Theory
Offline In support of creationism and the existence of God, I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design. As William Paley said, "There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver ... The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD. " My question to you is this... how do you believe humans came into existence? In support of Intelligent Design, there is also what is referred to as the complexity theory. Humans are complex, but evolution is more complex, I concur. However, God is more complex then all and any, after all; I believe he created everything; correct? Bear with me, if God is all-powerful (which I believe) he would have the power to create anything less complex than himself...supposedly supporting the correlation that evolution led to humankind, because the former is more complex. The only problem with that, though, is God is still more complex. This led me to the fact that God is responsible for evolution, and that creationism and evolution are not actually radically opposite theories, but closely intertwined. Humor me by seeing from this point of view... is it not logical to assume that if there is an all-powerful entity, while creating the universe in it's magnitude, he also cleverly implemented a method of continually refining the creatures that he put on the Earth, knowing all along that Adam and Eve would commit the first original sin and lose their state of perfection, resulting in flawed beings and the concept of sin? If evolution is true, it is because of God, not instead of God. To me, this also explains the theory of natural selection... God put into place evolution to allow creatures to continually(if slowly) adapt to their surroundings in order not to be eliminated, while allowing the competition of survival of the fittest to allow evolution to occur. How can there be "survival of the fittest" without the fittest being created by evolution, and referring back to the theory of complexity, God?
Your website was created in the intentions of denouncing a God who created a universe complete with a species with free will, intelligence, emotion... and whose text supports only morality rather then wrongdoing... I think it's safe to say that even atheists will recognize the need for morality within a society... After all, all of societies ills are inspired by sin... greed, jealousy, lust, desire for absolute power...Theoretically speaking, if the world existed as perfect (that is, without sin) we would live perfect lives. I personally believe that we are God's failed experiment.. that with the addition of free will, our base desires overcame us... and sin entered into the world; directly resulting in a society of sin. This made us undesirable to God, though he still loved us. This instigated the need for a sacrifice (Jesus)... who would die though he himself had never committed a wrong... that absolute morality could eventually triumph and result in God's ability to forgive us for our inherent sin and be rewarded (through eternal bliss in Heaven) rather than punishment (through eternal pain in Hell). In reality, the tenets of the Bible make perfect sense... you have the free will to choose the path of general morality ( no one is perfect, granted, but a life that honors God and asks forgiveness for the sin that one will inherently commit) or the free will to choose damnation by sinning and denying the Christ's forgiveness and love. Who is he to forgive us? The same more complex entity that was able to create a universe. Debate?
- Login to post comments
Offline In support of creationism and the existence of God, I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design. As William Paley said, "There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver ... The marks of design are too strong to be got over.
What exactly are the marks of design and how do we know these marks when we see them?
Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD. " My question to you is this... how do you believe humans came into existence?
Humans came into existence through the natural process of evolution.
In support of Intelligent Design, there is also what is referred to as the complexity theory. Humans are complex, but evolution is more complex, I concur.
What about evolution makes it complex? In what context are you using the word complex?
Evolution is basically the generational change in the frequency of alleles in a population of organisms. I'm wondering how the term 'complex' applies to this natural occurence.
However, God is more complex then all and any, after all; I believe he created everything; correct?
I guess that's what you believe. ?
Bear with me, if God is all-powerful (which I believe) he would have the power to create anything less complex than himself...supposedly supporting the correlation that evolution led to humankind, because the former is more complex.
Still need this whole complexity thing explained.
The only problem with that, though, is God is still more complex. This led me to the fact that God is responsible for evolution, and that creationism and evolution are not actually radically opposite theories, but closely intertwined.
I love it when instead of seeing the ridiculous of a given belief and deciding that the belief needs to be eliminated, people instead see the ridiculousness of a belief and then try to adapt it so that it seems somewhat less ridiculous. In doing so they create what is essentially a private god concept and we end up having a different god for every person who holds a god belief. God doesn't send people to hell. God used evolution to create. God doesn't eat burrritos. Theists do this constantly.
The christian god was a belief for millenia before the process of evolution was discovered, but once we saw how utterly obvious evolution was then the god became some silly mad scientist who used an uncontrolled process to attempt to reach a desired destination. The problem is that there is no basis on which to support the existence of this new god except to say, "Well, he makes more sense to me than the god concept I had before that made me realize this new god actually exists."
