atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
All time jeff
There is no comparison between the Judaeo Christian God and a god from lord of the rings, or the flying spaghetti monster. Now if you want to put your faith in what is unanimously a hoax go ahead. As for me I am watching the final four.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To StephenMyers
At the end of the day all you have is a domesticated wolf. Domesticated by intelligent design not natural selection.
Now follow Natural Selection to its logical conclusion. What would survive in a hostile environment, a tame wolf or a hostile wolf?
The video does not support evolution, but intelligent design.
Thanks. .
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Brain loss
Wow, instead of addressing the topic, you are digging up the past? Really? We call that fear.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
No one can point to God with concrete evidence can they? If so, what is this evidence? (please do not include evolution being an impossibility as evidence EDIT: or the fact that our universe had a beginning)
True no one can point directly to God as the first cause. That is the logical conclusion based on the facts. Like it or not, the universe having a beginning is huge in the discussion. For if it had a beginning it had to have a cause. Ignoring that fact is equivalent to placing our heads in the sand.
How does the cause being personal explain how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect? How does cognition make a difference as opposed to a non-cognitive parallel universe (which may have spawned ours)?
If the cause was timeless and non-cognitive the effect should be timeless also. But it is not. The only explanation of how a timeless cause brought about a temporal effect was that the timeless cause chose to bring about a temporal effect. Otherwise we [the effect] should be timeless also.
I have looked into parallel universes. I believe in reading both sides of the issue. Most of it is speculation. Taking a fact and then building on it.
As to God, my belief in Him did not come by blind faith but reason ad logic. I prefer people having a foundation for their faith vs. blind faith. There is enough evidence for the existence of God. One just has to search. As I wrote before, I read both sides of the issue. May I suggest ‘On Guard’ by William Craig.
2 peter 1 = deity of christ.
2 pe.
1:1 simon peter, a bondservant and apostle of jesus christ, .
Earnst
Granville Sharp's rule states that when you have two nouns, which are not proper names (such as Cephas, or Paul, or Timothy), which are describing a person, and the two nouns are connected by the word "and," and the first noun has the article ("the") while the second does not, *both nouns are referring to the same person*. In our texts, this is demonstrated by the words "God" and "Savior" at Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. "God" has the article, it is followed by the word for "and," and the word "Savior" does not have the article. Hence, both nouns are being applied to the same person, Jesus Christ.
Again in Proverbs who is God and king describing? No one. They have to be describing someone for the rule to apply.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Great teacher
What you have is a fish with 5 bones, that someone through comparative anatomy concluded was an early hand.
Comparative anatomy is gray and ambiguous. Bottom line all you have is a fish with five bones. As for your students the only emotion is 'pity'.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
To Unsure
Again for the record, I'm agnostic. What I find exhausting and disheartening is that even if intelligent design was proven, the very next forum post would be about who's intelligent designer is the true God. Why does it have to be this complicated?
I don’t find if complicated. My suggestion is to follow the truth to wherever it leads you. Something to read.
Since the Greeks there has been two basic pictures of ultimate reality. One world view espoused that the mind is the primary reality. According to this view, material reality either originated from a preexisting mind or is shaped by a preexisting intelligence. Thus the mind, not matter is the ultimate reality from which everything come from. Plato, Aristotle, Roman Stoics, Jewish and Christian philosophers espoused some version of this worldview. Most founders of modern science [1300-1700 = scientific revolution] held to a mind first view of reality. This is known as Idealism. Theism is a version of Idealism which credits God as the source of all reality.
The other view is that the physical universe is the ultimate source of reality. This is known as naturalism or materialism.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
Whatshallicallmyself
So you believe I can take 1 step but cannot accept I can walk across town... That about sums up your comment.
I believe you can do that.
I don't believe a chimp can take 1 step and when he is done walking across town he somehow becomes a man
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
To unsure
We do not have proof of any parallel universe.
mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.
morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.
using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.
whatshallicallmyself
Bottom line, there are no transitional fossils. Why make claims if there is nothing to back it up? We have evidence for micro we have none for macro. From Darwin to now it has been the same.
Darwin read “Principles of Geology” by Charles Lyell, whose central methodological principle was. ‘To explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation.’ According to Lyell, our present experience of cause and effect should guide our reasoning about the causes of past events. Lyell argued that when historical scientist are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know, instead, they should cite causes that are known from our uniform experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.
Darwin appealed to this principle to argue that presently observed micro evolutionary processes of change could be used to explain the origin of new forms of life in the past [macro evolution]. Since the observed process of natural selection can produce a small amount of change in a short time, Darwin argued that it was capable of producing a large amount of change over a long period of time. In that sense, natural selection was ‘casually adequate’.
And the same applies today.
