Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Exactly what do you mean by selective and prejudicial? That fact the a characteristic of god is being uncreated is something no one had denied even if Zeus and Odin exist the reason they are considered God is because they are Uncreated so saying who created the creator is an illogical question.

So your claim is God just popped into existence. If we accept this, why do we need there to be a God in the first place? If things are just capable of popping into existence, how do we know the universe didn't do just that. I'm not claiming this is what happened, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Who needs logic when you have blind faith, eh?

So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

So your claim is God just popped into existence. If we accept this, why do we need there to be a God in the first place? If things are just capable of popping into existence, how do we know the universe didn't do just that. I'm not claiming this is what happened, just pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Because the Universe is not God and God by the very definition is something uncreated the universe on the other hand is a creation

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

I don't think many people are outright stating god doesn't exist. Rather, we're pointing out there is bugger all evidence for the existence of said god.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Because the Universe is not God and God by the very definition is something uncreated the universe on the other hand is a creation

You're just defining things to suit your argument here. In your statement, God is an unnecessary step added into the process to explain something you don't understand. Defining the universe as a creation is just being done to suit your argument. I'm guessing your definition of a creation is 'something that was created by god'? Bringing us back into an endless loop of god because god because god because god ad infinitum.

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

a logical reason why a god does not exist

1) There is no evidence or cogent theory for the existence of a God.
2) There is ample evidence that gods are the imaginings of stone age humans.

Delirium

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

You have provided nothing more than circular reasoning for the existence of God. You haven't provided any proof. Proof which you as the person claiming the existence of a creator of this universe need to show otherwise we can just dismiss your claims due to the lack of proof offered.

If I said I could win the lotto every time I played, would you just accept it, or would you (more logically) ask me to prove it? Your claim of God existing is magnitudes greater a claim, so excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't think many people are outright stating god doesn't exist. Rather, we're pointing out there is bugger all evidence for the existence of said god.

If he doesn't exist and there are logical and rational reasons as to why he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist and visa versa. Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria, Similarly god while you may say that no evidence supports god logic and rational though supports his existence.

Macavity.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

So far is just been me defending my argument while the atheists have provided no logical or a rational reason why a god does not exist because simply the atheist cant produce a logical reason why a god does not exist

A unicorn lives under my bed. Prove to me he doesn't.

This is basically your argument. Surely, you must see how stupid you sound?

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

If he doesn't exist and there are logical and rational reasons as to why he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist and visa versa. Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria, Similarly god while you may say that no evidence supports god logic and rational though supports his existence.

You're absolutely spot on up until that last bit there.

Grayson

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Asking such question doesn't make sense as it's like asking "what is the cause of the first cause", the logic it self can get you all the way to god but once you try to go past god the premises of the argument falls apart as you have reached the uncreated creator asking who created something that's uncreated does not make any rational sense.

See, if I try to trace stuff back I can go. Why did E happen. I can look and see that it was caused by D. Then i ask why did D happen. And I go back to C. I can keep going back but when I get to a point where I don't know the answer I don't go "well God must exist". I just think there's something there I don't know. Planting in God is what is called in philosophy a skyhook". It's when you build up an argument to a point where you reach a point where there's nothing there holding it up so you create this imaginary hook out of the sky and use it to hold up the argument. That's what God is. Something that wasn't in the argument until it runs out of answers and so it's used to validate the argument.

In this case the regression goes back to a certain point where it runs out and people say God. When we say what's before God, the cop out is the there's nothing before God. So the whole logic that was used to create the regression back to God is suddenly abandoned when we get to God. We go back that far because logically there HAS to be an efficient cause, but at some point it's decided that logically there doesn't have to be. And the only reason is because it support the argument for the belief in God.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Denying the existence of Moses means that your telling the Jews they have been an imaginary ghost for the past millennia, Moses lived more then 3000 years ago it's very difficult to trace the origin of a single man to prove whether he existed or no after such a long period but the legacy and the religion attributed to him proves that long ago a man by the name of Moses existed.

