CDZ Secular Circumstantial Evidence for Belief in a Creator

[JimBowie1958]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

 

[sparky]

reminds me of>>>>

~S~

 

[JimBowie1958]

reminds me of>>>>

~S~

The difference being that in Sta Wars, the Force has a bad side, the dark side, a dualism of light and dark.

I dont think that fits the models, the shadows are only the absence of light and no dualism is needed.

 

[Mac1958]

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe. Merry Christmas.

I think it's entirely possible that some kind of creator exists, somewhere. This creator may be responsible for the creation of our entire universe, or even of other universes from which this one came. At this moment in my life, sure, I'll give that one a 50/50.

However, would this creator also be the one that I hear about from the various competing world religions, or that of the many other religions and belief systems that have come and gone over the millennia? The one that plays an active role in our lives with profound rewards and horrific punishments? No, very doubtful.

Humans have always created and nurtured gods to provide answers, guidance, comfort and strength. That can certainly be a good thing, depending on the person. They have also always attached rules those gods have supposedly included in the deal and enforced them to keep believers in line. There's always a catch.

Religions have always, always been a mixed bag. But, as with any other ideology, they are often warped and distorted for dishonest and/or sinister purposes. And the fact that so many believe in gods may be more a statement about the current human condition, than any kind of real proof that their god actually exists.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Humans have always created and nurtured gods to provide answers, guidance, comfort and strength. That can certainly be a good thing, depending on the person. They have also always attached rules those gods have supposedly included in the deal and enforced them to keep believers in line. There's always a catch.

Religions have always, always been a mixed bag. But, as with any other ideology, they are often warped and distorted for dishonest and/or sinister purposes. And the fact that so many believe in gods may be more a statement about the current human condition, than any kind of real proof that their god actually exists.
.

I understand your point and used to think that way until I grasped that the Greek concept of a Creator was a qualitatively different idea than the mere anthropomorphization of natural events and processes. This is why Aristotle rejected polytheism and embraced monotheism, as I understand it.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

Happy Holidays!

 

[Oddball]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

I have a simple one.

We are an effect....Does an effect occur without a cause?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

The numbering system exists.
It is very useful
It is how I know how many eggs to add to a cake mix.
When the mix says 2 eggs I know what that means. It doesn't prove there is a god.

I can count up to 10 on BOTH my fingers and my feet!
But it doesn't prove there is a god.

Some very clever people have thought about numbers and realized there are some interesting coincidences and peculiarities.
It doesn't prove there is a creator.
It merely proves that people are creative.

 

[percysunshine]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

"So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity."

Well, yes there are.


If there is a post death reality for me, I will do my best to sneak in a USMB post to let everyone know.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

The numbering system exists.
It is very useful
It is how I know how many eggs to add to a cake mix.
When the mix says 2 eggs I know what that means. It doesn't prove there is a god.

I can count up to 10 on BOTH my fingers and my feet!
But it doesn't prove there is a god.

Some very clever people have thought about numbers and realized there are some interesting coincidences and peculiarities.
It doesn't prove there is a creator.
It merely proves that people are creative.

Yeah, Cantor was just a fool to think he proved anything.

It helps to actually read the post.

 

[task0778]

I have a simple one.

We are an effect....Does an effect occur without a cause?

I believe that in the natural universe we live in, every effect has a cause. But there can be no natural cause for the creation of this universe, simply because the laws of physics and nature did not yet exist. Which to my mind has to mean the cause behind the creation of our universe has to be supernatural, by definition. Whatever that supernatural cause is, be it some kind of unknown force, entity, energy, whatever, could be labeled as GOD. Or something else, name it what you will. It may or may not be benevolent or even sentient, who knows. If someone wants to make assumptions about it, there's no proof either way that they are right or wrong.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Note to the moderator asked to move this from this forum: I am trying to have a reasonable conversation/debate about the nature of this secular evidence, entirely within a secular set of conditions. This is NOT a religious discussion. Please do not move this thread from the protected venue of this forum so that it wont be trolled to death.

These are not air-tight unassailable arguments, or syllogisms, etc. These are simply some observations that I have had over the years that have strengthened my belief in the reality of a Creator.

1. The Infinite Regression Fallacy. It is widely understood that one cannot count from 1 to infinity because there is no final number that terminates the count. The Infinite Regression Fallacy is an expression that the opposite, counting down from infinity to any finite number, is also impossible because there is no initial point from which one begins. And so we cannot be here due to an infinite chain of segments of time that are of finite, non-Zero, duration. So there must be a starting point to the flow of time. That Initiator of time and space is the Creator, whatever the nature of it, it must be eternal and outside the flow of time.

