When in Rome

Originally posted by josephw
Ya, but what's the cause? .

1. You make an assertion.
2. It is proved wrong.
3. You make another assertion.

Why not STOP, digest the information, then reply cogently?

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, so theoretically, it is predictable ..

No. My understanding of Chaos Theory is that there is
no degree of accuracy that can determine future
events. It has nothing to do with quantum effects.

Originally posted by josephw
I think you guys miss the meaning of what it means when one asks if order can come from chaos. The idea is that nothing comes from nothing, not something from nothing unless it is created.

I think it is you that is trying to change the meaning.
checkbaiter said that order is not likely to come from chaos. He is clearly wrong.
Your claim that something does not come from nothing is hardly equivalent.

You need to learn to really think outside the box. You're way too literal. Think spiritually.
In other words disregard the meaning of words and try to pretend you are making sense?

Originally posted by josephw
Not logically flawed.

I showed you a number of logical errors in your argument. If you dispute what I said, then please point out where. Merely repeating the claim doesn't make you right.

I ended were I started with this simple statement; "all that exists is the evidence for a creator God".
Which is not true. I have explained to you why it is not true. Repeating it wont make it true.

All you're doing in reply is to obfuscate and make contradictory claims.
No, I have explained where you were wrong and why.

I haven't lost the debate, and no one else has won the debate by proving the statement I made to be wrong.
I did prove it to be wrong. That you have chosen to ignore what I said, or misunderstand it, does not negate the fact that the proof is there for all to see.

The appeal is to reason not logic.
Then why did you try to use logic?

Since science, or logic, or any other knowledge at man's disposal can determine the reason for the existence of the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what exists is the evidence for a creator God.
I assume you meant 'cannot'. And no, that is not a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Its a cop out.

The alternative is to walk blindly through the fog stumbling into the proverbial ditch.
Wearing glasses with a photo on the inside of the lens doesn't make you any less blind than a man with solid black glasses. It just makes you delusional.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
No. My understanding of Chaos Theory is that there is
no degree of accuracy that can determine future
events. It has nothing to do with quantum effects.

Actually that's not quite accurate. Its more a case of the accuracy having to be extremely accurate such that it may not be feasible for a given situation. But as long as the system is deterministic, an accuracy capable of predicting the result will always exist. (assuming the laws of physics are continuous.)

Originally posted by twhitehead

In other words disregard the meaning of words and try to pretend you are making sense?

No. Why not try to understand the meaning of what the words are used for instead of manipulating them to mean what you want them to mean to support your own agenda?

You still haven't proved that the statement that "all that exists is the evidence for a creator God" is wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
No. Why not try to understand the meaning of what the words are used for instead of manipulating them to mean what you want them to mean to support your own agenda?

But manipulating for your own agenda is what you did. Someone else posted the claim, using clear, well understood words. You then announced that they mean something completely different.

You still haven't proved that the statement that "all that exists is the evidence for a creator God" is wrong.
Yes, I have. For A to be evidence of B, there has to be a good reason to think that the existence of A suggests B. I have shown that your reasoning that lead you to the suggestion of B from A is flawed therefore you cannot rightly take A as evidence for B.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But manipulating for your own agenda is what you did. Someone else posted the claim, using clear, well understood words. You then announced that they mean something completely different.

[b]You still haven't proved that the statement that "all that exists is the evidence for a creator God" is wrong.
Yes, I have. For A to be evidence of B, there ha ...[text shortened]... u to the suggestion of B from A is flawed therefore you cannot rightly take A as evidence for B.[/b]

It's the missing premise. (I'm not re-entering this thread; just passing by.)

Originally posted by josephw
I think that from now on I'll use the atheist methods of debate.

I'm not going to be nicer than Jesus anymore. 😛

Hi Joseph, what do you mean by this topic title "When in Rome" ?
Do you mean, visiting Rome may get people to a different understanding of the church? Best greetings

Originally posted by Flower04
Hi Joseph, what do you mean by this topic title "When in Rome" ?
Do you mean, visiting Rome may get people to a different understanding of the church? Best greetings

It was for levity. Hi Barb! Good to hear from you again.