1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo=================================
It is unfair to a vast majority of troubled ,unhappy people to say that they require God because they feel neglected. Why,even the most cared for,wealthy,healthy, highly scientific/logical, stern Darwinists, know-all atheists also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God. ...[text shortened]... what was written in Christian Scriptures about Creation. That is not sufficient to disprove God.
The thirst for understanding in the human mind just cannot stop at Darwinistic theory of Evolution. Darwin explained very convincingly how life evolved and dealt a death blow to what was written in Christian Scriptures about Creation. That is not sufficient to disprove God
=====================================
I agree with your post.
However, Darwin, by far did not deal a "death blow" to the Christian Scriptures.
It could be argued that Darwin confirmed some concepts of the Christian Scriptures. Both Genesis and Darwinism see a ascension of life from lower to "higher" with mankind being on the top of the scale.
Darwins sees a gradiation due to TIME. The book of Genesis speaks of a gradiation due to a MIND and a DESIGN.
I think both Genesis and Darwinism would agree that there is nothing quite like the existence of MAN on this planet. Nothing else LIVING can compete or compare with MAN. Whether by big time or by a big mind, man is at the top of the pyramid. There is nothing else quite as specialized as man on the planet.
Chimps may look something like man. And dolphins may be real smart. And ants and termites may display a social organization. But there is still NO rival to human beings on the planet.
Darwinism and Genesis share this unique view of man. In the Bible's case, all other things were made by God with no reference to His image and likeness. Therefore the Bible identifies specifically this characteristic which sets man apart from all other creations.
"Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ... So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created Him; male and female He created them." (See Genesis 1:26,27) .
In some way, unlike all the rest of the monkeys, donkeys, eagles, dolphins, tigers, cattle, etc. man resembles God, man looks like God (arguably either physically or metaphysically). Though man shares creaturehood with all other animals, he ALONE bears the stamp of the Uncreated Divine Person.
Darwinist recognize man at the top of the pyramid of created living things on earth. And the Bible says quite plainly and up front - Man should remind us of God Himself. God counciled a special session with the creation of man unlike His creation of anything else. He consulted in a kind of council and said "Let Us create man in Our image, according to Our likeness".
With no other beings did God speak in that specialized way. So Darwinism at least confirms this specialty and uniqueness of human beings.
With Darwin, the most recent display of the accidental "skill" of Evolution is Humanity. With the Bible, the arrival at the climax of God's creating is humanity.
A Darwinist can certainly also be a Christian.
Now here's another thought. Moses (traditionally sited as the author of Genesis) spoke in considerable technical detail latter in the Pentateuch. On matters of the measurements of the tabernacle, materials used, shape, design, construction, etc. Moses wrote in great detail. It is obvious to me that no sloppy person could have written Exodus or Leviticus. Details of the priesthood of the Hebrews in thier offerings, regulations, ordinances, procedures, sacrifices, etc. were covered with much minute technical specificity.
So I ask "Why could Moses not have done so in writng of the creation of the world ?"
It seems that the writer's intention was not to pen down an exhaustive description of how God created the world. Judging from the authors ability to cover technical details, he could have spent perhaps three volumes just on the nature of dirt or water alone.
So what we have must be a general and somewhat poetic explanation of origin of the universe, life and man. It is an ADAQUATE summary for multiple generations of reading human beings. It is not an exhaustive technical explanation.
I think Moses wrote down what God somehow revealed to him. No man was there to witness anything prior to Adam's creation. Part of Genesis chapters 1 through 3 could have been oral tradition passed down from Adam. That is either what was given to Adam by revelation or/and what the first human couple knew about thier own origin and that of their environment.
If anyone read down this far, thanks. I'll stop here.
Originally posted by jaywillOne thing with the above I think is wrong is the following: "Moses (traditionally sited as the author of Genesis)..."
[b]=================================
The thirst for understanding in the human mind just cannot stop at Darwinistic theory of Evolution. Darwin explained very convincingly how life evolved and dealt a death blow to what was written in Christian Scriptures about Creation. That is not sufficient to disprove God
=====================================
...[text shortened]... their environment.
