Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some now believe that no creator is necessary to explain how the universe came to be. Maybe so. But consider this: science has shown that sex between a man and a woman is not necessary to produce a child. A Fact.
And what does that mean? Well, yea, but in real life how are children produced 99.999% of the time? Anyone have an answer? Just taking a model from real life to address the "no creator is necessary" concept. Yep...science has proven nothing, but just has suggested an idea that appeals to the atheist. Just because you can suggest there is no need for a creator (or sex) has nothing to do with how it really is, be it concerning the origin of a child or a universe.
Some now believe that no creator is necessary to explain how the universe came to be. Maybe so. But consider this: science has shown that sex between a man and a woman is not necessary to produce a child. A Fact.
And what does that mean? Well, yea, but in real life how are children produced 99.999% of the time? Anyone have an answer? Just taking a model from real life to address the "no creator is necessary" concept. Yep...science has proven nothing, but just has suggested an idea that appeals to the atheist. Just because you can suggest there is no need for a creator (or sex) has nothing to do with how it really is, be it concerning the origin of a child or a universe.
I think it is becoming more and more clear that theists have a major problem is critical thinking skills.
So let me get this analogy (is that what that was) straight - 99.999% of the time God is necessary for the origin of a universe but the rest of the time God is not necessary for a universe since science shows that there is no need for one.
We don't know whether or not there is (or was) a creator (or creators.) No human knows to a certainty. That's just a plain fact.
But given that there has never been one single iota of evidence (much less proof) that there are invisible superntural beings responsible for the universe and somehow involved in or concerned with our fates, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to default to the belief in god(s).
But what we must remember is that believers in such beings aren't typically positing that there is a god or gods/creator or creators. No, they are typically pushing for belief in the specific deity to whose belief they subscribe.
The "intelligent design" nonsense, for example. Proponents of this baseless gobbledygook would have you believe they are just submitting the idea. But this, of course, is pure dee BS. Rather, they are staunch believers in a certain particular deity and set of creation myths.
The same people proposing ID would be utterly aghast if someone were to put forth the notion that we should be espousing belief in, say, Greco-Roman gods or creation stories. Or Norse, or Hopi Indian, or Egyptian.
And yet, while there is no sound reason to believe in god(s) (although I certainly understand why most people do) there is also no more reason whatsoever to claim that (for example) Yahweh is real and the Judeo-Christian creation myths are true than there is to say the same of Zeus, Odin, Vishnu or Ra and their attendant scriptures are real.
I think it is becoming more and more clear that theists have a major problem is critical thinking skills.
So let me get this analogy (is that what that was) straight - 99.999% of the time God is necessary for .
OK I'll type more slowly. It is not necessary that people have sex in order to have a baby. Science says so. Now you atheist guys latch onto the idea that god isn't necessary to cause creation. Science says so. Well, so what? Sex isn't necessary to produce babies. Does that demonstrate the correct view is that babies do not come about without sex? It is far more likely that you and I came about thru sexual intercourse than by artificial means. So if you were to answer that sex wasn't necessary to produce you could answer "yes", but that is probably not the case.
Yes or no.
talk about the lack of critical thinking
My atheist step father said I had no critical thinking. Reason: I believed in God. His favorite line: that's ridiculous, there is no God! He died a few years back. I have no doubt that he knows the truth of the matter.
Last edited by Mr5150; 04-07-2013 at 10:34 PM..
04-07-2013, 10:42 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
OK I'll type more slowly. It is not necessary that people have sex in order to have a baby. Science says so. Now you atheist guys latch onto the idea that god isn't necessary to cause creation. Science says so. Well, so what? Sex isn't necessary to produce babies. Does that demonstrate the correct view is that babies do not come about without sex? It is far more likely that you and I came about thru sexual intercourse than by artificial means. So if you were to answer that sex wasn't necessary to produce you could answer "yes", but that is probably not the case.
Yes or no.
talk about the lack of critical thinking
My atheist step father said I had no critical thinking. Reason: I believed in God. His favorite line: that's ridiculous, there is no God! He died a few years back. I have no doubt that he knows the truth of the matter.
Here let me help you: 1) Very bad analogy, 2) non-sequitur
We know (scientifically) how babies are made via sexual intercourse and by artifical means - now please explain how God created the Universe - Mr. Scientist! Then tell me how that is an appropriate analogy and why your conclusion follows from it.
OK I'll type more slowly. It is not necessary that people have sex in order to have a baby. Science says so. Now you atheist guys latch onto the idea that god isn't necessary to cause creation.
Just one little point before you go on. You have yet to prove "creation". You can't claim that your god is responsible for creation without first showing that there was a creation to begin with.
Here let me help you: 1) Very bad analogy, 2) non-sequitur
We know (scientifically) how babies are made via sexual intercourse and by artifical means - now please explain how God created the Universe - Mr. Scientist! Then tell me how that is an appropriate analogy and why your conclusion follows from it.
I'll be waiting!
Non sequitur? How so? I think you are misusing the term. Plus you fail to grasp "analogy".
Some now believe that no creator is necessary to explain how the universe came to be. Maybe so. But consider this: science has shown that sex between a man and a woman is not necessary to produce a child. A Fact.
And what does that mean? Well, yea, but in real life how are children produced 99.999% of the time? Anyone have an answer? Just taking a model from real life to address the "no creator is necessary" concept. Yep...science has proven nothing, but just has suggested an idea that appeals to the atheist. Just because you can suggest there is no need for a creator (or sex) has nothing to do with how it really is, be it concerning the origin of a child or a universe.
I don't agree with this. Most people, AFAIK, don't think abiogenesis is proven by, say, in-vitro fertilization. This theory was in place long before IVF was thought of, much less a reality.
Abiogenesis isn't the idea of taking two evolved single-cell organisms with the correct DNA to create a new fully formed being. It starts much smaller than that and is chemical-based, in a way that would definitely not take lab equipment. I hope that makes sense.
Some now believe that no creator is necessary to explain how the universe came to be. Maybe so. But consider this: science has shown that sex between a man and a woman is not necessary to produce a child. A Fact.
And what does that mean? Well, yea, but in real life how are children produced 99.999% of the time? Anyone have an answer? Just taking a model from real life to address the "no creator is necessary" concept. Yep...science has proven nothing, but just has suggested an idea that appeals to the atheist. Just because you can suggest there is no need for a creator (or sex) has nothing to do with how it really is, be it concerning the origin of a child or a universe.
"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood..."
"If she weighs the same as a duck... she's made of wood..."
"And therefore?"
"SHE'S A WITCH!!!"
^^ Who is this man who is so wise in the ways of science?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) straight - 99.999% of the time God is necessary for the origin of a universe but the rest of the time God is not necessary for a universe since science shows that there is no need for one. 
Non sequitur? How so? I think you are misusing the term. Plus you fail to grasp "analogy". 
