Is there evidence of a Creator? Pt1

http://www.creationliberty.org
Briefly discussing the evidence of an Intelligent Designer.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• god
• atheism
• atheist
• christian
• humanism
• rene
• descartes
• liberty
• christ
• jesus
• heaven
• hell
• bible
• science
• logic
• rationalism
• philosophy

[panterguy]

I'll except your analogy when that painting in the forest has baby paintings of it's own.

[creationliberty]

@panterguy You're hurting yourself by saying that. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by using something simple, like a painting. You are saying, by your own statement, that you do not believe a painting could evolve by random chance, but you DO believe that a painting, which has trillions of intricate complex pieces, and has the ability to construct more of itself, can evolve on its own by random chance. If you want to believe that, great. Enjoy yourself. But that's a religion, not science.

[eproulx]

Your designer from design argument is flawed. Look at crystals. They *look* designed. But really they're a pretty but natural arrangement of molecules.

Read up on the Puddle of Water story. You said "WHO" created the universe = huge assumption. This restricts the possibilities tremendously. The truth is we don't know how the universe was really created. We should try to figure it out instead of just saying "god did it" and closing the case.

[creationliberty]

@eproulx You're assuming that saying "God did it" means the case is closed. "The sky is falling! We need evolution!" -- That's ridiculous, but that's exactly what that implies.

Sodium Chloride forms naturally into perfect cubes because the molecules are designed that way with a specific purpose. You're arguing that crystals have geologically evolved order on their own from chaos.

Your words: "They look designed." No kidding? But you still have extraordinary faith to believe otherwise.

[OpinionatedAussie]

And furthermore, the ontological argument for God proves everything and nothing. Allow me to explain

1. I can think of Allah and I can imagine unicorns, are THEY real too?

2. Only God can know the true character of god, it says so in your bible, therefore people who think they have an idea of god do not truly know the characteristics and nature of god, the only person whom the ontological argument proves god to is god himself.

[OpinionatedAussie]

Oh, and on "I think therefore I am therefore God", Rene's idea of God was instilled in him by society, religion and the catholic church household he was brought up in, atheism is the default position of belief until the idea of a god is introduced to a person.

[OpinionatedAussie]

AAAAAAAAND it's intellectually dishonest of you to say "She's an atheist, of course she believes in evolution" because not all atheists accept evolution to be true, and the only generalisation you can honestly make about an atheist group is that they all reject theistic claims of the existence of a god. I will nit-pick the shit out of your videos, if it takes me 5 comments per video, bloody character limits...

[OpinionatedAussie]

Inability for your brain to comprehend how complexity can arise is NOT proof that it didn't happen, in the exact same way that my brain's non-comprehension of how people can believe in god does NOT disprove god (sadly)

"things are complex, how could that happen naturally?"

well, go read a book about evolution, cell biology, the natural world, anything and you'll find out and it's also not implicit of a creator even if you HAD a point to substantiate

[OpinionatedAussie]

You're right, I did pause it, and there is no absolute impossibility of the contrary so uhhh, f*ck off.....also, Buddha is not a deity nor is he attributed as the creator of existence -.-

Also, comparing non-life to life in your "design implies designer" argument is dishonest and a logical fallacy, because they're not the same thing, it's a straw-man argument and furthermore "it's logical to imply designer from design" is true, except there is no evidence the world was "designed"

[TheAstroSteve]

You, people are always saying that there are so many more theists than athiests, but theres always more dislkies than like on theist videos and more likes than dislikes on atheist videos :L

[ptango101]

So let me get this straight. You find a painting on a tree and admit somone must have painted that. Then the next logiclal step is to look around you as say well if that's true then somone must of made this whole forest. It didn't arise because a bird was flying by years ago and a seed droped from its beak and germinated in the first tree. Then the seeds from that tree made others and so on. Oh! and bill gates said DNA is like computor code.

[freakincampers]

We know the painting was painted because we have seen a people make paintings.

This in no way gives evidence towards a creator. What evidence do you have towards a creator?

[LeonhardEuler1]

... your own reasoning, a designer as well- as did the painter which designed the painting (at least according to this argument from design). Congrats- you "solved" a mystery with an even bigger mystery. Welcome to the infinite regress, by the way.

[LeonhardEuler1]

Oh boy... After hearing you equate atheists and "evolutionists" I know it is pointless to bother commenting here since you, as this clearly demonstrates that you don't understand either of these terms.... but nevertheless... why do people not realize that this argument gives itself the proverbial shot in the foot? Even if you accept this platitude as an argument (which you shouldn't since it commits an equivocation fallacy), the proposed designer would require, by ...