Humor me by seeing from this point of view... is it not logical to assume that if there is an all-powerful entity, while creating the universe in it's magnitude, he also cleverly implemented a method of continually refining the creatures that he put on the Earth, knowing all along that Adam and Eve would commit the first original sin and lose their state of perfection, resulting in flawed beings and the concept of sin?
No.There is absolutely nothing logical in that scenario. If this god is all powerful and omniscient there should be no need to include a mechanism within creatures that allows them to naturally 'refine'. He can create anything and knows everything. First of why would anything he a perfect being creates need refining? Second, unless you are suggesting that he can not change both the environment and the humans he created to reach a desired end (which should be unecessary anyway since he knew the end befoire creating), then it is senseless for such a being to instill within his human creation an unguided means by which it will change and possibly result in something other than what he desired. Third, with your god every part of existence is a direct result of that god's creating and therefor anything that happens in that existence is a direct result of your god. So original sin and every thing else in existence is your god's doing.
I would like you to explain to me however what a perfect human, a la Adam and Eve, actually is. What makes them perfect and on what scale are we judging their perfection as opposed to mediocrity? Also, if before the fall Adam and Eve had no concept of sin then how could they have done something deserving of being renderred imperfect?
If evolution is true, it is because of God, not instead of God.
What a crazy god to start an unguided natural process to reach a desired end. Someboidy needs to take the creation keys away from him. He's not fit to drive anymore.
To me, this also explains the theory of natural selection... God put into place evolution to allow creatures to continually(if slowly) adapt to their surroundings in order not to be eliminated, while allowing the competition of survival of the fittest to allow evolution to occur.
God created those surroundings. Why would he create a being that has to adapt to the surroundings he created? Why not just create an unchanging environment then the creatures don't have to adapt. Why would an intelligent being achieve goals in the most complicated and uncontrollable means possible?
How can there be "survival of the fittest" without the fittest being created by evolution, and referring back to the theory of complexity, God?
'Survival of the fittest' is simply the natural way the organism which is best suited to its environment will thrive in that environment. Any life form that begins to exist and multiply will necessarily be subject to this. It is not a goal or a competition but simply what happens to anything which exists. Actually, even rocks are subject to survival of the fittest. If there are two rocks in an area with heavy rainfall, over time the weaker of the two rocks will erode more than the stronger.
Your website was created in the intentions of denouncing a God who created a universe complete with a species with free will, intelligence, emotion...
But there is no reason to think such a thing as that god exists.
and whose text supports only morality rather then wrongdoing... I think it's safe to say that even atheists will recognize the need for morality within a society...
Okay. What exactly do you mean by "even atheists will recognize"? Care to clarify that turn of phrase? And yes atheists are moral and morals exist without your god, or should I say in spite of the existence of a belief in your god.
After all, all of societies ills are inspired by sin... greed, jealousy, lust, desire for absolute power...
There is no such thing as sin. Most of the traits you list are simply traits that, in extremes, are detrimental to a society. Desire for absolute power is always detrimental to society. Desire for the love of a god and an eternal paradise are forms of greed, lust, jealousy, and desire for absolute existence that also have detrimental effects on society.
Theoretically speaking, if the world existed as perfect (that is, without sin) we would live perfect lives.
Again, what is perfect?
I personally believe that we are God's failed experiment..
Care to explain how an omnipotent, omniscient being fails or even experiments in the first place?
that with the addition of free will, our base desires overcame us... and sin entered into the world; directly resulting in a society of sin.
And Mr. deity slapped his head and said, "You know, I should have seen that one coming, with the omniscience and all. Doh!"
This made us undesirable to God, though he still loved us. This instigated the need for a sacrifice (Jesus)... who would die though he himself had never committed a wrong... that absolute morality could eventually triumph and result in God's ability to forgive us for our inherent sin and be rewarded (through eternal bliss in Heaven) rather than punishment (through eternal pain in Hell).
Why did this instigate the need for a sacrifice? Who made 'us being undesirable to god' require a sacrifice? All this stuff was created by your god so all that actuyally happened was exactly what god made. He required the sacrifice. Why the sacrifice of himself to himself? And, who holds this absolute morallity over god's head? Isn't morallity in your view simply whatever god decides morallity is?
