Proof God Exists ››
Quote
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 1:34 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
Also perhaps the snowflake is not designed directly, but the natural processes that form them were intelligently designed.
So... who or what designed your god?
After all, if even something as comparatively simple as life as we know it could not exist without design, then how can you then contend your god can exist without design? If you are going to try to use (flawed) logic to say your god exists, then you have to follow that logic to its conclusion, not just stop once you get to god.
Also.. if you want to insist on the watchmaker argument, then go do a few seconds of research on the folks far smarter and better educated than anyone here who have decimated that argument time and again.
i already addressed this point. we do not need to know the origins of the Intelligent Creator to conclude that we were designed by one. nothing you said here refutes that.
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 1:42 PM
Originally posted by: i am skimble
So what you're saying is you cannot really answer my question except by dodging the point. Awesome, fun talk.
When you refine your argument I'd be happy to continue this with you.
What question? Also, the fact that you said you don't want to get "tripped" up in my analogy tells me that you're afraid to realize just how ridiculous it is to believe we weren't created by an Intelligent Being. My analogy helps put your beliefs in perspective, and you're scared of that.
Again, the fact that you're comparing the complexity of a snow flake to that of a living organism, even a single celled living organism, tells me that you truly do not understand the complexity of life.
tony plush @ May 12, 2012 1:43 PM
Originally posted by: He_Hate_MeOriginally posted by: tony plush
crunkmoose @ May 12, 2012 1:53 PM
Originally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
crunkmoose @ May 12, 2012 1:55 PM
Originally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
Also perhaps the snowflake is not designed directly, but the natural processes that form them were intelligently designed.
So... who or what designed your god?
After all, if even something as comparatively simple as life as we know it could not exist without design, then how can you then contend your god can exist without design? If you are going to try to use (flawed) logic to say your god exists, then you have to follow that logic to its conclusion, not just stop once you get to god.
Also.. if you want to insist on the watchmaker argument, then go do a few seconds of research on the folks far smarter and better educated than anyone here who have decimated that argument time and again.
i already addressed this point. we do not need to know the origins of the Intelligent Creator to conclude that we were designed by one. nothing you said here refutes that.
Actually, you do have to know something about the thing you are asserting exists... and when your argument is that something complex can't exist without a creator, then the creator you posit must be complex... thus IT, too, must have a creator. You DO have to be able to answer that point in some way or your argument is logically invalid from the start.
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 1:57 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubitOriginally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
Also perhaps the snowflake is not designed directly, but the natural processes that form them were intelligently designed.
So... who or what designed your god?
After all, if even something as comparatively simple as life as we know it could not exist without design, then how can you then contend your god can exist without design? If you are going to try to use (flawed) logic to say your god exists, then you have to follow that logic to its conclusion, not just stop once you get to god.
Also.. if you want to insist on the watchmaker argument, then go do a few seconds of research on the folks far smarter and better educated than anyone here who have decimated that argument time and again.
i already addressed this point. we do not need to know the origins of the Intelligent Creator to conclude that we were designed by one. nothing you said here refutes that.
Actually, you do have to know something about the thing you are asserting exists... and when your argument is that something complex can't exist without a creator, then the creator you posit must be complex... thus IT, too, must have a creator. You DO have to be able to answer that point in some way or your argument is logically invalid from the start.
What I'm asserting is that life shows, overwhelmingly, that it was intelligently designed. We need not know everything, or anything about it's Creator to come to the conclusion. Why would we?
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 1:58 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmooseOriginally posted by: jdubit
you calling my argument flawed and saying it's not direct evidence, does not make my argument any less valid. sorry crunk, you have to be more specific as to why my argument is unacceptable.
Its not direct evidence.. its indirect... not direct.
The creation is the DIRECT evidence. How many times do i have to say this?
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 1:59 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose
Still waiting for DIRECT evidence.
jdubit @ May 12, 2012 2:26 PM
here lets try a couple different analogies:would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
Tim E. Husk @ May 12, 2012 4:24 PM
Originally posted by: jdubit
here lets try a couple different analogies:
would you say that given an infinite amount of time, a scrap yard could produce a F16 jet, all on it's own?
would you say that given an infinite # of attempts, blowing up a print shop would eventually produce shakespeare?
the reason you guys don't like these analogies, is not because they're flawed in any way, it's because they easily shows how ridiculous your beliefs are.
The reason people don't like these analogies is because they aren't relevant. Biological systems as a whole and smaller parts of them, down the microscopic level, are not F16 jets or the works of Shakespeare. If you can't figure out why, you really should read the works of scientists and philosophers who don't support creationism. This shit has been explained literally thousands of times for all types of audiences.
Next you'll pull out the classic 'what good is half an eye?' line or something equally fatuous.
