Really? Then why must having a purpose to life (besides life itself) be a necessary prerequisite for brains that allow us to think and reason?
Oh. So
NOW you're not putting the cart before the horse--as you clearly were previously.
No. And I mean "NO" to your retarded, superstitious, anthropomorphizing.
What is this "God" thing you keep referencing? What evidence can you produce of "design" that does not require the question-begging acceptance of the existence of this "Designer" you keep referencing?
"Right and wrong" is not validated emotionally, but rather rationally. "Right and wrong" when validated by emotion is "rationalizing," and is only coincidentally valid in objective reality; it usually proves incorrect in the long-run, and is ALWAYS morally meaningless.
No dodge at all, and perfectly pertinent to the question.
Nonsense. You have literally no verifiable evidence what-so-ever to support your claim.
I can agree with this; I am incapable of faith--to put it in terms you'll understand, I was "created" without the capacity to exercise faith.
Remember, no evidence OR proof was required for you to hold your belief, yet you demand "proof" invalidating you beliefs as if they should be considered valid in the first place. Only you require that the relationship be "proven." The verifiable evidence, OTOH, clearly makes a very strong suggestion that the assertion of common descent between monkeys and humans is valid.
It might seem that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between what "proof" means, and what "evidence" means; yet the transparently purposeful way you mendaciously conflate the terms speaks to your full understanding of the difference between the terms and your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty.
Science allows for the existence of a creator who is responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. In so far as you practice this kind of certainty, this certainty you have is intellectual hubris.
This is why you are always demanding that we "prove" you wrong, and why you are always disappointed when we merely bring verifiable evidence and/or valid logic to support our beliefs and assertion regarding reality. Denying evidence is like breathing air, and no more difficult for retards like you; but if we were to provide absolute and unqualified "proof of our assertions" then we would have finally brought a REAL test of your faith--if you manage to maintain you retarded superstition in the face absolute and unqualified "proof" that it's nothing but your delusional imagination, then you would "know"--you would finally have that certainty in yourselves that you have in your magical imaginary friends--that you can now finally claim some kind of intellectual and moral superiority over your fellows. You seek to validate your retarded intellectual and moral hubris.
You see, the real problem you have here is that you can't prove that Santa Clause is LESS real than YAHWEH. You can't even bring valid evidence to support the claim.
You dishonestly refuse to acknowledge that there is no fact of objective reality and/or valid logic upon which to base your assertion that YAHWEH, rather than some other god--ANY other god, is "the Creator."
Indeed, if you were going to be honest and apply some intellectual integrity, you would be obligated to admit that
Judeo/Chrisitan Creation "science" has objectively the exact same basis and validity in verifiable evidence and valid logic as the
Creation "sciences" involving:
- El or the Elohim of Canaanite mythology (see Genesis creation myth);
- Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache;
- Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal components of the universe;
- Ptah creating the universe by speaking;
- Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology;
- Nanabozho (Great Rabbit,) Ojibway deity, a shape-shifter and a co-creator of the world;
- The goddess Coatlique in Aztec mythology;
- Viracocha in Inca mythology;
- Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies;
- Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout;
- Izanagi and Izanami in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan;
- Pangu in Chinese mythology, who separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang);
- Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enuma Elish;
- Vishvakarman in Vedic mythology, responsible for the creation of the universe (while in later Puranic period, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are for creation, maintenance and destruction, respectively);
- Rod in Slavic mythology;
- Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatuanuku, the Earth Mother in Maori mythology
I'm going to predict right now, as I successfully have in the past, that just as you disingenuously avoid admitting the intellectually invalid basis of your Creation "science," you will continue to apply invalid rationalizing to avoid making the admission that, if faith is the validating foundation for your Creation "science" and as well as all of the above, then they MUST all be equally valid on their respective foundations in faith, that asserting ANY of those "Creators" is valid.
Yet despite the clear and unambiguous opportunity you had to clearly reference this alleged lie--to quote it, and expose it for examination, you failed to do so. What's up with that Cupcake?
ANSWER: Just like the rest of your lies, this one cannot withstand any scrutiny that uses objective reality as its standard of validation.
, Youwerecreated signifies his capitulation.
