My ideals on evolution. Cavemen are not an oppinion, they are a fact. We have found caves, writings, and bones. These are all real things, you say Adam and Eve were before cavemen. So what your saying is Adam and Eve are cave people about 4 feet tall, and had no brain. You can not defend your figment so quit trying. You sound more and more foolish everytime you respond with your baseless oppinion. There is at least proof of cavemen, and we know they are alot older than your bible. All facts!
Question 10) Humas were created with emotions and instinct with cause humas to do things that are sinful therefore humans were created sinful. We did not have not choice to to be born with emotion and instunc. And yes I do believe in god and thanjfull for being alive. I know I am not perfect but every day try to become a better person. Not because a book tells me to but because I want to live a good life and help those that cant help themselves
@six80ususus 9 I'm glad for that. It would be good if you were more able to explain why.
10 Again, I'm glad for that. "Are you saved" is the big question. "How do you know" is the next. I recommend you find a good group of believers to help you with that.
Question 6) You already addressed this topic - question 1 and 2
Questioon 7) DNA recombination causes animals to have different features, some better than others allowding the animal to be faster, larger, smarter. This is what we still see today which is basically what makes people have different ability.
Question8) This a weak argument you cannnot compare two things that are compeltly different. DNA gives living organism life and the siganl from outer space is something only life can create
@six80ususus 6 Different take here. You also didn't do well with those answers.
7 The question refers to the relationship between DNA and proteins. Special ones are required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on any traits. But they cannot occur by chance. They must be constructed using the information in DNA but are required to already be in place for it to be read and acted upon. Chicken/egg paradox.
8 you don't understand the question. It is about the double standard.
@six80ususus 6 Different take here. You also didn't do well with those answers.
7 The question refers to the relationship between DNA and proteins. Special ones are required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on any traits. But they cannot occur by chance. They must be constructed using the information in DNA but are required to already be in place for it to be read and acted upon. Chicken/egg paradox.
8 you don't understand the question. It is about the double standard.
QUestion 4) How do you explain dinosaur bones being much much older than any bones found from man.
Question 5) Humans were born with emotion. You cannot say people were born with just hatred and evil intentions if that is true then god created humans that were very flawed and have to option but to sin! So ligically then if not for the bible were are predisposed to sin. Very Flawed creation
@six80ususus 4 They actually are that old. The problem is you seem to have the assumption the earth is young. While this is a popular position among orthodox Christianity so is the old earth position which I believe.
5 We were not created that way but fell from grace to that point. Now we all have a sin nature we must work to keep in check and only succeed with Christ's help.
Question 1)Only first question is valid I believe in god and god created everything and thats as far as go.
Question 2) How does hydrogen become hellium how do all elemtns in the universte first have started out as hydrogen and become much more complexe elements such as carbon or even gold
3)Evolution either you believe it or you dont. Just like god.
3 I disagree. Evolution is easily refuted in the macroevolution sense and easily proven in the microevolution sense. For the macro, one will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
1. Existence and non-Existence are both abstract concepts. You've got it backwards with your assumption. You assume non-existence is a natural state and everything requires a start. In fact existence is the natural order and non-existence is false.
The Big Bang probably came after a Big Crunch. Basically, the answer is gravity.
It's a cycle. Like matter and energy. Nothing is ever made or lost. Just converted.
6. I see plenty of value in life. I'm quite happy :) I believe in not harming others because I respect people. Not because I fear an invisible man is going to kick my ass if I do
9. I'd tell him his followers drove me from the church with their illogical nonsense and bigotry. And if he hadn't predicated his early civilization on genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women and instead it had been the Jesus path from the start, I'd still be on his side
9 Bad experience I see. Doesn't mean that is the way things actually are in Christianity. I don't know about your church but you definitely have the wrong take on women and the bible. Mostly you are missing the context. The bible actually bestows greater rights, freedom, provision, and respect than existed before.
10 I still don't think you have the context. "magic" connotes fantasy as opposed to actually having the power to command things be as you wish.
My church was quite true to the Bible. That is one thing I cannot fault them on. Women are property. You own your daughters until you sell them to her husband, plain as day. You can own people(including men). Physically/mentally disabled people are too impure to go in the temple.. I get the context. Just a vile, outdated culture/religion.
Now Jesus, I like. He was like the founder of OWS :) Jesus did not take crap from bankers :D
@allalong3 1 Given we exist how do you get it is abstract? If existence is the natural order or your idea of bang/crunch cycles is true there is a big problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I'm just going to assume you're talking about the disorder misconception about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's a measurement of heat and work. That's it. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with cell complexity. It's like trying to apply the laws of gravity to select your tie for the evening. No, the one that hits the ground first, doesn't match your shirt the best. I have no idea why you think it would.
Why did the cavemen know of your God? They were around long before your god was invented, yet there was never a visit by any god. Before any of the present day religions your God was never spoken of. Now Gods were worshiped, i am not saying they were not. The ancient people just did not worship your God. Where was this God before his invention.
@swishyyyy How do you know what the cavemen knew?
You are also imposing your ideas of evolution on the issue and demanding I account for them.
All men, whether living in caves or houses descended from Adam and eve and all knew of God. Many chose to make up their own gods to try to avoid having to be accountable to the real one and manipulate their people..
10 you keep saying that. You need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
@lp000028 Couldn't say about others. I often block users who abuse my time, push off track messages, or do other things not in keeping with an open civil debate. I also block for lying about what has been said or given as reference, ignoring what has been said and going in circles which are examples of abusing my time.
I'm sorry but you said that everything scientists have observed shows that things move to disorder when left on their own. YOU CAN NOT base an argument opposing , or for that matter supporting, evolution on single experiments. Evolution is a process that takes billions of years!
@pingpongking98 You must not recognize the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hardly based on single experiments.
If evolution worked it would take billions of years but that concept conflicts with the Cambrian Explosion which brought all of the phyla here now into existence in 2 to 10 million years. This was troubling to Darwin too.
1. I dont know... but, If there is a god, why is there anything? you dont know either, do you?
2. Our understanding of chemistry.
3. Nothing in nature has been found to be irriducibly complex. Nothing!!!
4. A short read of wikipedia will give you all the answers you need. Are you saying god made the cambrian explosion happen? Using evolution via natural selection I assume.
5, You have to decide what is right and wrong subjectiverly just like everyone else.
3 I say the flapping wing is. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
4 God made all creatures to fulfill their roles in creating an ecosystem and natural resources so the planet would eventually support us.
3, lol, that is not an example of irriducible complexity by any normal standard. You are talking about basic evolution. How is the wing irriducibly complex?
4, What were dinosuars created for then? what role did they fulfill?
2 IT runs into roadblocks because it has rules. You have no evidence or you would show it.
3 dodge. read my answer again
4 All past life had a role in the development of the planet to its current state. Some directly like those creating biodeposits and others in filling a niche in the ecosystem. The sun was not as bright and the earth turned faster then so no surprise things were different and the optimum inhabitants for a given role were too.
2. I dont need to provide any more evidence than you can find out very easily. You are asserting that Evolution requires ID. It is therefore up to you to show why. The truth is that you cant so of all this is pretty pointless.
3. Again, the evolution of the wing is well documented, as are the vast majority of biological features. If you believe this cant have been done via evolution without a god to help then it is up to you to present an argument.
4. The fossil record does not clearly show the sort of 'explosion' you think it does. And the real point behind all of the this is the idea that all of the animals that lived and then became extinct for our benefit millions of years later. Come on! 99.9% of all life was created and destroyed for our benefit!!! Is this really what you believe?
5. Right and wrong is nothing more than common sense, behaving badly causes negative side effects where as right acts cause positive side effects, of course the majority of people will choose right over wrong.
6. is a silly question, I think I already covered most of this.
7. Again a cause of evolution.
8. what.
9. The Bible states God loves everybody therefore if he is real who is he to judge? If he truly loves everybody why would he reject any of them from entering heaven?
6 You have failed if you think so since all your earlier answers don't fly.
7 the relationship between DNA and proteins required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on traits cannot occur by chance. Constructed using the information in DNA must be in place for it to be read and used. paradox.
8
9 The one righteous Judge, creator of all. All have the choice to enter heaven just by choosing to let Jesus take their sin away, a gift of love.
3. I can't remember the term for what I believe the truth behind evolution is, the stronger species remained and the lesser species died out to make way for these more successful species, reptiles with wings would benefit more then ones without, therefore one species rose over another.
4. This was cause by a sudden change in atmosphere, an increase in oxygen and pressure.
@MiriMermades 3 natural selection. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
4 Just because they happened together does not mean one caused the other. The question is HOW so much change could happen so quickly and why not since then. This was way too fast for Darwin.
1. I believe strongly in coincidence and the big bang. P.s how can God be "pre-existent" your argument is that EVERYTHING has a creator, who is Gods creator?
2. where is the evidence that God created the earth? If out world was created by a god then that must mean that every other planet in the universe was also created by a god of some kind, however you would disagree with this as Christians only believe in one god, so how did these other planets come to exist?
@MiriMermades 1 No the argument is that everything that had a beginning had a cause. God had no beginning. This is consistent with the logical requirement for a self existing first cause for anything to exist.
9. So you're saying that because God is revealing itself through nature, that means it's creeping on science's turf? The moment you say God is being revealed through nature is the second you are admitting that God has physical evidence. Therefore, if science can refute those evidences (such as having natural processes), you must then admit that God does not exist if the evidence shows so, right?
@DeadFishFactory 9 Science has not turf outside what God has provided for it. God does have physical evidence if it is interpreted without an a priori commitment to naturalism.
Wrong. Much of what God has done is through natural processes. Only atheists think God only acts through overriding the natural laws He wrote for us. He has that option but is not constrained by it. Just because we understand a given process does not mean God had no involvement in it.
There are plenty of places in the bible where something natural happened like a rainstorm or a headache but the timing and events that flowed from them did so for God's purposes. Very often it is the timing of an event rather than breaking natural laws that reveals God's hand in things.
9. We can't observe anything that isn't natural, so I don't see how we can have physical evidence for God.
Atheists say that God operates supernaturally because you theists tell us that God is outside of this universe and all junk. Either God is observable, or God is not. You can't say that God isn't observable, but has physical evidence for it.
God could have been involved, but then so could the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
2. Ran out of characters. There is increasing evidence that life did indeed arise from simple molecules.
7. Natural selection comes into play the second that there is competition for something. For early life, this would simply be who could replicate the fastest to suck up the most resources and become the biggest. Next would be who could gobble the others up.
8. Because the DNA does not show any intelligence. There are no prime number sequence codings in the DNA.
7 the question is about the relationship between DNA and proteins required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on traits cannot occur by chance. Constructed using the information in DNA must be in place for it to be read and used. paradox.
8 Totally missing the point. So you claim that having the instructions to build, maintain, and operate the complex machines in the cells and body is not information?
@DeadFishFactory 8 How is "information" too loose a term for building and operating instructions? That looks like equivocating when you say that. Complexity with meaning is a mark of intelligent origin is it not? If you say "no" then where does the meaning come from? When meaning directs the production of extremely complex molecular machines and their operation how can you say there is no intelligence behind it. Don't say because we know how DNA formed 'cus we don't.
8. Are snowflakes the result of complex information? Is there a snowflake-making God?
We have an idea how DNA formed, but it's still being tested. And your position is that since we don't know how DNA formed, it must be your God (your God--nobody else's).
3 I say the flapping wing is. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do
1. It is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question, nonetheless. So take your pick. To me, the answer would simply be: that's just the way the universe is.
2. The Miller-Urey experiment is a great supporter. It does show that organic molecules and amino acids can form spontaneously. Simply look up "evidence for abiogenesis". 500 chars just won't do it.
2 did that long ago. MU only showed formation of some amino acids could occur. There is no evidence beyond that they could naturally form useful proteins or biologically meaningful molecules without help.
3. The wing is not irreducibly complex. The bone structure of the wing shows that it has been modified, and feathers are nothing more than modified scales. Wings were developed at first for gliding while feathers provide insulation. Beneficial mutations with natural selections DO account for these structures.
4. It doesn't. If you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion, that event took place over 60 million years.
@DeadFishFactory 3 I know the story goes that way as you were taught. But think about those bones getting longer and thinner and becoming a liability for scampering around treetops long before they were useful for flapping. Even for gliding the landings would be hard on them.
You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
3. Since when do you need to flap to glide? And beneficial mutations do account for it. You do realize that beneficial mutations are kept, right? It doesn't randomize each generation.
5. Right and wrong is dictated by society. It was moral at some point in history to have slavery, to have segregation, to not have interracial marriage, etc. Morals change as society does. Morals are also easily explained by evolution. As species evolved to be more social, they needed to work together. Obviously, any species where they had a bunch of individuals that stole and killed and only cared for themselves would go extinct quickly.
@DeadFishFactory 5 You mention things that are not moral issues.
Lots of species steal and kill and care only for themselves like sharks. If morality evolved why did they not get it since they are much older species?
How can morals evolve since they are counter to survival of the fittest?
5. Like I said, morality is based on the society. If you're talking about why we don't go around killing everyone, then evolution can explain that. A population of species where each individual only cares for itself, and murders for the hell of it, will become extinct.
Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest". This is even more true as organisms start to evolve socially.
6. Then you are doing nothing more than special pleading. Simply asserting that everything ever must have a beginning, but your god doesn't is absurd. If your God doesn't need a creator, and you're okay with that; then the universe doesn't need a creator, and I'm okay with that.
@DeadFishFactory 6 Not so. The premise is that everything that had a beginning must have a cause. God had no beginning but always was. Logic requires a self existing first cause. for anything to exist.(see Aristotle). The problem with saying the universe is eternal is that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics big time and the fact we also know from multiple lines of evidence that big bang is a solid theory.
6. How exactly does God being eternal not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but the universe does it if it was eternal? It is nothing more than special pleading to say that the universe (the only thing we observe, by the way) needs a creator, but your creator doesn't need one.
We don't know if the universe always existed in one form or another.
7. The relationship is complex, and was not present in early life. Early life could have used some other replicating unit, such as RNA. RNA can self-replicate, and it can function as a catalyst. That means that it catalyzes its own replication.
DNA simply came about when RNA was coiling together to form a double helix. This allowed greater UV protection, as backbone had great UV resistance.
The only thing you are doing is arguing from ignorance.
@DeadFishFactory 7 When RNA self replicates (ribozyme) it can only copy about 10% correctly. This won't work.
There is plenty of stuff I don't know but you are taking the ignorant position in this case. RNA does not just coil together and become a double helix.
7. My sources say that it could copy 98.9% correctly (see, RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension).
I said that it could. There is a theory that DNA came from RNA. The idea was that as the early cells evolved, it became cluttered as genetic material was around. Evolving a better gene management system was needed, and complementary base-pairing was the way they did it (using RNA).
I think this is the best list of questions (from a theist) I've ever seen. Thank you for the video. (I'm not shaken though)
One thing I feel need to point out what you said about god can't have a cause is somewhat similar to the big bag worked, the big bang is not understood by the best minds we have, but what they say about it is basically that it made time so by saying "god lit the fuse" you are pretty much saying you think the big bang is wrong.
@faceshed Big bang is a major part of God's creative work. What the theory does not address is what went bang and why ans how since our time didn't exist. But God or any other cause would have to transcend our space/time. God does. Logic requires a self existing first cause. God describes Himself that way in His primary attribute given to Moses (I AM). Big bang is part of creation and fits biblical content well.
@GunneLPercher No you are incorrect a singularity "went into" the big bang however this is a gross oversimplification. Logic actually forbids a fist cause, but even pretending that it does. How that does god get to break this by not having a cause? sounds like special pleading. People did this long before you "god moves the stars" "demons make us sick" so far it's never worked out. What makes this time special?
@faceshed You will have a tough time showing your singularity or that it did anything since no time, space, energy, or matter existed until the bang. It is often mentioned but is an assumption.
According to Aristotle the father of logic, a self existing first cause is required and an infinite regression of causes is prohibited.
Since the logic DOES require a self existing first cause the special pleading fallacy does not apply. Logical requirement makes a special pleading valid in this case.
We have know idea what dinasours looked like. There is however proof of evolution. There is no proof of Gods existence, unless you believe all of the ten million year old skeletons we have found are Adam and Eves inbread butts. Show me one piece of evidence there is or ever was a God. We have found Cavemen and women. Why know mention of your God from them? Why no mention of them in your bible? This always makes me laugh, but how did Moses fit two of every creature on such a small boat?
@swishyyyy You truly betray that you know nothing about what you so freely criticize. You are embarrassing the other atheists.
Evidence for God is seen in the fine tuning of the universe, galaxy, solar system, sun, earth/moon systems. It is also found in the fulfilled prophecy in the bible validating it as having divine input and the God it reveals also. Lots of things God didn't mention- so what?
It was Noah and the creatures were just local and the boat was big.
Oh so since people haven't figured out for a fact how we came to be that must mean that an old guy with a fluffy white beard on a cloud created us. Oh thank you sir that makes much more sense than what science has proven. Scientists know for a fact that our Galaxy is one of the youngest in the universe. Maybe, and i know this doesnt compare to the man with a fluffy beard on a cloud, but is it possible there is life in one of the older galaxies and that an astroid or star colided with Earth.
@swishyyyy You first say "haven't figured out for a fact" then say "proven". You got issues.
There are many parameters about our galaxy, solar system, sun, earth/moon systems that are fine tuned. By the time you account for these your older galaxy idea is meaningless. Moving the problem of abiogenesis to another place won't help you show it can work.
To ask for proof of the existence of god is just as laughable as to ask for proof that he doesn't. It cannot be proven that god exists for multiple reasons and it can also not be proven that he does not exist because logically one cannot prove a negative. There can only be what one understands to be as belief is meaningless.
@cathinsilence Common response to facing the idea your life is based on wrong assumptions.
You can take exception to any specifics you like but if you don't have good answers that will stand up to these questions any atheistic belief you have is based on blind faith not reason and evidence.
