Intelligent Design

Right, it's human nature to be curious and discover. When someone says says "Don't _____" then you may likely do it because you're curious. I'm not sure what you mean by "dismiss certain images ... don't fit our logic". But I agree that a creator cannot be proven nor disproven. However, a creator can be shown to exist with evidence. Some don't understand that evidence is not always proof. An example: Footprints in the sand are evidence humans walked along the beach. However, the prints could also have been made by a plastic foot shaped impression.

click here - Check out what nearly all Jewish scholars say about Genesis: it is not a literal account. Interestingly enough, the majority of Christian scholars say the same thing - the account is not literal.

Genesis and evolutionary science are not necessarily contradictory: they only contradict if you take Genesis literally, which seems to be a mistake.

That's not the only argument by which evil can inspire atheistic thought. In my own case, it's more like "there is evil, therefore to hell with god".

Saying that we cannot know God's purpose, or that my grandparents were blessed for having survived, or that all their relatives who were killed were blessed by God for their sacrifice -- that's all rationalized crap to me, and it has absolutely not a shred of persuasive merit in terms of my obligation to God.

Thats not what Im saying at all. Dont replace my words with what you assume, youre turning down Strawman alley.... Lets get back on the road

Some times i think ive fallen down a rabbit hole and im talking to the mad hatter..someone wake me up..am i really trying to be logical with a creationist..I know he knows his talking like the mad hatter but we still carry on with the charade...more tarts more tarts..the knave is on fire...

I would just assume that most of those scholars that you are referencing are more liberal then conservative. They tend to interpret the Bible much different then conservatives. They are targeting a larger audience and it doing so I would assume propogate their ideas more so then conservatives. I find it no surprise that your views lead you to assuming that most Christian scholars say the account is not literal.

I don't propose to assume that everything is as clear as it appears and every theory has is objections.I know i am not as well educated or well read as you but i have a well used sense of logic. You appear to play with words to hide your true objectives and your true beliefs.I ask how many days and you argue over why i assume hours, i ask why god rests and you answer to give man a day off work..I see a man who does not want to debate only play shadow boxing.I see a fundamentalist intent on hiding behind a screen of reasonable ignorance. You tell me why god made his rules of nature and then by magic ignores them, is he a creator or a magician?

You seem to think as though evil is Gods fault.

If he created the universe, then it IS his fault...

So, if I design a computer am I accountable if someone chooses to use it to look up porn?

Blaming a deity whilst it may allow some displacement is probably not entirely accurate.

Choosing not to consider a consciousness above our own, perhaps should not be undertaken based on there being evil in the world.

If he created the universe, then it IS his fault...

Am I?

Ok so then if all of the "flaws" that you mention did not exist as well as any others that you didn't then you would default to a God?

If you are only arguing about religious conceptions of God, then you can ignore the following comment.

. . . I have yet to hear about a monotheistic religion that thinks of God as an imperfect creator.

What most people think has seldom been a good judge of the nature of reality.

I wonder, how do you discuss the reality of medicine? Do you waste time fighting the claims and practices of witch doctors and voodoo believers?

I only commented because of your seeming outrage over a creator that is imperfect.

You seem mad at religion's God concept while you yourself point out how little sense the concept makes.

If it makes no sense, why not expand parameters and work to fashion an intelligent model for discussion?

I'm mad when I hear my grandparents talk about how religious they were before their entire families were murdered. I'm mad when I hear about how my grandmother hid in the wall saying the shema (the holiest Jewish prayer) in the Lodz ghetto the day she was sent to Auschwitz. I'm mad when I hear about how my great-grandfather, a rabbi, starved to death because the Nazis allowed so few rations that he gave all his food to his children. That's the price God asks for salvation? What is this some sadistic practical joke?

Only if you created the user too. God didn't only create the world -- he created humans, he created all possibilities, and he created a human mind that has the capacity for carnage.

What is the measure of accuracy?

It's no less logical than an act of evil. And besides, who has really chosen to believe in God because of logic anyway?

So then, do you view power as a way to control?

I guess my point was that blaming God, or the perception of God, as the cause of starving children and oppression may well be comfortable, but the most likely probability is that we are responsible, and we have the power.

Determining there is no God based on evil is illogical.

It's a determination of whether or not belief is worthwhile in the absence of absolute knowledge.

Once again i see two sides of the debate but it does not progress..it struggles to even understand each others opinions and two months two years it will still be the same..When we remove the idea that a creator is in any way benevolent we might just come to start looking to see what he he might be..

I am going to have to get a raincheck on responding to all others for now.




You said you have a good sense of logic so why do you not take me up on my proposition from earlier:
[INDENT]"I want you to type up what you believe your strongest theory (A theory being that which is not observable and directly testable with human eyes- something like: the universe exploded from a single point) is and detail is as much as you like but be sure to support it with all the observable and testable data that you believe is needed to support your argument. So you would give me experiments that scientists have done to suggest belief in such a theory.

For example if I asked you to prove that an apple seed will grow an apple tree what I would refer to as testable data is documentation of an apple seed being planted and over time and with observation is noted that it grows into an apple tree.

Now what I then plan to do is use the observable and testable data that you presented and offer up another theory. If your data is exclusive enough to knock out my theory then you have won. Though if my theory fits within your data then you could start by removing the title of 'mad hatter'. If successful, what I will have shown is that specifically with this theory of yours and the data you have provided that there are 2 equally balanced theories and that neither is better supported then the other as you will have to agree with or admit that your data was not conclusive enough. If the latter then I will ask you to provide more data and this time not leave any out. After that I will again attempt to fit my theory within your data. If it fits then again your theory is no better then my theory.

Do you agree with this mode of debate to come to an agreeable conclusion? If so then precede."

[/INDENT]I think I have presented a very logical way to show the logicality of yours and my theories side by side. I would assume you say that your theory is logical and that mine is not? Please continue by offering your logic.