In reality, the tenets of the Bible make perfect sense... you have the free will to choose the path of general morality ( no one is perfect, granted, but a life that honors God and asks forgiveness for the sin that one will inherently commit) or the free will to choose damnation by sinning and denying the Christ's forgiveness and love.
So I'm free to do with my god created person what I want in the god created universe, within the god created rules of existence, within the ability of my god designed brain and body, which are built on the evolution altered blueprints of the bodies and brains of my parents and the unguided changing environment into which I am born. But, if I do other than a perfect being wants me to, I will be tormented eternally. Sweet freedom! Thanks Big G, you all powerful kook, you.
Who is he to forgive us?
I'm all a twitter with suspense...
The same more complex entity that was able to create a universe.
What did he use to create that again?
Debate?
Dehook.
Depole.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
- Login to post comments
Offline Saying that the tenets of the Bible make sense is logically equivalent to saying shit tastes good or getting kicked in the balls is fun. 
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline I think that the problem with this discussion is that people can comprehend different 'types of order' for lack of a better phrase.
The type of order that theDefender is talking about is an outside force imposing order on something. Like a god imposing order on the universe through creation or a person imposing order on the world by building something.
But order can emerge from natural forces and processes. Like the forces that formed our planet and solar system or evolution which explains the diversity of life on the planet.
It's pretty amazing that we have such evolved brains that we can understand what those forces are and how those processes work. But if you can't comprehend that then whenever you see order you'll say goddidit.
I think you need to understand that if the type of order that we see in biology was created by a god it would look different.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
- Login to post comments
Offline Everytime I read a response, I am stunned by the absolute lack of thought "rational responders" can provide.
1. Why do we deduce it to be a person? You honestly and rationally believe the world that we live in, in all it's complexity, the absolute mind-blowing entirety that this world is, evolved from nothing at all? That there was no designer who pieced this world together like a puzzle, but that a series of interactions created initial matter and then led to all forms of life in this world? I don't.
2. I've seen this argument disputing the very idea of absolute power, but God can not undermine his own power (that would obviously invalidate the idea that he is all-powerful) ... so God is all-powerful in all but undermining his own power. Think about it, if God is the most complex entity, he holds absolute power over anything less complex, meaning that he is all-powerful because there is none above him to hold more power. Just because he cannot undermine his own power does not falsify his power.
3. No problem. Considering the vegetation of the earth was created on the 4th day, 3 days after God introduced the sun (seperating the dark from the light, evening from the morning)... I don't see what the problem is.
4. Although I doubt there is a way to prove this aspect of my theory... this is where rational analysis drops off and faith kicks in. I believe God to be the Divine Creator so I believe his given Word.
5. Flaws? God gave you existence and a chance to enjoy the life that you have, and you deem your existence a flaw?
6. Glad you agree.
7. Let me say this, I came here to try and illustrate my reasons for believing in the existence of God; not look to examples of human's inherent sin. Although I agree some religious organizations have wielded religion as a weapon, I find them to be wrong as well as you do. I don't consider them to be doing the right thing. That was their mistake and it goes back to human's imperfect nature. That hardly disproves God.
8. Well, I'm not. If we had remained perfect sin would not exist in this world... resulting in a utopic society. Meaning we wouldn't be having this debate right now, we'd be praying together.
9. You are correct in pointing out my mistake in verb tense. I should have used *loves*.
10. True. If God chose to implement free will, then the choice to choose sin is obviously there, diametrically opposite to the choice to choose repental. Can you blame God that our society chose sin? He fully intended for a utopic society. We just fell short of his expectations.
11. You may revert to attacks on my character at any time you choose, I will respond with "God loves you."
12. Granted, he knows what I will choose before I do, but that is only because he is all-powerful. Are you insinuating that free will somehow "challenges" God's knowledge? I'd like to see some actual reasoning behind that one.
13. Debate.
Cool ! More to work upon. Let me start off with my favorite quote:
"Every time I read a response to a response, I am amazed at the lack of will to NOT use strawmen theists can provide."
Now, let's get on with the bashing, shall we?
