JSong

@SpeedWatkins Even Hitler was a child at one point in time.

But this is clearly not true. At least all the children would be left. No child is evil. Let's be serious.

@PROMAKOS_ Which version of evolution… The blind one?

Esto deja mal a los cristianos y reproduce el peor estereotipo anticientífico. La Iglesia católica acepta la evolución como hecho científico desde Pío XII (Humani Generis 1950), Juan Pablo II la reafirma en 1996, y Francisco una vez más en 2014 (y nunca se negó oficialmente). La tradición cristiana clásica nunca leyó el Génesis como cronología científica, ya desde el principio, san Agustín en De Genesi ad litteram en el siglo V advertía explícitamente contra los cristianos que defienden interpretaciones literales frente a evidencia natural porque hacen quedar mal al cristianismo y dan pie a la burla de los incrédulos. El creacionismo como corriente es invención protestante norteamericana del siglo XX, no doctrina histórica cristiana. Y mezclar metodologías es un error categorial, la resurrección es una afirmación histórico-teológica que se sostiene por testimonio apostólico, la evolución es una explicación científica que se valida por evidencia convergente (fósil, genética, anatomía comparada, biogeografía, etc etc). Son registros distintos y confundirlos ridiculiza la fe.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Where’s the deflection?.. I gave you evidence to deal with. Somehow you believe “natural selection” is a silver bullet God destroying machine. Maybe you don’t want to admit there’s evidence of supernatural blueprint of design in nature for my argument.. maybe deep down anyway.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 See? Again, you deflect. I have done enough to support my position. I am perfectly willing to look into what you are asking, but I already have done plenty, while you have done nothing to support your position. Stop deflecting, and actually defend your position.

Complexity isn't proof of design. It's proof of evolution. We share DNA with chimpanzees, have vestigial organs, and our 'design' is full of flaws (back pain, choking risk, blind spots in vision). A perfect designer wouldn't do that. Evolution explains it perfectly.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Then you are not serious, and are just unreasonably bias. the effectiveness of Calculus is evidence against natural selection, since it's useless for survival and yet evidence for supernatural purpose because it works and points to complex design. But you are blind and don't see.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 I'm not gonna steel man anything. You keep deflecting in order to avoid having to defend your own position. I have done plenty to support my position on for example evolution by natural selection. now it's your turn to show effective methods for your own position.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 For what reason was Wigner (atheist) addressing the unreasonable effectiveness of math to formulate the laws of physics invoke? Steelman his position, so that I get you understand it's evidence of something (teleological) but you choose to reject the findings as "good" evidence.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 As long as you can provide a method that has been shown to be reliable, and you can use it for the supernatural and it can withstand scrutiny, then that is all I'm asking for. Yes, I don't accept arguments from ignorance. It's not blindness if there is no good reason at all.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 The supernatural is not physical. So what kind of evidence would you accept if not empirical? You don't even accept inference from design, or creativity, and unreasonable word soup... Supernatural blindness is real, one wouldn't recognize a miracle if it hit them in the head.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 None of those things point to a supernatural cause, you are just claiming that with no evidence. It is still an argument from ignorance. We already discussed that nature isn't timeless, useless argument. You have no evidence of that final statement. Show evidence.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 "Emergent" is just to say "magic", it's meaningless. Logic, Purpose, Necessity, Meaning, Reason etc.. all point as evidence for a supernatural cause. Timeless nature is illogical to science. It's not: We don't know therefore God. It is: God, therefore we know anything at all.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 And we are back to the argument from ignorance, "I don't understand, therefore magic." We don't know what was before the big bang, so we are looking for answers, and already have some pieces to the puzzle. Again, for the tenth time, where is your evidence for the supernatural.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Can you imagine a universe where the laws of logic wouldn't apply? There is much evidence that this universe had a beginning.. so what came before it, the same universe? who made the universities again? In the beginning __? if you don't care then don't look.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Brother... Why is your ability to write in English falling apart. Wtf is supernatural selection? Where is your evidence for this? What is your evidence of other universes, and evidence for the claim you made about the laws of logic... Is this a new level of church babble?

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Supernatural selection states that 2+2=4 is true before the universe began and without end. The laws of nature only exist as truth within physical nature, the laws logic are true in all possible universes.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Yes, the human mind can think of many things, including nonsense. That has no connection to the study of nature in science. Again, deflection from the real issue. I've put work into showing you evidence of natural selection, why can't you return the favour for the supernatural?

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Again, science is the study of nature... in which requires matter, space in time. By this logic one can think of many things, including word soup, that may in fact exist infinitely.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 There is no connection between this and evidence for the supernatural. This is just more word soup that many religiousl ppl use to distract from what is being discussed. I'm asking for evidence of the supernatural. I don't care about the opinion of some dude on Stephen Hawking.

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Information that is still being discovered that's in a time beyond physical. Matter is divisible to what? Naturalism, atomic theory fails, and mathematical theories only lead one to the quantum realm of multiverses that seem real, but cannot be proven. Certainly not simple. -

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 There being no evidence for anything supernatural? Sure, you can prove me false by providing evidence. Go ahead.

@Danish_SMF @jfgrohs does evil exist? speak of the Devil

@jfgrohs Does the devil exist?

If God can stop the Devil but won't, and everything is God's plan, then God's plan includes evil. That makes God the Devil.

@Jacke_Bee @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 There is only one creator of the universe. We can’t know him unless he makes himself known.

@Jacke_Bee @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 I like your creativity. It’s a gift from the mindlessness nothingness.

@Askwhyisit What evidence would you accept if not empirical?

A believer believes without evidence and is unable to provide evidence for the existence of his God.

@Jacke_Bee @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 That would be amazing! The god of who or what? Only knowledge itself can make itself known since mindless nothing cannot know. What is the origin of all information? .. can we even know? Why should we want to know?

@jinxca @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 You're the one claiming knowledge of the infinitely complex creator talkin' to you and your family. What if we found a bible like book on another planet but with a different god?

@Jacke_Bee @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 I can do math tho; 2+2=5

@jinxca @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 buddy can't even read or write, and he's trying to simplify the entire creation of the universe to a snappy comeback? No wonder it fell flat.

@Jacke_Bee @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 What if we found a watch like device on another planet? Can a character in a novel know the author like the author knows his creation? Is a novel complex? Is the author of said novel more complex than his creation? How can one know all there is to know if everything is finite?

@jinxca @crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 I know watchmakers. You can talk to them. They're physical. They often put their signatures into their works. You don't talk to God, you can't know Him, and He isn't physical. Not one single atom is inscribed, "This proton made by Yahqeh"

@JustinHHill @SirSicCrusader lol.. to “know nothing” is the epitome of nothing.

@jinxca @SirSicCrusader You arent putting out Philosophy, you are putting out word salads and posing them as philosophical questions. Even your Bio is a word salad.

the bible is true because it says the bible is true because it says the bible is true because it says the bible is true because it says...

@crimschris @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 That is a truth claim. Prove it using science.. I’ll wait.

@jinxca @Danish_SMF @moejoeryzen72 Truth is not a physical thing, again, this is a distraction. Religious people always trail of into words game/word soup when the facts don't align with their religion. I'm not gonna waste my time on that. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, there is the real issue.