http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm


It's already been thrashed about elsewhere and I'm getting ready to jump in as soon as I feel like typing a response out. I, however, felt that I would give you an opportunity to respond here.

Well, I'm not going too deep into it as I'm a bit tired, but the first mistake I'm noticing is that the guy thinks we'd be perfect after endless years of evolution. False. Evolution is not about creating the perfect being. It has absolutely nothing to do with that. Evolution is about creating an equillibrium with the environment.

In his second step, he says that the world cannot live without cause and that that cause is God. He also says God exists without cause. If God can exist without cause, earth can as well.

He also talks of disproving God. There's a word for that. Ignorantiam. It means reversing the burden of proof. He's the one claiming God exists. The burden of proof rests with him.

This guy never actually proves anything in its own right. All he does is basically use the Bible to agree with everything he says... which is nothing. He has to prove the Bible without using the Bible. All he's doing is using the Bible to say the Bible is correct.
And one more thing, proving evolution wrong has nothing to do with Christianity being correct.

God, this guy is an idiot.

:blink: I have no idea what the guy is saying so I can't argue that gibberish. He connects things out of nowhere that I just can't follow a thought. I recommend medication & prayer for him.

Ugh I wanted to punch the computer after reading the first paragraph.

Just a quick correction: evolution is based off the idea that spontaneous, random mutation produces variety. Some species survive (some by their newly adaptive traits that came about randomly, and some by sheer luck), and what you see is that process happening over thousands of years. So as Kirtar said, it has nothing to do with perfection. According to evolution, there is no greater reality that seeks to perfect a species (or for that matter, even create an equilibrium).

Kirtar summarized the problem with the second step really well.

The third step isn't a logical proof at all, it's basically just a theological statement.

The fourth is just a rehash of the second.

ugh... this is the kind of crap that gives Christians a bad name.

Oh yeah, about that, they ban who ever tries to discuss it after about 2 posts then they proceed to mock the banned individual. Some who honestly fill out their profile to discuss it end up with an immediate ban.

I finally read this all the way through.

Its just the type of stuff that I've seen people on other forums typically use to prove God. Doesn't really say anything, and tries to confuse someone with false senses of understanding topics that the author doesn't really get.

Why do folks wanna group all "Christians" together? Anyone have a clue how many different denominations exist with a group of followers called that? Might as well throw all the Muslims into one sect while you're at it.

Helpful link to help answer the rhetorical second question that really wasn't rhetorical:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cf.htm

True, but I think the point remains. I mean, I could also say that Osama Bin Laden gives Muslims a bad name, and I don't think that would be inaccurate, despite the various sects of Islam.

If someone does something foolish in the name of Christianity, then it gives all Christians a bad name, regardless of the differences.

If the point is that sometimes Christians set bad examples for other Christians, that's quite understandable. I'd quickly agree with that.

But I fear that we'd rather group people together under some meta-tag and say that's how they behave overall. The last thing I want is to be grouped with a Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Baker or any of the others using religion as a righteous soap-box, political tool, personal profit mill or ability to molest/seduce others.

Islam is not as respected as it could be due to the extremists. Christianity has them, so are there some which are Liberal Atheists. Lumping them all together in the same basket is only setting ourselves up as prejudicial.

What little I know you, it's almost like you know that and are only stimulating further debate. :) You've proven sharp-minded and wise in the past. Osama Bin Laden gives the human race a bad name, if you want to make not quite inaccurate statements. We are all part of that group, aren't we? Gee, too broad a generalization there? We gotta narrow it down to a couple of more specific labels?? Hehehe.


I'll admit that extremists thrive more in under-developed countries, countries that are under oppression, of mostly uneducated background and with little else to do with their time. Peer pressure exists everywhere, including in those areas where friends, family and neighbours feel change is needed and try to persuade them to "agree" to the use of force. We have extremists joining local gangs in your nearest large city.

This ties into another current thread about whether the ends justify the means. I'm not justified basing judgement of someone based upon someone else, no matter what commonalities they share. Are we justified to profile anyone based upon creed, colour, race, etc, etc, etc???

I used to play a lot of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game with friends. It was amazing how many people thought it was a key ingredient to becoming suicidal, homicidal, a demonic or satanic worshipper or other wierd religious zealot. When those that were skeptics seen it was using pencil, paper, various dice and the imagination... they were almost bored to tears that there wasn't some kind of sensationalistic ritual involved.

Now those in the S.C.A., those folks can demonstrate what role-playing really is. Or Medieval Times in Dallas or those at Renaissance Faires. Oh, let's not forget the fringes of actors in Shakespeare in the Park and pick-up performances. There is a little place in Colorado called the Creede Repertoire Theatre which was where I attended a very lively Rogers and Hammerstein musical. Actors and musicians can be quite different, even eccentric. Bad thing to suppose they are all the same or think the same... or even behave the same in the same circumstances.

Mm, just to add to my last post, I quote Nishida Kitaro:
"The infinite activity of the human heart proves God directly."

No need for 4 steps. There's just one. B)

Right. And I think Boru's point is that whoever wrote this "proof" was trying to speak on behalf of all Christians, thus giving all Christians a bad name.