If anyone read down this far, thanks. I'll stop here.[/b]
Yes, traditionally. This, however, doesn't mean that Moses really was the author of the Genesis. I don't even think it is without any doubt that he invented the stories. He wasn't there when it happened, so someone must have invented the story, right?
So we shouldn't think it is the Truth that Moses really did write the stories, as being the Divine Truth.
The rest of what you write is just interpretations, and it is all good to me. There are other interpretations too, and yours is one.
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Darwinists, know-all atheist also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God. ...” (spelling corrected)
It is unfair to a vast majority of troubled ,unhappy people to say that they require God because they feel neglected. Why,even the most cared for,wealthy,healthy, highly scientific/logical, stern Darwinists, know-all atheists also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God. ...[text shortened]... what was written in Christian Scriptures about Creation. That is not sufficient to disprove God.
obsoletely none of that assertion is true. And part of it is a contradiction; how can somebody “cry out” for something that, by definition, he knows doesn't exists?
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas==================================================
One thing with the above I think is wrong is the following: "Moses (traditionally sited as the author of Genesis)..."
Yes, traditionally. This, however, doesn't mean that Moses really was the author of the Genesis. I don't even think it is without any doubt that he invented the stories. He wasn't there when it happened, so someone must have invented th etations, and it is all good to me. There are other interpretations too, and yours is one.
One thing with the above I think is wrong is the following: "Moses (traditionally sited as the author of Genesis)..."
=======================================
This is probably an issue of Old Testament textural criticism. I have no problem believing Moses as the author of the Five Books of Moses.
Some traditional beliefs are true beliefs. Scholars much closer to the time of writing then you and I ascertained the writings as those of Moses.
Why should I jump on the band wagon of some fresh faced Johnny Come Lately eager to publish his doctoral thesis that he or she knows better that Moses was not the author ? Seminaries are briming with folks eager to sell a catchy new theory.
=================================
Yes, traditionally. This, however, doesn't mean that Moses really was the author of the Genesis. I don't even think it is without any doubt that he invented the stories. He wasn't there when it happened, so someone must have invented the story, right?
===================================
Let me have a motive. Why do you think Moses would concoct an imaginary record like Genesis - Exodus - Leviticus - Numbers- Deutoronomy ?
To make himself look good ?
To make Israel look like the greatest nation that ever existed ?
To justify the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews ?
I think whatever reason you might imagine would be the motive for a concocted fictional series of histories as seen in these books would not hold up under careful scrutiny.
I think you would introduce more puzzles then you would solve.
How come you skeptics always believe someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes ?
How about God arranging for a book to be written that simply communicates to the world He made and loves some vital facts about His plan and what things happened for and against His plan ?
Why the constant suspicion ? So I am to believe that the one who fictiously put into God's mouth "You shall not bear false witness" was himself doing so while he was writing the very words ??
Come on.
Suspose someone said "Wow. This is BIG. I mean this is REALLY important. I want to pen this down for future generations to see. This is really major. I mean God is revealing some things to me, of all people."
Impossible ? There MUST BE another angle? There most be a conspiracy to hoodwink the world - concocted stories, fables, fiction ?
Maybe, your projecting ? Maybe you look within yourself and realize " I am kind of a tricky fella come to think of it. I bet someone is trying to trick ME the way I can trick others."
You know the man who is a pick pocket is the one who knows how easy it is to do it. And he's the one most concerned that someone will pick his pocket.
"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man."
Maybe your conspiracy suspicions are just a reflection of your own way of doing things ? Maybe, you know how easy it is to hoodwink someone, so your scared someone is trying to hoodwink you in the writing of the Bible.
Anyway, my decision to accept the Bible came gradually. I gradually decided that Jesus Christ's integrity was beyond reproach. And He took the OT seriously. So I decided that if it was good enough for Jesus Christ it must be good.
I trust it. Sorry you cannot yet.
===================================
So we shouldn't think it is the Truth that Moses really did write the stories, as being the Divine Truth.
===================================
Something is going on with this Bible.
One writing - Genesis. Take the first 11 or so chapters. In no other document that I can think of do you have so many vital pieces of information about the world.
Let's consider. In how many few words from Genesis 1 through 11 or so you have a record of:
1.) The beginning of Time
2.) The origin of matter.
3.) The origin of space.
4.) The origin of life.
5.) The foundation for a seven day week.
6.) The orgin of man.
7.) The most important facts about the design of man.
8.) The origin of Human history.
9.) The origin of the institution of marriage.
10). The first man.
11.) The first woman.
12.) The origin of man's alienation from God.
13.) The purpose for man's creation.
14.) The first murder.
15.) The origin of nomadic life.
16.) The origin of industry.
17.) The origin of musical performance.
18.) The orign of agriculture.
18.) The first man made religion
19.) The first promise of divine salvation
20.) The record of the decline of human society
21.) The record of first universal divine judgment
22.) The record of first rescue FROM divine judgment.
23.) The origin of human government
24.) The origin of the spread of humanity over the globe.
Now there may be some ancient books which touch on this or that same theme. But in Genesis you have economically few words to cover all of these crucial topics in the first 11 chapters of ONE BOOK.
Have you ever thought about this ?
Man between TWO sources of existence - one represented by the tree of life and the other represented by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Think about the produndity of that for a moment. This is much deeper than Pandora's Box.
This is not man between a tree of good and a tree of evil. No, you have not GOOD VERSES EVIL. But you have LIFE verses the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.
This one story, when I really think about it, persuades me that whoever wrote such a matter transcends human wisdom and imagination. Good and evil on one tree set in opposition to the tree of life.
This is too profound to me. The knowledge of good and evil verses the eternal life.
No Fabian. I have become convinced that we are dealing with God communicating with mankind. This, I believe, is a book on the reaching out of a divine Creator to His creatures - a communication FROM God to Man, divinely inspired, penned by imperfect men, yet "breathed" by the Divine Mind of God.
I'm persuaded.
========================
The rest of what you write is just interpretations, and it is all good to me. There are other interpretations too, and yours is one.
========================
My interpretations are not infallible.
Still I think the Bible is the communication of God to man. And whoever imagined the character of Jesus Christ, we better find such a person. And we better get such a visionary to write a few thousand more short stories. That's because whatever imagination invented a Person like Jesus Christ is for sure the wisest and best human being whoever thought up anything.
As it stands I think the Gospels are not imaginary. And I think Christ is too good to not be true. I don't think mankind WOULD invent a charachter like Jesus even if man was able to do so.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYour comments are very long. I don't anser every one of them, but I will concentrate to the Moses thing.
[b]==================================================
One thing with the above I think is wrong is the following: "Moses (traditionally sited as the author of Genesis)..."
=======================================
This is probably an issue of Old Testament textural criticism. I have no problem believing Moses as the author of the Five Books o nd WOULD invent a charachter like Jesus even if man was able to do so.[/b]
Some traditional facts are true, some are false. One fact that was believed in those biblical times was that the sun is revolvoing around Earth. That one is false. For them was the Sun just a big lamp giving us light on the day. More than that was not known. Genesis hinted that sun was created at it's place after the Earth was made. That's false as we know today. So Genesis was written as how Life, Universe and Everything was thought of in those days.
The author(s) wrote Genesis in 3rd person. Nothing was told in 1st person. Nothing of the type "And when I (the author) saw the garde of Eden, as I entered.." This shows that the author(s) wasn't present when things happened. He wasn't there. He wrote down the stories that people traditionned. Exactly like the Edda scriptures by Snorre Sturlasson. Snorre wasn't there himself, he just wrote down the stories. As the Aauthor(s) of Genesis did.
How do we know that it really was Moses? Have some research been conducted? Or do we just believe that the tradition was true?
Remember that I don't criticize of any other reason that I want to learn. Your words are as good as mine.
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnas====================================
Your comments are very long. I don't anser every one of them, but I will concentrate to the Moses thing.
Some traditional facts are true, some are false. One fact that was believed in those biblical times was that the sun is revolvoing around Earth. That one is false. For them was the Sun just a big lamp giving us light on the day. More than that was n n't criticize of any other reason that I want to learn. Your words are as good as mine.
One fact that was believed in those biblical times was that the sun is revolvoing around Earth.
==================================
I think this is a kind of silly complaint to be honest. In one sense the sun goes up and the sun goes down. Today we still speak of "sun rise" and "sundown". So what is the smugness with which we condemn practical perceptions of long ago ?
Does the sun NOT appear to come up, go across the sky, go down, and then come up again in the place where it "rose" before ? Is that NOT true, on one level of perception ?
It was not practically necessary that ancient people possess knowledge that is common to today's school children. The farmer knew how he or she had to work with the behavior of the sun. The traveler had to know how to anticipate the behavior of the sun appropriate to thier level of culture.
=============================
That one is false. For them was the Sun just a big lamp giving us light on the day.
==============================
Is it not true, on one level that the sun goes around the earth ? I think on one level of perception it is practically true that it goes around the earth.
Is it not true that the sun acts as a big "lamp" in the sky ? Does the sun not function as a big lamp in the sky ?
I cannot think of any passage that speaks as the sun being a lamp. Maybe it is there. But I do not agree with you that this perception of the sun's function is not true. On one level of practicality it is true.
I do not expect the book of Psalms to elaborate on the nature of quasars and black holes. Technology did not know of these things. And they had no practical use.
Did the ancients have to worry about cell phones and satellites ?
Did Albert Einstien's knowledge of General Relativity help him be faithful to his first wife, whom he ditched ?
In making a major issue out of the ancient's perception of the nature of the sun, I think you have misplaced priorities to man's spiritual problems.
Consider the things which God knows which we will not know for another perhaps 300 years. He does not chide us because our limited knowledge of how His universe works may be added to in the future.
==========================
More than that was not known. Genesis hinted that sun was created at it's place after the Earth was made.
===========================
That is not necessarily true. The Hebrew word for light in Genesis 1:3 is not the same word for light in verse 14. The Hebrew word in verse 14 for the fourth day lights is better translated "light-bearers"
We might understand this to mean that Moses saw a diffuse light on the first day the source of which he could not detect - "And God said, Let there be light" But on the fourth day the diffuse light was more clearly seen in specific light-bearers" or light holders.
In could be that in his visions he saw a diffuse light first which was pervasive and general like sheet lightning. Then on the fourth day the atmosphere cleared and he noticed specific orbs of light sources - light-bearers - the sun, the moon and the stars.
His record indicates that such light bearers were MADE on the fourth day. It may not be that God CREATED the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day. It may be that in them being made God caused them to appear.
"And God made two great light-bearers, the greater to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars." (v. 16) .
There exists other passages on God's creating in other places of the Bible. And some indicate that first God stretched forth the heavens before He laid the foundation of the earth:
"The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus says Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundation of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him." (Zechariah 12:1)
This verse on creation shows the heavens being stretched out before the formation of the earth. Stretching forth the heavens could mean not only the space but the light objects in the heavens such as sun, moon and stars.
In this passage God made the heavens for the earth. Then God made the earth for man. Then God formed a spirit within man that man may be for God. The heavens are for the earth. The earth is for man. And man has a spiritual nature so that he may contact God the Spirit.
We see a similar sequence in Isaiah 44:24:
"Thus says Jehovah ... Who alone stretches out the heavens, Who spread out the earth (Who was with Me?)"
We might interpret this to mean that God stretched forth the space of the universe first and then prepared the planet earth afterwards.
I don't think we have to insist on a Bible teaching that God made the sun, moon, and stars only after He made the earth. I would not insist that this is the only possible interpretation of the biblical texts.
==========================
That's false as we know today. So Genesis was written as how Life, Universe and Everything was thought of in those days.
============================
I don't think any scientific discovery has made Genesis factually wrong.
=================================
The author(s) wrote Genesis in 3rd person. Nothing was told in 1st person.
==================================
So what ? This quotation is in first person - "And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness" (1:26)
I don't see your point yet. And I question the validity of the absence of any first person speaking in Genesis 1 - 3.
"And Jehovah God said, Behold the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever ..." (3:22)
Isn't that first person speaking from God?
======================
Nothing of the type "And when I (the author) saw the garde of Eden, as I entered.."
==========================
I don't think that is a conclusive point indicating the falsity of the record.