1. Indeed, you are right with one part of the answer: I DON'T think the world appeared out of nothing. That is perfectly true. However, the question still remains: If the world didn't evolve out of nothing, then by what inductive power do you postulate that a PERSON must have designed it? Why wouldn't it have another cause, like something natural that we have no knowledge about (yet) ? Furthermore, yes, I believe that a series of interactions ... (your words follow). You feel that my belief is irrational. I feel yours is, and I have one more argument in my favor (which you have conveniently dodged): which God is it? Yahweh or Allah? Zamolxis or Siddharta? Zeus or Odin? At least you won't be able to ask me the same (as in "which evolution is it? evolution 1 or evolution 2?"
- PS for logic debaters: yes, I know what I just said in the brackets, I realize the error, it's only a figure of speech
2. Perfectly true. Still, can God change His mind?
3. No, actually it is the other way around... vegetation is 3rd day, sun and moon 4th day. Read the Bible more. In order to clarify: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com - check the contradictions between Bible and science; did I say vegetation on the 4th day in my initial post? my apologies, I do admit to making mistakes now and then
4. And the connection with what I said is ... ?
5. Umm... hmm... let's take it the following way: I am killed by many substances, any chemical unbalance will destroy me, I do not resist fire, hipothermia kills me, my neck snaps like a twig, if you use a slingshot and hit me in the soft temple, I die, I am exposed to pollutants that degrade my health, I get old just to become decrepit and senile, if I were a woman, chances were pretty high that I'd suffer pain when I gave birth to my baby (hopefully that won't happen in the nearby predictable future), my lifespan isn't more than 100 years, I am punished to live in the condition after Adam and Eve's sin, to which I hold no guilt at all, the thing that gives the most intense and enjoyable pleasure in a natural way is considered to be a sin, I can be exposed to incurable diseases, whose result is ultimately death or permanent physical degradation, my money is used without my will be the institution in which I do not hold any beliefs, my children will be forced to practically repeat my life... and you ask me if I consider my existence to be a flaw...? WELL YES I DO, DUMBO !!!
6. 'Welcome. Anytime you state something at least of good common sense.
7. Indeed, that hardly disproves God. But since there is no 100% objective method to demonstrate God, and no proof for him that nobody can deny, the question is why would I trust the word of people who act differently than they preach? Why wouldn't I trust more in Zamolxis, the god of the ancient Thracians?
8. Well I believe you are, but nevermind. You still haven't answered my question as to why did sin enter a perfect world and into the "hearts" of perfect people.
9. I was only being ironic...
10. Well, let me take it s-l-o-w-l-y, so that you can understand. God knows everything, right? That everything includes the fact that person X chose sin, right? If person X would have chosen non-sin (for a lack of better word), God would know in a wrong way, which isn't possible. So: if you say "humanity chose sin", I say to you "God chose sin for us from the moment he created us; he knew that we would choose sin, he knew that we would go wrong, why is he punishing us since he KNEW that we would choose sin?". Furthermore: God created everything, and therefore He is responsible for every change in this Universe. Therefore, He is responsible for all the conditions that have led me to sin, therefore He is responsible for my sin, therefore it's HIS fault. Why am I punished with hell for GOD'S fault?
11. No he doesn't. If He loved me, I would probably be one of Frank Herbert's ixians, and not trapped in a frail and miserable body with a lifespan of less than 100 years (see 5)
12. Umm... fellow atheists, I believe this one has just found out that there might be a slight contradiction between free will and omniscience... would someone care to point him to a resource on this one? Any of those 10,000 will do...
13. Yeah, sure, when I have more of a challenge.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.
So who made god?
and that creationism and evolution are not actually radically opposite theories, but closely intertwined.
Then it's not really creationism, it's something else. Nice to see someone with brains though.
or the free will to choose damnation by sinning and denying the Christ's forgiveness and love.
But you have to admit, it's all up to god. He knows what it will take for me to believe, and if I go to hell, well, he didn't care about me. and seeing this is most likly the god named god. I would be suprised if he did something.
But I digress, there is a bigger question I always wanted an answer to. How do you know everything was made by YOUR god and not some other god/s?
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.
- Login to post comments
Offline In support of creationism and the existence of God, I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design. As William Paley said, "There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver ... The marks of design are too strong to be got over.
What marks? I have yet to see a single thing in nature that needed specified design. Lay out a single thing that could not exist without a creator, yet exists anyway, and you'll have something. Until then....
Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.
Where's the design that is unnatural and requiring a god?
