your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
KateWild-"Yes you're right. That's why I don't do that. I haven't done that in this thread. I clearly gave details about why we can draw different conclusions based on the same scientific evidence. I did not refuse to engage at all."
So why not humour K99 and notsurwwherwtogo and answer what they want, even if they are trying to 'prove you wrong'? What harm could it do?
Then we could all be enlightened on what is a very interesting topic.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
KateWild
I'm not claiming you're 'wrong'. I couldn't possibly know. I was just picking up on your refusal to engage K99 and notsurewheretogo because you feared they were trying to 'prove you wrong'.
To illustrate: I will take on your point and claim that I can 100% prove that a creator doesn't exist. Nothing. Zilch. There's naught there. But I'm not going to give you the details of why I believe that because I think you have an agenda and you are "out to prove me wrong".
Wouldn't that reaction be seen as a little transparent?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
KateWild-" I publicly express my opinion and views regularly, and I have not been proven wrong."
If you won't engage in debate with people then how can you be 'proven wrong'?
It's the perfect defence when you fear you are wrong. If you don't give anything away you can't be challenged.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
KateWild-"It can also be proof that you're trying to prove me wrong, and I don't play those games."
KateWild-"I expect neither of you will as you're both out to try and prove me wrong not show a genuine interest."
So you refuse to debate the details of your conclusions with other people because you have an aversion to being publically 'proven wrong'?
hey all, .
so i recently posted for the first time and introduced myself.. i have been spending time reading various posts.
some informative, some not so much.. since i've been reading on here, i've read a lot from atheists.
Sevan-" You are right in saying that my current concepts of God may be wrong."
Your concepts of God could also be correct. That's not the issue. To claim nothing can change 'one's' conviction of a belief when it "may be wrong" is the problem. To do so would be illogical and irrational. That's all that athiests are pointing out to believers when they make such bold claims of faith.
But it is encouraging to see that you do at least hold some reserve.
Sevan-" There are non-tangible reasons for my faith that cannot be described or explained with logic or science. To me, God just is. He is very real to me, even if I may not have all the details correct."
Faith is no advocate of truth or fact. In most cases it only misleads. Personal conviction is no reliable means of truth either.
So many 'believers' share a similar conviction to yours, but I'm sure you would disagree with millions of them when their beliefs contradict your own. How would you know their faith wasn't correct and how would they know yours wasn't?
How can you know for sure your god is the true one? He is only as real to you as Allah is to a Muslim. If they have the truth then your concept of a 'god of love' is very compromised.
Without the ability of omniscience there is no way anyone can hold a conviction of faith free from doubt, without the problem of being seen as illogical, irrational and somewhat delusional.
Sevan-"I do want to learn more about evolution, history, atheism, theism and many other topics. While those that know me consider me very well-educated, I fully accept that there are many areas that I could educate myself more thoroughly. I fully accept that some of the things I currently believe may be wrong."
I have to say that this is one of the most encouraging comments I have read on this forum in recent months. I like it because it contradicts the 'closed minded' claim that "nothing" could take away your current beliefs.
Just to point out that evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a god. Many Christians reconcile the two and live very happily.
Sevan- "I have a lot of research to do."
I hope you thoroughly enjoy your research and are able to approach it with a fresh and open mind free from preconceptions. The best of luck to you.
hey all, .
so i recently posted for the first time and introduced myself.. i have been spending time reading various posts.
some informative, some not so much.. since i've been reading on here, i've read a lot from atheists.
Sevan-"Giles Gray, the concept that everything, in all its wonder and complexity, just got here by chance, does not and cannot make rational sense to me. That scripture about every house having a builder really hits home for me, especially when you consider that the natural world and universe is far more complex and awe-inspiring than any house."
Just because an alternative concept doesn't seem to be rational doesn't automatically prove the one you hold dear is anymore rational either. Both could be wrong.
If both concepts have inconsistencies then it would be irrational and illogical to claim you could never be shaken from the one you are most familiar with, just because you've believed it longer.
The only rational approach would be to consider both concepts objectivly. You can't achieve that by holding a bias towards a cherished concept. If that concept proves incorrect then so will be your conclusions. It would also demonstrate a lack of open mindedness.
hey all, .
so i recently posted for the first time and introduced myself.. i have been spending time reading various posts.
some informative, some not so much.. since i've been reading on here, i've read a lot from atheists.
Sevan-"There are posts that imply and others that directly state that believers are delusional, illogical, irrational and lacking intelligence."
Sevan-"Frankly, there is nothing that could convert me to Atheism, so it is honestly a waste of time. I was a believer long before encountering the Jehovah's Witnesses and I will be a believer for the rest of my life."
It's these kind of statments that athiests draw their conclusions from.
To claim there is 'nothing' that could challenge your belief is illogical, irrational and indicates the need to believe at all costs which is delusional.
observations: if man is merely a machine and the universe is merely a mechanism .... if men were only machines, they would react more or less uniformly to a material universe.
individuality, much less personality, would be nonexistent.. materialism reduces man to a soulless automaton and constitutes him merely an arithmetical symbol finding a helpless place in the mathematical formula of an unromantic and mechanistic universe.
but whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a master mathematician?
The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man’s conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic
Hence religion.
Oh the irony...
i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.
i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.
i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.
OLI-Giles Gray, why is "I don't understand everything" the mark of enlightenment for exJWs and non-believers but irrefutable evidence that believers are irrational?
Because believers only resort to 'not understand things' when they are stuck to explaining away the less edifying parts of the bible.
Believers never call into question the parts of the bible that lend favour to their god's reputation.
It's not so much a case of irrationality but more of bias and hypocrisy.
Well then, I suppose that settles it. Evolutionists would never falsify their works.
Not without being found out the same no...
