Asimov, I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intent here but your statments have revealed a blind loyalty to atheism. I don't make it a practice to question a person's motives but your reponses are teeming with animosity and venom, not intellectual honestly. Every time we present you with a logical argument for the existence of God you reply, "false dichotomy." Either you don't know what a false dichotomy is or you don't understand what we are positing.
You have stated that there's no way a person can objectively prove the existence of God on an internet forum so what is your purpose? We have given you philosophical arguments, to which you can't answer, so why not just give up? The only answers you give to our challenges are alternative theories, which are just one of many possiblities. You reject our conclusions, we reject yours. So again I ask, what's your purpose?
I think the point of this sub-forum is to engage with open-minded individuals. Even the greatest athestic thinkers have admittedly struggled with the philisophical arguments you've been presented with here. Anthony Flew, Charles Templeton and Bertrand Russell are some of them. Yet you shrug these arguments off as "false dichotomies." Perhaps you should've pled your case to Flew and Russell so they could've just tossed these arguments aside. Or perhaps you think yourself wiser than your contemporaries.
Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!
I try to.Homer wrote: Can we expect you will define all your terms explicitly?
So, if I give what I call a testimony that I saw Jesus' body....what would you call that?Testimony: a firsthand authentication of a fact. Fact: that which has been done. Facts are always true but all truth is not a fact.
Facts are empirical. Testimony is only corroborative.
Of course I think scientific testimony is more reliable. The evidence and experiments that scientists obtain have to be repeatable and demonstrable.Why so? Facts are facts; testimony is testimony. Do you think scientific testimony is any more reliable? Surely you are aware of much of the fabricated evidence for evolution. Have you read the book "Icons of Evolution"?
The whole system of science relies on falsification. Yes I'm aware of "fabricated" evidence for evolution...guess what? Scientists exposed it.
Of course I do, because I value my life.1. Do you have any fear of death?
The same thing I hope to accomplish with any forum, discussion and dialogue.2. What do you hope to accomplish by posting here?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
JC, you haven't presented a logical argument for the existence of God. I do know what a false dichotomy is, do you? If you disagree with my usage of it, then dispute it.JC wrote:Asimov, I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your intent here but your statments have revealed a blind loyalty to atheism. I don't make it a practice to question a person's motives but your reponses are teeming with animosity and venom, not intellectual honestly. Every time we present you with a logical argument for the existence of God you reply, "false dichotomy." Either you don't know what a false dichotomy is or you don't understand what we are positing.
If I don't understand, then maybe there is a glitch in communication somewhere. Defining your terms you are using and presenting your argument in a syllogistic format (if you are presenting a logical argument) would break it down.
What's this "we" stuff? Let's talk about "you". You have only asked me questions regarding evolution, something that really has nothing to do with my belief system.You have stated that there's no way a person can objectively prove the existence of God on an internet forum so what is your purpose? We have given you philisophical arguments, to which you can't answer, so why not just give up? The only answers you give to our challenges are alternative theories, which are just one of many possiblities. You reject our conclusions, we reject yours. So again I ask, what's your purpose?
So?Even the greatest athestic thinkers have admittedly struggled with the philisophical arguments you've been presented with here.
Uh, no. Not everything you've posted was a false dichotomy. You just latched on to your glaring error and are now mocking me for using it. If you have a problem with me labelling your argument as a FD, then take dispute.Anthony Flew, Charles Templeton and Bertrand Russell are some of them. Yet you shrug these arguments off as "false dichotomies." Perhaps you should've plead your case to Flew and Russell so they could've just tossed these arguments aside. Or perhaps you think yourself wiser than your contemporaries.
And for the record, I've only pointed out a false dichotomy once in my discussion with you on evolution and God, and once with SoaringEagle. Both were valid logical errors.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Asimov,
You said:
And, by the way, they also should make their own raw materials before they do the experiments. No fair unless they make their own dirt!
You said:
So science can demonstrate and replicate life beginning by chance from non-life, and macroevolution? Ought to be easy if it happened by chance.The evidence and experiments that scientists obtain have to be repeatable and demonstrable.
And, by the way, they also should make their own raw materials before they do the experiments. No fair unless they make their own dirt!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
They're not asserting that, so no.Homer wrote: So science can demonstrate and replicate life beginning by chance from non-life
and macroevolution? Ought to be easy if it happened by chance.
Evolution doesn't occur by chance, so no again.
And by the way, at least a remedial knowledge of basic science is something that should be required before someone goes and makes criticisms against.And, by the way, they also should make their own raw materials before they do the experiments. No fair unless they make their own dirt!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
- Posts: 0
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:03 pm
"Junk" DNA
On the first page of this discussion you (Atheist) made a comment about junk DNA. There is an article on www.godandscience.org about this junk DNA and how it may actually serve a purpose. I'm not sure if this issue has been addressed previously because I haven't looked at this entire thread. If it has then I apologize. Below is a link to the article. I hope that you find this interesting. Thanks.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: