The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Doug Shaver]

I also like the quote that says something like, Man does not reject God's existence because of a lack of evidence but because of the implications that would follow if he does exist.

And as we all know, man is so uncompromisingly committed to logic that he would never just ignore those implications.

[Charles]

I also like the quote that says something like, Man does not reject God's existence because of a lack of evidence but because of the implications that would follow if he does exist.

The evidence for this is where? Or do you like to believe it without evidence?

[Charles]

No gods, no masters...

Or no god, no justification for 9/11, no god, no terror, no god, no religious war, no god, no smiling Jeff Sessions fooling the blind to believe separating children from their parents is right?

[Mountain Man]

Before I answer your question, try answering mine: Why is it morally wrong to drive faster than the posted speed limit?

This is not a question about consequences, so saying "because it could endanger others" is not an acceptable answer. Suppose for the sake of argument that you are an expert driver, that you're the only person on a stretch of road for miles, and you have sufficient visibility to see any obstacle imaginable long before it poses any kind of problem. Why, even in that scenario, is speeding morally wrong?

No response, carpe?

[Mountain Man]

And as we all know, man is so uncompromisingly committed to logic that he would never just ignore those implications.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but I'm not getting your point.

[Charles]

No response, carpe?

Perhaps Carpe decided to give no response since you raised the question in order to avoid responding to his question. I don't know if this is the case, it could be. At least we know you asked the question instead of answering his question which was:

OK - so let's test this position of yours. Why is homosexuality morally wrong?

No response, MM?

[Mountain Man]

The evidence for this is where?

Theology, philosophy, history, science... God's hand and signature is literally everywhere in the universe and easily found by those with open hearts and minds, but as Isaiah prophesied, there are those who will ever see but never perceive, ever hear but never understand.

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps Carpe decided to give no response since you raised the question in order to avoid responding to his question. I don't know if this is the case, it could be.

I was joking. I assume he simply hasn't seen my post or had time to respond. It was a reference to a dig he took at me earlier.

Or maybe he realized he can't answer my question without falling into the trap he thought he was laying for me.

[Charles]

Theology, philosophy, history, science... God's hand and signature is literally everywhere in the universe and easily found by those with open hearts and minds, but as Isaiah prophesied, there are those who will ever see but never perceive, ever hear but never understand.

Ok, so your evidence is just a claim and a refence to "everywhere" and then a prophecy. I think you may have failed to understand what evidence means if this is the best you can come up with.

If you study theology, philosophy, history and science you will realise the evidence points in more than one direction. But perhaps I am only seeing both sides of the story because I do not have the "open heart and mind" you talk about? A little ironic isn't it?

[Charles]

Or maybe he realized he can't answer my question without falling into the trap he thought he was laying for me.

The fact that you have not already answered and need to do all of this empty talk instead of actually responding shows that you have already fallen into the trap.

You have already lost the option to say that you have got a good, strong and convincing answer ready to provide to anyone when asked. We already know your answer is going to be half bad (if we ever get an answer) and we know that you also know it. If not you would not spend so much time trying to aviod the question.

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28679[/ATTACH]

"Yip yip yip yip!"

Your "Big Dog and Me-Too" routine wore thin a long time ago, Chuck.

[Charles]

Your "Big Dog and Me-Too" routine wore thin a long time ago, Chuck.

It is interesting that you will rather make an obvious fallacy than try to argue in favour of your case.

[Sparko]

Your "Big Dog and Me-Too" routine wore thin a long time ago, Chuck.

[Doug Shaver]

I assume you're being sarcastic, but I'm not getting your point.

The point is that nobody has to disbelieve in God just because of what his existence implies. For people who don't like the consequences you speak of, it is just as easy to deny that God's existence implies them.

[Tassman]

Tass, the Bible both Old and New Testament calls homosexual behavior sin. Now, we were speaking of Christians and what they believe. So like I said, if a Christian says that homosexuality is not sin he have will have to reject Scripture.

The majority of Christians disagree with your rigid, literal interpretation of scripture re the evils of homosexuality.

BTW Christ said nothing about rape or child molesting either - so?