What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

That doesn't make sense. The capacity for sin is perfect?I don't know, I personally would rather have robots that sinning freethinkers.Saying everything is perfect in the beginning is one hell of a way to deal with the fact that everything's far from perfect now.Genesis is just apologetics for reality. It basically argues; "no, no, reality isn't real, because this story explains it all".Yet any story can explain it all and still be vacuous.Never thought I'd agree with Dan. Sure seems easy nowadays though.

Hah! Quite silly of me, well spottedYou're a smart guy, Dan. Don't tell anybody I said so though.

I fail to see how anything is necessary to God.We are the most destructive, evil and selfish species on the planet. I find it hard to swallow, that God could create us, when he could foresee the mass atrocities we have partaken in.Yet look at nature. It is indifferent, and is based on killing or being killed, and always has been. Don't tell me that Trex was a cud chewer.What I do know is that it's much more of a good thing, if God had peaceful robots, rather than creating the bazillion slaughtered of war as a result of human evil.In this regard, I fail to understand GenesisGod and struggle to believe he would be intelligent enough to be the creator of this universe.

I think Chiroptera infact makes a correct and vital observation in regards to propositions in logic. IMHO, he stated a fact, therefore there is no issue....You still have to prove why a proposition is a truism, but generally, premisses are vacuous unless they are shown to have credence and backing. IOW, show us why it is self-evident, when it is not self evident to us.Genesis is just a house of cards, as I call it. Just apologetics in regards to the present state of things. flimsy because even though it's a house, a breeze will blow it down. That breeze being evidence to the contrary.Example; Prophet observes that lions have eaten people; so he comes up with an answer, that animals used to be friendly. Just an apologetic for his version of God.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-14-2006 10:03 AM

I merely favour the most likely explanation, in regards to the evidence.I infact CONCLUDE that the prophet of Genesis was trying to explain why his god let lions kill, rather than answering the reality of why lions actually kill.The fact that lions are designed by evolution, to kill and eat meat, means that the ludicrous proposition of cud-chewing lions, deserves no attention because of the contrary evidence.The neutral logical and scientific explanation, will give the correct answer because it doesn't seek to be an apologetic, it merely seeks to find out the facts.

That's not true Phat.All my posts in this thread have referred to the literalist genesisgod.Why is it that people assume that if I say something bad about a book called the bible, then I'm attacking God? I'm not. I'm attacking Genesis and the literalist position. Forgive me. I haven't read the Rohan's posts. I just seen the recent posts, rather than what the topic was about. You know how it is; you see something juicy so you respond. It's a fair point. But don't forget, I WAS a literalist at this board for three years, and am guilty of literalism even more than Faith. So on that note maybe I shouldn't be the one to attack Faith or any literalists. Although I do reserve the right to explain why I don't take that position.P.S. I ENJOY EVERYONE'S VIEWS AS THEY PROVIDE ME WITH DEBATE INFORMATION. I LIKE FAITH AND KING ROHAN, AND ENJOY THEIR POSTS AND I ONLY ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE.