Christianity debate

[FlaGator]

The dilemma of Proverbs 26:4-5 comes to mind.

So does 1 Peter 3:15.

[InspiredHome]

So does 1 Peter 3:15.

I totally agree though sometimes it's like beating your head against a brick wall. :D

[The Night Owl]

Sure I can. First in nature I can look at the structure of DNA and come to the conclusion that it appears to be a created not an accidentally derived structure.

Appearances can be deceiving, but for the sake of argument, let us accept your idea that DNA appears to have been designed. If DNA appears to have been designed, then why should we assume that it was designed by God and not by extraterrestrials?

OK, I have given you my reasons for the existence of God. Give me your reasons why He does not exist.

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. The believers are the ones who make the extravagant claims. I'll remain open to the God hypothesis, but I'm not going to believe it unless someone provides evidence or a theory to support it.

By the way, your posts are great. I don't agree with most of what you're writing, but I admire the fact that you really think this stuff through.

Anyway, here is a short video you might find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_dHjH34nY

[LogansPapa]

First, you show me where I claimed you were an agnostic. Please copy and paste showing where I stated or implied that you were agnostic. I just asked if you knew what the word meant. Anything else was an erroneous conclusion on your part. I have to ponder your ability to logically draw realistic inferences based on the evidence at hand when you seem to feel that I am calling you an agnostic and I have never said anything that could be even remotely considered doing that. All your conclusions are now suspect.

"When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure."

How can you walk upright and be this dim? An amazing feat. If you read my statement, once again, please try to grasp that I've already said I'm an agnostic, but never undecided about being so.

Please, please try to grasp that - for the love of reality. And BTW - if my conclusions are suspect then yours are idiotic.

[FlaGator]

I totally agree though sometimes it's like beating your head against a brick wall. :D

I know but I enjoy watching the likes of LP stagger around being argumentative because he knows no other way to be. What can I say, it amuses me.

[FlaGator]

"When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure."

How can you walk upright and be this dim? An amazing feat. If you read my statement, once again, please try to grasp that I've already said I'm an agnostic, but never undecided about being so.

Please, please try to grasp that - for the love of reality. And BTW - if my conclusions are suspect then yours are idiotic.

I find conversation with you must amusing and stimulating. You truly do fit the definition of an agnostic.

[FlaGator]

Appearances can be deceiving, but for the sake of argument, let us accept your idea that DNA appears to have been designed. If DNA appears to have been designed, then why should we assume that it was designed by God and not by extraterrestrials?

I'm surprised you would suggest that when there is even less evidence of extraterrestrail existence than their is of God's existence. In my opinion it takes a bigger leap of faith to lay DNA creation at the feet of aliens than to does to give the credit to God.

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. The believers are the ones who make the extravagant claims. I'll remain open to the God hypothesis, but I'm not going to believe it unless someone provides evidence or a theory to support it.

By the way, your posts are great. I don't agree with most of what you're writing, but I admire the fact that you really think this stuff through.

Anyway, here is a short video you might find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_dHjH34nY

That was a very interesting video. Thank you for sharing and thank you for the compliments. I enjoy debating this stuff with people like you who are will to listen and propose their own positions without letting it get personal. Some people take every decenting view as a personal attack.

Anyways, I would ask you to consider Pascal's Wager. Wikepedia has a good definition of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It's interesting look at at Pascal's applied mathematics of decision making althought this example is a very simple case when compared to some of his other examples. Rationalists tend to dislike Pascal about as much as they dislike Immanuel Kant because they both put limits on the effectiveness of reason when dealing with the existence of God and made good arguments against reason being the end all in some deductive mental processes. Anyways. I hope you enjoy reading it and I'd like to hear your views. Also, pick up Francis Collin's book "The Language of God." It is very interesting reading concerning the design elements of DNA. I don't agree with all of his view points but he makes a fascinating case for why it is more probable that DNA was designed than accidentally formed.

[The Night Owl]

I'm surprised you would suggest that when there is even less evidence of extraterrestrail existence than their is of God's existence. In my opinion it takes a bigger leap of faith to lay DNA creation at the feet of aliens than to does to give the credit to God.

We have no evidence of either God or extraterrestrials. All we have is speculation.

If you're going to embrace Intelligent Design, you've got to embrace the idea that the Designer is not necessarily the highest power but perhaps just a higher power. Even Michael Behe and William Dembski, two openly religious scientists who have done a lot of work in ID, admit that the Designer implicit in the ID hypothesis is not necessarily God.

Anyways, I would ask you to consider Pascal's Wager. Wikepedia has a good definition of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It's interesting look at at Pascal's applied mathematics of decision making althought this example is a very simple case when compared to some of his other examples. Rationalists tend to dislike Pascal about as much as they dislike Immanuel Kant because they both put limits on the effectiveness of reason when dealing with the existence of God and made good arguments against reason being the end all in some deductive mental processes. Anyways. I hope you enjoy reading it and I'd like to hear your views.

Thanks. To be blunt, I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager, which I think should be called Pascal's Deception. My position on Pascal's Wager is more or less identical to that of Christopher Hitchens, so I might as well point you to what Hitchens has said about it since he is far more eloquent than I could ever be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

So, does God admire the person who based his or her faith on what Pascal believed is the safer bet or the person who, in the absence of evidence, couldn't bring himself or herself to believe but remained honest about it? I think the answer is obvious.

As Richard Dawkins points out in his book The God Delusion, one cannot will oneself into believing. Accepting beliefs as plausible does not make one a believer. To believe in God, one must feel that the belief is true, not just plausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngta1OuomzY

[LogansPapa]

Remember, our side has the bones.;)

[biccat]

Remember, our side has the bones.;)

If God is for us, who shall stand against us?