My question to you is this... how do you believe humans came into existence?
A very very long time and a very very difficult struggle in the process.
In support of Intelligent Design, there is also what is referred to as the complexity theory. Humans are complex, but evolution is more complex, I concur. However, God is more complex then all and any, after all; I believe he created everything; correct?
Arguments from complexity continue infinately. If there must be something complex to create something complex, then even god needs a designer.
Bear with me, if God is all-powerful (which I believe) he would have the power to create anything less complex than himself...supposedly supporting the correlation that evolution led to humankind, because the former is more complex.
Evolution is a process. It isn't really complex because it isn't material. Understanding of it could be considered complex, except it's a very simple concept.
The only problem with that, though, is God is still more complex. This led me to the fact that God is responsible for evolution, and that creationism and evolution are not actually radically opposite theories, but closely intertwined.
I agree that evolution and creationism aren't diametrically opposing views, and I've wondered for a long time why the church continues to be moronic in the face of proven science.
Humor me by seeing from this point of view... is it not logical to assume that if there is an all-powerful entity, while creating the universe in it's magnitude, he also cleverly implemented a method of continually refining the creatures that he put on the Earth, knowing all along that Adam and Eve would commit the first original sin and lose their state of perfection, resulting in flawed beings and the concept of sin? If evolution is true, it is because of God, not instead of God. To me, this also explains the theory of natural selection... God put into place evolution to allow creatures to continually(if slowly) adapt to their surroundings in order not to be eliminated, while allowing the competition of survival of the fittest to allow evolution to occur. How can there be "survival of the fittest" without the fittest being created by evolution, and referring back to the theory of complexity, God?
You start with the belief of existance of a super being and use it to explain everything else. When the super being has never been proven as required or existant in the first place, and is logically unsound. If it had been proven as a requirement or existant, then your logic would be sound. But the foundation is flawed.
Your website was created in the intentions of denouncing a God who created a universe complete with a species with free will, intelligence, emotion...
Not quite. It was made with the intentions of denouncing every god. It says so in the subtitle.
and whose text supports only morality rather then wrongdoing...
If referring to the bible, it is one of the most immoral texts known to exist.
I think it's safe to say that even atheists will recognize the need for morality within a society...
Certainly. We wouldn't have developed it through evolutionary processes if it didn't have survival benefits.
After all, all of societies ills are inspired by sin... greed, jealousy, lust, desire for absolute power...
This isn't morality. This is (geopolitically)western morality(and not universal even in the geographical area it pertains to). Morality is a set of rules that a society lives by in order to promote growth and survival. Those rules are not god given universals. If they were, they would be evident throughout the world and all history.
Theoretically speaking, if the world existed as perfect (that is, without sin) we would live perfect lives.
Immorality is hardly our only concern. Disregarding that, this logically arrived conclusion is based on a flawed foundation.
I personally believe that we are God's failed experiment..
Infinate complexity would require infinate perfection to exist. Thus, there can be no failure. A failure is an imperfection. The more complex a system is, the less of a flaw it takes to destroy it. In infinate complexity, any flaw at all would result in the destruction of the entire system. So failure would be, quite literally, not an option.
that with the addition of free will, our base desires overcame us... and sin entered into the world; directly resulting in a society of sin.
If a god created us, then he created our base desires.
This made us undesirable to God, though he still loved us. This instigated the need for a sacrifice (Jesus)...
This is primitive thinking. Throw the virgin into the volcano and maybe it will decide not to erupt and wipe our village off the face of the earth. There has never been an example of a sacrifice having any intrinsic value at all. There is no evidence whatsoever that human sacrifice can destroy what is considered morally wrong. The only way to follow it through is to sacrifice anyone who doesn't agree with your morals. Which is how some of the worst tragedies in history have begun.
who would die though he himself had never committed a wrong... that absolute morality could eventually triumph and result in God's ability to forgive us for our inherent sin and be rewarded (through eternal bliss in Heaven) rather than punishment (through eternal pain in Hell).
You can't forgive someone when it's your fault they're screwed up in the first place. Anything they've done is a direct result of your action. You are the one who needs forgiveness, not they. This applies universally. You cannot blame a clock for not working. You blame the manufacturer. When taking this into account and looking back to a previous point I made, that god cannot fail, it is obvious that god cannot exist.
