*Dizzy* Christianity - Fraudulent and Evil Rotten - from beginning to end

by Xander 53 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Bona Dea

  Starscream - Biological life is not proof of God. Biological life is simply proof that we came from something but it is not proof that that something is God. Even given the benefit of the doubt, who's to say your God is the God who created all this? What about the Sumerian gods...Nammu, Anu, Ki, Enlil, Ninlil, Sin, Enki? What about the countless claims of other religions that allege that their god is the creator of the universe and the earth? Couldn't these gods/creatures be responsible for creation, plants, life? Can you prove otherwise? Just because I haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't exist or that one of them couldn't be responsible for "biological life" .

  And I don't know how some can so easily dismiss the earth and all that is in it came from nothing, or was a "miracle", or simply just evolved or even better, it just "was"...yet where in the world did God come from? It is easier to believe that an invisible creator just "was", than to believe that the visible earth just "was". At least there is evidence that the earth exists, which is more than I can say for any "God".

  Sadie
• 

  starScream

  Abaddon,

  You keep dodging the issue by basically saying you are right and I am illogical. There are still only two possibilities. Either biological life was created by some intelligence or it was not. You want me to say that it is simply illogical to consider that intelligence created biological life.

  How did god get here? Your whole theory falls flat on its face, as the argument you use destroys your own viewpoint.

  The subject is how the biological life got here. It was either intelligently created or it occured through natural chemical process. It is illogical to say that it could not have happend but through natural chemical process. You have still not adressed the evidence to dismiss it.

  I say it's evidence for cheesecake. You can't prove me wrong, can you

  cheesecake what? No I can't prove you wrong because I don't know what you mean.

  That statement displays your ignorance of theories relating to abiogenesis

  I used the word reason meaning specific purpose. I am not saying chemical reactions are random and unpredictable. You don't want to discuss, you want to dictate and call people names.

  If you have to use a strawman in even describing your oponents opinions, your arguement isn;t worth a damn.

  Hi pot, its me! the kettle! What was that about cheesecake blacky.

  Bona Dea,

  Even given the benefit of the doubt, who's to say your God is the God who created all this?

  That is not the issue. The issue is the possibilty that biological life was created.

  It is easier to believe that an invisible creator just "was", than to believe that the visible earth just "was". At least there is evidence that the earth exists, which is more than I can say for any "God".

  The earth did not always exist. This is a scientific fact. According to the second law of thermodynamics, given the complexity of the universe, the belief that God simply was, although it is not the issue, is rational. You can't say that it is impossible that there is a God.

  Biological life is not proof of God.

  I know that. It is evidence. A bloody glove and a bloodstained driveway are evidence. Abaddon may want me to think they are evidence for cheesecake if he doesn't like my theory on what they are evidence for. If the jury buys his argument then a killer can walk because the evidence wasn't proof, it was still evidence though.
• 

  Bona Dea

  Even given the benefit of the doubt, who's to say your God is the God who created all this?

  That is not the issue. The issue is the possibilty that biological life was created.

  >>>>Really? Then you are saying you do not believe your God is THE God who created the heavens and the earth, am I right? You are just arguing creation (by anyone or anything) as opposed to evolution?

  It is easier to believe that an invisible creator just "was", than to believe that the visible earth just "was". At least there is evidence that the earth exists, which is more than I can say for any "God".

  The earth did not always exist. This is a scientific fact. According to the second law of thermodynamics, given the complexity of the universe, the belief that God simply was, although it is not the issue, is rational. You can't say that it is impossible that there is a God.

  >>>>Sure I can. But I have no more "proof" for that assertion, than you have proof that there is one who is responsible for biological life. I know nothing about the second law of thermodynamics, so I won't even go there. And sweetheart, I am quite aware that the earth hasn't always existed (). My point is that if a God can just (poof) exist, then is it really so irrational to assume that the earth and all life on it couldn't have just (poof) formed? I'm not even going into arguing the dynamics of an infinite God, only the assumption that he just "was".

