FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-20-2003, 02:32 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greensburg
Posts: 12
Cool

...[Edit: BTW, I am curious as to the source of your previous post about entropy and such and such...did you write this yourself, or take it as an article from another site and post it here? If thats the case, will you please cite the original source? [/B][/QUOTE]...

I not quit sure what you mean! If you mean the post as a whole, well then I have written it my self. I must say, that I am new to this site and am learning how to work it.
sound-of-the-trumpet is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:35 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: secularcafe.org
Posts: 9,525
Unhappy

Alas, poor Rants&Raves- I knew him, Horatio...

Oh well. Hi-ho and away we go to ~Elsewhere~...
Jobar is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:40 PM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: الرياض
Posts: 6,456
Default

Thanks for ignoring my previous post about wave function...or are you admitting that your argument from "cause and effect" is wrong?

Well...first of all, I don't reccomend quoting the bible as evidence. Kind of um, begging the question, don't you think?

Second,

Quote:
It has been sated that, "Cells are the fabric of life. Even the most primitive cells are enormously complex structures that form the basic units of all livinf matter. All tissues and organs are composed of cells. In a human an estimated 60 trillion cells interact, each performing its specialized role in an organized community. In single-celled organisms all the functions of life are performed within the confines of one microscopic package. There is no life without cells" (Hickman, Cleveland, Larry Roberts, and Allan Larson, "Intergrated Principles of Zoology"). Therefor, if you have design you must have a designer.
Non-sequiter. Unless thats not what the last sentence refers to, in which case I highly reccomend organizing your thoughts into paragraphs. (Since you are not familiar with how these forums work, the return key allows you to skip a line ).

Third, who created God? If we require a creator, who according to you is God, why doesn't God require a creator?
pariah is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:42 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,898
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by missus_gumby
s-o-t-t, do you believe in the mighty magical powers of non-believers? Well, you will when this thread is magically transported to GRD or ~E~.



Missus Gumby
HEH! This makes me far better than any biblical prophet! I've got times stamps and everything!

Anyhoo, s-o-t-t, if you will indulge my curiosity I have a simple, quick question you should have no problem in answering: can you quote an example of any organism that is NOT designed by your god?

Martin (High priest prophet of the Internet Infidels. Arf.)
missus_gumby is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:55 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: baton rouge, la
Posts: 539
Default

of course your creator being cannot exist because there is no god but allah and mohamet is his prophet. it says so in the qu'ran.

Now, don't start preaching about the universe not being able to self-create then exempt your god from that rule. And don't start on the argument from design until you've read arguments against it.

Basically, we've all heard the "logic" you've given so far and it falls flat. your arguments are very very basic ones and we are under no obligation to believe in your god just because you've proved him to yourself.

Like i said, the christian god can't exist because Allah is the one true god.

i'll ask the questions again:
Prove there aren't leprechauns.
Prove Allah is not the supreme being.
Prove Vishnu doesn't exist and tell us why you aren't a hindu.

maybe then i'll bother to destroy your god directly.

i -strongly- urge you to spend time in the Library section of Infidels.org. Please carefully read the articles on theism there, and Intelligent design. It would be a great benefit to your position if you understood the many common refutations of your logical fallacies.
faust is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 02:56 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greensburg
Posts: 12
Default

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by pariahSS
Thanks for ignoring my previous post about wave function...or are you admitting that your argument from "cause and effect" is wrong?

Well...first of all, I don't reccomend quoting the bible as evidence. Kind of um, begging the question, don't you think?

Second,



Non-sequiter. Unless thats not what the last sentence refers to, in which case I highly reccomend organizing your thoughts into paragraphs. (Since you are not familiar with how these forums work, the return key allows you to skip a line ).

Third, who created God? If we require a creator, who according to you is God, why doesn't God require a creator?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, your pervious post about wave function in really not worth the answering nor does it pove my argument from "cause and effect" wrong. The fact is it is just a theory as the artical stated.

Second, thank you very much for the info!

Third, God by definition has no beginning. In other words, put it plainly, if I were to say, "To whome is the bachelor married?" what would a rational person resound? Quite straite-forward one would repley that a bachelor by defintion is unmarried! Hence, to say, God was created is illogical and thus, we are no longer talking about God but somthing else.
sound-of-the-trumpet is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 03:00 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hiding from Julian ;)
Posts: 5,368
Default

Personally, I think the creationists've got it backwards. I mean - harebrained overcomplexity to the point of incomprehensibility implies a designer? Certainly not a GOOD designer! Try and tell me god designed the faulty mammilian eye...
Corona688 is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 03:01 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greensburg
Posts: 12
Cool Evidence (C)

(C) The Evidence of Conception: This is a simple piece of evidence, also known as the “Ontological Argument”, basically states that because a perfect being can be conceived then that perfect being must exist. Most if not all people have an innate idea of a preponderant perfect being. Yet, where did this idea come from? Certainly, not from man, for man is imperfect. You say, the preachers! But where did they get it from? Well, you say, they got it from the men used to write the Bible! But where did they get it from? Apparently, this idea was planted there by the perfect being Himself. We refer to Him as “God”, seeing as that title is associated with the Being above beings. In other words, God is the best you can get. Try this experiment, try to think of something that does not exist! You can’t do it. You say, well pink elephants! However, pink exist and so do elephants. Every thing you can think of is made up of components comprised of cognitive reality. In other words, you can get ideas from what you see, hear, or read around you, but elements not existing could never be thought of.
sound-of-the-trumpet is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 03:05 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greensburg
Posts: 12
Question

Quote:
Originally posted by Corona688
Personally, I think the creationists've got it backwards. I mean - harebrained overcomplexity to the point of incomprehensibility implies a designer? Certainly not a GOOD designer! Try and tell me god designed the faulty mammilian eye...
First off, how do you know it is faulty?

Seconly, if it is faulty, then could it have been created perfect, but then because of some mis-hap that God allowed (i.e. sin) caused the eye to go bad?
sound-of-the-trumpet is offline  
Old 07-20-2003, 03:08 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Greensburg
Posts: 12
Cool Evidence (D)

I think the most devasting evidence that God exist is-- (D) The Evidence of LOVE: Where did love come from? If evolution were true, then love could not come from it, for life by evolutionary standards is nail, tooth, and claw, survival of the fittest. Certainly love is not used to reach the top. So, where did it come from? Going back to the law of cause an effect we could reasonable surmise that love had to come from love. Just as nothing produces nothing and further, just as nothing can come from nothing, and so further still, just as an effect cannot be greater than its cause. Love could not have ideally or logically come from none love. Love has to come from love. The Bible says, “No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” (1John 4:12). Now we are back to not being able to see God. Although, we can not see Him, we have see and felt love. The shear fact that God is love (see 1John 4:8) proves that if love exist, then so does God. And what a loving God He is. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16).
sound-of-the-trumpet is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:53 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.