You are looking at posts that were written in the month of April in the year 2008.
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On May 1, 12:00 pm, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> All it takes is an in-depth study of the innumerable factors upon which life
> depended upon to come about and to flourish.
What factors, precisely?
> Then, the factors which produced and which sustain sentient, human life.
And again, what factors, precisely?
> Factors we depend on, the
> precision, the mathematical balance and particular laws of physics, of
> chemistry and the dynamic functioning of biological organisms. Look at a
> single cell which is a lot like a miniature factory. Cranes, machinery that
> sorts, and assembles proteins. Messenger molecules, whirring molecule-sized
> motors and energy synthesis and storage. All traceable back to a “big bang?”
> A random happenstance? Dumb, blind luck? I don’t think so.
Is there any point me mentioning the Douglas Adams puddle quote to you
again? I tried to get you to show me what was wrong with it, why it
was “muddied thinking” but you wouldn’t tell me. It is still relevant
to this part of your explanation. All of these things are amazing,
wonderful, mind-boggling in their exactitude and complexity, yes, I
agree. But that does not mean they could not have come about by
natural means. It really, really doesn’t. “Random happenstance” and
“Blind dumb luck” are not the ToE. See if you can find any of those
words in any formulation of the ToE with the one exception of the word
random. And, in the ToE, “random” does not mean what it means in your
sentance containing that word above. In fact, I suspect that it
doesn’t mean what you think it means even. But that is just a
suspicion at the moment. It’s been impossible so far to get you to
articulate what you think is even wrong with the ToE.
And how many times do you needed it explained to you that your entire
argument above is one big logical fallacy before you will stop using
it? Bloody Nora Keith, the argument from incredulity, which is what
your entire argument is, *is* a logical fallacy.
Have fun,
Craig
> On 4/30/08, hardlyh…@mindless.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 2:43 am, “Keith MacNevins” wrote:
> > > A person can be entirely reasonable, sensible, and logical and conclude
> > that
> > > intelligent design is a reality.
>
> > Then perhaps you can give us these reasonable, sensible and logical
> > reasons that lead you to come to this conclusion? I, and others, have
> > asked you for them on many occassions now Keith and you seem to be
> > incapable of articulating them. Could you try that now please?
>
> > Have fun,
> > Craig
>
> –
> Ambassador From Hell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
> And you learned this where?
Simple. Christian mythology shares a good many features with other
mythologies being put forward at that time and earlier in the same
general geographical areas as the Christian mythology developed out
of. And while there are plenty of imaginable explanations for why
this might be case, the most likely explanation for why it is the case
is to say that Jesus really was:
> >Probably something in-between. An amalgam of characters, both real and
> >fictional, whose exploits (also both real and fictional) were combined
> >into a single image, exagerated, then made the mascot of a cult.
If you do have reasons for thinking that this might be incorrect, then
by all means please present them to us. I’m happy to hear whatever
you have in mind.
-
On Apr 30, 8:05 pm, jake wrote:
> >Probably something in-between. An amalgam of characters, both real and
> >fictional, whose exploits (also both real and fictional) were combined
> >into a single image, exagerated, then made the mascot of a cult.
>
> And you learned this where?
Posted on April 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
A good view. I have a theory about one’s philosophy of life — that it is
true in so far as it has beauty. That is, a Buddhist monk’s life may be
a thing of beauty. An old farmer’s wife who is a widow and gets up every
morning to feed chickens, milk the cow and tend the garden — may very well
be living a life that is of immense value to society, precious, and a thing
of beauty. A Christian missionary might live a life that is a thing of
beauty. A Muslim woman who toils from sunrise to sundown while
raising several children may live out a life that is a thing of beauty, and
a secular humanist who helps his neighbor pay their rent at a time when they
can’t afford it, and works as a volunteer to save endangered species. All
people with divergent, dissimilar views. But living lives that are a thing
of beauty. All “saved,” in my opinion, and God has no quarrel with people
such as they.
On 4/30/08, Vagabond wrote:
>
>
> In my view:
>
> -God is perfect
> -God is all knowing
> -God is made of matter
> -God has unconditional love for all his children
> -God’s purpose and will is to grant immortality and eternal life to
> all his children
> -God is the Father of our souls
> -God is NOT unfathomable, but knowable and tangible
> -God is NOT omnipresent, that’s physically impossible
> -God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are NOT one being, but three
> separate beings
> -God created all things, not from nothing, but from unorganized matter
>
> >
>