This video has nothing to do with religion or being Christ like
It's all about the EGO of Gunnel Percher. His motive is to show he is smarter than any of you . He doesn't give a rats ass if hell is real and if you are going there.
He is consumed not with saving souls or doing God's will
He is consumed by the desire to show you he can outwit you with his tongue.
Most Christians are guilty of this. Their need to show the world they are right and ur wrong is what drives them
@ItsMyMind101 Nonsense. Everyone can read the content here.
Underlying your complaint is the tacit admission that the atheist side is consistently losing. I take no pride in that. My goal is to make it apparent that while atheists say they are committed to only believe what is seen in evidence, they don't have any for the natural scenarios.
I am just one beggar trying to tell other beggars where I found bread. Looks to me like you are hoping to avoid engaging on the issues.
@hekktorskate 1 no they don't. But if they did they would need to explain the source for those particles.
2 fail. Show evidence for abiogenesis
3 more failure You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
@GeniusIncome Those who assert it is a proven fact. Most try to leverage the established fact of microevolution to prove macroevolution but that is non sequitur. Many try to use the fossil record to say it proves common descent but that is an interpretation. The actual evidence supports common design at least as much. You cannot prove man is descended from apes.
i did comment on this video a while back, and you replied but im sorry i dont have much time these days to reply but in depth but thankyou very much for the reply :) most people dont actually reply they just insult people on youtube :) thankyou.
6 - Nobody can answer that question, because nobody has been there since the dawn of times.
7 - The code.
8 - There is lifein outterspace, the universe is infinite, and its expanding, i don't think we are the only ones.
9 - I don't think god exists, but im pretty sure that a guy named jesus existed ages ago, and he created a belief, so strong that everybody would get in it.
@GunneLPercher Actually all atheists I talk to agree with what I say, you are an embarrassment to the human race because you believe in something that doesn't exist.
A cause if a rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time.
" I plant a seed (cause) time passes(precedes), something sprouts (effect)."
Exactly. You plant a seed (rearrangement of matter), and this precedes something sprouting in a measurement of time.
Since there was no time or matter before The Big Bang. NO cause.
@kushsmokkeralt Let them step forward and answer the questions. I can show that since atheism depends on naturalism being true, they are believing in something that doesn't exist namely the evidence for abiogenesis and the natural origin of the universe. They hold atheism on faith.
You should have stuck with the thread. You are changing your made up definition since it failed.
I block people who are just wasting my time or can't remain civil. God transcends time.
@TheKeyWestian It definitely pretends it has solid proof that evolution for example is a fact. See comments below by GeniusIncome for an example of those who were taught this in school.
We as atheists are constantly asked to present evidence, which we try to do. Creationists just rely on circular arguments that can never be proved or disproved. They believe in something with NO evidence. The responsibility of proof is all on their shoulders. They can't even INDEPENDENTLY prove the all powerful and eternal son of God really even existed except for a couple of obscure entries by some ancient writers (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) Sounds fishy. The debate is a complete waste of time.
@damrak1969 You err in thinking "proof" as opposed to having evidence. Proof is for math issues. You also err in assuming we have no evidence for God. The fulfilled prophecy in the bible is enough to validate its divine input and the God it reveals. You also deliberately under estimate the number of entries among the ten or so ancient writers mentioning Jesus.
Now, show me your evidence that naturalism (the only support for rational atheism) is true.
@GunneLPercher OK then - what are the secular or specifically non-bible, non-koran or non-torah listings of Jesus stating he was a God or did supernatural things. Also, scripture in the new testament are widely accepted to be written years after the fact and the Gospels were not "eye witness" accounts. It's easy to say someone fulfilled scripture when the writers already knew the events that happened when they wrote the verses. The jews certainly didn't seem to believe Jesus waas the Messiah.
@GunneLPercher None of the people you cite was an eye witness - the crucifixion is dated approx. 34 to 37 AD - they all wrote stories they heard, much of which was probably embelished to help sell the story - not much hard evidence for such a huge claim. It is widely accepted by most theology professors and historians (not seminary students or preachers) that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts but there is, of course, no way to prove any of it. We'll just have to wait another 2000 years.
@damrak1969 The eyewitnesses were writing in the new testament. The hard evidence is the empty tomb to start. Those in power and opposing the establishment of Christianity had the motive and opportunity to simply stop it by pointing to the body. No explanations offered for its absence hold water. Then the eyewitnesses lived lives of service many dieing martyrs when they could have recanted. Most historians, theologians accept the accuracy of the accounts. You take minority opinions as facts.
@GunneLPercher Historians will admit there was a Jesus who was crucified by the Romans but everything after that is up for grabs. Secular historians doubt the gospels were written by the original apostles, plus they are full of contradictions. Where are the Roman or Jewish accounts of a bodiless tomb? Other period non-canonical gospels also paint a different picture. Believers try to discredit science while relying on a story book, written by Catholic committee, with absolutely no hard evidence.
@buffalowycowboy Just make it up as you go eh? What exactly is "evidence without proof" by your definition? Is there any evidence with proof in the absolute sense outside math and geometry? Where do you get the idea this little formula applies here? Where does the arbitrary value of .5 come from?
Shame on you for embarrassing the other atheists with this nonsense.
@GunneLPercher “Proof is off the menu” and yet you accuse me of spouting nonsense! A posteriori considerations depend on their probability and on their respective explanatory power therefore they are not conclusive evidence. Your truth values beg the question. therefore they are fallacious
What part of “begging the question” don’t you understand? BTW, I do not recognize any
scripture as authoritative. Your arguments and your God is DOA.
@buffalowycowboy the only explanatory power in this debate lies with the creation side. Your side has nothing but questions as to what happened and where did it come from and no answers but more importantly no evidence for your non answers. I have some evidence for God and His account of creation. Begging the question does not apply here except against your side with its a priori committment to naturalism.
Can I ask you a question? Why do you ask these questions to random people on the internet when they are so easily (I cannot stress how easily) answered in textbooks, journal articles, scientific magazines? They're not hard to read or comprehend.
@technogandhi First they are not random but are volunteers who think they know things they don't.
Second, if you think those answers are there, you can put them down here and I will examine them for factual content and logical consistency. Hundreds have thought like you but can't produce answers that will stand up AND support naturalism. You express faith those answers are not just there but are correct even though they have had very little critical thinking applied to them.
@technogandhi I am certain I think I know things that I don't. But I am careful to focus mainly on things I can support with reason and/or evidence. I am also certain that atheists as a group think they know things they don't and bringing that out is the focus of this video.
I just cant bring myself back to the state of being gullable enough to believe in sky daddies and angels. Reality tends to wipe that superstitious crap away.
@TheCaptainLulz Actually reality is pointing to God more surely as science advances.
Logic requires a self existing first cause for anything to exist. I have evidence for God but I am betting you don't have evidence that will stand up for natural explanations for the origins of the universe and life. Scoffing does not take the place of reason and evidence.
@GunneLPercher Nope.Its only there in philosoph, not in the real universe. And point 2 would be how could you ever know what it , they, it are/is if it where possible. a 2000 year old tome and a feeling are not evidence of anything except the incredulity of the "believer". Oh and your Kalam you have there, what made that deity? It too must have a first cause or your argument defeats itsself.
@TheCaptainLulz Really? show me an infinite series of real things. The bible has abundant fulfille dprophecy thus validating it has divine input and the Creator it reveals.
You err in not understanding the first point that there cannot be an infinite series of causes or else we would never have reached "now". Logic does require that self existing first cause.
@GunneLPercher Prophecy as vague and distorted as those in the text could either be full of bull, or self-fulling prophecies, believers are experts at twisting things to fit their needs.as for 2 youre right that there are no infinite series, sooooo, your god cannot exist as it is just a step higher on the chain than this reality, and since there can be no first cause your god had to be created by something else and is therefore not a god.
@GunneLPercher Im not debating with you asshat, simply stating my POV. Your whole 10 questions is falacy baiting anyways. when believers like you ask, youre already sure it wont meet the goalposts to begin with, thats why I cant be bothered to waste my time with your kind. I know I couldnt convince you anyways so I aint trying.
@GunneLPercher Why does logic require a self existing first cause? If your mythical god is allowed to just be, without anything having created him, then why can't the universe just be, without anything having created it? If something 'must' have created the universe, then something 'must' have created your god as well. You can't have it both ways.
@slvrdagger There cannot be an infinite series of causes or else we would never have reached "now".
The universe has been shown to have a beginning about 14bya. If it was eternal it would violate the 2nd law. It has to be that there is a self existing first cause (see first point). This argument comes from Aristotle, father of logic. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist but always was in keeping with logic.
I don't know exactly how to answer these questions, a lot of them I can't answer but I don't know why that proves god? I mean we can all pick holes in religion left right and centre, so why doesn't that disprove god?
@getmedjr The questions don't prove God. They bring out the fact that there is no evidence for naturalism which is all that could make atheism rational if it had evidence to support it.
You can try poking holes in Christianity if you want. I don't defend other religions.
@GunneLPercher 1. i told you, these are not nonbeneficial changes. they are helpful for quickly snatching up prey and giving a little boost when jumping.
