[quote]pat wrote:
You would have to be willing to consider the evidence, where as you stated earlier, you reject anything potentially divine outright. There are evidences…I have presented things before, but I don’t feel like reliving them I prefer the stance of reason. It’s the only thing that works in this format. [/quote]
I’ve considered your evidence. You’ve given me weaker forms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which unfortunately, doesn’t work unless you accept your conclusion a priori. The only thing you’ve proven is that if the universe as a whole is like things inside it, then it requires a cause.
Any conclusion you make as to what that cause may be are unwarranted by the argument. The universe as a whole might also be unlike the things we know inside it and not require an external cause.
Like other believers, you pick and choose the evidence you want and ignore the rest.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So slowly that it is not readily observable.[/quote]
So any process that takes more than one human lifetime to occur is impossible? Seems rather arbitrary. Especially when you have other means, such as the fossil record or genomic comparisons, to provide evidence for what is not directly observable.
There is also nothing special about genus or families, species, orders, phylums, classes, etc. Those are just labels we’ve applied to regroup similar things. Accumulate enough changes in a genome and you’ll have to reclassify it.
Oh brother, did you bother to read those articles you posted? Bonobos will screw any hole anytime any place, they arenâ??t doing it to purposefully avoid pregnancy. They are doing it because they like to screw, the hole donâ??t much matter. I seriously doubt a dolphin is drilling away thinking “Boy I sure hope I donâ??t knock this bitch up!”.
The other story was perhaps the worst ad hoc correlation between animal sadness and willful suicide, it was just plain stupid. They present no evidence that an animal willfully off’s itself. Only two dead animals, whom they suspect one died and then the other was so sad it died too.
Animals liking to screw and an animal sadness is not evidence of an act of will. Screwing is an urge, sadness is an emotion. Neither are controllable by sheer will.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
You would have to be willing to consider the evidence, where as you stated earlier, you reject anything potentially divine outright. There are evidences…I have presented things before, but I don’t feel like reliving them I prefer the stance of reason. It’s the only thing that works in this format.
I’ve considered your evidence. You’ve given me weaker forms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which unfortunately, doesn’t work unless you accept your conclusion a priori. The only thing you’ve proven is that if the universe as a whole is like things inside it, then it requires a cause.
[/quote]
I have already pulled this apart for you, how does it not work? Show me.
Please provide your other explanations for “things”, existence, life, etc. Where does it come from, why is it here? Why does everything follow the laws and principals we discover about their behavior, why are they bound to it?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
OH NO! Say this isn’t so! People vote for laws that reflect their beliefs? Whodathunk?[/quote]
At least you admit that your religious beliefs can and do have an impact on other people. Maybe you should have a pow wow with IrishSteel on that point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Pookie, you are one long-winded preacher. Some of us would like to go home for Sunday afternoon dinner.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
pookie wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Pookie, you are one long-winded preacher. Some of us would like to go home for Sunday afternoon dinner.
What happened to your limitless endurance?
Neurological fatigue! Overtraining?
Those sound suspiciously like limits.
A little Surge and a little Trenbolone will fix me right up. Beware!
[/quote]
[quote]pat wrote:
I have already pulled this apart for you, how does it not work? Show me.[/quote]
Find our old thread and read. Wikipedia has a fair summary of the whole thing. Or just google “Kalam Cosmological Argument” and you’ll have reams of sites “for” and “against” you can peruse. Having read enough of both to be bored to tears by that approach, I have found most of the against much more convincing and generally thorough in their analysis.
You’re free to disagree, but nothing is proven one way or another.
The true answer is: We don’t know. We might know someday, or we might never know. Maybe we can’t know.
That answer, as unsatisfying as it may be, is truer than any imaginary answer you make up to satisfy the question.
If you prefer a fantasy answer, fine, I don’t mind. I do mind when large group of people start trying to force their fantasy answer on everyone; or try to limit the freedoms of others by invoking God-given unchangeable dogma. I’ll take my laws secular, reasoned and amendable, thank you very much.