas?  Ok, really? 

Maybe you should be an Idealist, as this thread has already witnessed your predilection for intangibles.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What is it about science that frightens you so?

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

What is it about science that frightens you so?

Boru

Jal is afraid that science will disprove his god's existence.