  Biological life is not proof of God.

  I know that. It is evidence.

  >>>>That is my point. Biological life only tells us that we are here. That's it! It doesn't answer any of the big questions like how, what, when and where did we come from/get here? Biological life doesn't support your argument anymore than it supports the evolutionists argument. It supports both and neither. How would it make sense to say this is evidence to support the idea that we were created by an unseen being? Upon proposing that, you'd have to then give evidence to support the existence of this unseen being, of which there is none. I don't suppose I get it. Biological life, IMHO, is only evidence that we are here and that we came from something...maybe. But if it isn't too far-fetched to believe that an invisible God, whom no one has seen (how convenient) came from nothing, then how can it be labeled as illogical thinking to attribute this same reasoning to mankind and the universe? I hope I'm making sense here.

  <quote>A bloody glove and a bloodstained driveway are evidence.</quote>

  This is simply evidence that someone bled. That's it. It doesn't tell you who the attacker was...if there even was one (the bleeding could've been the result of some sort of accident; ie. lawnmower accident, pruning accident), why they did it, if the assailant was even a person (could've been a dog, a bear, a lion), or if someone even died as a result.

  There are so many things lacking in this evidence alone...but find a body/victim, motive, fingerprints, DNA...and then you've got something solid. Biological life is not evidence of anything except that we are here. It does not lend support to where we came from, why we are here, or who...if anyone...created us.

  I have always been creationalist, btw. At this point in my life, I am sort-of unsure about what exactly I believe regarding creation/evolution and all such as that. So, forgive me for my poor debating skills in relation to this particular issue. I just like arguing... Also, I don't know a whole lot about the theory of evolution, so I may be doing more harm here than good for the evolutionists. I apologize if this is the case.

  Sadie
• 

  starScream

  <quote>A bloody glove and a bloodstained driveway are evidence.</quote>

  This is simply evidence that someone bled. That's it.

  In a trial this evidence would be submitted to the Judge and the Judge would decide if it is in fact evidence. Many murder trials have had such evidence submitted to support the prosecution's case. It may not prove his case alone but it is evidence.

  Then you are saying you do not believe your God is THE God who created the heavens and the earth, am I right?

  No, you are not right. I'm not arguing that the evidence I submitted identifies any particular creator. I'm only stating that it supports the position that there was a creator. That is the issue we are currently discussing.

  You are just arguing creation (by anyone or anything) as opposed to evolution?

  Again, No. It is 'as opposed to' spontaneous generation of living creatures from non-living matter. Evolution is the theory that existing living matter changes in a long process to ever more complicated living matter. Evolution is not the discussion either.

  I know nothing about the second law of thermodynamics, so I won't even go there.

  Then my advice is to 'go there', you will understand why my assertion is rational. Just because you don't know something does not make it pointless to learn about it

  My point is that if a God can just (poof) exist, then is it really so irrational to assume that the earth and all life on it couldn't have just (poof) formed?

  I have not said the creator is poofing. The only asserted attribute about the creator is that it created the biological life with intelligence. The earth and more importantly its life did not always exist. According to the second law of thermodynamics things don't just poof and form like you are describing them. Skyscrapers don't just poof and form. The pyramids didn't just poof and form. Complex organized systems come from existing organization and uselful energy. In these cases the organized system and useful energy were the engineers and workers that built those monuments and the intent of making them.

  The naturalists are not saying that life just *poof* formed either, so you are over simplifying the issue even for them. But if you want it to be that simple then No, the existing complex order and intelligence of the creator agrees more with the second law of thermodynamics than *poof* complex biological life from non-living matter.

  Also, I don't know a whole lot about the theory of evolution, so I may be doing more harm here than good for the evolutionists.

  The theory of evolution is irrelevant since we are talking about things that happened before life existed.