Posted on 04/15/2009 10:52:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]
Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.
Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
And why is it that you place an asterisk next to God's name? Do you think He used steroids to get His home run record?
No, it's not. Though plenty of evoFreepers seem smart enough to reject it, the idea that there's no such thing as a proven fact in science has been advanced here a number of times. One evo even said germ theory is unproven.
By now all here should be well aware that Filo does nothing but Ad Hoc Handwaving.
Why waste any more bandwidth on his tantrum?
"What a self-serving, steaming pile of contrived and utterly worthless BS."
I saw this, and read "I can't answer your question, and therefore I will slide into the fallback position that all atheists use - condescension and ridicule. It's commonly referred to as 'proof by superior condescension'".
The evos like to claim they have all the answers, they just dont know them yet.
Nobody created God. God is eternal Being (i.e., Life).
Note the "eternal" word: In the first place, eternity means: God has no temporal beginning and no temporal end. No causation can possibly pertain to God on logical grounds because eternity does not pertain to the linear time succession that finite mortals experience — in which events take place in the natural world. Causation cannot happen without space and time. But God is not "in" time; and certainly He is not restricted by space.
In the second place, God is the creator of the laws of the universe — cognitive, physical, and moral. It is senseless to say that the creator of a system is bound by the system he creates.
BTW, we Christians do not believe in "sky gods." Maybe if you would stop thinking with your "noodly appendage" you could grasp this point.
I look forward to hearing from you, Filo!
How have you disproved God? On what basis have you determined that He is imaginary? What are your proofs?
Sure the evos do. They claim that they have the truth and that the rest of us are wrong. If they can say that we are wrong, that must mean that they have the truth and know it. But they don't. Science changes constantly. By default that means that everything they've told us before is wrong cause if it wasn't they wouldn't need to change it.
Better than that .... What "Is" God?..
What is God that it can be created?..
Is it possible something can be beyond formulation?..
God's Name is I AM.
LOLOL!!!!!
Let's analyze this statement. We just know "there is a naturalistic explanation," even though we have not a shred of objective evidence for believing this. (Filo has provided none so far.) People have been saying "there is a naturalistic explanation" for well over two centuries by now. Two-hundred-plus years to work on the problem, and science still has no answer, let alone any practical idea about how to advance this question. But don't worry: The proof WILL COME some day! This eschaton WILL be immanentized!
Man, if that is not a faith statement, I don't know what is.
The odd thing is this faith statement is being undermined by science itself these days. Advances in information theory and complexity theory have demonstrated the extreme statistical unlikelihood of matter generating natural systems having greater algorithmic complexity than itself. Matter alone cannot account for the astonishing algorithmic and morphological complexity that we see in the biosphere.
Aware of these developments, even such a rock-ribbed Darwinian fundamentalist as Richard Dawkins has apparently reluctantly concluded that not only does the universe give every appearance of being intelligently designed, but it may in fact have actually been intelligently designed. Possibly the intelligent designer was a space alien, who came to our planet and "seeded it." But he rules out the Creator of Judeo-Christianity on principle. He'll go with the panspermia theory and space aliens instead. Is this rational?
Richard Lewontin wrote, "we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door...."
To which I would reply: It is not for you to "allow" God to put His foot in the door or not; The Lord of Life does not need the permission of finite mortals to do anything He wills. Further, a spiritually-closed person is not in any position to annul the spiritual order of the universe that God created in the Beginning.... Nor can he really opt out of it, though he may imaginatively try to do so.
Filo, may I dare to suggest that your "faith" appears to be on extremely shaky epistemological footing? Whereas the Christian faith in the Creator God is eminently reasonable, and gives a rational account of what we perceive in nature, in the hearts of men, and in history and society? It's explanatory coverage and power is truly universal.
God has a name: I AM.
You go girl....
Thanks mm!
Truly, God's Name is I AM.
Filo said: In reality the evidence supporting Evolution is overwhelming.
Spirited: Your claim is self-refuting. It is irrational. Here’s why:
Evidence points back to truth and reality. Truth is exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. History, as it unfolds, is the record of truth and reality.
Truth, as recorded over and over by history shows that the seed of wheat, when planted, watered and tended, has never brought forth anything but wheat. Never once has the seed of wheat brought forth tomatos, as ought to happen if evolution is true.
History records that birds return every spring. Each kind pairs and mates with its own kind and builds nests peculiar to its own kind. Never once has it ever occurred that a robin was seen mating with a bluebird. Nor has a nest ever once been seen with a porch, gutters, roof, or TV antenna. Why? Because birds do what birds must do. They possess no free will to do otherwise. Yet if evolution is true, one might reasonably expect to see a penthouse nest or two after all this time.
History says that when mating season arrives, each kind must mate without fail. Not even once has man ever witnessed lions, or bears, or horses refusing to mate, for animals do not possess free will. No, it’s man who freely chooses to refuse to procreate in the name of Gaia or some such superstitious nonsense.
Not once throughout our long history has man ever witnessed stallions deserting their mares in order to go ‘gay.’ Nor has man ever witnessed even once, a titmouse dying its topnotch orange or purple nor a monkey putting rings through its nose, mouth, and elsewhere. Only man possesses the free will to choose to do not just strange things to his body but things contrary to nature.
History records that in addition to seeing man choose to do things contrary to nature, it records that man lies. He lies to himself and he lies to others.
Because Darwinism denies reality, it finds it must claim that the Permant Things, that is, universal moral law, truth, absolutes, virtue, history, even the two sexes male and female, ought not exist because not only did everything occur and continue to occur by chance, but everything is in continuous flux (change)as it readies itself for the next quantum leap in evolution. By extension of this Darwinian (il)logic, (which implies history, btw) evidence of any kind-—even empirical-—is merely a delusion, for reality does not exist. Hence your claim regarding evidence and reality in support of evolution contradicts evolution’s main claim, that truth and reality cannot and do not exist.
How can this self-contradictory conundrum be explained?
“Man lies. He lies to himself, and he lies to others.”
He ‘wills’ himself not to know what he really does know.
OK.
Well you liberals just let us know when it is that he assumes whatever color he wants. Purple on Thursdays, green on Mondays, whatever it is that you seem to be privvy...
You know, so no one is confused with multiple monsters assuming colors and all.
At least that way we’ll all know what you’re talking about.
You know at any particular time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.