Problem is, Buz, they don't even realize they have a soul.
That is the kind of pitying, parochial crap that doesn't endear you to an atheist. Problem is, Dr. Sing, you don't even realize you have a patronizing attitude.
They'd want to physically behold it to know for sure.....
To know for sure? How about to know at all?
When people disconnect themselves with their spiritual inner man, they become too acquainted with the material man.... And within such a worldview, life is pre-occupied with accuracy, numbers, and evidence (among other things)....
Ouch! Evidence. I didn't realize till just now how unreasonably demanding I was being. And might I ask, to what standard are we judging accuracy: "comportment with reality", by any chance?
Us: "A world wide flood 4350 years ago would leave unmistakable evidence in every back yard every where in the world. Every 5 year old with a Tonka bulldozer would have dug up evidence of it and proudly announced "Look Mummy, the flood layer.'"
Ya'l: "If the good Lord left evidence of the flood we'd have no choice to believe and that would sacrifice our free will. And anyway, there's tons of evidence, look at the Grand Canyon."
souls and spirits belong in fairly tales....
Thanks, I'm going to quote mine you with this. "And over in the
Forum Name Change thread Dr. Sing admitted that souls are fairy tales. Or should I pin it down that accurately? No; "over at
EvC " will do. Wouldn't want anyone accusing me of being too accurate.
and it becomes ever harder to convince....No matter how logical and authentic an argument is provided, it will be bushed off as inaccurate or irrelevant to their worldview....
Or just plain ol' wrong. 2+2 is 4 regardless of worldview. It is your nebulous worldview that allows you to equate wishes with reality. Neither having solid edges allows you to pretend they somewheres overlap. Atheist glasses allow us to see that they don't.
You're right. To produce something (let alone a complex something) out of nothing isn't logical.
IOW: "Logic is defined by my understanding."
Its the like the story where a little kid asks his dad "what is under the universe, daddy?" and the dad tells him that a big, strong elephant is there holding the universe on its back. Next day he asks him what's under the big, strong elephant, and the dad tells him...well, another elephant...and the dad keeps stacking imaginary elephants in serial order under the universe.......but does that answer the kid's question? Nope.
I don't understand. Why would the dad's making up mystical things not explain the Universe? I mean: the dad could tell him that the world was made by a powerful being who lifted the it up out of the sea. Then made all the bunnies and flowers from dirt. Then made people to give them all names. You're right, I'm being stupid. Who'd believe that?
All he's got down to now is the bottommost elephant but he still needs to know whats under THAT elephant.....it goes on and on....If the question has a legitimate answer, it is that there has always been that last elephant and that one need not be supported by another one...he's independent.
So, who created the creator?
Logic provides a simple answer to a complicated question.
IOW: "Logic is my understanding."
If God does not qualify for the first uncaused causative agent,
For something to "qualify" it first has to exist, don't you think. Atheists don't say "God, who clearly exists, doesn't qualify at a creator because of this, that and the other attribute."
then we're left to choose from eternal matter, or eternal time, or the illogical get-something-out-of-nothing option.
No, We're left with time and energy coming out of an observable something for nothing (casimir effect). (Not overly accurate, but who'd want that?)
Of course, matter is not eternal....and if we went on and on and on travelling towards eternity we would NEVER know or have a starting point, so that's a logical contradiction right there, and so all we're left with is a illogical rut to own up.
What? Your straw man produces a logical contradiction. Who'd have ever guessed that out come? Simply baffling.
Which somehow is more appealing than the possibility of God when the entire universe contains such a high degree of complexity, order, and design...
It's not a matter of "appealing". Seventy-two virgins appeals more to most of us assuming they don't have to stay that way but reality isn't a matter of what we'd like it to be.
That's good but not good enough, I guess. I don't think that would suffice the evolutionists.
That being right thing that the evolutionists are always on about rears its ugly head again, Jeez!
They'd accept the Biblical account if it were testable, falsifiable and reproducible. And the Biblical Genesis account does not conform. But this does not destroy its credibility in any way.
IOW: "There is no evidence."
Like you said, there is logic and some physical evidence to back it up.
IOW: "There is some evidence."
But ultimately, I think it all goes to back to whether or nor you allow supernatural to exist in your dictionary.
IOW: "There is no evidence."
If you willingly kick it out, then you end up accepting equally abstract and more inexplicably bizzare theories like big bang and biopoesis... which involve concepts like singularities which defy our current understanding but are our favored resort...etc etc. Unfathomable.
IOW: "I don't understand their evidence so I'll discount it."
The rationale is that there is no basis to prove God. Therefore, a complete acceptance of the Biblical record relies on faith.
IOW: "There is no evidence."
Granted, it has overwhelming supporting evidence and that really is enough
IOW: "There is much evidence."
but again a scientific theory needs to be liable to testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility.
IOW: "There is no evidence."
So when evolution conforms to the scientific method somewhat better than creation
Some what better? I know that dissecting an argument line by line is not the best form but you keep saying the most blatantly stupid thing line by line.
why would they believe in God? After all, isn't accuracy what they're after? And why would they listen if I told them? So the best stance I can take is to question their theory. If they are open, they will see the flaws. If not............
You told; we listened. We told; you ignored. It's the nature of religion.
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct formating.
Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.
You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