======================================
This shows that the author(s) wasn't present when things happened.
======================================
That does not prove that it could not have been made known to the author by divine revelation.
======================
He wasn't there. He wrote down the stories that people traditionned. Exactly like the Edda scriptures by Snorre Sturlasson. Snorre wasn't there himself, he just wrote down the stories. As the Aauthor(s) of Genesis did.
==============================
God was there. And God knows all the facts. And there exists no other creation story in the world that I know of which has God creating space, time, and matter from OUTSIDE of and prior to the existence of ANYTHING.
All other creation stories, if you examine them, speak of a deity making the world from WITHIN the world.
In the Bible God obviously calls into being that which had no being.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
That is God prior to TIME created its BEGINNING.
God created SPACE in His creating the HEAVENS.
And God created MATTER in His creating earth.
God is the transcendent, self existing, ever existing First Causee of the existence of space, time, and matter.
I don't think you can match that concept with any other ancient creation mythology.
In the Bible God is the God "who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Romans 4:17)
He is therefore not only the source of life and resurrection from the dead. He is also the one who calls that which has no being into being. He is the ground of being.
No human being was there in the creation of the universe. We can only understand it by trust in the revelation of God in its ultimate sense. We may study with our science tools as much as we can. But ultimately we were not there to observe this event.
So the Bible says "By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
God knows all the facts and has communicated with us in His word. I am all for science. I hope they smash the particles more and more until we discover the mechanics of subatomic entitites.
But ultimately we know God created all things only through our trust in His revelation to man. By faith we comprehend that regardless of the particular technicalities, God is the supernatural source of the universe.
And this is not just the Christian view. The founder of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow, the man who held the Edwin Hubble director's chair at the Mount Wilson observatory, a confessed agnostic, has written this:
"Now we see how the astonomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of energy and light."
" Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover .... That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDear Andrew Hamilton,
“...Darwinists, know-all atheist also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God. ...” (spelling corrected)
obsoletely none of that assertion is true. And part of it is a contradiction; how can somebody “cry out” for something that, by definition, he knows doesn't exists?
There are two spelling mistakes in your own message.The first one is "obsoletely" and the second one is"exists".These need to be"absolutely" and"exist".
I also wonder whether you can offer any reasoned arguments about your points of view or simply declare others to be wrong?
Human thoughts are basically a mix of rational ideas and non-rational feelings.It is entirely possible for a Logician to feel emotions which may be contrary to his logically held views. This happens everyday.No need to call it a contradiction and reject it.
Originally posted by jaywillDear Jaywill,
[b]=================================
The thirst for understanding in the human mind just cannot stop at Darwinistic theory of Evolution. Darwin explained very convincingly how life evolved and dealt a death blow to what was written in Christian Scriptures about Creation. That is not sufficient to disprove God
=====================================
...[text shortened]... othing else LIVING can compete or compare with MAN. Whether by big time---- I'll stop here.[/b]
Absolutely in agreement with you regarding the Design involved in the evolution of Man. Or in case of every Living Being actually.Take the the three simple cases like the human baby being mostly born with its head being first exposed to the world.It is obvious that this position makes it easy for the new born to immediately breathe in air. Or the the fact that new born babies do not have their skull bones closed over the top of head,which closure takes place after some time cutting down unnecessarily larger amount of "Womb Time".A case of fast track project management if I ever saw. Or the case of growing teeth.Teeth will grow only after the baby starts taking in solid food including larger amount of Calcium than mother's milk can give. Darwinistic theory may find it hard to explain these points.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoYou got him bang to rights on the spelling thing. But he's got you on your silly, silly generalizations/assertions about atheists. I'm speaking as a theist here. Just so you know. Cheers. Happy New Year.
Dear Andrew Hamilton,
There are two spelling mistakes in your own message.
2 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo=========================================
Dear Jaywill,
Absolutely in agreement with you regarding the Design involved in the evolution of Man. Or in case of every Living Being actually.Take the the three simple cases like the human baby being mostly born with its head being first exposed to the world.It is obvious that this position makes it easy for the new born to immediately breathe in air. ium than mother's milk can give. Darwinistic theory may find it hard to explain these points.
