davien:
Let's say we don't know how eyes came to be...does the ignorance of a subject give merit to the idea of "god"?...or is it a label to mask ignorance?...because if I asked how "god" did it,you'd have no answer.
And point of correction the eyes are flawed...ask an optician what floaters are and you'll realise one design flaw after the other..

davien:
Let's say we don't know how eyes came to be...does the ignorance of a subject give merit to the idea of "god"?...or is it a label to mask ignorance?...because if I asked how "god" did it,you'd have no answer.
And point of correction the eyes are flawed...ask an optician what floaters are and you'll realise one design flaw after the other..
Perhaps our ignorance of black holes should be answered by "god did it" too,would it solve anything?...or just provide a label to mask ignorance?

Emmalot121:
If you can't answer it, then that means there is still possibility of God doing it. In fact, it is impossible that something as sophisticated as human eyes was done through evolution.

Emmalot121:
Atheism and science can't go together.

davien:
If one cannot identify a "god",then how can one attribute things to a "god"?
If you cannot identify that a tooth fairy exists,then how can you attribute tooth missing from pillows as its handiwork?
And on the grounds of evolution,i'll ask you a very simple set of questions of which the first one is this..were all the present forms of life created with their various features necessary for their survival?

Emmalot121:
Have you seen why I said atheism and science can't go together? If Newton didn't reason that for objects to fall, a force must be pulling it towards itself, where in the world would the priceless knowledge of gravity and its laws come from? Apply this to what we are discussing.

davien:
This is a straw man...they are both secular and the former is just a lack of belief in "god/gods" which is something science cannot objectively verify or even hypothesis to exist also...

davien:
Forces were identified before things were attributed to forces...and the knowledge of gravity and its laws are general statements that are true under certain conditions(i.e presence of mass or a false vacuum)...you have no case emmalot121.
You are just making one empty assertion after the other.

Emmalot121:
Atheism is faith, can you prove the nonexistence of God? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Atheists hope that God doesn't exist though you can't prove his nonexistence. You hope afterlife doesn't exist though you aren't sure it doesn't. Back your faith, before critiquing that of others.

Emmalot121:
The same way the complexity of life was identified before attributing it to God. Tell me, can an unintelligent process create this masterpiece?

Longstride:

[color=#000099][font=times new roman][b][i]
An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design.

Organisms have features that are suboptimal.

Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

davien:
Nice equivocation fallacy....using the bibles definition of faith to lie is a mighty feat for a christian...isn't the verse hebrews 11:1?
It is not my duty to prove the non-existence of "god" because it has never been proven,only labelled on things(evident by this entire thread).
And by your definition you have faith allah doesn't exist because you can't prove it does...
So perhaps you should stop and think clearly before painting yourself into a corner..

Emmalot121:
These are pointless and baseless. The complexity of the eyes I think should bother us more than how we wished it to be. Even if these are actually defects, it should rather amaze you how its still possible we can see, even with these perceived 'defects'.

Emmalot121:
I have the proof of God's existence

davien:
Is it demonstrable?

davien:
Nice equivocation fallacy....using the bibles definition of faith to lie is a mighty feat for a christian...isn't the verse hebrews 11:1?
It is not my duty to prove the non-existence of "god" because it has never been proven,only labelled on things(evident by this entire thread).
And by your definition you have faith allah doesn't exist because you can't prove it does...
So perhaps you should stop and think clearly before painting yourself into a corner..

Emmalot121:
These are pointless and baseless.

The complexity of the eyes I think should bother us more than how we wished it to be. Even if these are actually defects, it should rather amaze you how its still possible we can see, even with these perceived 'defects'.

Longstride:


prove it, otherwise this is an empty statement.
I can as well say that I am Yahweh...or that I live on mars.





our seeing doesn't change the fact that it's suboptimal...maybe you should look up the word.
A dog with three legs can still walk ...doesn't mean it has no defect.

Emmalot121:
I will resist every attempt to make simple a structure as complex as the human eye.

How did nature device the human eye, with 'defects'

Emmalot121:
Atheists argue that life popped out of nothing, therefore God is not needed in the equation. They are quick at using M and B word. They say Earth is billions of years old and man is millions of years old and evolved from tiny organisms. They have refused to give us detailed reasons why it took so long and every process man took, if possible catalyze the whole process, subsequently giving us a human being.
Let me use the experiment that Galileo Galilei used to stun the entire world of science; the experiment that every object falls at same rate when air resistance is absent. To do this, we have to pump out the air to give us a vacuum (though logic tells us the vacuum is something, the absence of air molecules gives us a perfect example of nothing since we are only concerned about the air molecules and its emptiness.)
Through this experiment, we see that for nothing(absence of air molecules) to exist, something must have triggered it. What if we want to get our air molecules back(a very important component of life itself)? Should we wait for a few days, months, years or centuries for air molecules to pop out of nothing? A sane mind will realise that something can't come out of nothing but nothing can come out of something. This proof singlehandedly shows that the genesis of the 'faith' of atheists is shaky.
Since its now being proofed that life started from something and not nothing (even nothing must come from something,) we can then try to highlight the properties and characteristics this something must possess:
1) Must be called God because everything was created by him because without him was anything made that was made.
2) He must be infinite because he is infinity, he came from infinity, therefore he has no source, neither can he have an end because he is infinite.
3) He must be all powerful and infinitely intelligent. The works of his hands are sufficient proof.
4) He must possess properties beyond normal, properties beyond our wisdom e.g an invisible Spirit. People will wish to argue this one but Hebrews 11:3 says: Through faith, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that "things which are seen are not made of things which do appear". This applies to everything in the universe, including you and this knowledge is applied in the making of televisions and phones.

davien:
Your premises go against the fundamentals of thermodynamics....energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
A vacuum still contains vacuum energy and quantum flunctuations which allows something to virtually come from nothing...this increases with phenomena at the planck length...which we can detect the universe had originally been at such a state.
And your entire post reeks of a goal...hence the "must be called god","him",etc so make a cogent post and stop special pleading for "god"..

davien:
Your premises go against the fundamentals of thermodynamics....energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
A vacuum still contains vacuum energy and quantum flunctuations which allows something to virtually come from nothing...this increases with phenomena at the planck length...which we can detect the universe had originally been at such a state.
And your entire post reeks of a goal...hence the "must be called god","him",etc so make a cogent post and stop special pleading for "god"..

Emmalot121:
I used vacuum in order to derive nothing. Vacuum and nothing are two different things, vacuum is the absence of air molecules, nothing is the act of nonexistence. We also have to know that we can't use any test to test whether nothing did start the universe, since we need to use something to bring out nothing. All we can use is logic.

davien:
Good...so at what point in time was there ever a non-existence?...

Emmalot121:
This is what I was trying to say, the world started from something and not nothing, nonexistence couldn't start our world, this something is God.