In reality, the tenets of the Bible make perfect sense...
Quite the opposite. They are contradictory and primitive.
you have the free will to choose the path of general morality ( no one is perfect, granted, but a life that honors God and asks forgiveness for the sin that one will inherently commit) or the free will to choose damnation by sinning and denying the Christ's forgiveness and love. Who is he to forgive us? The same more complex entity that was able to create a universe. Debate?
No god has empirically laid out a set of morals for the entire species to follow. So the point is moot.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline In support of creationism and the existence of God, I subscribe to the theory of Intelligent Design. As William Paley said, "There cannot be design without a designer;
Fallacy of begging the question: assumes the universe is designed. This error was pointed out by David Hume more than 200 years ago.
Ergo creationism is stillborn.
contrivance without a contriver ...
Fallacy of self refutation - omnipotence need never rely on contrivance by definition.
Two fatal errors within the first paragraph. Ladies and gentleman: a theist.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Unfortunately for your argument, intelligent design and irreducible complexity has already been scientifically ridiculed. I would suggest this as reading material:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/3955
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Unfortunately for your reading material, it in no way disproves or disputes what I've said. Why don't you try to respond?
Even saying that shows you either didn't read it or didn't understand it.
Edit:
My apologies. You are using the term intelligent design outside its standard definition. That threw me off. Unfortunately I'm on limitted time now and can't deal with this subject properly until Friday.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
When I was a theist I to believed that creationism and evolution were not polar opposites and that the truth probably was some where in the middle with god creating the world and then letting evolution take over.
The problem with this belief, I now realize, is that I really just wanted to inject science into the creation story and try to rationalize my world view.
If the creation story is true then where are the dinosaurs? Did they drown in the flood of Noah? Any serious archeologist will laugh his ass off at this. No evidence shows dinosaurs ever existed any time near the time of humans, and why didn’t Noah take them too? Was he afraid a T rex would eat everyone? He took lions, and tigers, and bears apparently, oh my.
Disease, death and pain, all existed in the animal world long before humans came onto the scene, but we are supposed to believe that humans are responsible for all the disease, death, and pain in the world.
Bottom line, the idea of evolution and creationism co-existing looks good on the service for theist who want to add a little bit of creditability to their side, but when looked at close up, the argument just seems to fall apart.It seems to me that you are trying to support god by first presuming that a specific god exists.
What about other religions?
Then again, I only did a quick read
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Very well, if nobody dares, then I'll answer you. My answer will try to destroy arguments using themselves. Where impossible, other "outside" elements will be added.
1. William Paley's argument.
- "There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver" - we assume this to be true. Therefore, two theories stand out: design through the intelligence of a person OR design through the selection of the4 fittest and elliminating the useless
- "The marks of design are too strong to be got over" - we assume this to be also true. Therefore, the two theories seem, until now, to be the only ones to stand for the trial
- "Design must have had a designer." - it states the same as the first, so we assume this to be also true. It doesn't change the situation in any way until now
- "That designer must have been a person." - FIRST FLAW: Why do we deduce it to be a person? Was it a person who "designed" the falling raindrop in its perfectly aerodynamic shape? Nope. That was purely the laws of friction with air and gravity, plus some liquid cohesion laws; Was it a person that designed a snowflake? Nope. With proper understanding of physics, it therefore comes to mind that the shape of the snowflake, which seems ALMOST perfect with the naked eye, FAR from perfect with a microscope, depending on many factors, is also natural; The invoked argument is called "non-sequitur"... the conclusion doesn't necessarily derive from the hypotheses
We however assume, for the sake of the argument, that the above is true. We thus have:
- "That person is GOD." - God? Why not Allah? Why not Zamolxis? Or why not Zeus? How do you know for sure that it is God and nobody else?
2. "God is all-powerful" - that means God can do anything, right? OK then, smarty-pants, answer this: Can God create a rock so heavy that He himself cannot lift?
3. "creationism and evolution are not actually radically opposite theories" - Cool, perhaps you would care to explain how the plants evolved during the third "day" of creation without sun to give them light for photosynthesis.
4. If you can logically explain how a "perfect" being like Adam (or Eve) (don't bark at this one, I'm just repeating your words) would irreversibly become less-than-perfect, I'd say you deserve a medal
5. "Your website was created in the intentions of denouncing a God who created a universe complete with a species with free will, intelligence, emotion" - Hey, don't point at us for the flaws in YOUR Bible !!!
