Skip to comments.Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound
Posted on 06/10/2008 6:31:56 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.
Yet even after a detailed case is made for the illogical side of the argument, it can instantly be deflated like a balloon with the simplest poke of clear logic. It can also be attacked piece by piece with even greater skill and logic, stemming from a steadfast pursuit of the truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
[... I will duly note your affection, though I’m not clear on how non-marital Catholic/Protestant affections go in that regard....]
I can tell you’re working on the Kirk distillation because you sound like Emerson.
A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time
to embrace and a time to shun embracing. (Ecclesiastes 3:5)
Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
Click on my profile page for guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum.
In any rational scheme of things, intelligence has to exist FIRST and create biology; the opposite, i.e. having biology arise from dust via a sequence of trillions of zero-probability events by accident (evolution), has been disproven repeatedly.
You guys are dreaming. Dawkins did not make a fool of himself, and he “looks like a total idiot” only to those predisposed to see him that way.
Again, Dawkins doesn't believe in space aliens, he was asked to speculate on a scenario about intelligent design, and he did so. But you're absolutely correct, Dawkins doesn't know much about the OT. I recently read a critique of the new atheists written by a theologian, who ripped Dawkins apart for ignoring the prophetic tradition, which is of course a huge portion of the OT and where we gain much of our understanding of the goodness of God. (Isaiah chapter 1 comes to mind: God tells the Jews that he doesn't care about burnt offerings and temple worship, he wants justice and compassion. Dawkins fixates on the animal sacrifices, and calls them barbarous, but ignores the fact that God's revelation is only beginning in the early parts of the OT.) Another reviewer of Dawkins noticed that he incorrectly claimed that the OT only obliged Jews to protect Jews and not non-Jews.
Rubbish. We don’t build things the way nature does. You are comapring apples and oranges. Nothing we made even resembles anything in nature.
As I noted in my previous message, that's precisely the problem with the "argument" presented in the original post in this thread.
Nonsense. It is a straightforward result of inverse-square gravitation. That's fifth-grade general science.
“Who made God?”
“Who”, as opposed to “what”? I think it’s more likely that it was “who”. Who and why. To wonder why is only human.
Yet evolution dictates that the original forms (before “primal” life) were inanimate, yet they somehow came together to form life. So the analogy of how ridiculous such a statement is is 100% appropriate, on all levels.
Very good. You’re in agreement that nature has laws. And my point is that those laws attest to a Creator, a designer.
The point is that no intelligent and complex structure designs itself. If you didn’t know who authored or published the encyclopedias (let;s say they’re anonymous) would you give credence to the possibility that they were self formed? That’s what atheists/agnostics do.
Thanks for those great links. I think atheists can be good parents, but wow, some have been so dogmatic and really gone off on a tangent against the piece. They’re devoting blog pieces to it, etc.
That’s a subject of much philosophy. We can deal with it and discuss it, but what comes to the forefront first is that an orderly physical universe necessitates a conscious Creator.
By the way, what do you make of this (see comments, especially 36 on)