Thought Experiment

Prove it to an atheist.
I have already provided strong evidence for His existence, though I never claimed I could prove His existence with certainty. The only thing that can be proven with certainty is your own existence and that only to yourself.
Or, prove that his character is perfectly moreally good, don't just define it that way.
I cant prove it (see above), but billions of Christians have experienced that He is morally good.
 
If anybody can marry anybody or anything, then it is meaningless.
But they can't.
If there is no good reason it restrict it then is meaningless, irrespective of the present legalities.
That is a slippery slope fallacy.
When it comes to this issue it is not a fallacy, it has been empirically observed.
El Cid said:
Made them meaningless.
See above.
Fraid so, See above.
El Cid said:
Actually studies have shown that gay and lesbian couples have higher rates of domestic violence than heterosexual couples.
Not what I asked.

How has the fact that gays can now marry, negatively affected straight marriages? Are straight marriages now experiencing more domestic violence, or a reduction of affection between partners?
It affects the society in which true marriages exist by increasing the overall domestic violence of the society. We also want to protect gays and lesbians from being hurt thru domestic violence. By discouraging "gay marriage" they can be protected. In addition, since it is a moral issue it degrades the overall morality of the society starts the slippery slope toward tyranny as society over time rejects absolute moral standards.
El Cid said:
Gay marriage does nothing to help society, and in fact hurts society with causing more mental and physical illnesses and higher domestic violence.
How does the fact that gays can now marry exarcerbate the issues between them?
Are they more prone to diseases or violence merely because they are now married?
Possibly but see above.
Your problem seems to be with gays, not gay marriage.
El Cid said:
Who made these rules and what criteria are they based on?
Lawmakers made the rules, according to what will benefit society.
How does not allowing a man to marry his dog not benefit society?
El Cid said:
And why should they be obeyed?
The same reason you would obey any other law.
We should not obey bad laws, remember that is how Hitler got some much power.
But you don't have to "obey" laws concerning gay marriage - there's nothing you can do to "break" them, as such.
We need to have the SCOTUS ruling reversed.
El Cid said:
Not from the perspective of the children. They are the taking away from biological parents
Asinine - the surrogates willingly give up said children.
The children still experience separation anxiety and other serious emotional issues this has been shown by scientific studies.
El Cid said:
the most precious relationship in a childs life
Asinine again - mere biology does not dictate the importance of a relationship.
It does in the case of parents, this has been demonstrated by science.
I am closer to my best friend than I am to some cousins that I've never met.
Irrelevant. The parent child relationship is unique.
 
So, not that I'm admitting homosexuality is unnatural, but I'm wondering how many unnatural things you do. Lets start with some simple examples. Do you ride a bike, play tennis or drive a car? Do you have medical treatment instead of letting nature take it's course? These are unnatural activities. Your life is full of the unnatural.
I am not saying everything unnatural is bad, but some unnatural things are bad for you, and homosexual behavior is one of those things.
Your criteria of "breaking up the family" as a criticism of homosexuality seems to come from a biased point of view. All too often natural desire breaks up families what with people having heterosexual affairs, but you seem rather quite about that.
IIRC, you were the one that brought up homosexuality and continued to talk about it. But Adultery breaks up families as well.
 
Because almost all humans want to live according to what they think is objective reality, so if they believe that morals do not really exist, they are more likely to consider them just personal preference and just pick and choose their morals.
Whether people think morality is objective or subjective, they still think it's morality, and those who differ on this point will still agree that murder and rape etc etc are wrong.
Obviously Jeffrey Dahmer, the Aztecs, and Communists dont think those things are wrong. Why do you think that is?
I wonder if you confuse subjective with arbitrary?
They are similar.
 
They cant but they can experience abandonment and then later once they learn that they were adopted, they can miss their biological parents.
That's not what you said; you said that their not having their biological parents would harm them, not not having them and finding out that they were adopted.

How does not having biological parents harm a child if they never find out?
Or if they find out, and don't care?
 
Obviously Jeffrey Dahmer, the Aztecs, and Communists dont think those things are wrong. Why do you think that is?
Because they thought that the suffering they were causing was for a sufficient reason.
They are similar.
No, they aren't.

If you have a favourite film because you've seen a lot of films, and like that one best, that's subjective.
If you have a favourite film because you picked one at random out of a hat, that is arbitrary.
 
Yes, but how can an unguided purposeless process create things with purposes such as survival?
Evolution is not unguided. Traits from random mutations are selected for if they give a survival advantage, because the creature that has a survival advantage will be more likely to survive, reproduce and pass on that survival advantage. The environment does the guiding.
That is not guidance. Random mutations are selected for and only survive if they provide an advantage in an ever randomly changing environment. If you think that is guidance, you dont know what it means. Randomness in both major parts of the process by definition cannot be guided. Especially the foundational controlling process, ie random changes in the environment.
That you ask this question shows you have not studied evolution at all, you seem to have no understanding of it. Am I right? Is that a fair position from which to criticise it?
Besides being a biologist and former evolutionist, I have studied it for 40 years including secular school indoctrination. So yes I understand evolution quite well. However you dont seem to if you think that atheistic evolution is guided. Theistic evolutionists believe it is guided by God but obviously you dont.
El Cid said:
Throughout all of human experience, purposes have only come from a personal intelligence.
That's just not true. We humans have some basic survival instincts that give our lives purpose, but they don't come from a personal intelligence, they are a part of our basic nature. We don't sit down and think about eating for the purpose of survival in order to get the instinct to eat, the instinct is there from birth.

We share this instinct to eat which gives our lives a purpose with animals who don't have human intelligence but have said purpose to eat.
Yes, part of our purpose and animals purposes is to eat but you are assuming what you need to prove. Can you provide an example of a purpose coming from a known impersonal source? I believe the reason we have purposes including to eat is because we were created by a personal being. You dont KNOW that we were created by an impersonal source. You are just assuming it or maybe you have some evidence God does not exist. But still you have to provide an example of purpose coming from the impersonal.
 
That is not guidance. Random mutations are selected for and only survive if they provide an advantage in an ever randomly changing environment. If you think that is guidance, you dont know what it means. Randomness in both major parts of the process by definition cannot be guided. Especially the foundational controlling process, ie random changes in the environment.
But environments aren't all in a constant state of change.
I believe the reason we have purposes including to eat is because we were created by a personal being.
Now all you have to do is prove it.
 
And you know that he has been telling the truth for two million years?
How?
He said he has been and I trust and believe Him because He has always been truthful to me.
If he lied to a human a million years ago, how would you know?
I wouldnt, it is called faith and trust based on my experience with Him.
(Also, how do you square this "two milliion years" with the Garden of Eden story?
Did that happen two million years ago?)
Yes, maybe even earlier, there is evidence humans lived close to 4 mya. Ever hear of the Laetoli footprints?
 
Yes, but there's a difference between going on what seems like an effect, and rigorously investigating to find out if it is. Despite our investigations
we still don't know if the universe is an effect.
It has all the characteristics of one. So while it doesnt prove it, it is a rational assumption.
 
How can unconsciousness produce consciousness? Makes no sense logically.
Because you draw a hard line between the two, disallowing development from one to the other.

How can a sand non-pile become a sand pile, one grain at a time?
Your analogy is poor because consciousness is non-physical. How can the physical produce the non-physical?
El Cid said:
Exactly, if purpose exists in nature then it must have been created by a conscious being, right?
"Must"? No - why?

Purpose comes the moment thinking beings are capable of it.
Then why did purposes exist long before humans did?
 
Back
Top