2. just because a change is nonbeneficial doesnt mean it will harm the existence of the animal. there are changes that have absolutely no effect on survival at all. take skin color for instance, in humanity (though, tbf, you have a better chance at survival if you're white. nothing to do with nature, just the way the world works).
@sorry8140 1 Doesn't make it so. You are referring to functioning features. I am referring to the interim points, all of them not just spots where function emerges.
2 Harm is not the issue. Selection is. All the interim non beneficial changes could be neutral (they're not really) and you would still have a huge problem getting them all to spread and be perpetuated in a population.
@GunneLPercher there would be NO problem in spreading these around. all that needs to happen is for that one useless trait to be spread to a couple offspring, then their offspring will get the same traits and over generations it spreads throughout the gene pool. and as for my "racist" remark? are you kidding me? thats not racism dude, thats fact. being white in most cases makes you automatically more likely to succeed in the world statistically speaking. i wish it wasnt so, but i cant help it.
You believe God is immaterial, well how can something that can’t be weighed, split, heated, cooled, and lacks mass and electric charge have a cause/ effect relationship with something with all these properties? You keep talking about science but shaming it with everything you type, what you believe in is magic and the supernatural, you are a disgrace to the name of science.
@GunneLPercher Please explain just how quantum mechanics posits a 'virtual' universe (whatever that means). And what this has to do with a your imaginary friend in the sky.
@KapStuf You should start your own thread. I've started removing your posts sniping into other people's dialogues.
Read it somewhere. the idea was that there is no actual material basis for any particle. It makes it more understandable that God has command over all physical reality.
1) You say "Complexity with meaning is the mark of an intelligent origin", but at the same time think God is complex and meaningful, so you must believe he had origin, and had a beginning..So, who created God?
2) A cause is the rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, no matter or time existed until after The Big Bang, yet you think it had a cause?
You consistently spew out logical fallacies and factual errors.
@GunneLPercher Unless you believe God is simple and meaningless, then you must believe God had an intelligent origin because you believe "Complexity with meaning is the mark of an intelligent origin"
You just keep backing yourself into a corner with your grade 2 logical errors
#10. CAN you provide more reason than what all of modern science has to offer? and if so, why would jesus be the correct answer, why not the FSM? and you claim i do not want to be accountable to your god? well of course i dont! hes a prick! sends you to hell for not believing his ill-supported tales, being human and not worshipping him? an eternity of torture for that? and what makes you think lucifer will torment me? he doesnt like god, i didnt believe in god, we're cool.
@sorry8140 10 Modern science supports me in anything solid they have. This excludes evolution which is not solid but people think it is.
You don't get that lucifer will be receiving punishment not giving it out. The rest of your theology knowledge is also as faulty. I showed evidence below for the God of the bible.
@GunneLPercher "Modern science supports me in anything solid they have. This excludes evolution which is not solid but people think it is."
so, it supports you in anything you have been taught to believe by faith? and evolution is not solid?! ho ho ho! thats a joke. the fossil record has species to species transformations along wit evidence in DNA. dont you EVEN tell me it is not solid.
My ideals on evolution. Cavemen are not an oppinion, they are a fact. We have found caves, writings, and bones. These are all real things, you say Adam and Eve were before cavemen. So what your saying is Adam and Eve are cave people about 4 feet tall, and had no brain. You can not defend your figment so quit trying. You sound more and more foolish everytime you respond with your baseless oppinion. There is at least proof of cavemen, and we know they are alot older than your bible. All facts!
swishyyyy 15 hours ago
Question9) I believe in god!
Question 10) Humas were created with emotions and instinct with cause humas to do things that are sinful therefore humans were created sinful. We did not have not choice to to be born with emotion and instunc. And yes I do believe in god and thanjfull for being alive. I know I am not perfect but every day try to become a better person. Not because a book tells me to but because I want to live a good life and help those that cant help themselves
six80ususus 1 day ago
@six80ususus 9 I'm glad for that. It would be good if you were more able to explain why.
10 Again, I'm glad for that. "Are you saved" is the big question. "How do you know" is the next. I recommend you find a good group of believers to help you with that.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
Question 6) You already addressed this topic - question 1 and 2
Questioon 7) DNA recombination causes animals to have different features, some better than others allowding the animal to be faster, larger, smarter. This is what we still see today which is basically what makes people have different ability.
Question8) This a weak argument you cannnot compare two things that are compeltly different. DNA gives living organism life and the siganl from outer space is something only life can create
six80ususus 1 day ago
@six80ususus 6 Different take here. You also didn't do well with those answers.
7 The question refers to the relationship between DNA and proteins. Special ones are required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on any traits. But they cannot occur by chance. They must be constructed using the information in DNA but are required to already be in place for it to be read and acted upon. Chicken/egg paradox.
8 you don't understand the question. It is about the double standard.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@six80ususus 6 Different take here. You also didn't do well with those answers.
7 The question refers to the relationship between DNA and proteins. Special ones are required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on any traits. But they cannot occur by chance. They must be constructed using the information in DNA but are required to already be in place for it to be read and acted upon. Chicken/egg paradox.
8 you don't understand the question. It is about the double standard.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
QUestion 4) How do you explain dinosaur bones being much much older than any bones found from man.
Question 5) Humans were born with emotion. You cannot say people were born with just hatred and evil intentions if that is true then god created humans that were very flawed and have to option but to sin! So ligically then if not for the bible were are predisposed to sin. Very Flawed creation
six80ususus 1 day ago
@six80ususus 4 They actually are that old. The problem is you seem to have the assumption the earth is young. While this is a popular position among orthodox Christianity so is the old earth position which I believe.
5 We were not created that way but fell from grace to that point. Now we all have a sin nature we must work to keep in check and only succeed with Christ's help.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
Question 1)Only first question is valid I believe in god and god created everything and thats as far as go.
Question 2) How does hydrogen become hellium how do all elemtns in the universte first have started out as hydrogen and become much more complexe elements such as carbon or even gold
3)Evolution either you believe it or you dont. Just like god.
six80ususus 1 day ago
@six80ususus 1 Doesn't sound atheistic to me.
2 Not applicable at this point.
3 I disagree. Evolution is easily refuted in the macroevolution sense and easily proven in the microevolution sense. For the macro, one will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
1. Existence and non-Existence are both abstract concepts. You've got it backwards with your assumption. You assume non-existence is a natural state and everything requires a start. In fact existence is the natural order and non-existence is false.
The Big Bang probably came after a Big Crunch. Basically, the answer is gravity.
It's a cycle. Like matter and energy. Nothing is ever made or lost. Just converted.
allalong3 3 days ago
6. I see plenty of value in life. I'm quite happy :) I believe in not harming others because I respect people. Not because I fear an invisible man is going to kick my ass if I do
9. I'd tell him his followers drove me from the church with their illogical nonsense and bigotry. And if he hadn't predicated his early civilization on genocide, slavery and the subjugation of women and instead it had been the Jesus path from the start, I'd still be on his side
10. I did. Magic is not for me
allalong3 3 days ago
@allalong3 6 Good for you. Me too.
9 Bad experience I see. Doesn't mean that is the way things actually are in Christianity. I don't know about your church but you definitely have the wrong take on women and the bible. Mostly you are missing the context. The bible actually bestows greater rights, freedom, provision, and respect than existed before.
10 I still don't think you have the context. "magic" connotes fantasy as opposed to actually having the power to command things be as you wish.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
My church was quite true to the Bible. That is one thing I cannot fault them on. Women are property. You own your daughters until you sell them to her husband, plain as day. You can own people(including men). Physically/mentally disabled people are too impure to go in the temple.. I get the context. Just a vile, outdated culture/religion.
Now Jesus, I like. He was like the founder of OWS :) Jesus did not take crap from bankers :D
But he gets his title from the OT. So, no.
allalong3 4 hours ago
@allalong3 1 Given we exist how do you get it is abstract? If existence is the natural order or your idea of bang/crunch cycles is true there is a big problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
You, replying to me over existence.
I'm just going to assume you're talking about the disorder misconception about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It's a measurement of heat and work. That's it. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with cell complexity. It's like trying to apply the laws of gravity to select your tie for the evening. No, the one that hits the ground first, doesn't match your shirt the best. I have no idea why you think it would.
allalong3 5 hours ago
Why did the cavemen know of your God? They were around long before your god was invented, yet there was never a visit by any god. Before any of the present day religions your God was never spoken of. Now Gods were worshiped, i am not saying they were not. The ancient people just did not worship your God. Where was this God before his invention.
swishyyyy 4 days ago
@swishyyyy How do you know what the cavemen knew?
You are also imposing your ideas of evolution on the issue and demanding I account for them.
All men, whether living in caves or houses descended from Adam and eve and all knew of God. Many chose to make up their own gods to try to avoid having to be accountable to the real one and manipulate their people..
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
7-natural selection doesnt PRODUCE anything. it strengthens things. you need to add randomness.
8-because evolution over so much time has created extreme complexity.
9-i would say that i never believed in him because he never gave me a reason to.
10-i certainly would. unfortunately, you cant possibly do that. like i said, evolution isnt a theory.
rushfan000 6 days ago
@rushfan000 7 word games- dodge
8 off topic
9 You haven't been looking
10 you keep saying that. You need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher all of my answers were correct. try thinking. that helps to understand things.
suck my dick while youre at it.
rushfan000 1 day ago
1- thats GOT to be a joke.
2- educate yourself, youll see every bit of evidence. watch the lecture "a universe from nothing".
3- again. thats GOT to be a joke.
4- early homo sapiens lived alongside other forms of humans. the less able forms died off. survival of the fittest.
5- this is a very easy answer. nothing is objectively right and wrong. evolution has instilled a "survival of the species" mentality in all of us.
6- darwinian natural selection easily explanis this. evolution isnt a theory
rushfan000 6 days ago
@rushfan000 1,2,3 Dodge attempt. You have no answers.
4 not relevant to question
5 explain how morals could evolve since they are counter to survival of the fittest.
6 fail. try reading and responding to the questions.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
disable comments stop the slaughter.or block users that speak the truth.is that normal procedure for creationist.
lp000028 1 week ago
@lp000028 Couldn't say about others. I often block users who abuse my time, push off track messages, or do other things not in keeping with an open civil debate. I also block for lying about what has been said or given as reference, ignoring what has been said and going in circles which are examples of abusing my time.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
how do you know santa is not real
lp000028 1 week ago
@lp000028 He never shows except as an impostor.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
I'm sorry but you said that everything scientists have observed shows that things move to disorder when left on their own. YOU CAN NOT base an argument opposing , or for that matter supporting, evolution on single experiments. Evolution is a process that takes billions of years!
pingpongking98 1 week ago
@pingpongking98 You must not recognize the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hardly based on single experiments.
If evolution worked it would take billions of years but that concept conflicts with the Cambrian Explosion which brought all of the phyla here now into existence in 2 to 10 million years. This was troubling to Darwin too.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
1. I dont know... but, If there is a god, why is there anything? you dont know either, do you?
2. Our understanding of chemistry.
3. Nothing in nature has been found to be irriducibly complex. Nothing!!!
4. A short read of wikipedia will give you all the answers you need. Are you saying god made the cambrian explosion happen? Using evolution via natural selection I assume.
5, You have to decide what is right and wrong subjectiverly just like everyone else.
gedt123 1 week ago
@gedt123 cont...
6, The first one, the second option is pure magic and I dont believe in magic.
7, Evolution is not Abiogenisis, the question is framed incorrectly.
8, DNA is not a code in that sence, you're mixing the term code with a method of communication between two entities.
9, Silly question. if you die and find the spagetti monster is real will you agree that eating all that pasta was really murder in his eyes.
10, possibly, but you'll have to do much better
gedt123 1 week ago
@gedt123 6 different kinds of magic. The one God uses is pure power over all of our reality to command it as its creator to obey His will.
7 It's fine since proponents of abiogenesis use the concepts. You have an answer?
8 You miss the point entirely.
9 Since I can logically eliminate him from possibly being real I am not worried.
10 haven't started yet.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
6, Ok thats your answer. I still dont believe.
7, No its not. The fact the DNA changes over time has nothing to do with Abiogenisis.
8, No you have, DNA is not a method of communication.
9, Your answer is better than mine. I'll use that from now on :-)
10, OK. I await something special.
gedt123 1 week ago
@gedt123 1 Creation was for God's pleasure.
2 doesn't account for it. Show evidence it works.
3 I say the flapping wing is. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
4 God made all creatures to fulfill their roles in creating an ecosystem and natural resources so the planet would eventually support us.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
5 Research shows morality is consistent across all barriers.
By your logic if your neighbor decided you deserve to have your bike stolen or your family threatened it must be OK right?
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
5, I said that I think morality to subjective, not absent entirely. When did I argue that no morality exists?
gedt123 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
1, OK thats your answer. I still dont believe!
2, Why couldnt chemistry account for it?
3, lol, that is not an example of irriducible complexity by any normal standard. You are talking about basic evolution. How is the wing irriducibly complex?
4, What were dinosuars created for then? what role did they fulfill?
gedt123 1 week ago
@gedt123 1 Not my problem.
2 IT runs into roadblocks because it has rules. You have no evidence or you would show it.
3 dodge. read my answer again
4 All past life had a role in the development of the planet to its current state. Some directly like those creating biodeposits and others in filling a niche in the ecosystem. The sun was not as bright and the earth turned faster then so no surprise things were different and the optimum inhabitants for a given role were too.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
2. I dont need to provide any more evidence than you can find out very easily. You are asserting that Evolution requires ID. It is therefore up to you to show why. The truth is that you cant so of all this is pretty pointless.
3. Again, the evolution of the wing is well documented, as are the vast majority of biological features. If you believe this cant have been done via evolution without a god to help then it is up to you to present an argument.
gedt123 15 hours ago
@GunneLPercher
4. The fossil record does not clearly show the sort of 'explosion' you think it does. And the real point behind all of the this is the idea that all of the animals that lived and then became extinct for our benefit millions of years later. Come on! 99.9% of all life was created and destroyed for our benefit!!! Is this really what you believe?
gedt123 15 hours ago
10. You will not answer to any of my replies therefore question ten is irrelevant.
P.s what has Star Wars got to do with God? haha
MiriMermades 1 week ago
@MiriMermades 10 Looks like I answered all of them (and refuted them too) so now what?
The scene is a good example of why knowing context makes a major difference in understanding who the good guys are.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
5. Right and wrong is nothing more than common sense, behaving badly causes negative side effects where as right acts cause positive side effects, of course the majority of people will choose right over wrong.
6. is a silly question, I think I already covered most of this.
7. Again a cause of evolution.
8. what.
9. The Bible states God loves everybody therefore if he is real who is he to judge? If he truly loves everybody why would he reject any of them from entering heaven?
MiriMermades 1 week ago
@MiriMermades 5 Definitely you don't get it.
6 You have failed if you think so since all your earlier answers don't fly.
7 the relationship between DNA and proteins required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on traits cannot occur by chance. Constructed using the information in DNA must be in place for it to be read and used. paradox.
8
9 The one righteous Judge, creator of all. All have the choice to enter heaven just by choosing to let Jesus take their sin away, a gift of love.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
3. I can't remember the term for what I believe the truth behind evolution is, the stronger species remained and the lesser species died out to make way for these more successful species, reptiles with wings would benefit more then ones without, therefore one species rose over another.
4. This was cause by a sudden change in atmosphere, an increase in oxygen and pressure.
MiriMermades 1 week ago
@MiriMermades 3 natural selection. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
4 Just because they happened together does not mean one caused the other. The question is HOW so much change could happen so quickly and why not since then. This was way too fast for Darwin.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
1. I believe strongly in coincidence and the big bang. P.s how can God be "pre-existent" your argument is that EVERYTHING has a creator, who is Gods creator?
2. where is the evidence that God created the earth? If out world was created by a god then that must mean that every other planet in the universe was also created by a god of some kind, however you would disagree with this as Christians only believe in one god, so how did these other planets come to exist?
MiriMermades 1 week ago
@MiriMermades 1 No the argument is that everything that had a beginning had a cause. God had no beginning. This is consistent with the logical requirement for a self existing first cause for anything to exist.
2 greatcomDOTorg/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
discovermagazineDOTcom/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
godandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/smj.pdf
This is evidence the bible has divine inspiration thus validating it, creation, and the God it reveals.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
The other planets are just part of our universe.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
9. If God is indeed real, then I would tell it that it did a good job trying to show me that it does not exist.
10. I can not picture a scenario in which you answer all of my objective questions. If you provided evidence for a God or the God shows up, then yes.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 9 Only if you prefer not to find Him. God is revealed throughout nature.
10 Here is some evidence for a start. greatcomDOTorg/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
discovermagazineDOTcom/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
godandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/smj.pdf
Change DOT to a period and paste in browser. If you get an error, edit this “%C2%AD” out of url that comes back to agree with mine and go again.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
9. So you're saying that because God is revealing itself through nature, that means it's creeping on science's turf? The moment you say God is being revealed through nature is the second you are admitting that God has physical evidence. Therefore, if science can refute those evidences (such as having natural processes), you must then admit that God does not exist if the evidence shows so, right?
Of course, you won't.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 9 Science has not turf outside what God has provided for it. God does have physical evidence if it is interpreted without an a priori commitment to naturalism.
Wrong. Much of what God has done is through natural processes. Only atheists think God only acts through overriding the natural laws He wrote for us. He has that option but is not constrained by it. Just because we understand a given process does not mean God had no involvement in it.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
There are plenty of places in the bible where something natural happened like a rainstorm or a headache but the timing and events that flowed from them did so for God's purposes. Very often it is the timing of an event rather than breaking natural laws that reveals God's hand in things.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
9. We can't observe anything that isn't natural, so I don't see how we can have physical evidence for God.
Atheists say that God operates supernaturally because you theists tell us that God is outside of this universe and all junk. Either God is observable, or God is not. You can't say that God isn't observable, but has physical evidence for it.
God could have been involved, but then so could the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
10. It's nothing more than teleological, tautological, appeal to emotion, non-logical stuff. It doesn't provide proof/evidence for God at all.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory Be specific. Deal with the arguments.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher Which argument. None of your arguments are for your God.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
2. Ran out of characters. There is increasing evidence that life did indeed arise from simple molecules.
7. Natural selection comes into play the second that there is competition for something. For early life, this would simply be who could replicate the fastest to suck up the most resources and become the biggest. Next would be who could gobble the others up.
8. Because the DNA does not show any intelligence. There are no prime number sequence codings in the DNA.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 2 show me the evidence
7 the question is about the relationship between DNA and proteins required to read and copy info in DNA in order to pass on traits cannot occur by chance. Constructed using the information in DNA must be in place for it to be read and used. paradox.
8 Totally missing the point. So you claim that having the instructions to build, maintain, and operate the complex machines in the cells and body is not information?
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
8. "Information" is too loose of a term. You are doing nothing more than equivocating and trying to set up a false analogy.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 8 How is "information" too loose a term for building and operating instructions? That looks like equivocating when you say that. Complexity with meaning is a mark of intelligent origin is it not? If you say "no" then where does the meaning come from? When meaning directs the production of extremely complex molecular machines and their operation how can you say there is no intelligence behind it. Don't say because we know how DNA formed 'cus we don't.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
8. Are snowflakes the result of complex information? Is there a snowflake-making God?
We have an idea how DNA formed, but it's still being tested. And your position is that since we don't know how DNA formed, it must be your God (your God--nobody else's).
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
1. Because it is just the way the universe is. This is more of a philosophical question, so take your pick on why we are here.
2. There is increasing evidence
3. There are no structures in living organisms that are irreducibly complex.
4. It does not. The fossil record does indeed show a gradual change.
5. Based on experience. Your God's objective standards are appalling by today's standards.
6. Since you are arguing that everything must have a creator, then what created the creator?
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 1 the real issue is HOW rather than purpose.
2 show me
3 I say the flapping wing is. You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do
4 too much koolaid for you!
fossilmuseumDOTnet/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosionDOThtm
5 Be specific.
6 You got it wrong. I argue that everything that had a beginning had a cause. God had no beginning.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
1. It is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question, nonetheless. So take your pick. To me, the answer would simply be: that's just the way the universe is.
2. The Miller-Urey experiment is a great supporter. It does show that organic molecules and amino acids can form spontaneously. Simply look up "evidence for abiogenesis". 500 chars just won't do it.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 1 dodge. question refers more to "how".
2 did that long ago. MU only showed formation of some amino acids could occur. There is no evidence beyond that they could naturally form useful proteins or biologically meaningful molecules without help.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
1. "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?" Did the meaning of "why" change to "how"? When did that happen, and why wasn't I told?
2. You obviously haven't been looking. The evidence for abiogenesis is getting stronger and stronger.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
3. The wing is not irreducibly complex. The bone structure of the wing shows that it has been modified, and feathers are nothing more than modified scales. Wings were developed at first for gliding while feathers provide insulation. Beneficial mutations with natural selections DO account for these structures.
4. It doesn't. If you're talking about the Cambrian Explosion, that event took place over 60 million years.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 3 I know the story goes that way as you were taught. But think about those bones getting longer and thinner and becoming a liability for scampering around treetops long before they were useful for flapping. Even for gliding the landings would be hard on them.
You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
4 The explosion part was somewhere between 2 and 10 million. This is way too fast for Darwin.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
4. Really? 2-10 million years isn't enough for you? Do you even know how long that is?
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
3. Since when do you need to flap to glide? And beneficial mutations do account for it. You do realize that beneficial mutations are kept, right? It doesn't randomize each generation.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
5. Right and wrong is dictated by society. It was moral at some point in history to have slavery, to have segregation, to not have interracial marriage, etc. Morals change as society does. Morals are also easily explained by evolution. As species evolved to be more social, they needed to work together. Obviously, any species where they had a bunch of individuals that stole and killed and only cared for themselves would go extinct quickly.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 5 You mention things that are not moral issues.
Lots of species steal and kill and care only for themselves like sharks. If morality evolved why did they not get it since they are much older species?
How can morals evolve since they are counter to survival of the fittest?
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
5. Like I said, morality is based on the society. If you're talking about why we don't go around killing everyone, then evolution can explain that. A population of species where each individual only cares for itself, and murders for the hell of it, will become extinct.
Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest". This is even more true as organisms start to evolve socially.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
6. Then you are doing nothing more than special pleading. Simply asserting that everything ever must have a beginning, but your god doesn't is absurd. If your God doesn't need a creator, and you're okay with that; then the universe doesn't need a creator, and I'm okay with that.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 6 Not so. The premise is that everything that had a beginning must have a cause. God had no beginning but always was. Logic requires a self existing first cause. for anything to exist.(see Aristotle). The problem with saying the universe is eternal is that it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics big time and the fact we also know from multiple lines of evidence that big bang is a solid theory.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
6. How exactly does God being eternal not violate the laws of thermodynamics, but the universe does it if it was eternal? It is nothing more than special pleading to say that the universe (the only thing we observe, by the way) needs a creator, but your creator doesn't need one.
We don't know if the universe always existed in one form or another.
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
7. The relationship is complex, and was not present in early life. Early life could have used some other replicating unit, such as RNA. RNA can self-replicate, and it can function as a catalyst. That means that it catalyzes its own replication.
DNA simply came about when RNA was coiling together to form a double helix. This allowed greater UV protection, as backbone had great UV resistance.
The only thing you are doing is arguing from ignorance.
DeadFishFactory 1 week ago
@DeadFishFactory 7 When RNA self replicates (ribozyme) it can only copy about 10% correctly. This won't work.
There is plenty of stuff I don't know but you are taking the ignorant position in this case. RNA does not just coil together and become a double helix.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
@GunneLPercher
7. My sources say that it could copy 98.9% correctly (see, RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension).
I said that it could. There is a theory that DNA came from RNA. The idea was that as the early cells evolved, it became cluttered as genetic material was around. Evolving a better gene management system was needed, and complementary base-pairing was the way they did it (using RNA).
DeadFishFactory 1 day ago
According to your logic, is it possible that such things as omnipotence exists?
What happen if an immovable object meets an irresistible force?
it is pointless to discuss something beyond human logic BY DEFINITION, and trying to find a logical answer in it
harusame80 1 week ago
@harusame80 Omnipotence does not include things logically excluded like your example or making a square circle. It just takes some common sense.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
omnipotence itself is a logically excluded concept
harusame80 1 day ago
@harusame80 You could say that since the logically excluded things are excluded but given that that should be understood, the concept is fine.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
I think this is the best list of questions (from a theist) I've ever seen. Thank you for the video. (I'm not shaken though)
One thing I feel need to point out what you said about god can't have a cause is somewhat similar to the big bag worked, the big bang is not understood by the best minds we have, but what they say about it is basically that it made time so by saying "god lit the fuse" you are pretty much saying you think the big bang is wrong.
faceshed 1 week ago
@faceshed Big bang is a major part of God's creative work. What the theory does not address is what went bang and why ans how since our time didn't exist. But God or any other cause would have to transcend our space/time. God does. Logic requires a self existing first cause. God describes Himself that way in His primary attribute given to Moses (I AM). Big bang is part of creation and fits biblical content well.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher No you are incorrect a singularity "went into" the big bang however this is a gross oversimplification. Logic actually forbids a fist cause, but even pretending that it does. How that does god get to break this by not having a cause? sounds like special pleading. People did this long before you "god moves the stars" "demons make us sick" so far it's never worked out. What makes this time special?
faceshed 1 week ago
@faceshed You will have a tough time showing your singularity or that it did anything since no time, space, energy, or matter existed until the bang. It is often mentioned but is an assumption.
According to Aristotle the father of logic, a self existing first cause is required and an infinite regression of causes is prohibited.
Since the logic DOES require a self existing first cause the special pleading fallacy does not apply. Logical requirement makes a special pleading valid in this case.
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
I'm curious how do you think logic forbids a self existing first cause?
GunneLPercher 1 day ago
We have know idea what dinasours looked like. There is however proof of evolution. There is no proof of Gods existence, unless you believe all of the ten million year old skeletons we have found are Adam and Eves inbread butts. Show me one piece of evidence there is or ever was a God. We have found Cavemen and women. Why know mention of your God from them? Why no mention of them in your bible? This always makes me laugh, but how did Moses fit two of every creature on such a small boat?
swishyyyy 2 weeks ago
@swishyyyy You truly betray that you know nothing about what you so freely criticize. You are embarrassing the other atheists.
Evidence for God is seen in the fine tuning of the universe, galaxy, solar system, sun, earth/moon systems. It is also found in the fulfilled prophecy in the bible validating it as having divine input and the God it reveals also. Lots of things God didn't mention- so what?
It was Noah and the creatures were just local and the boat was big.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
Oh so since people haven't figured out for a fact how we came to be that must mean that an old guy with a fluffy white beard on a cloud created us. Oh thank you sir that makes much more sense than what science has proven. Scientists know for a fact that our Galaxy is one of the youngest in the universe. Maybe, and i know this doesnt compare to the man with a fluffy beard on a cloud, but is it possible there is life in one of the older galaxies and that an astroid or star colided with Earth.
swishyyyy 2 weeks ago
@swishyyyy You first say "haven't figured out for a fact" then say "proven". You got issues.
