Ann Coulter on the Clinton Fear Factor

Well, there is a standard among these fora that if something's existence is so patently clear, and so plainly evident, then there should be absolutely no difficulty in trotting that "thing" out for us all to see.

So, where is He gunga, this God to which you refer?
Where is the evidence that, because something these things are so complex, God created them?

You are correct in asserting that the Masarati engine is complex, but we can look to the Maserati deveolpment team when it comes to the design theory behind it, the engineers and the technicians in the construction of it, and the drivers who have experienced it.

What you are doing is classic creationist garbage....because I can't explain it, then God must have created it. Because evolutionary biology still has some holes in it, creation wins by default. No apologies are extended to your side for failing to hold yourselves to the same standard you hold evolutionists to....but you're never about fairness, creationists are about pointing out flaws in others' arguments and declaring a quick victory.

What you are failing to acknowledge, as many creationists tend to do, is that individuals are undertaking the monumental task of explaining, in factual terms, supported by evidence, how we came into existence.

As a creationist and as a Christian, you are relying on "evidence" that no court in the land would uphold. You have nothing more than a book to support your thesis, no more than hearsay evidence, and nothing tangible that proves that God exists. If I discover a mangled tree growing in the forest and I can not understand how the branches got to be so intertwined because of the complexity and number of branches it has, I don't immediately conclude that God made it that way.

As science begins to explain more and more about the world, things that have long been maintained by Christians as fact, your mypoic and simplistic worldview just begins to look more and more silly. Remember a time when planets and stars were looked upon as Gods? How crazy was that?

If there is in fact a God, you should have no difficulty in showing Him to me....and not a metaphorical Him. All I ask is proof, not a hypothesis, and not metaphor.

Those who do not believe the 9/11 conspiracy theorists stand on one simple pillar: Show me the evidence...if there are mountains of it, this should be a simple task.

If it really is that obvious that there is a God, you should have no difficulty in showing Him to me...my digestive tract is complex, but it is not evidence of God's existence. My eye is complex, but it is not evidence that God exists--much in the same way the "bursts" that appeared on the floors below the collapse of the WTC's are evidence of something going on, but not necessarily of bombs being planted on those floors.

It's just God I'm asking for gunga. If he exists, and is omnipresent, then this should be a cake walk. If he in fact created all this, there should be ample proof of it.

Candidone
I don't want to get into a religious argument here but I see many anti religious people demanding absolute proof of the existence of God (touch, smell, see, talk to). I don't agree with everything Spendus says. As a matter of fact I disagree with most of what he says. But if you are going to demand absolute proof of Gods existence than how about applying the same standards to the scientific theories. Prove that there really was a big bang. I have heard scientist after scientist talk about the Big Bang but the proofs they give have to be taken on faith. In other words I have to take them at their word. Why is it O K to believe in science on faith but not in religion? Now before you jump on me as a religious nut I do believe in the study of science and I can tie it to religion. If there is a higher being with the power attributed to God than He could have created the universe however He wanted too, even the way scientists say it was done.

I do hold science to the same standard. The Big Bang is stated as a theory. There will likely never be any conclusive proof of its actual occurance....but the big bang theory and evolutionary biology are not the same thing.

There is evidence that evolution is occurring and is continuing to occur. Evolution, IMO, stand independently from the BIg Bang. One need not commit to one in order to support the other.

I am merely saying that scientists have provided evidence of evolutionary processes, which are in direct contradiction with any Christian precepts. They are rountinely hypothesizing, testing their hypotheses, and either concluding or retesting based on their results. Christianity has done very little...in fact, they will steadfastly maintain the veracity of thier doctrine in light of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Carbon dating of fossils...of fossil life forms, contradict the "age of the earth" question laid out in the Christian doctrine.

I don't believe science will ever provide absolute proof, but, I credit the discipline for trying, testing, and admitting if and where they err. I have a great deal of respect for the methodologies of science, and very little for the stagnant and untestable theories and hypotheses of Christianity.

Finding answers is difficult....coping with death and other grim realities is difficult. Being religious is like being a dope smoking gamer--it permits you to accept everything at below face value without ever needing to think about, rationalize or explain it. There are answers to some very difficult questions....and if God is the correct answer, I just need a bit of proof, followed by a brief explanation that is grounded in reality.

The problem you are describing is one facet of what is called the 'problem of evil' in the world.

Other views on the same problem include: how does an omnipotent and loving God allow the hardships which we see in our physical world; if the son of god actually came to this world 2000 years ago, how did the American Indians go 1500 years without ever hearing about it? How does an omnipotent and loving God create the creatures of Pandora's box, biting flies, mosquitos, ticks, fleas, chiggers, and disease vectors?

There are a few others. All such questions basically hang on the question of what the word "omnipotent" is supposed to mean. Most people view it as meaning "having all the power which anybody could imagine", and it is that definition which leads to conundrums and breakdowns of logic. A more rational definition would be "having all the power that there actually is", and THAT definition does not lead to conundrums.

I believe the problem is basically one of communications.

Suppose for a moment that Oinksama binLaden were to blow off an emf bomb over Germany and take Germany totally off the air and that the problem persisted for several weeks:

Would you be the first one to proclaim, after about two weeks, that no only does Germany not exist but that Germany NEVER existed and is a total figment of the imaginations of people who write history books??

I'm not talking about Jesus gunga...I'm talking about God.

If Jesus lived, which I'm sure he did, and if Jesus performed the miracles they say he did, which I'm doubtful he performed, then your analogy is fitting.
But I am not talking about Jesus. I am talking about God.

If, as you say, a rational definition of omnipotent is having all the power there is, then it would be, as I have mentioned, an elementary task to give a brutha just a peek, so to speak. :wink:

Now, I don't mind those who have faith in (a) God...I just have difficulty with those who actually believe there is a metaphysical or physical entity who exists beyond space and time called "God".

There's nothing in the bible about 'existing beyond time and space', Jesus and 'God' are basically the same thing, and you did not answer the question.

Would you wait two weeks, three weeks, or what exactly with no word before proclaiming that Germany did not exist, or would you be the one to never make such a proclamation?

Candidone
You wouldn't accept any proofs for religion or a God. Your reasoning is circular. The Big Bang theory is science just as the evolutionary theory is science. The proof for both is way over my head. If I accept either one of these sciences than I would have to do so on faith, accepting the word of someone I consider an expert. You don't just demand proof, you insinuate that anyone who believes in God is stupid. Believing or not Believing in something is everyones right. But making fun of someones beliefs isn't something that a good person does. Religion helps many people through life. Looking at it in that light wouldn't you agree that for some people religion is a good thing. Its O K to debate the right and wrong of religion without getting personal.

It would be nice if someone could prove that Ann Coulter exists.

I mean really exists beyond the shell of a human being that she appears to be.

Actually, it would be nice if she didn't.

Can you PROVE your existence?
Or are you just a computer program somewhere?

Descartes already did it.

Two questions:

Where does one go to learn to be a hate monger?

What breed is the puppy in the avatar?

A2K daily moment of highest irony:


gungadinsnake implies someone (else) is a hatemonger

no ****...