What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Oh, thanks. As I was writing a previous post, I ran across this dilemma:If God does not exist, our reason and sense of right and wrong are suspect. We are using our reason and conscience, which was supposed to have come authoritatively from God, to prove that God does not exist. If God DID exist, our reason and conscience would tell us he did not exist. However, if God does not exist, our reason and conscience tell us nothing for certain.

This guy sounds like a Marxist.

I think I've examined it sufficiently. Neither are grounded.

True, but "Christian evolutionism" is an oxymoron.

VV's remark was a comment on the human condition, comparable to saying something like "All men have souls."

I didn't just assert it. I provided a solid argument.

That's like saying, because I believe the sky is green, your argument that the sky is blue is thereby refuted.

What on earth are you talking about? I'm directly on the topic.

OK, let's look at these statements. You will notice that there is a difference between your first statement and your third statement. This is correct. Now notice the third statement: Do you notice a difference? I do: you went from "rules out a creator" to "rules out a belief in a creator."I say evolution rules out a creator: I do not say it rules out a "belief in a creator." Anybody can believe anything, Jar. I can believe the sky is green if I like.My view is that the belief in Christianity and in evolution at the same time is illogical, whether you and 100 million Catholics believe it or not.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-16-2006 05:37 PM

You never know. Somebody might. I'm not sure about this "belief"/"fact" disjunction you've got going. Obviously if I believe something I think it's a fact; otherwise I wouldn't believe it. So I BELIEVE it is a FACT that evolution rules out God.What we do on this board is build arguments and counter-arguments. I have built an argument and it's up to you or somebody else who does not believe it to refute it by building their own argument, not by saying, "Well, I believe in both Christianity and evolution, and therefore you are refuted." That's not an argument.

I'm glad you are amused. I like to amuse people. However, my definition of the word "fact" is "that which is true."So what I was saying was that I believe it is true that evolution rules out God. I'm not sure how that supports your position. It seems to be in direct contradiction to it. You haven't presented any support yet. You can start, if you like, by refuting my points in message #163 of this thread.

You call that an argument? I'm saying that God does not exist--I'm not offering any "ifs" here--and I'm saying that evolution proves it. See my specific points in message #163.

I don't think I do, but you can explain how you know that, if you like.

At least you were willing to say that I did have an arguments of sorts. Most just said I made an assertion.My argument is summed up in message #163. It does contain a dilemma however, which I discussed a little later. If they don't, we can know nothing.

Since I find masturbation, mental or otherwise, rather delightful, I will continue.My own view, which as Paulk says, is "close-minded," and about which,, as Jar says, "nobody cares," can be summed up as follows:There is a certain traditional morality that is, I think, widespread. According to this morality, we must not do harm to others unjustifiably. There are all sorts of disagreements about what is justifiable harm and what is not, but there is not much disagreement with the view that IF the harm we do to another is in fact unjustifiable, then it is evil.The question is whether the process of evolution can be justified morally. The God we are speaking of is supposed to be all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing. When we look at how life has evolved, we note that in order for some creatures to survive, they have to kill and eat other creatures. This does not seem very nice. One might say that what happens to animals doesn't matter, but pain is pain no matter what sort of creature feels it. On the assumption that some animals do feel physical pain just as we do, then harm has been done to such animals as have been killed by others. These animals have been tortured and murdered. But the animals who have performed these acts are not reponsible for their actions because they do not, we assume, understand our traditional morality. The responsibility for their actions rest not with the animals but with He who made them.Is such harm that animals have done to other animals justifiable? It could only be justified if evolution was the only possible way that life could have developed. If so, we could build the case that life is worth that pain.But the only action that this God of Western tradition cannot perform (excepting immoral actions)is an action that is self-contradictory. God cannot make a round square. Since this is the case, special creation would have to be a round square, something impossible for God to perform. But if this God can create the universe, it must be possible for Him to create things within this universe--things like lions and tigers and bears.So evolution is morally unjustifiable. But this God can do nothing which is morally unjustifiable, being all-good. So he doesn't exist.ed: typos.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-18-2006 12:40 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-18-2006 12:43 PM