2. Physics shows us that the greater the mass of an entity, the slower the flow of time is for it, similar to the increase in mass of an object approaching the speed of light. Anything entirely outside the flow of time must be infinite in mass, and therefore energy as well since they are merely different forms of the same thing.

3. In mathematics the Transfinite Number system, created and proven to be valid by Cantor, gives us a model for a 'largest infinite set' which Cantor called the Continuum. This is the set of all possible sets, and Cantor believed it proved the existence of the Creator. I am using it merely to present a rational model for an infinite eternal entity, in this particular argument. This shows the concept of an infinite Creator to be rational and not 'magic'.

4. In Cantors sets of numbers, while the numbers themselves can be null or empty, there is no negative count of elements in the sets. All sets are of a positive count or empty, no negatives exist within it. So to apply this model to the Creator it would mean that the Creator has all possible qualities that are not negative or the absence of another quality, i.e. no shadow, only light and so forth. So anything of a positive nature in our universe must also exist within this Creative Entity, such as intelligence and empathy and energy.

5. We can demonstrate the existence of a soul by observing the ability of the human mind to shift focus from one stimuli to another while nothing changes in regard to the set of stimuli given to the person at all. This is the essence of one's soul, the 'Decider' of ones being, what makes you you. Given the argument from step 4, this implies reasonably that the Creator must also have a similar quality as well.

6. While the Scientific theory of a 'Fine Tuned' universe suggests some form of intelligence behind the formation of our universe, science cannot prove it by definition as that leaves the conditions for which science works, i.e. the conditions of our universe which are natural. We have no idea how the laws of physics might operate in another universe because we cannot, yet, make any observations of them. But we can point out the very rarified conditions that allow for life that would reasonably suggest an intelligent Designer responsible for them.

So in sum, there are rational arguments for the existence of a Creative entity, the Creator, but nothing that says what the personality is like, name, etc. For that you have to discuss religious topics, and I am not going to that discussion here except to observe that whatever name we apply to the Creator due to our culture or system of faith, if we are thinking of the Creator when we speak of this entity then we are all really talking about the same thing, the Creator of the universe.

Merry Christmas.

The numbering system exists.
It is very useful
It is how I know how many eggs to add to a cake mix.
When the mix says 2 eggs I know what that means. It doesn't prove there is a god.

I can count up to 10 on BOTH my fingers and my feet!
But it doesn't prove there is a god.

Some very clever people have thought about numbers and realized there are some interesting coincidences and peculiarities.
It doesn't prove there is a creator.
It merely proves that people are creative.

And you think mere chance allowed for the very specific circumstances which were and are required to allow humans to in existence as such creative beings?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And you think mere chance allowed for the very specific circumstances which were and are required to allow humans to in existence as such creative beings?

Yeah, an atheist, using this sort of logic which is borderline stupidity, would never get up and leave a rigged poker game because no set of odds regarding the unlikelihood of the dealers hands would convince them he is designing his deal, lol.

Seven Royal Flushes in a row? No Problemo! Shit happens!

 

[Darkwind]

reminds me of>>>>

~S~

The difference being that in Sta Wars, the Force has a bad side, the dark side, a dualism of light and dark.

I dont think that fits the models, the shadows are only the absence of light and no dualism is needed.

Don't forget Dark Matter.

9pm on CBS. lol

Just kidding.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And you think mere chance allowed for the very specific circumstances which were and are required to allow humans to in existence as such creative beings?

Yeah, an atheist, using this sort of logic which is borderline stupidity, would never get up and leave a rigged poker game because no set of odds regarding the unlikelihood of the dealers hands would convince them he is designing his deal, lol.

Seven Royal Flushes in a row? No Problemo! Shit happens!

Well , unfortunately many liberals have convinced themselves that it is acceptable to ignore facts when discussing well anything.

 

[sartre play]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

 

[jwoodie]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

So is their moral equivalency argument.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

The problem is with ideology and the blind faith it requires once you go a few degrees past their axiomatic truthiness.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Ignoring facts are not just relegated to liberals or any other group, that's just a throw away line.

Of course that's true. In today's climate though we DO see more Democrats simply ignoring facts when discussing politics then any other group.

The problem is with ideology and the blind faith it requires once you go a few degrees past their axiomatic truthiness.

I do believe quite a few liberals treat their political ideology the way one usually treats their religion. Completely infallible and a matter of faith rather than of facts.