So what? Are you saying that Moses had to exist because otherwise the Jews ware wrong? using that logic I have to accept that Xenu exists because otherwise scientologists are wrong. I have to accept that the muslims are right when they believe in Mohammed and I have to believe that Christians are right when they believe in Jesus. I have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination and the catholic doctrine of self determination. I have to accept that the world is flat (because many people believed it for thousands of years) and that the world is round. I'd have to believe that Tom Cruise as a high level thetan can levitate himself and that he's deluded. All at the same time. Are you saying it's all true?
I'm not going to believe something because people have believed it.
And the simple fact that just because Moses is mentioned in the bible doesn't mean that he actually existed. The same way I don't think Cu Chulain existed or Robin Hood. There were stories which were passed down so that folklore became legend. Every single culture has them except with jewish culture a lot of people believe they're real.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that someone like Jesus who is celebrated to this day and age had a mental disorder otherwise the people of his time would of no

mental disorders come in all shapes and sizes. There are many people who lead very fulling lives with mental disorders. And even for those that don't it's not obvious. Firstly it's not like you can identify someone like that on sight. Secondly people back then didn't know about most of them. In Palestine at the time they believed that illnesses were caused by spirit possession. Is it too much to expect that they would assume a charismatic individual was possessed by God?

Outside of the bible there's very little verification for Jesus. Josephus wrote about him so we know he probably existed but there's next to no evidence besides that. And like I said already, if I had to accept as truth everything that a lot of people believed, my belief wouldn't make sense

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I don't understand how can this be used to prove the non-existence of god? the nature of whether god is an all loving or a vengeful is a difference argument all together that doesn't support that atheists when he tries to deny the existence of god.

If you say I have to accept that moses and jesus existed and did what they are purported to do because it's in the bible and a lot of people believed in it, then I have to accept that God likes bald men and hates children. I have to believe that anything a lot of people believe in is true because no matter how illogical it is, it must be because so many people believe it.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence?
Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Your dam certain your right based on what? this is blind faith in a nutshell, can you tell provide me with some logical/rational reasons why not to believe in a god? both the reasons I gave didn't require evidence but simple logic and rational can you do the same to support god non-existence?
Your atheism seems to arise because of your religion and your perception of a cruel god that asks you to worship him all your life, what am trying to say is that you can throw all that aside and believe in a god since it's a more logical and rational approach without following a religion or believing what's being said about him in religions an agnostic if you would like.

However you can see that as an atheist you really have no good reason not to believe in a good other then trying to exercise your person choice and freedom not to believe in one.

That isn't blind faith. It's the exact opposite. I chose not to have blind faith. By not having any faith I'm an atheist.

My atheism arose because I asked a lot of questions. I eventually went back to college where I got degrees in philosophy and maths (hence the references to Aquinas and Aristotle). It was a religious college which focused heavily on the philosophy of religion.

Even if we remove the bible from the equation and look at arguments for the existence of a God then we're left with only a few decent ones. One is the cosmological argument. that's the one you mentioned. As i stated the logic is flawed. the logic involves looking for an efficient cause and then abandoning that logic to suit the argument. Also as I stated, it's possible for an infinite regression to occur.
A nice one is the ontological argument. There's one by Descartes (Done earlier by a Muslim philosopher) and another by Anslem. You should look them up. There's problems with them though. Once again their logic goes awry. But nevertheless as religious philosophical arguments go, they're nice.

Even Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) who was a Christian philosopher stated that you could not have faith unless there was a suspension of both ethics and logic.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're absolutely spot on up until that last bit there.

And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.

People don't tend to go around looking for logical arguments as to why things don't exist. If I went around looking up evidence for every absurd claim made throughout history, I'd do nothing else until the day I die and would only scratch the surface.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore you are the one who should be backing it up with evidence. I may not have direct evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is endless evidence suggesting that he doesn't have to; which is all we can really claim without resorting to circular logic and other flawed debating tactics.

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

People don't tend to go around looking for logical arguments as to why things don't exist. If I went around looking up evidence for every absurd claim made throughout history, I'd do nothing else until the day I die and would only scratch the surface.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim, therefore you are the one who should be backing it up with evidence. I may not have direct evidence that he doesn't exist, but there is endless evidence suggesting that he doesn't have to; which is all we can really claim without resorting to circular logic and other flawed debating tactics.

Actually 0 evidence exist to proving no god is around however you said "endless evidence" which is no where near the truth only few theories have suggest that we don't need a god but not needing a god does not mean in anyway that he does not exist.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Actually 0 evidence exist to proving no god is around however you said "endless evidence" which is no where near the truth only few theories have suggest that we don't need a god but not needing a god does not mean in anyway that he does not exist.

There is also 0 evidence proving that there isn't a 16 foot sentient teapot named freddy outside my house who only I can see and communicate with, but that doesn't mean he's real.

Defender OF Faith

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

And yet not you nor anyone in this thread so far have proved to me how is logic and rational is against god you keep saying that their is no evidence but am not looking for evidence am looking for a logical argument as to why god does not exist and no one seems to find any your trying to hard to deny the truth my friend.

Bertrand Russell addresses this illogical 'logical' argument in his 'celestial teapot' analogy.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the logic of absence doesn't refer to an absence of logic. Truths are rarely absolutes anyway.

Defender OF Faith

Grayson wrote: »

Even if we remove the bible from the equation and look at arguments for the existence of a God then we're left with only a few decent ones. One is the cosmological argument. that's the one you mentioned. As i stated the logic is flawed. the logic involves looking for an efficient cause and then abandoning that logic to suit the argument. Also as I stated, it's possible for an infinite regression to occur.
A nice one is the ontological argument. There's one by Descartes (Done earlier by a Muslim philosopher) and another by Anslem. You should look them up. There's problems with them though. Once again their logic goes awry. But nevertheless as religious philosophical arguments go, they're nice.

Even Kierkegaard (one of my favorites) who was a Christian philosopher stated that you could not have faith unless there was a suspension of both ethics and logic.

Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written such books and corrupted them and a case can be made by each group whether their book have been corrupted or no but that does not mean that god does not exist
Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as,
where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?

What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written then books and corrupted them but that does not mean that god does not exist
Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as,
where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?

What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief

Translation: I can't refute your excellent points so I'm going to ignore it and shift the goalposts again

Defender OF Faith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Translation: I can't refute your excellent points so I'm going to ignore it and shift the goalposts again

I will post later refuting his points for now I just settled with a quick answer since he mentioned quite a few stuff that I would need to do some research on before I can answer.

Defender OF Faith

I had to take some time to research some of information before I presented them in my replay sorry for double quoting.

Grayson wrote: »

See, if I try to trace stuff back I can go. Why did E happen. I can look and see that it was caused by D. Then i ask why did D happen. And I go back to C. I can keep going back but when I get to a point where I don't know the answer I don't go "well God must exist". I just think there's something there I don't know. Planting in God is what is called in philosophy a skyhook". It's when you build up an argument to a point where you reach a point where there's nothing there holding it up so you create this imaginary hook out of the sky and use it to hold up the argument. That's what God is. Something that wasn't in the argument until it runs out of answers and so it's used to validate the argument.In this case the regression goes back to a certain point where it runs out and people say God. When we say what's before God, the cop out is the there's nothing before God. So the whole logic that was used to create the regression back to God is suddenly abandoned when we get to God. We go back that far because logically there HAS to be an efficient cause, but at some point it's decided that logically there doesn't have to be. And the only reason is because it support the argument for the belief in God

How does that invalidate the argument though?
Using your very own argument; once we reached C we would go further to B before finally reaching A after which you cannot go any further, since we all agree that A is the last letter in the English alphabet.
Similarly with god once you reach him you cannot go any further then that, because he's by definition the uncreated creator of everything in existence, and hence the argument does not stop because it supports the belief in god but because it would be illogical to ask the question once you have reached the final point, in this case God. that's a very logical and rational argument if you ask me
Just like asking the question what is the letter before A? the question is invalid and does not make sense.
I looked around for the concept of skyhook but I couldn't find anything related to it so maybe you used a more layman term for the actual word?

Grayson wrote: »

So what? Are you saying that Moses had to exist because otherwise the Jews ware wrong? using that logic I have to accept that Xenu exists because otherwise scientologists are wrong. I have to accept that the muslims are right when they believe in Mohammed and I have to believe that Christians are right when they believe in Jesus. I have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination and the catholic doctrine of self determination. I have to accept that the world is flat (because many people believed it for thousands of years) and that the world is round. I'd have to believe that Tom Cruise as a high level thetan can levitate himself and that he's deluded. All at the same time. Are you saying it's all true?
I'm not going to believe something because people have believed it.
And the simple fact that just because Moses is mentioned in the bible doesn't mean that he actually existed. The same way I don't think Cu Chulain existed or Robin Hood. There were stories which were passed down so that folklore became legend. Every single culture has them except with jewish culture a lot of people believe they're real.

Were do you think Judaism came from as a religion if you deny the existence of Moses? Christianity, who started it? and your not making sense by saying that you have to accept Muslims were right because you believe in Mohammed or that you have to accept the Calvinist doctrine of predetermination, what does acknowledging god have to do with any of this?
Which religion is the correct religion and which is corrupted is something that should not concern you as an atheist, and what does that have to do with whether Moses existed or not? you started this by denying the existence of Moses and digged a hole for your self which you now seem unable to leave.

