The Evolution Fraud - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Hindsite
#15028644
Besoeker2 wrote:The sentence makes it clear what the "it" refers to.
The omnipotent entity.
Do you think there is one?
That's just yes or no.

YES, absolutely.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028668
Hindsite wrote:YES, absolutely.
HalleluYah

I know you THINK there is.
There is no absolutely about it.
Unless you have incontrovertible facts.
In which case, you would have truth.
By Hindsite
#15028682
Besoeker2 wrote:I know you THINK there is.
There is no absolutely about it.
Unless you have incontrovertible facts.
In which case, you would have truth.

The Creator God is a true fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not make it false.
Praise the Lord.
#15028732
An omnipotent god is logically inconsistent.

He should be able to create a rick he cannot lift.

He should be able to lift said rock.

Thus, such a god can only exist if we get rid of the rules of logic.
By Sivad
#15028742
Pants-of-dog wrote:An omnipotent god is logically inconsistent.

He should be able to create a rick he cannot lift.

He should be able to lift said rock.

Thus, such a god can only exist if we get rid of the rules of logic.



I hope you're not seriously forwarding that argument. That argument is like the cliche of retarded internet atheism. :lol:
By Sivad
#15028755
Omnipotence means the power to do anything that is logically possible. Omnipotence doesn't pertain to logical contradictions.
#15028771
Yes, the Aquinas dodge.

So you are saying that the powers of an omnipotent being are not actually omnipotent but instead are limited by what is logically possible.
By Sivad
#15028778
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the Aquinas dodge.

So you are saying that the powers of an omnipotent being are not actually omnipotent but instead are limited by what is logically possible.


It's not a dodge or a limitation, omnipotence isn't in anyway diminished by inconceivable absurdities like square circles and rocks to big for an infinite power to lift. It's just a really dumb argument that's not defended by any competent philosopher.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028784
Hindsite wrote:The Creator God is a true fact. Just because you refuse to believe it does not make it false.
Praise the Lord.

If fact, you would be able to prove it.
You can't.
You can't even provide testable evidence.
All you have is your unproven belief.
#15028866
Sivad wrote:It's not a dodge or a limitation, omnipotence isn't in anyway diminished by inconceivable absurdities like square circles and rocks to big for an infinite power to lift. It's just a really dumb argument that's not defended by any competent philosopher.


As long as we agree that the laws of logic are powerful than an all powerful god.
By Hindsite
#15028994
Besoeker2 wrote:If fact, you would be able to prove it.
You can't.
You can't even provide testable evidence.
All you have is your unproven belief.

The proof is all around us and being tested every day. All we have to do is open our minds to accept it.
By Sivad
#15029011
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we agree that the laws of logic are powerful than an all powerful god.


:knife: the laws of logic aren't like magical forces that determine reality, they're just the rules of coherency and intelligibility.
By Hindsite
#15029071
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and thank you for defining which things are stronger than the supposedly omnipotent god.

I don't know what supposed god you are referring to, but there is nothing stronger than the omnipotent God.
HalleluYah
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029085
Hindsite wrote:The proof is all around us and being tested every day. All we have to do is open our minds to accept it.

How exactly is that proof?
Please give examples.
By Sivad
#15029088
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and thank you for defining which things are stronger than the supposedly omnipotent god.


You should have just called me a racist, it would have made more sense. Fucking pofo. :lol:
User avatar
By ingliz
#15029111
Hindsite wrote:Any environmental influence is more correctly called adaptation to the environment, not evolution.

Bollocks!

'Adaptation' is evolution.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

What did you think it was?


:lol:
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15029132
ingliz wrote:Bollocks!

'Adaptation' is evolution.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

What did you think it was?


:lol:

He thinks evolution is a dirty word.
:D
By Hindsite
#15029192
ingliz wrote:Bollocks!

'Adaptation' is evolution.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution states that evolution happens by natural selection.

Individuals in a species show variation in physical characteristics.

Individuals with characteristics best suited to their environment are more likely to survive, finding food, avoiding predators and resisting disease. These individuals are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to their children.

Individuals that are poorly adapted to their environment are less likely to survive and reproduce. Therefore their genes are less likely to be passed on to the next generation.

As a consequence those individuals most suited to their environment survive and, given enough time, a species will gradually evolve - change over time.

What did you think it was?

I am pretty sure that mutations in DNA are not selectable and, in any case, a mutation still leads to a loss of genetic information. So in those cases in which a mutation may have helped a creature adapt to a specific environment, the loss of geneic information may prevent the creature from adapting to other envirnments. This is actually opposite of evolution.

Besoeker2 wrote:How exactly is that proof?
Please give examples.

I haven't got the time to give exact proofs, but in general the existence of a creation is evidence of a Creator.

Living things provide abundant evidence of their relatively recent creation
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 17
Ukrainegate

I wonder if Gordy's going to reiterate his first […]

US authorities support Satanism

Speaking of Satanism, it is important to note th[…]

You forgot Venezuela. Yes, thank you. And come t[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Can't answer that one. I am not close enough to t[…]