- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This guy asks questions or makes statements that have been asked and debated here. I still haven't heard anything remotely intelligent regarding an opposing unbelieving view, except rants and trying to find fault in smaller points to divert from what this is implicating.
How about some dialogue around his 5 questions/statements.
Aren’t you using chance in the same way as you accuse christians of using god of the gaps?
No. Chance is another word for probability. God of the gaps in christians having to replace every honest statement of “we don’t know” with “goddidit”.
Why should there be something instead of nothing?
Why shouldn’t there be something?
Where do you get your morals from?
Natural selection. He answered that one, before contradicting himself.
How did morals evolve?
He answered that one quite well too.
Can nature generate complex organisms in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none? (sic)
What is ‘nature’ in this question?
Stuart
Nothing is a lot easier than something.
Something involves someone, creative ability, and design it doesn't happen because of nothing.
Nothing requires nothing and results in nothing.If there was always nothing, then there would be nothing today.
If there is something, then it requires something/someone.Why is there something instead of nothing?
Because there was something/someone who pre-existed that something.So why is there something?
Because there is a designer who created a system that self-replicates.Why are there computer viruses?
Because there are designers who created them to self-replicate.Basic stuff, but then again red as a color is simple to comprehend visually of you are not blind that is.
When people dispute basic common sense things like a creator, then they are displaying without shame how blind they are.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 05 2009,12:14) Nothing is a lot easier than something.
Something involves someone, creative ability, and design it doesn't happen because of nothing.
Nothing requires nothing and results in nothing.If there was always nothing, then there would be nothing today.
If there is something, then it requires something/someone.Why is there something instead of nothing?
Because there was something/someone who pre-existed that something.So why is there something?
Because there is a designer who created a system that self-replicates.Why are there computer viruses?
Because there are designers who created them to self-replicate.Basic stuff, but then again red as a color is simple to comprehend visually of you are not blind that is.
When people dispute basic common sense things like a creator, then they are displaying without shame how blind they are.
t6 How true that is. There is a designer who we call God who made all. If there is nothing there is nothing and that we can testify that there is. Just take the eyes how delicate they are. That cannot happen by chance. God is Love and that too we can know. That Heavenly Love of God can only be happen when we too love God. He cannot look on sin and if we don't believe He does not exist, He will not reveal Himself to us….
Thank you for that good Post.
Peace and Love IreneYou are so funny Cindy, as if you know the first thing about why t8 has nothing intelligent to contribute.
Interesting t8 that you have not been able to refute the atheist responses that the guy in the video gave. He is miles ahead of you, although still a liar.
Stuart
It's too late at night for me to want to watch it again, but I did have a couple of comments.
If there were nothing, we couldn't sit here to discuss it, therefore the only scenario in which we can exist to argue about it is one where necessarily there is something.
Morals can be shown to fit an evolutionary model, but worse than that – I contend that the human race is not moral ultimately. I look out, and I see a world where around 1 billion of us are hungry (despite the world producing enough food in the current day) and where we are busy pillaging and destroying the very habitat we – and many other species – rely on, with no backup and no credible plan to alter the course of events that will complete this process.
How is it moral to permit billions to starve and ultimately die?
How is it moral that when we tip over the edge into collapse, there's a high probability most of us are busy fighting ruthlessly over what remains?
Historical precedent supports these assessments (never mind anything else).
As a species we are not behaving any differently or better than less obviously intelligent species.
Introduce rabbits that like to eat white daisies into Daisyworld and watch the peturbations… especially as the sun gets warmer and older.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
