What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

I don't see how you can ever prove that 'God' does not exist. However, it definately can be shown that certain ideas about what God is believed to have been done have been effectively ruled out by any reasonable person.You might be able to rule out literalist versions of god, but the concept of 'god' in general, nope. There will always be unknowns, and God will always lurk there.

It's becoming clear that nobody can actually defend a position on this subject. Neither can you. It's nothing but a battle of assertions on both sides. So I shall make my assertion again:Robin Rohan has a remarkably rational mind for an infidel. It's fun to read his stuff. He has ascertained LOGICALLY that evolution and Bible believing Christianity are mutually contradictory. (This isn't about "science" at all, only evolution.) The idea of a good God can't be reconciled with a suffering creation. I think that's a brilliant point of his. My own argument focuses on the literal reading of Genesis 1-11 of course, and there's no way to reconcile that with evolution. How anyone could argue with that I don't know but the case is obvious so the argument has to be irrational. Tch tch, just another irrational statement. Evolution, not science. OE, not science. Yes, he believes in evolution. Yes, he believes there is no God. Well Paul, this whole thing is just a war of assertions, haven't you noticed? That's all this post of yours is too. This is rational, that is irrational etc. Some of it has been proved, but what's amazing is that even the proofs are ignored. So in the end it's just a war of sensibilities. There's no arguing that really.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 08:57 AM

Sorry Faith...it was late.I did an Alpha course on the way to becoming a believer and the folk who led my group remind me now that a repeated phrase of mine during the bible discussion part of the evening was "Hey that makes sense" and "that fits". Within the closed system of the course it all fit. Now if someone had asked me at that time (outside the closed system of the course) whether I believed the fossil evidence proved evolution I would have said "yes". God was working away however, revealing truths whilst sidestepping the need for me to reconcile all beliefs that I had at the same time. The closed system eventually spread to become the whole.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. His holding that evolution is true at one and the same time is irrelevant at this point. That can evaporate in the mist when the time comes. If it comes.ps: I linked it elsewhere but you (and Robin) may find this site useful. There are a good number of audio lectures on the whole area of apologetics which discuss very many of the self-same views we encounter hereBethinking.org - making sense of the big questions about life - bethinking.orgRight, back to the totally secular, post-modern St.Paddys Day. My better half just had the idea that we should enter a float in next years parade. Splendid idea. Remind folk about what St Patricks day is about and all that.

quote:

---

Again, Jar, my friend, I'm not saying you're being wilfully ignorant, but I've posted a number of Biblical prophecies over the years which you've rejected as such.

---

And, over the years, you've never been able, when pressed on the details, to provide anything that convinced anyone who wasn't already a believer.Surely, this would give a rational person pause.

You TOOK an Alpha course yourself before you were a believer then?Thanks for the observations. Much clearer. One can hope.I looked at the site briefly. I'll look again.And thanks for the reminder of St Patrick's Day. Sometimes people make a big thing about how it's supposedly a Catholic Day. But St Patrick was a Christian evangelist and it's good to celebrate him.

quote:

---

Robin Rohan has a remarkably rational mind for an infidel.

---

His logic is flawed.This was explained up thread.It was even expressed in formal terms by somebody, and it was shown to be faulty.Perhaps you wouldn't mind converting Robin's logical progression in formal terms and explain how no leaps are made.

Just another assertion Schraf. It's all just assertions.People even give illogical logical proofs. It's remarkable.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 09:11 AM

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.

If it is assertion that you won't mind doing what I asked.Please convert robin's statements to a formal logical progression.

Come on now.You are making an assertion it is all assertions. When people show you the logical progression, you just deny it, and say 'it is all assertions'.Surely you can do better than that.

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.

No, he has not.Robin has frequently asserted that logic shows they are mutually contradictory. However, when challenged, he has failed to produce the logical arguments that would show this. There is also no way to reconcile it with physics, with geology, or with ordinary common sense.

quote:

---

You are making an assertion it is all assertions. When people show you the logical progression, you just deny it, and say 'it is all assertions'.

​

Surely you can do better than that.

---

Prediction:Faith will somehow blame the evolution supporters for her inability to produce the formal logic of robin's position.

The time of my conversion is a bit fuzzy as to sequence of events. As I recollect, I read a pamphlet one night that my mam had given me years previously, called "Why Jesus?" I prayed the prayer at the end and the next morning was wondering what this sense of peace was which glimmered in amongst the usual stomach-churning turmoil. It seemed to encapsulate the notion that "Everything is going to be all right" I didn't really associate it with God at the time. I think it wasn't long afterwards that I went on the Alpha. (My mam knew folk in the church I went to and was on tenderhooks the whole time with the reports back. Occasionally, I would miss an evening due to my work and my mams heart would fall "He's lost interest " she would think, in doubt, to herself)The folk running the course who became friends later told me afterwards that they knew in me that they had struck a gusher. I couldn't get enough. When the final dinner was held on the last evening of Alpha I remember being heartbroken at it all ending. I wanted it to go on forever. This fascinating God, these great people who didn't cut and snipe - and I had to back to life as it was before?? I didn't want to go back."Well we're starting a bible study on Tuesday next. Would you like to come?"Would I what!

But we believe ordinary common sense should allow for a supernatural ID creator to do supernatural stuff, not being limited to the perameters of physics as finite and fallible humans understand their limited (abe: physics concepts.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-17-2006 09:42 AM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW