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.
Tell us how they're different
(Am I going to be sorry I asked?)
Probably. My arguments are existential in the sense that "Existence precedes Essence." If we pursue this line of thought the powers that be will probably consider it off topic and want it to be moved to the philosophy forum.
The next time you use a Creationist argument, I'll point it out. Creationists use what they call 'Philosophy' too - e.g. the kalam argument.
The Kalam argument IS a Creationist argument but it has nothing to do with my existential view. You are fixated on the idea of a Creator, NOT an "Existor." I do not need a Creator. I simply posit God as the locus of my and ALL existence. The mandates of the existence of God are what establish and control the existence of everything.
The Kalam argument IS a Creationist argument but it has nothing to do with my existential view. You are fixated on the idea of a Creator, NOT an "Existor." I do not need a Creator. I simply posit God as the locus of my and ALL existence. The mandates of the existence of God are what establish and control the existence of everything.
I didn't say that it did. I gave it as an example of a creationist argument that was philosophical rather than scientific. If you do use a 'First cause' argument, (as does Kalam) I'll point that out.
Probably. My arguments are existential in the sense that "Existence precedes Essence." If we pursue this line of thought the powers that be will probably consider it off topic and want it to be moved to the philosophy forum.
You would have a valid point if you and Mystic actually did use science.
it doesn't matter what they use. If you deem it unhealthy for selling atheism ... its not science. to you and your sect. If you deem it good for selling atheism ... its internationally renowned science. to you and your sect anywayz.
its all about selling atheism for you. you answer to anti-religious/god dogma and others answer to the scientific method.
You would have a valid point if you and Mystic actually did use science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You would recognize valid points if you actually had a deeper understanding of extant science on the frontier instead of a sophomoric knowledge that is just enough to be dangerous.
LMAO one of the last time I spoke with HD he gave me an answer to a evolution question that actually speaks against neo-darwinian evolution and he did not even realize it, so yes mystic he has just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
I don't think it's too much of an issue. The believers can't use 'science' to prove God -say with ID, because I D has been debunked by science -and the law. The arguments that atheists use to 'jump all over' the First cause claims are logical, not scientific, ones because nobody really knows what the 'science' was before the Big Bang. The case for evolution has been validated again and again even though we get the same 'no transitionals' argument.
So all that we have lost is a lot of time -wasting arguments from Believers that have picked up some false claims to confirm the bias of the believers, and which can be easily knocked down by those who have troubled to acquaint themselves with the facts.
All that we have to do now is to demolish any 'well we could have debunked these atheists - but we weren't allowed to' canard. We won the debate long ago and can win it again. That applies to Mystic's rather infantile "Who made dem Laws, anyway?" argument, since he Denies the observed fact of emergent complexity, which has been proven to him several times.
And it's all pointless, anyway. The whole 'Goddunnit' argument is to provide a springboard for the leap of Faith to the god of the Bible.
First, you have to show why that god is the right one and none of the others. We had one poster trying to do that by posting a video by way of argument to debunk the Quran. Rather it debunked the Gospel -claims.
Discussion of the validity of the Bible is really what matters - not First cause, and that is Not banned. But you also know the Bible doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
well if science could be used here trans i would challenge you on some of this. Heck you never know we might have ended up in a good conversation like we did last time.
I would however likely have to put a muzzle (put on ignore) your two yaping lap dogs who usually add nothing to our discussion and just ridicule or try and pick a fight just like HD did here.
it doesn't matter what they use. If you deem it unhealthy for selling atheism ... its not science. to you and your sect. If you deem it good for selling atheism ... its internationally renowned science. to you and your sect anywayz.
its all about selling atheism for you. you answer to anti-religious/god dogma and others answer to the scientific method.
aint that the truth. I keep hearing ID is not scientific but that tells me they really have no clue to what ID is all about.
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.
