Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Raggedyman

Instead of saying some things never change why not answer some questions ?

Your hostility towards christianity, God would indicate it's not worth the effort

I find it strange that you would ask me, a person you don't know, on an Internet forum. I could be from some religious nutter cult who doesn't believe in evolution or something

If I could make a suggestion, type your question into google, read both the pros and cons of the question and make up your own mind

Slavery in the bible is a good place to start
The answer is very simple and the reason is logical

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Joecanada11

Every time.

Just look at the reply to the example of a child divorcing their father. The reason is the father has become the judge and they think that makes perfect sense.

The reason I think people shouldn't read the bible is being shown clearly here in your argument.
You have a view and you can't see the other view, your minds clouded

It's this simple, if a person sins they transgress the law, the law needs to be carried out.
God is the judge and the executioner of the law, yes, He holds His own children accountable, there is no favoritism

You can argue, moan, complain and rant all you like.
Surely you can't tell me you don't understand the simplicity of the situation

If you think it's wrong, that's fine, it you think it's crazy, I get it, what I can't understand is your inability to understand

a reply to: Raggedyman

I already have studied both sides I've spent hundreds of hours reading both sides. I only asked you because you assume I haven't looked for answers. Which is far from the truth.

I took all kinds of bible studies when I went to church. I wasn't a once a week christian. I was involved in all kinds of activities. I also frustrated the hell out of my pastors in the later days because they kept telling me I shouldn't be asking so many questions and have faith.

Also like I said what is the sin? What am I being punished for? Not believing jesus is god? There's scriptures that show he didn't believe he was God? There shouldn't be any problem with that especially since he only appeared to a small group of people 2000 years ago. God is asking a lot for people to believe in said book.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Maybe it is your mind that is clouded. Who are you to say that our mind is clouded? You support women being property? Do you support slavery? Do you support killing non believers?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Not am I moaning or complaining. I have nothing to moan or complain about because as I have said the bible is a book of ancient myths and none of the future prophecies are going to happen.

I have no fear of being judged. All I'm doing is pointing out the absurdisty of the book. The hyprocracy that lies within it and the impossibility of the science of many of the events.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The reason I think people shouldn't read the bible is being shown clearly here in your argument.
You have a view and you can't see the other view, your minds clouded

So god's a #ty writer as well as a #ty parent.

I held the other view for some time. Now I'm on the outside looking in and seeing how delusional I was when I tried to shoehorn the world to fit my faith.

It's this simple, if a person sins they transgress the law, the law needs to be carried out.
God is the judge and the executioner of the law, yes, He holds His own children accountable, there is no favoritism

The original point wasn't about favoritism. It was about the duration of the punishment. You, obviously, accept that there is punishment involved.

You can argue, moan, complain and rant all you like.

I don't. I have no reason to do anything like that about something that doesn't exist.

Surely you can't tell me you don't understand the simplicity of the situation

If you think it's wrong, that's fine, it you think it's crazy, I get it, what I can't understand is your inability to understand

I think you misunderstood what was being discussed.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
Also like I said what is the sin? What am I being punished for?

Here is another contradiction, since the kid divorcing the father seems to have missed the target.

The idea that seems to be proposed is that "punishment" isn't actual burning in a lake of fire but just not being in the presence of the almighty one.

So in the very beginning of the bible there is Adam and he sins and is kicked out of gods house (eden) for not having followed the rules. So he and all his children are already apart from god so, what are people going to be punished with? Life on earth seems to have been the same punishment (life in hell) early on in that book.

I have never been in the presense of god so how is that continuing going to be punishment? It isn't a problem for me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

Why? because it's a scientific fact.

Certainly, life often comes from life. That is a fact.
That does not mean that it always must.

It would be dishonest and arguing from fantasy to suggest that it happens any other way. What we have observed is that life always comes from life, nothing else.

It reminds me of someone who claims that pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters could possibly exist just because you supposedly cannot disprove it (also used in a slightly modified form as a straw man argument by famous atheists and agnostics to conflate these fantasies with God while promoting agnosticism and a Pontius Pilatus way of thinking, too much detail required to get into that now).

I don't need to disprove something that hasn't been proven or demonstrated to be possible in order to refuse to believe it is possible.
We have oberved the fact that life always comes from life (as in all experiments and observations demonstrate the same thing, always). And imaginations and "wishful speculations" (such as stories about life not coming from life involving abiogenesis/chemical evolution by natural causes, i.e. the laws of 'nature did it') aren't going to change that.