Grayson wrote: »

mental disorders come in all shapes and sizes. There are many people who lead very fulling lives with mental disorders. And even for those that don't it's not obvious. Firstly it's not like you can identify someone like that on sight. Secondly people back then didn't know about most of them. In Palestine at the time they believed that illnesses were caused by spirit possession. Is it too much to expect that they would assume a charismatic individual was possessed by God?

That's a very ignorant statement your saying that the followers of Jesus and those of Moses or in fact of any prophet throughout history were unable to judge whether a person is sane or not? based on what? because you my friend said so? what makes you the mentally fit individual to judge that such individuals who had more influence in this world then any scientist or philosopher ever had were mentally retarded?
That's a very lazy way to escape the argument that such men were sincere and did receive orders and revelation from god that were corrupted over time.

Grayson wrote: »

That isn't blind faith. It's the exact opposite. I chose not to have blind faith. By not having any faith I'm an atheist.

your an atheist yet you are unable to come up with any logical and rational reason as to why god does not exist that's pretty much blind belief in a nutshell. Pascal's Wager who you should be familiar with having studied philosophy said:
"Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss"

Macavity.

http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z432/Gemini-Dragon-Gifs/8994.gif

Defender OF Faith

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

your an atheist yet you are unable to come up with any logical and rational reason as to why god does not exist that's pretty much blind belief in a nutshell.

Not believing in god or atheism is just an absence of belief, not faith in him/her not existing.

Defender OF Faith

Candie wrote: »

Not believing in god or atheism is just an absence of belief, not faith in him/her not existing.

Yes your right and am not arguing otherwise, am basically saying that the atheists mocks the believers based on the irrationality to believe in a god; while the atheist himself cannot present any logical argument on why god does not exist.
There are many arguments both rational and logical out there for the existence of a god such as the fine tuning of the universe fundamental constant, Origin of morality, the ontological argument and the one I been arguing about all this time the cosmological argument. All these are rational arguments that favour the existence of a god while on the other hand if we look at arguments that deny the existence of god there are not but very few such as Darwinism that do not deny god existence but rather imply that a god is not needed.

Doctor Jimbob

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Yes your right and am not arguing otherwise, am basically saying that the atheists mocks the believers based on the irrationality to believe in a god; while the atheist himself cannot present any logical argument on why god does not exist.
There are many arguments both rational and logical out there for the existence of a god such as the fine tuning of the universe fundamental constant, Origin of morality, the ontological argument and the one I been arguing about all this time the cosmological argument. All these are rational arguments that favour the existence of a god while on the other hand if we look at arguments that deny the existence of god there are not but very few such as Darwinism that do not deny god existence but rather imply that a god is not needed.

No, the mocking is because of your claims that circular logic contradicts established science. Plenty of people manage to be religious without ignoring facts. You'll find they tend to get mocked less. I wonder why?

Personally, I don't need to provide an argument that god doesn't exist, because it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not going to claim to be anywhere near intelligent enough to prove that there isn't a god, but the fact that there's no proof that there is one is enough for me to decide not to believe. I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe in a god, I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for it. It's that simple.

On a side note, it genuinely scares me when people equate religion and morality. It implies that without religion the person making the argument would lose their morals.

Edit: This is all getting way off topic anyway since the thread is supposedly about evolution. Do you have an opinion on that one?

looksee

Well its obvious, Creation happened because creation happened, it obviously happened or we would not be here, therefore it happened.

Chunners

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, the mocking is because of your claims that circular logic contradicts established science. Plenty of people manage to be religious without ignoring facts. You'll find they tend to get mocked less. I wonder why?

Personally, I don't need to provide an argument that god doesn't exist, because it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not going to claim to be anywhere near intelligent enough to prove that there isn't a god, but the fact that there's no proof that there is one is enough for me to decide not to believe. I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe in a god, I'm an atheist because I see no evidence for it. It's that simple.

On a side note, it genuinely scares me when people equate religion and morality. It implies that without religion the person making the argument would lose their morals.

Edit: This is all getting way off topic anyway since the thread is supposedly about evolution. Do you have an opinion on that one?

See this is why I would never describe myself as an Atheist. Belief/non belief in a God is like belief/non belief in Santa, a 4 year old will say "I believe in Santa", an 8 year old will say "I don't believe in Santa (but...)" whereas an adult will say "There is no Santa", an adult never says "I don't believe in Santa" because that always implies a "but". If believers in God can be likened to the 4 year old then most Atheists are the same as the 8 year old. On the whole Atheism is just a belief from a position of denial. For me belief has nothing to do with it, I know there is no Santa, I know there is no Tooth fairy and I know there is no God plain and simple.