There are many parameters about our galaxy, solar system, sun, earth/moon systems that are fine tuned. By the time you account for these your older galaxy idea is meaningless. Moving the problem of abiogenesis to another place won't help you show it can work.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
To ask for proof of the existence of god is just as laughable as to ask for proof that he doesn't. It cannot be proven that god exists for multiple reasons and it can also not be proven that he does not exist because logically one cannot prove a negative. There can only be what one understands to be as belief is meaningless.
WazcallyWabbit 2 weeks ago
@WazcallyWabbit Proof is off the menu but evidence is available. To maintain you rpoint you would have to refute the evidence soundly.
Here is some
greatcomDOTorg/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
discovermagazineDOTcom/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
godandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/smj.pdf
Change DOT to a period and paste in browser. If you get an error, edit this “%C2%AD” out of url that comes back to agree with mine and go again.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
Started watching this video and now i feel like throwing up
cathinsilence 2 weeks ago
@cathinsilence Common response to facing the idea your life is based on wrong assumptions.
You can take exception to any specifics you like but if you don't have good answers that will stand up to these questions any atheistic belief you have is based on blind faith not reason and evidence.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
This video has nothing to do with religion or being Christ like
It's all about the EGO of Gunnel Percher. His motive is to show he is smarter than any of you . He doesn't give a rats ass if hell is real and if you are going there.
He is consumed not with saving souls or doing God's will
He is consumed by the desire to show you he can outwit you with his tongue.
Most Christians are guilty of this. Their need to show the world they are right and ur wrong is what drives them
ItsMyMind101 2 weeks ago
@ItsMyMind101 Nonsense. Everyone can read the content here.
Underlying your complaint is the tacit admission that the atheist side is consistently losing. I take no pride in that. My goal is to make it apparent that while atheists say they are committed to only believe what is seen in evidence, they don't have any for the natural scenarios.
I am just one beggar trying to tell other beggars where I found bread. Looks to me like you are hoping to avoid engaging on the issues.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@kameco69 You are obviously wrong in asserting that believers don't make good scientists.
enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
But many are believers especially astronomers. The solid areas of science IS in agreement with the bible if correctly understood.
There is a definite agenda among atheists who are paranoid about believers curtailing their rights.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@hekktorskate 1 no they don't. But if they did they would need to explain the source for those particles.
2 fail. Show evidence for abiogenesis
3 more failure You will need to explain how the myriad non-beneficial changes necessary between major features that have benefit are supported by natural selection. Benefit at a few points along the way won't do.
4
5 Yep and it came from God.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GeniusIncome Those who assert it is a proven fact. Most try to leverage the established fact of microevolution to prove macroevolution but that is non sequitur. Many try to use the fossil record to say it proves common descent but that is an interpretation. The actual evidence supports common design at least as much. You cannot prove man is descended from apes.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@kameco69 Do you believe that the laws of science are true? 2nd law of thermodynamics would indicate that if matter lasted
forever there would be nothing but unusable energy left. If matter didn't last forever something has to create it
which violates the first law of thermodynamics. Thus you need a prime mover or you don't believe in scientific
laws as there are no other options.
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
Where is the proof that there is a God? Where do you get your information? Do not reply with "the bible" because that isnt proof.
sunstar7watcher 2 weeks ago
@sunstar7watcher Proof is not on the menu but evidence is.
greatcomDOTorg/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
discovermagazineDOTcom/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
godandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/smj.pdf
Change DOT to a period and paste in browser. If you get an error, edit this “%C2%AD” out of url that comes back to agree with mine and go again.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
The Universe is self-existence...
sunstar7watcher 2 weeks ago
@sunstar7watcher violates 2nd law of thermodynamics
ShawnSwander 2 weeks ago
An atheist is a person who is sinking in a quicksand in slow motion. He is doomed but he foolishly believes that he is enjoying a mud bath!
achahei 2 weeks ago
i did comment on this video a while back, and you replied but im sorry i dont have much time these days to reply but in depth but thankyou very much for the reply :) most people dont actually reply they just insult people on youtube :) thankyou.
museandthekillers1 2 weeks ago
6 - Nobody can answer that question, because nobody has been there since the dawn of times.
7 - The code.
8 - There is lifein outterspace, the universe is infinite, and its expanding, i don't think we are the only ones.
9 - I don't think god exists, but im pretty sure that a guy named jesus existed ages ago, and he created a belief, so strong that everybody would get in it.
10 - I dont understand that question.
hekktorskate 2 weeks ago
@hekktorskate 6 you are over your head here
7 what about it?
8 you miss the point
9 You need to learn a lot more about it before you reject Christianity. You have no call to dismiss something you haven't even looked at.
10
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Actually all atheists I talk to agree with what I say, you are an embarrassment to the human race because you believe in something that doesn't exist.
A cause if a rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time.
" I plant a seed (cause) time passes(precedes), something sprouts (effect)."
Exactly. You plant a seed (rearrangement of matter), and this precedes something sprouting in a measurement of time.
Since there was no time or matter before The Big Bang. NO cause.
kushsmokkeralt 3 weeks ago
@kushsmokkeralt Let them step forward and answer the questions. I can show that since atheism depends on naturalism being true, they are believing in something that doesn't exist namely the evidence for abiogenesis and the natural origin of the universe. They hold atheism on faith.
You should have stuck with the thread. You are changing your made up definition since it failed.
I block people who are just wasting my time or can't remain civil. God transcends time.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
Hey, Science doesn't have all the answers, but at least it doesn't pretend it does.
TheKeyWestian 3 weeks ago
@TheKeyWestian It definitely pretends it has solid proof that evolution for example is a fact. See comments below by GeniusIncome for an example of those who were taught this in school.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
We as atheists are constantly asked to present evidence, which we try to do. Creationists just rely on circular arguments that can never be proved or disproved. They believe in something with NO evidence. The responsibility of proof is all on their shoulders. They can't even INDEPENDENTLY prove the all powerful and eternal son of God really even existed except for a couple of obscure entries by some ancient writers (Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) Sounds fishy. The debate is a complete waste of time.
damrak1969 3 weeks ago
@damrak1969 You err in thinking "proof" as opposed to having evidence. Proof is for math issues. You also err in assuming we have no evidence for God. The fulfilled prophecy in the bible is enough to validate its divine input and the God it reveals. You also deliberately under estimate the number of entries among the ten or so ancient writers mentioning Jesus.
Now, show me your evidence that naturalism (the only support for rational atheism) is true.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher OK then - what are the secular or specifically non-bible, non-koran or non-torah listings of Jesus stating he was a God or did supernatural things. Also, scripture in the new testament are widely accepted to be written years after the fact and the Gospels were not "eye witness" accounts. It's easy to say someone fulfilled scripture when the writers already knew the events that happened when they wrote the verses. The jews certainly didn't seem to believe Jesus waas the Messiah.
damrak1969 2 weeks ago
@damrak1969 Josephus (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100)
Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117)
Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140)
Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)
Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c. 113)
The Talmud
Lucian (circa 120-after 180)
You cite opinions of fringe commentators as "widely accepted". Baloney.
Many thousands of Jews accepted Jesus quickly starting at pentecost. Most of those in power resisted for obvious reasons.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher None of the people you cite was an eye witness - the crucifixion is dated approx. 34 to 37 AD - they all wrote stories they heard, much of which was probably embelished to help sell the story - not much hard evidence for such a huge claim. It is widely accepted by most theology professors and historians (not seminary students or preachers) that the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts but there is, of course, no way to prove any of it. We'll just have to wait another 2000 years.
damrak1969 2 weeks ago
@damrak1969 The eyewitnesses were writing in the new testament. The hard evidence is the empty tomb to start. Those in power and opposing the establishment of Christianity had the motive and opportunity to simply stop it by pointing to the body. No explanations offered for its absence hold water. Then the eyewitnesses lived lives of service many dieing martyrs when they could have recanted. Most historians, theologians accept the accuracy of the accounts. You take minority opinions as facts.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher Historians will admit there was a Jesus who was crucified by the Romans but everything after that is up for grabs. Secular historians doubt the gospels were written by the original apostles, plus they are full of contradictions. Where are the Roman or Jewish accounts of a bodiless tomb? Other period non-canonical gospels also paint a different picture. Believers try to discredit science while relying on a story book, written by Catholic committee, with absolutely no hard evidence.
damrak1969 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher
The probability of god(g) based on the background information (k), where k is evidence without proof is less that 50% pr(g k) < .5
buffalowycowboy 3 weeks ago
@buffalowycowboy Just make it up as you go eh? What exactly is "evidence without proof" by your definition? Is there any evidence with proof in the absolute sense outside math and geometry? Where do you get the idea this little formula applies here? Where does the arbitrary value of .5 come from?
Shame on you for embarrassing the other atheists with this nonsense.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher “Proof is off the menu” and yet you accuse me of spouting nonsense! A posteriori considerations depend on their probability and on their respective explanatory power therefore they are not conclusive evidence. Your truth values beg the question. therefore they are fallacious
What part of “begging the question” don’t you understand? BTW, I do not recognize any
scripture as authoritative. Your arguments and your God is DOA.
buffalowycowboy 3 weeks ago
@buffalowycowboy the only explanatory power in this debate lies with the creation side. Your side has nothing but questions as to what happened and where did it come from and no answers but more importantly no evidence for your non answers. I have some evidence for God and His account of creation. Begging the question does not apply here except against your side with its a priori committment to naturalism.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
Can I ask you a question? Why do you ask these questions to random people on the internet when they are so easily (I cannot stress how easily) answered in textbooks, journal articles, scientific magazines? They're not hard to read or comprehend.
technogandhi 3 weeks ago
@technogandhi First they are not random but are volunteers who think they know things they don't.
Second, if you think those answers are there, you can put them down here and I will examine them for factual content and logical consistency. Hundreds have thought like you but can't produce answers that will stand up AND support naturalism. You express faith those answers are not just there but are correct even though they have had very little critical thinking applied to them.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Maybe you think you know things you don't.
technogandhi 3 weeks ago
@technogandhi I am certain I think I know things that I don't. But I am careful to focus mainly on things I can support with reason and/or evidence. I am also certain that atheists as a group think they know things they don't and bringing that out is the focus of this video.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
BOO! Shame on you, facts do not lie. We evolved.
GeniusIncome 3 weeks ago
@GeniusIncome Facts don't lie but those who interpret them do. Empty assertion.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
I just cant bring myself back to the state of being gullable enough to believe in sky daddies and angels. Reality tends to wipe that superstitious crap away.
TheCaptainLulz 3 weeks ago
@TheCaptainLulz Actually reality is pointing to God more surely as science advances.
Logic requires a self existing first cause for anything to exist. I have evidence for God but I am betting you don't have evidence that will stand up for natural explanations for the origins of the universe and life. Scoffing does not take the place of reason and evidence.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher What is this "evidence"? You can't throw that term around you know.
technogandhi 3 weeks ago
@technogandhi greatcomDOTorg/resources/areadydefense/ch06/default.htm
discovermagazineDOTcom/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
godandscienceDOTorg/apologetics/smj.pdf
Change DOT to a period and paste in browser. If you get an error, edit this “%C2%AD” out of url that comes back to agree with mine and go again.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Nope.Its only there in philosoph, not in the real universe. And point 2 would be how could you ever know what it , they, it are/is if it where possible. a 2000 year old tome and a feeling are not evidence of anything except the incredulity of the "believer". Oh and your Kalam you have there, what made that deity? It too must have a first cause or your argument defeats itsself.
TheCaptainLulz 2 weeks ago
@TheCaptainLulz Really? show me an infinite series of real things. The bible has abundant fulfille dprophecy thus validating it has divine input and the Creator it reveals.
You err in not understanding the first point that there cannot be an infinite series of causes or else we would never have reached "now". Logic does require that self existing first cause.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Prophecy as vague and distorted as those in the text could either be full of bull, or self-fulling prophecies, believers are experts at twisting things to fit their needs.as for 2 youre right that there are no infinite series, sooooo, your god cannot exist as it is just a step higher on the chain than this reality, and since there can be no first cause your god had to be created by something else and is therefore not a god.
TheCaptainLulz 2 weeks ago
@TheCaptainLulz Show me vague, distorted or self fulfilling in the examples I provide. Be specific. They are just below.
2 Non Sequitur, circular and self contradicting. Man you hit the bad debater trifecta! Congratulations on the most densely packed errors I have seen.
GunneLPercher 1 week ago
@GunneLPercher Im not debating with you asshat, simply stating my POV. Your whole 10 questions is falacy baiting anyways. when believers like you ask, youre already sure it wont meet the goalposts to begin with, thats why I cant be bothered to waste my time with your kind. I know I couldnt convince you anyways so I aint trying.
TheCaptainLulz 6 days ago
@GunneLPercher Why does logic require a self existing first cause? If your mythical god is allowed to just be, without anything having created him, then why can't the universe just be, without anything having created it? If something 'must' have created the universe, then something 'must' have created your god as well. You can't have it both ways.
slvrdagger 2 weeks ago
@slvrdagger There cannot be an infinite series of causes or else we would never have reached "now".
The universe has been shown to have a beginning about 14bya. If it was eternal it would violate the 2nd law. It has to be that there is a self existing first cause (see first point). This argument comes from Aristotle, father of logic. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist but always was in keeping with logic.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
I don't know exactly how to answer these questions, a lot of them I can't answer but I don't know why that proves god? I mean we can all pick holes in religion left right and centre, so why doesn't that disprove god?
getmedjr 3 weeks ago
@getmedjr The questions don't prove God. They bring out the fact that there is no evidence for naturalism which is all that could make atheism rational if it had evidence to support it.
You can try poking holes in Christianity if you want. I don't defend other religions.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
dustinschulzemusic 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher 1. i told you, these are not nonbeneficial changes. they are helpful for quickly snatching up prey and giving a little boost when jumping.
2. just because a change is nonbeneficial doesnt mean it will harm the existence of the animal. there are changes that have absolutely no effect on survival at all. take skin color for instance, in humanity (though, tbf, you have a better chance at survival if you're white. nothing to do with nature, just the way the world works).
sorry8140 3 weeks ago
@sorry8140 1 Doesn't make it so. You are referring to functioning features. I am referring to the interim points, all of them not just spots where function emerges.
2 Harm is not the issue. Selection is. All the interim non beneficial changes could be neutral (they're not really) and you would still have a huge problem getting them all to spread and be perpetuated in a population.
Baloney on your racist remark.
GunneLPercher 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher there would be NO problem in spreading these around. all that needs to happen is for that one useless trait to be spread to a couple offspring, then their offspring will get the same traits and over generations it spreads throughout the gene pool. and as for my "racist" remark? are you kidding me? thats not racism dude, thats fact. being white in most cases makes you automatically more likely to succeed in the world statistically speaking. i wish it wasnt so, but i cant help it.
sorry8140 2 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher "It is here because God created it."
You believe God is immaterial, well how can something that can’t be weighed, split, heated, cooled, and lacks mass and electric charge have a cause/ effect relationship with something with all these properties? You keep talking about science but shaming it with everything you type, what you believe in is magic and the supernatural, you are a disgrace to the name of science.
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 Omnipotence. Once you postulate a supernatural omnipotent being it is pointless to propose constraints.
You should know QM is now proposing all reality is virtual. this fits great with everything being subject to the will of God.
Feel free to point out SPECIFICALLY anything that I say in conflict with solid science.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Please explain just how quantum mechanics posits a 'virtual' universe (whatever that means). And what this has to do with a your imaginary friend in the sky.
KapStuf 3 weeks ago
@KapStuf You should start your own thread. I've started removing your posts sniping into other people's dialogues.
Read it somewhere. the idea was that there is no actual material basis for any particle. It makes it more understandable that God has command over all physical reality.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher So, lets tally up your logical errors:
1) You say "Complexity with meaning is the mark of an intelligent origin", but at the same time think God is complex and meaningful, so you must believe he had origin, and had a beginning..So, who created God?
2) A cause is the rearrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, no matter or time existed until after The Big Bang, yet you think it had a cause?
You consistently spew out logical fallacies and factual errors.
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 1 covered below.
2 Making up definitions to try to help yourself. A cause brings about an effect. God is not constrained by our time since He created it.
You embarrass other atheists.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher "Show something known to have no cause other than a self existing first cause."
GRAVITY!
buffalowycowboy 3 weeks ago
@buffalowycowboy Uhh no that has a definite cause derived from mass.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher Unless you believe God is simple and meaningless, then you must believe God had an intelligent origin because you believe "Complexity with meaning is the mark of an intelligent origin"
You just keep backing yourself into a corner with your grade 2 logical errors
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
@theBartone9119 You just keep making yourself look foolish.
The remark in context refers to things that had beginnings.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 4 weeks ago
#10. CAN you provide more reason than what all of modern science has to offer? and if so, why would jesus be the correct answer, why not the FSM? and you claim i do not want to be accountable to your god? well of course i dont! hes a prick! sends you to hell for not believing his ill-supported tales, being human and not worshipping him? an eternity of torture for that? and what makes you think lucifer will torment me? he doesnt like god, i didnt believe in god, we're cool.
sorry8140 4 weeks ago
@sorry8140 10 Modern science supports me in anything solid they have. This excludes evolution which is not solid but people think it is.
You don't get that lucifer will be receiving punishment not giving it out. The rest of your theology knowledge is also as faulty. I showed evidence below for the God of the bible.
GunneLPercher 3 weeks ago
@GunneLPercher "Modern science supports me in anything solid they have. This excludes evolution which is not solid but people think it is."
so, it supports you in anything you have been taught to believe by faith? and evolution is not solid?! ho ho ho! thats a joke. the fossil record has species to species transformations along wit evidence in DNA. dont you EVEN tell me it is not solid.
sorry8140 3 weeks ago