The quotation of "wishful speculations" above is from evolutionist and biochemist Franklin M. Harold who wrote a book called "The Way of the Cell" which was published by "Oxford University Press" which is the largest university press in the world, the same publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary. In it he admits:

...;we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

For more details regarding the above described way of wishful and biased thinking that you also described in the part I quoted from you that says "That does not mean that it always must." followed by bringing up something that isn't comparable (edmc^2 explained why) to support that wishful thought/idea/notion/philosophy/belief/bias/twist/mental state/mindtrip/opinion/prejudice/routine/say so/sentiment/stance/view (see Philosophy Synonyms| Thesaurus.com). Also to contrast it with inductive reasoning and learning science/knowledge about realities:

See this comment.
Which is missing a link to this video:

a reply to: whereislogic

I have to say it. Where is the logic?

If you wish to assert the claim that life can only come from life, you would need complete knowledge of the universe. I'll go out on a limb here and say that you do not have this knowledge. Humans have not observed the origin of life, and not enough study has been done to prove exactly how it happened. With that said, absolutely nothing has been done to show that life could have been created.

The "life only comes from life" argument is an appeal to ignorance. Yes, to assert a positive claim needs evidence. But you are pretending that reproduction (which we have observed) is the same thing as the origin of life. That's not even apples to oranges, that is apples to garden hoses. It's a faulty comparison based on what we do not know about how it could have happened, rather than what we DO know. This is poor logic.

And again, quoting opinions from scientists is not evidence of anything aside from they have opinions. Their opinions and personal beliefs don't become valid just because they studied science. Appeal to authority fallacy.

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry but there is just as much evidence in unicorns as there is in a god. Therefore a belief in either being lacks logic. Your belief in god is not based on logic but faith. There are no facts or truths in your god belief.

a reply to: Joecanada11

More evidence really But seriously why does faith need evidence, and evidence need faith? Only these pseudo-scientists seem to want to imply that.

a reply to: Noinden

Faith is perfectly fine. Until you start implying your faith is the only absolute truth and a fact.

Evidence is just what it is and requires no faith. But apparently those who rely on actual scientific evidence have more faith than those who believe the stories of the bible.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Not disagreeing. Though the inverse is also true, asking for proof on a matter of faith is a problem in a faith based setting.

a reply to: Noinden
People like joecanada11 love conflating blind faith/belief with (reasonable and logical) faith/belief. That's why he responded to you the way he did. You also don't differentiate.

Faith without evidence or logical reason is called blind faith or blind belief (those are synonyms, the "blind" is figurative for illogical or without logical evidence, unsupported by reasoning on established facts, devoid of inductive reasoning, etc.). In contrast the faith described in the bible is described as needing evidence when it says "...the evident demonstration of realities ..." (Heb. 11:1). And the word "realities" is a synonym for facts/certainties/truths, speaking about that which is true/factual/absolute/certain/conclusive (adj.: correct, without error).

The bible also describes those who are applying blind faith but not as Christians.

But perhaps before you feel inclined to respond to what I said above with any sort of objection or disagreement or repeating something you said before implying faith doesn't need evidence, or perhaps in a different way (trying to seperate "faith" from "evidence" or "logic"), perhaps you should first try to answer the following question for yourself:

Do you believe 1+1=2?
Why?

No need to answer here, they are self-reflective. Well, you can answer the first one, cause that should be easy, also easy to keep your answer short and devoid of promotions of the merits of blind belief/faith.
The video below is for those who can stomach it, which I guess won't be many but who knows, it's a guess after all:

Oh, regarding what he says in his first line above, I've even had someone on ATS called nameless answer my question about 1+1=2 with "no". I would say that that is an evident demonstration of the reality that he describes in his opening statement all the way up to "any proposition set before them."

a reply to: whereislogic

The problem is that what constitutes evidence for some is not for others. At that point your logical faith stops being "logical".

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm perfectly willing to believe in a god if there was evidence of the existence of one. However you haven't shown any evidence.

You take science such as evolution and claim it is a myth and then say that your own belief in god is based on truth and facts.

Show me then the evidence of your god ? You can't so you keep spinning some circular arguemebt that atheism is propaganda and state your religion is not.

a reply to: whereislogic

Neighbour, don't try missionary work with me. I have faith. It is polytheistic, and European The bible is not a document of worth to me.

a reply to: whereislogic

Let me try this another way. I have a job, it is science, Process Development chemistry for the Pharma industry.

I have faith, nDraíocht.

I am accomplished in both.

So again, take your missionary work, to the next door. My faith is not blind, my science is educated.

Oh and using mathmatics as an attempt to illustrate something is not very smart. Mathematics allows empirical proof. Faith does not. Evolution is a science based theory, it has proof.