This is just another vendetta against evolution and other scientific causes for the existence of man and the universe. Such vendettas result in the destruction of respect between Christians and Atheists/agnostics, no matter what denomination you are. Trying to speak for all Christians is something no one can do, because all Christians think differently, resulting in the break-offs in to other denominations. It's evident that this person wants desperately to disprove the evolutionists, but the great cosmic truth is, it is impossible to prove anything either way, resulting in having to believe without proof, as in faith. If this man wants to speak for all Christians, perhaps he should speak with all Christians first.

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

I would say that is important. That leads to the whole "giving Christians a bad name." While we can admit (obviously) that not all Christians believe this nonsense, he does dare to speak for all Christians.

When things like this happen, it reduces the Christian religion to long-winded rants about the morally wrong world or evolution, or other such things that could potentially make everyone think, "Well, those Christians are an angry lot, aren't they?" So a word to the unwise, no matter what religion you are, never try to speak for all the people in your religious or ethnic group, because in the end, their really is no group to speak for, we're all individuals, and we don't all think like you.

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

It's always sad to see things like this... :(

I myself am unafiliated, but I often respect Christanity and all other religions as long as they work toward a common good.

This is the time that makes me dislike Christanity quite a bit. It seems like too many Christians have this goal of "enlightening" others and proving God when there really is no way to do so. There will never be a way to prove God unless the acuall God(s) make some sort of appearence or proof, which is not going to happen in my view since I don't believe that if there are God(s) that they are really beings.

This is the kind of person who has this goal of proving God. Why? I think it is because he is insecure about whether God exists or not. He is obviously a devoted Christian, but even devoted people can question the authenticity, but this is often done sub-consciously. To hide this doubt from his conscience, he makes this elaborite and silly *proof* of God. Obviously it is a rediculous proof to anyone who looks at it skeptically or from an outside perspective, but to those who believe in God, looking at that will act as a proof for them and give them conformation of thier belief.

Well that's my little insight. Obviously this is all opinion and speculation and I am not trying to pass any of this as fact. I'd be interested to hear what others think though ^_^

Ugh... I hate it when they do this. They always try to tell everyone "I'm right, you're wrong". Why don't they bloody well let people believe what they want to (i.e. that there is no God), rather than trying to make people think God is Lore.
If they believe in God so much, and don't doubt His existence, fine! But they shouldn't try and impose their beliefs on us. If they "know" it, there's no reason to try and make it so everyone else knows it too. They should be happy that they know "The Truth".
This is one of the reasons why I hate religion.

Exactly my thoughts too. It's almost certain that Christians reading this would think "O, we now have proof! We now know! We should make everyone else know it too," because that's what A) they want to believe and B) they feel they need to have proof of because they are insecure.

People who do this disgust me no end.

I know this is a 3-month-old topic, but... well, I need to post.

I basically agree with all the posters here. How can someone use the Bible to prove the Bible, or use the idea of God to prove the idea of God? That's like saying "evolution is proven because we evolved". There needs to be more evidence than that.

Anyway, I was thinking of something similar last night, and that is this: Why do humans view things as "good" or "bad"? Then it occurred to me: Most (if not all) things considered "good" are simply beneficial to human or individual survival. Those "bad" things are harmful to survival.

For example: Murder is bad, because it completely destroys individual survival. Stealing is bad because, at least long ago in the time of cavemen, the less you had the less chance of survival you had.

On the other hand, charity is good, because as you give to others, you improve their survival chances, and therefore improve the chance of your species' survival. Ability to perform manual labor without complaint is a good trait because it usually pays off with money, items, food, etc., all of which help survival.

So the people trying to prove God exists because they need a basis for moral beliefs, just use "survival of the species/individual" as the basis. You'll get the same laws, without the need to prove the existence of anything, especially not by using that very thing as the proof.

-IMP ;) :)

*EDIT* Oh, and why is it that so many people can instantly accept that God was "just there," but those same people tend to have a lot of trouble believing the universe was "just there"?

IMP,

What you say has a lot of validity. Perhaps your wanting to dismiss religion overall when the idealogies behind it: A surpreme being with a chosen leader having once walked this Earth (and rumored that some still do).

Religion will always be a tool for someone to take a prominent standing in Society. It is like the back-door of politics, where Reverend's Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Pat Roberts think the can dictate policy and maybe even get elected.

I'd have to state that the great Greek philosophers were more about advancing civilization through intellectual discourse than religious upbringings... otherwise religion has been right there with government on who should rule what and when... and sometimes how.

But in every myth, they say there is a seed of truth. So if someone can believe in the Loch Ness Monster or aliens, it is amazing to believe that a higher authority (God) exists.

I don't think those ten thousand dollars will ever be given. After all, the author's arguments really suck, and I'm pretty sure hundreds of people have been able to counter them easily. So if the price hasn't been received by anyone yet, then the author is clearly determined to keep it.

I'm not a Christian, but I've already been one, and I agree with previous posters: people who speak like that ashame all other Christians. I'm sick of people who say that Christians are supposed to be fundamentalist zealots.


Edit: Museum of Creation Evidence