Dear Jaywill,
Absolutely in agreement with you regarding the Design involved in the evolution of Man. Or in case of every Living Being actually.Take the the three simple cases like the human baby being mostly born with its head being first exposed to the world.It is obvious that this position makes it easy for the new born to immediately breathe in air. Or the the fact that new born babies do not have their skull bones closed over the top of head,which closure takes place after some time cutting down unnecessarily larger amount of "Womb Time".A case of fast track project management if I ever saw. Or the case of growing teeth.Teeth will grow only after the baby starts taking in solid food including larger amount of Calcium than mother's milk can give. Darwinistic theory may find it hard to explain these points.
===================================
That's real good insight rvsakhadeo.
I don't know HOW naturalistic and random Darwinism will survive the accumating evidence for intelligent design as we move into the 21rst Century. I just don't think it will be able to hold up.
Crying "Separation of church and state" in the US, I don't think, will be sufficient to stop thinking people from realizing that intelligent design makes better sense then Darwinist gradual accidental improvement.
That does not mean to me that all and every manner of creation science will prevail. But truth will prevail.
Did you derive these insights on human birth from some source I can visit online?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo"Why,even the most cared for,wealthy,healthy, highly scientific/logical, stern Darwinists, know-all atheists also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God."
Dear John W Booth,
Where did I make silly generalisations about atheists ? Are you mistaking me for some other contributor ?
5 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Dear Andrew Hamilton,
Dear Andrew Hamilton,
There are two spelling mistakes in your own message.The first one is "obsoletely" and the second one is"exists".These need to be"absolutely" and"exist".
I also wonder whether you can offer any reasoned arguments about your points of view or simply declare others to be wrong?
Human thoughts are basically a mix of rational ideas and ...[text shortened]... ally held views. This happens everyday.No need to call it a contradiction and reject it.
There are two spelling mistakes in your own message.The first one is "obsoletely" and the second one is"exists".These need to be"absolutely" and"exist". ...”
I am officially dyslexic. This does not effect my logic.
Incidentally, I could point out that Your punctuation is faulty in your post because you are failing to put a full-stop between the end of your sentences and the letter of the next sentence. You did that three times with: “...message.The...” and "”...feelings.It ...” and ”...everyday.No ...”.
“...I also wonder whether you can offer any reasoned arguments about your points of view or simply declare others to be wrong? ...”
what “reasonable argument” is needed to prove that it is not the case that I “feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God “ 😛
I KNOW how I feel! 😛 I KNOW what I comprehend! I KNOW my own beliefs 😛 therefore, I can KNOW that it is NOT the case that I “feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God “ 😛 It is an empirical fact (by introspection) that the above is not the case AND that I don't believe there is a god therefore it is an empirical fact (by introspection) that your assertion is FALSE. And why would it have to be true?
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill“...That's real good insight rvsakhadeo. ...”
[b]=========================================
Dear Jaywill,
Absolutely in agreement with you regarding the Design involved in the evolution of Man. Or in case of every Living Being actually.Take the the three simple cases like the human baby being mostly born with its head being first exposed to the world.It is obvious that this position makes it ea
Did you derive these insights on human birth from some source I can visit online?[/b]
no it isn't. Evolution explains all of the babies characteristics of development because, obviously, advantageous characteristics would general be selected by natural selection.
“...I don't know HOW naturalistic and random Darwinism will survive the accumulating evidence for intelligent design ...” (spelling corrected)
there is no “ evidence for intelligent design”. I challenge you to give me an “example” and I will gladly debunk it using logic.
Originally posted by John W BoothWell rvsakhadeo ?
"Why,even the most cared for,wealthy,healthy, highly scientific/logical, stern Darwinists, know-all atheists also feel lonely, lost,without any clear understanding of Life and Reality,also feel a twinge in their hearts and cry out for God."
Isn't this an assertion that is without “reasoned arguments about your points of view” (your own words to me) ?
How do you know that your claim is true? What is the argument you use to support it? Is this an example of “
Human thoughts are basically a mix of rational ideas and non-rational feelings. “ (your own words to me) ?