Atheism = self defeating. (page 29)

towerwatchman

Unsure

I proposed that the parallel universe that (could have) spawned ours followed a different set of physical laws and could have not had a beginning and was always there just like God has always there; so this parallel universe would be timeless just like God.

Notice if the parallel is the cause and our universe is the effect, and we have the effect, where is the cause [parallel universe]. No one can point to it.

Why is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? How is the "effect" being personal the only way to explain this? The only difference between what I'm proposing vs what you are proposing is cognition. I'm failing to see why cognition is a factor.

The cause being personal not the effect. The cause being personal explains how a timeless cause can bring about a temporal effect. The universe coming into existence is the choice the timeless cause made. If the cause is timeless and impersonal the effect should be also. And that is not what we find.

Brainfloss

unsure

@towerwatchman

Respectfully, you are copying and pasting again and not addressing all my points.

Either you have over extended yourself by starting and replying to multiple topics and therefore only have time to copy and paste or you are trolling me.

Have you ever thought that by doing the above you are doing more to push people away from the notion of God rather than help bring them towards God. You prophess belief in Jesus but instead of emulating his way of teaching, drawing the downtrodden to a greater hope, you are doing the opposite and pushing them away with your lack of humility and genuine effort. You have done this with me.

I will no longer be replying to this post, not because you have genuinely answered my question but because you have pushed me away by ignoring many of my earnest questions and copying and pasting the same explanations which I've stated were confusing me.

Jesus was the epitome of humbleness, humility and care but it has become apparent that you do not extend those same qualities to me or others on these forums.

I remain agnostic but will continue seeking God and pray for you so you may draw others with honey instead of vivegar, so that if God is real, you will work along with his will instead of against it.

All the best.

StephenMyers

To Towerwatchman

Thankyou for replying as well as replying to everyone else

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.

The experiment was with foxes, do you mean it didn't produce dogs and wolves but just tame and hostile foxes? Are you sure the end generations are still foxes? Their appearance even changed. Is what you're saying true?

Caedes

Rather save my money, After reading multiple pro evolution books I noticed they all had a common thread. It was more speculation and imagination than science.

I don't think you have read any evolutionary science books so how about telling us which ones you claim to have read.

Unless you are waiting for evidence that Santa or the Tooth Fairy exist, you are taking the position of a hard Atheist.

I'm not waiting for evidence of a god either, theists always come up short on evidence for their particular flavour of sky-daddy. I'm not a hard atheist because I am not making a claim that a god doesn't exist, although I fully expect you to try and tell me what I am thinking. So what is your evidence for your god? Can you define your god?

Instead of trying to tell others what they believe why not explain in your own words what kind of god you believe in? Or would that be too difficult? Is it just not in your script?

towerwatchman

Stephen myers

You are correct it is foxes not wolves. Either way at the end you have a domesticated fox. That is microevolution, not macro. Same thing Darwin witness with the finches, the beaks changed but they were still finches. You still have foxes. Also notice that the researchers were picking the most tame, and docile. It was not natural selection but man making intelligent choices. That falls under intelligent design.

StephenMyers

Towerwatchman

Either way at the end you have a domesticated fox.

Thank you for correcting me, Dawkins lead me to believe they changed species to dogs and wolves. I am glad I know the scientific fact now. There was no species evolution in this experiment.

Caedes

Dawkins lead me to believe they changed species to dogs and wolves.

Care to show where professor Dawkins stated that? I have a feeling that the mistake was yours alone and that professor Dawkins didn't make any such claim.

towerwatchman

To Brianfloss

Admittadly fear is what I used to feel. 40 years of trying to worship a god that would not reveal himself. A book of contradictory riddles that allow those who claim to understand them, to minipulate and control others, abandoning completely those who ask questions, they have no answers to. They break up families,they cover up abuse, they deny medical care, they limit education all in the name of a god who IS LOVE. Fear? No not fear. Dredging up the past? Ha! To your god a day is a 1000 years so 2008 is not a very deep dredge and, frankly the argument is the same on your side in those old posts, So what are you afraid of.

Allow me to ask this question. The wrong that you experienced, was that a logical outworking of what Jesus taught, or was it contrary to Jesus’ teachings? Judge a movement by its originator, not its followers. Some followers will always abuse in order to control. That is human nature, especially in religious matters gone wrong. I have been burned once also. I believe ‘fool me one shame on you’, “fool me twice shame on me.’ Wake up one morning and realized everything I was taught was a lie. I did not give up on God, I gave up on the WTS.

But if there is a god who requires that you believe in him for salvation ( whatever that means to you) , why not give some compelling evidence to mankind, or screw mankind why not give some compelling evidence to me I have certainly given an honest effort searching. He allegedly gave us the Bible but the Bible doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Garden of eden, flood. 40 years wandering in the dessert. The list goes on. Even if science has been deceived by the devil why were the people that lived thousands of years ago allowed to see miracles and tangeble evidence of god but we must rely on faith alone. It's backwards there understanding of the world would have been more likely to let faith be their guide. Surely god knew that science would say that man was far older then eden. That the animals we have today couldn't be here from a worldwide flood just a few thousand years ago. He knew that there would be no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people lost in the desert for 40 years. And whether or not science is right or the devil is blinding mans eyes, why do ancient people get to see god and we don't.

The historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming. The prophetic element in the Old Testament that is fulfilled in the New Testament, we see the miraculous. We have 66 books, written by over 40 authors, over 1500 years, books on prophecy, philosophy, and history. After 2000 years of textural scrutiny, the hardest skeptic will tell you there is no document in early history that has the internal collaboration, documentation- historical and archaeological that the Bible has.

The problem is not more evidence, that problem is that we want it our way. Again I am sorry for what happened. Man abusing religion to control others does not equate to there being no God.

cofty

There is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this