by Zechariah 85 Replies latest jw friends
Yeah, I hate to see you have to pour all that JD into your shorts. And THEN it all evaporates leaving "things" colder than they were. But remember, you're going to be busy with a 65 pound striper. You won't have a free hand, nor time to use it. Har.
Hmmm. Better idea, let's drink the JD first, Chase it with a Sam Adams, then I'll snag a big un, then the shaved ice trick. How bout it?
Kenneson:
Would the listing of evolutionists or scientists who do not believe in God also be a fallacious argument?
Absolutely. The question of the existence of God, and the evidence for/against should be considered on its/their own merits, as far as possible.
For instance, I know accounting, and I'm quite good at it. But if I said to you "Kenneson, because I know a lot about accounting, you should believe me when I tell you that God doesn't exist", you would quite rightly bash me over the sconce with a tax return. But if I said "Kenneson, this is how you account for depreciation of an asset", you could have some confidence in what I was saying.
With the existence of God it's not quite that simple, of course. Who is an expert in God's existence? If someone claims to be an expert in God's existence, how can this be verified?
In practical terms, no-one is a verifiable expert in God's existence, so the arguments turn to physical and natural aspects of the universe to try and prove the point one way or another, which then brings you up against the fact that being a specialist in one discipline doesn't mean you know a damn thing about anything else. So a molecular chemistry specialist who thinks that God exists because of his knowledge of molecular chemistry, could be totally unaware of the quantum physicist who thinks the opposite because of his knowledge of quantum physics. It is ultimately a pointless pursuit, since the only person who can prove God's existence is God, (if he exists). That's why listing scientists in particular fields either for or against is also pointless.
My personal view is that I don't think God exists because I haven't yet seen convincing and objective proof of God's existence. Should that proof ever materialise, I will change my view.
Expatbrit
Expatbrit said: "That's why listing scientists in particular fields either for or against are pointless."
My sentiments also. However, if I read correctly, it seems that someone made an argument that there were no scientists who were for. And that's why the scientists were listed. Then, again, maybe I misunderstood?
Kenneson:
Without going back and re-reading the whole thread, I couldn't say. But I'm sure there are scientists today who believe in God, just as there atheist scientists.
But I bet that they all suck at doing their tax returns!
Expatbrit, off to bed.
Actualy, taking a quick look, it seems the original argument was about whether religion has stymied science.
As usual, arguments on the board become fragmented and multi-branched. The downfall of typed conversation as opposed to verbal.
Expatbrit, really off to bed
I believe God created the physical world to mirror the condition the spiritual world was in when he began creating the physical things. Good and Bad.
For instance: cute little doggie = Good/Domestic mirrors Good/Angel. Big bad wolf = Bad/Wild/ mirrors Bad/Demon.
No one can deny if God created everything, He PURPOSELY created a world filled with good and bad.
How bout those blood sucking parasitic ticks? Hmmm. Image and likeness of Bad spirits?
Good. Bad. Good. Bad...God creates BAD and calls it GOOD? Yup. Mosquitoes GOOD? They bite, they suck, they itch they SPREAD CONTAMINATION. Hmmm. Image and likeness of Bad spirits? Me thinks so.
If you don't mind me asking,how do you know this?Also,what version of creationism do you subscribe to?
Are you a young earth,or are you an old earth creationist?
Hey Pom,
Just pointing out the glaring inconsistancy, that's all.
TR
pom,
still waiting!
Yet, God said it was all VERY GOOD, even though there was "BAD" from the physical point of view.
Your right pom....your God you believe in did create bad....thats why I said piss on him. You can give all the explanations you want.....all you want......and never will I nor anyone else understand how Apowerful God would WANT TO DO THAT.
We are created in his image my friggin ass. There isn't a person on this planet who if they had the power......would create bad and allow harm to it's creation unless they were a heartless piece of shit.
If you were God looking down on the starving children of the world......would you just frickin sit there and watch! You can have this guy.....I still say piss on him.
By saying this I do not speak against a loving God who may be out there....I really don't. Only the God you describe.
I like you Pom....I just hate your ideas.
Actualy, taking a quick look, it seems the original argument was about whether religion has stymied science.
That's exactly why they were listed.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Just pointing out the glaring inconsistancy, that's all.
Well, I'm sure you realize TR, in a debate, someone would be considered the loser and not be an insult, it would be a fact.
Personally, I consider the loser the one who no longer stays with the facts and the issue, but gets personal with name calling and derogatory and defamatory wise cracks. Right? Right.
~~~~~~~~~~~
If you don't mind me asking,how do you know this?
It's how I understand it. It's my view. It's the reason I accept.
Also,what version of creationism do you subscribe to?
I didn't know there was more than one creation. I subscribe to the one that God did, which is the one I believe.
Are you a young earth,or are you an old earth creationist?Well, the earth is old if that means anything to you.
Edited by - pomegranate on 24 October 2002 13:34:40
