Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview

[ding]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things.

 

[ding]

The physical, biological and moral laws of nature all point to a creator.

No, that's just another aspect of your faith. You arentsupporting your magical nonsense. You are merely restating it.

I back it up all the time, dipshit. You’ve never been able to refute it. Want to have another go at it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you have?

To support...what? Im not making any lofty, magical claims.

Neither am I. The difference being I can back mine up. You can’t.

Yes you are, and no you cant. The only thong you can do is lie to yourself out loud. And the only claim i made is that I don't accept a belief in your magical sky daddy nonsense. For you to say i cant "back that up" is nonsensical and shows how you degenerate into an incoherent, babbling state, when you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I back it up all the time, dipshit.

Never once have you. Sorry ding, your nonsensical babbling, CopyPasta bores, and self soothing pleasantries are not actual support of your embarrassing magical horseshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

 

[ding]

What do you have?

To support...what? Im not making any lofty, magical claims.

Neither am I. The difference being I can back mine up. You can’t.

Yes you are, and no you cant. The only thong you can do is lie to yourself out loud. And the only claim i made is that I don't accept a belief in your magical sky daddy nonsense. For you to say i cant "back that up" is nonsensical and shows how you degenerate into an incoherent, babbling state, when you realize you don't have a leg to stand on.

I have evidence to stand on. What do you have? Nothing.

 

[ding]

I back it up all the time, dipshit.

Never once have you. Sorry ding, your nonsensical babbling, CopyPasta bores, and self soothing pleasantries are not actual support of your embarrassing magical horseshit.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales or magical thinking that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have evidence to stand on.

You have zero evidence. You are skilled at lying to yourself, though. But then again,that's what faith is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only one bringing up magic is you.

Wrong. You believe in magic. You just don't like calling it that, because it conflates your special ittle magical fetish with all magic.

Yes,magical sky daddies and miracles are "magic".

 

[ding]

I have evidence to stand on.

You have zero evidence. You are skilled at lying to yourself, though. But then again,that's what faith is.

I have all of creation as my evidence, dipshit. I just explained it to you.

 

[ding]

The only one bringing up magic is you.

Wrong. You believe in magic. You just don't like calling it that, because it conflates your special ittle magical fetish with all magic.

Yes,magical sky daddies and miracles are "magic".

No magic necessary. There's nothing magical about an intelligence which exists outside of space and time. You just can't wrap yourself around the concept of a no thing because you are a thing.

No one is making the magical argument except you. Probably because it's all your little pea brain can think up. Did you attend university perchance?

 

[PK1]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.

Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.

 

[ding]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.

Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[PK1]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.

Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

You don’t need to make up stuff like “universal truth” or “morals” beyond NATURAL processes.

“Moral or ethical behavior” has antecedent correlates that are all natural.
Empathy is evident in infancy and children learn their thoughts/emotions & behaviors within their social/cultural contexts.
The variety of DNA within same species (incl humans) exhibits differential behavioral patterns (personality) in similar social contexts.

 

[ding]

The problem is that atheists expect God to do magical things

Because theists like you insist your magical sky daddy can and has done magical things. So, pseudo intellectual frauds like yourself, whose minds are addled by magical horseshit, confuse a demand for evidential supoort of your own hilariously stupid claims with some sort of demand of your imaginary sky daddy. Because, you are very whiny.

The only one bringing up magic is you. It seems like that's your only argument. But I haven't brought up magic. I am using logic and science. You can't refute one single thing in my rationale.

Sorry to inform you, but you are NOT using “logic and science”.
One can make up lots of alternative explanations, or stories (in your case), but it’s not knowledge without evidence and logic combined.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

You don’t need to make up stuff like “universal truth” or “morals” beyond NATURAL processes.

“Moral or ethical behavior” has antecedent correlates that are all natural.
Empathy is evident in infancy and children learn their thoughts/emotions & behaviors within their social/cultural contexts.
The variety of DNA within same species (incl humans) exhibits differential behavioral patterns (personality) in similar social contexts.

And yet no one abandons the concept of right and wrong even when they violate it