6. "I think it's safe to say that even atheists will recognize the need for morality within a society" - D'uuuuuuh !
7. "After all, all of societies ills are inspired by sin... greed, jealousy, lust, desire for absolute power..." - Umm... actually, they aren't, because they would be completely minimal, if the persons that have these "sins" weren't surrounded by a flock of mindles sheep to do the dirty work for them... For instance, take: Crusades, Inquisition, missionarism, destruction of "heathen" libraries...
8. "Theoretically speaking, if the world existed as perfect (that is, without sin) we would live perfect lives." - theoretically speaking, I believe you to be contradicting yourself (see 4)
9. "This made us undesirable to God, though he still loved us." - "loved"? So he doesn't love us anymore? Boo-hoo-hoo, what a pity... Well, that kind of explains why there are no more plagues and world-sweeping diseases like in the Old Testament...
10. "that with the addition of free will, our base desires overcame us..." - The desires that were placed in us by whom exactly ...? Ah, of course ! God Himself ! Well, wouldn't you know it...
11. "In reality, the tenets of the Bible make perfect sense..." - So, when was the last time you had a headcheck? I know a pretty good psychiatrist, and I think I could ask my pharmacist to give you a good deal on the drugs... And I've heard that sanitarium food is pretty OK, too.
12. "you have the free will to choose the path of general morality ( no one is perfect, granted, but a life that honors God and asks forgiveness for the sin that one will inherently commit) or the free will to choose damnation by sinning and denying the Christ's forgiveness and love." - Sure. But God knows in advance what you chose. Who are YOU to challenge God's knowledge, puny human?
13. "Debate?" - Sure. When I have a better challenge.
Believe it or not, I actually feel better now.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Everytime I read a response, I am stunned by the absolute lack of thought "rational responders" can provide.
1. Why do we deduce it to be a person? You honestly and rationally believe the world that we live in, in all it's complexity, the absolute mind-blowing entirety that this world is, evolved from nothing at all? That there was no designer who pieced this world together like a puzzle, but that a series of interactions created initial matter and then led to all forms of life in this world? I don't.
2. I've seen this argument disputing the very idea of absolute power, but God can not undermine his own power (that would obviously invalidate the idea that he is all-powerful) ... so God is all-powerful in all but undermining his own power. Think about it, if God is the most complex entity, he holds absolute power over anything less complex, meaning that he is all-powerful because there is none above him to hold more power. Just because he cannot undermine his own power does not falsify his power.
3. No problem. Considering the vegetation of the earth was created on the 4th day, 3 days after God introduced the sun (seperating the dark from the light, evening from the morning)... I don't see what the problem is.
4. Although I doubt there is a way to prove this aspect of my theory... this is where rational analysis drops off and faith kicks in. I believe God to be the Divine Creator so I believe his given Word.
5. Flaws? God gave you existence and a chance to enjoy the life that you have, and you deem your existence a flaw?
6. Glad you agree.
7. Let me say this, I came here to try and illustrate my reasons for believing in the existence of God; not look to examples of human's inherent sin. Although I agree some religious organizations have wielded religion as a weapon, I find them to be wrong as well as you do. I don't consider them to be doing the right thing. That was their mistake and it goes back to human's imperfect nature. That hardly disproves God.
8. Well, I'm not. If we had remained perfect sin would not exist in this world... resulting in a utopic society. Meaning we wouldn't be having this debate right now, we'd be praying together.
9. You are correct in pointing out my mistake in verb tense. I should have used *loves*.
10. True. If God chose to implement free will, then the choice to choose sin is obviously there, diametrically opposite to the choice to choose repental. Can you blame God that our society chose sin? He fully intended for a utopic society. We just fell short of his expectations.
11. You may revert to attacks on my character at any time you choose, I will respond with "God loves you."
12. Granted, he knows what I will choose before I do, but that is only because he is all-powerful. Are you insinuating that free will somehow "challenges" God's knowledge? I'd like to see some actual reasoning behind that one.
13. Debate.
Hardly. I'm astonished I managed to pore through that extensive reading material on the remote chance of finding something to falsify my idea of ID and complexity.