
Originally Posted by
Neosutra
Sticking your head in the sand and chanting that your team is winning over and over doesnt make it truth. Especially when they are getting their asses handed to them.
The fact remains that Plow has done nothing in this thread but:
1. Change the definition of miracle to be "anything nice that happens".
2. State that "existance itself suggests there is a god".
Plow can reword it every which way he wants, and back out when he is called on it ("oh I didnt say that there was a god.. just suggest there might be!"), but the truth remains that all he has done is reword his definitions every time people call him on the inconsistancies.
You see, the problem is Plow: You dont have any evidence or supporting arguments to justify saying that the universe forming in this way is "a rare occurance". Nor do you have an adequate knowledge of universal/galactic/solarsystem formation to suggest that events were somehow "serendipitously pushed" to force the correct conditions for life.
It is an easy trap to fall into if you dont know much about the subject, but the fact remains that biological life is nothing more then a bioproduct of billions of years of higher order elements attempting to find the best equilibrium. If conditions had been different when this solar system was forming, then life wouldnt have been here, and Plow wouldnt be staring up going "maybe zues made all of this!". Instead there would be a Plow on a planet 40 million light years away doing the same thing, saying "wow, this is just too much coincidence that Im on this planet alive!".
Existance itself in NO way suggests there is or may be a god. Only mankind suggests this, via archaic attatchments to outdated theologies.
As for Miracles, change the word to "nice things", and Ill agree that "nice things" happen every day. Actual Miracles however, (as in divine interventions or EXTREMELY rare coincidences.. which by definition dont happen billions of times), are a very weak part of your argument, as there is no documented evidence for anything of this nature.
You wont and cant win the argument "for god" Plow, the only thing you have a chance of defending well enough to justify a stale mate is the debate on wether mankind corrupts religion to do bad things, or wether it is the inherent destructive psycosis of "faith" that lends mankind to such travisties.