What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

quote:

---

I think it has something to do with a great sea change over the last few decades in the zeitgeist or the philosophical culture we live in. It's something like Robin thinks more like a modernist and most everybody else here thinks like a postmodernist.

---

That is utter nonsense. I can't think of anyone who is endorsing post-modernism with relation to Robin's arguments. I certainly wouldn't endorse it at all.

quote:

---

What he's saying would have been recognized by an earlier generation, perhaps disputed, but at least recognized as logical propositions and not regarded as lacking sense as you all read it.

---

It HAS been challenged - and Robin isn't really able to do a good job of defending his claims. That's why most of us disagree. Robin doesn't really have a good case at all.

quote:

---

To my mind most of you seem capable of imagining absolute absurdities as refutations of his propositions. I don't see how communication is even possible any more.

---

If your imagination is too limited to effectively participate in these arguments - which is what you are essentially claiming - then you are free to withdraw.e

So according to your own source post-mdoernism involves: Well that's ironic because you're calling people post-modernists FOR applying critical thinking. This suffers from the same flaw.
How about this, from the same article: This is where I completely part company with post-modernism. The success of science is because it works. While the other factors may have an effect - people being people - the scientific method is a powerful means of overcoming them. And that is why I do not consider your religious beliefs about the history of the Earth to be on a par with the discoveries of science, let alone above them.Equally the truths of logic are necessary truths, and they are not sociallty constructed either.So on the relevant points I am not a post-modernist. If anything you and Robin are closer to that position, in insisting that something that seems obvious to you should be accepted as true - and even logical - on those grounds alone. Only a post-modernist could consider such a position to be valid.

But I'm not eliminating objective judgements. In objective terms "it seems obvious to me" is just a subjective opinion. That is an objective fact. You are attacking people for recognising the distinction between objective facts and your subjective opinions. And that's another objective fact.Your problem is not that your opponents lack standards - it is that they DO have standards. And "it seems obvious to me" falls frmly into the "bad stuff" side.

quote:

---

What a puzzle. A nihilist who believes in evolution has all the evos on his case while the Biblical fundamentalists are his fans (Iano
and me).

---

There's no puzzle at all. Robin Rohan, like you, has a closed mind and refuses to accept any possible reconciliation between Christianity and science, even though he cannot defend his position. Why should it be a puzzle that people clinging stubbornly to the same error should agree ? Thus the connection between your views is not rationality, but a shared irrationality.Even worse for your case your position of placing your personal beliefs above sicnce is not rational and is not shared with Robin. Thus there is no basis for any claim that Biblical Fundamentalism is rational on the basis of this discussion - even without considering the internal irrationality of fundamentalism. That you should make such a claim is irrational in itself, and thus the very assertion is self-defeating.

This thread is about evidence that DISPROVES God. According to Robin the evidence is good enough that a rational person should reject the idea that God exists. So really you should be arguing on the same side as Jar, that the evidence is NOT good enough.This hread is not about evidence FOR God. Thus the claim to have such evidence is off-topic. And claiming to have evidence that you refuse to produce is against the forum rules anyway. Especially when you don't have such evidence - which is the case here. W

You are wrong to state that I cannot defend my position on the compatibility of Christianity and evolution. Since Robin was unable to successfully rebut my arguments I have successfully defended my position.You are wrong to label a statement based on direct observation as "irrational".Both evolution and an Old Earth are scientific conclusions. To say otherwise is to deny the facts. Which further demonstrates that your position is irrational.And finally if this is a war of assertions it is because that is how you and Robin choose to argue. Having failed ot make your case you simply repeat your assertions as if they had not been successfully rebutted.

quote:

---

Point being, that Robins grasping of the rational with respect to, for instance, Gods foreknowing the fall not affecting Adams ability to chose, is something (if persistant EvC refusal to grasp it is anything to go by) which would appear to require Gods illumination to get.

---

I think that this is a great example of the shared irrationality I referred to. It is simply not that Robin's claim is in the slightest bit difficult to grasp. The problem with it is that it is a strawman.Thus at best it represents a failure to grasp the argument it is supposedly responding to. Hardly evidence of rationality.

You've demonmstrated your closed mind by your reliance on repeating assertions that have been shown to be indefensible. So yes, I know that your mind is closed because you've proved it.