Grayson

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Thanks again for your in depth answer you raised a few good points some of which I have copied into a document for future reference and as I mentioned am not arguing on the existence of god based on the Bible or other religious books people may have well written such books and corrupted them and a case can be made by each group whether their book have been corrupted or no but that does not mean that god does not exist
Instead am trying to use a more rational and a logical approach as there are also other arguments which I haven't explored due to being caught in the previous one such as,
where did our morality come from? the fine tuning or the universe and its fundamental constants do they not point toward an intelligent design?

What am trying to say is that away from religion the scriptures and everything people say about belief . Believing in the existence of god is a rational and a logical belief

Morality evolved with human society. I'm almost a relativist. I'm not about to say that murder or child abuse could be acceptable because some society accepts it. But i will say that some things are relative.

Regarding the core ethics like murder etc... we all empathise with our fellow humans. When we empathise we don't want to things we find unpleasant happen to them that we don't want happening to us. I don't want to be murdered therefore i can feel that it's wrong to murder others.
people with a lack of empathy are sometimes called psychopaths. they do not feel sorry for hurting others so the natural block that you and i have doesn't stop them from hurting/manipulating them.

Likewise if we say you hate homosexuals (not saying you do, just for argument) then you would probably think "If i were a homosexual i would hope someone would stop me". That would make it ok in your head to stop them. You would think you were doing good because you would want to be treated the same way.

The fine tuning of the universe etc is called intelligent design (which I expect you've heard of). It's been so abused from what it way. It was originally called the teleological argument or the watchmaker analogy

The basic premise is that the world works so perfectly it might have well been designed. the simple fact is that the universe could exist in any way at all, but it would still exist.

the second part of the argument generally goes, but it exists so well for us. as in, isn't it odd that the world is designed for life.

Evolution works the other way. the idea is not that the world is designed for the life in it, but rather that live evolved and adapted to fit the world. For example if the earth had a sulphur based atmosphere any life that evolved would be able to breath sulphur dioxide. You might even have intelligent sulphur based organisms saying "isn't it amazing how this sulphur based world was designed for us".

The catholic church has long accepted that evolution occurred. they accept that the world was here first and that life evolved but they say that it evolved with gods guiding hand.

this neither proves or disproves the existence of God. It simply another way of thinking about things. The catholic church use it as a way to reconcile science with religion.

yellowlabrador

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Were do you think Judaism came from as a religion if you deny the existence of Moses? Christianity, who started it?

Archaeologists have spent many decades searching for evidence of the exodus but found not a trace either in the desert, at Mount Sinai ,in Egypt or in Israel. These were Israeli teams with every intention of proving the story true. An added problem is that that whole region was under control of Egypt.

Brian Shanahan

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

The only thing I cited from Mohammed life was an authentic battle recorded in history which have happened before so option 3 is a good demonstration of your ignorance take the time to search before you replay my friend

Actually that battle is highly disputed. Where did it take place? Where are the contemporary records of it? Who fought in it? Who lead the respective armies?

At best, the qu'ran wasn't written until fifty years after the supposed life of Mohammed, and there is some strong evidence that the current version wasn't in place until largely another 100 years later, and from what little remains in existence of the original, the latter version is different in story, meaning and message to such a vast difference that you cannot say that modern islam is the same as the original (for example the qu'ranic verses inscribed in the dome of the rock in Jerusalem have no existence in the modern qu'ran, actually for a larger view of the likely invented nature of the qu'ran read In the Shadow of the Sword, which pretty much explodes the myth that islam was created out of historic events).

You have done nothing to demonstrate my option to be wrong or invalid. All you have done is made a baseless assertion, simply because you are too dishonest intellectually and too cowardly to face up to the possibility that your belief (and remember belief only occurs when you hold a view without evidence) could be wrong.

SaveOurLyric

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Yes your right and am not arguing otherwise, am basically saying that the atheists mocks the believers based on the irrationality to believe in a god; while the atheist himself cannot present any logical argument on why god does not exist.

The atheist does : a) there is no evidence, and b) he recognise the tendency of ignorant humans of the past to invent fantasies to claim to explain that which they cannot really explain.

So he no more tries or needs to present a logical argument why god does not exist than why the Easter Bunny does not exist.