Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote: No.

As usual, you and Neo are wrong.

I thought as much.

But it is good that you see the problems in your argument. It's the first step towards fixing your mistakes.

At least I have taken my first step, you are still crawling around on your hands and knees in full denial.

Why don't you help a brother out, and kindly show me the flaws you see in my argument. But please make sure it's my argument that you find flaws in. Not some argument that I'm not even making.

dan wrote:
I already have, if you cannot see them then that is not my fault. I have very little patience for repeating myself, I know I have done in the past, but for my own sanity I will now not do so.

Dan wrote:
If you cannot see any flaws in your own point of view, then there is no point in further discussion with you, because it indicates you have a closed mind and nothing will be gained by further argumentation.

RickD wrote:Wow Daniel. I just don't know what to say, other than your flawed logic carries over even after the argument itself.

dan wrote:
I already have, if you cannot see them then that is not my fault. I have very little patience for repeating myself, I know I have done in the past, but for my own sanity I will now not do so.

There are at least three logical possibilities, as to why I don't see the flaws in my own argument. And only one of the three would be my fault.

1. There are no flaws.
2. There are flaws, but you haven't made a good enough argument, showing the flaws.
3. I just refuse to see the flaws in my own argument.

Dan wrote:
If you cannot see any flaws in your own point of view, then there is no point in further discussion with you, because it indicates you have a closed mind and nothing will be gained by further argumentation.

Again, your logic is flawed. See three above possibilities, as to why I can't see any flaws in my argument. Your assumption that I don't see flaws in my own argument, is because I'm closed minded, seems to go completely against the argument you were pushing in the gay cake discussion. Specifically, that we should show grace. What kind of grace are you showing me by saying I'm closed minded if I don't see the flaws in my argument?

Kurieuo wrote:YYou know, it's really that people with Aspergers aren't recognised today and luck out. What I mean what about those who just blurt their mind, feel the need to speak and act according to truth. It's like a tick, they can't just give a superficial response to questions like, "Do I look fat in these clothes?" or statements like, "I feel like I've been eating too much." Responses by those who can't shake truth in such matters, their response to their wife might appear very unloving and cruel.

I still remember my first days as an employee, walking into work. The secretary behind the desk would say "Good morning, how are you?" Then I'd begin, "Well, not really that good actually...", sure I knew people generally say a quick "Good thanks" while passing by, but then such is so shallow. Then I realised how awkward it made the other person, so just took up the easy way out that isn't really concerned with how I am at all.

It is so sad today, that such are discriminated against. To say such people who I think are on the far-end of the "truth spectrum" are unloving, is simply not true. Christians generally seem to have this tic to be obtruse with the truth that they believe in, considered wrong by today's standards of social etiquette. This aspergers-likeness to their personality make-up, it's taken advantage of by those who oppose and hate Christians, who know probably 1 in 2 or more Christians have this tic.

While hard to put a name to it perhaps, once identified as you did D220, this aspergers-likeness, once identified in people then it becomes really sad in our current day and society that such aren't understood and deemed to be unloving, closed-minded bigots, simply because they can't shake their aspergers-like attributes. It is really quite sad, while amusing, I am being serious here.

The PCness that exists in today's society is just not fair on people who may be more of the autistic spectrum that is often associated with aspergers. Take RickD. I know he'd love a gay person as much as straight, yet he'd get labelled a hate monger and closed-minded by many.

On a lighter note, I just watched the following video which I found humorous, though those who are quite PC-minded might disagree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiU20QjKPCo

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Wow Daniel. I just don't know what to say, other than your flawed logic carries over even after the argument itself.

dan wrote:
I already have, if you cannot see them then that is not my fault. I have very little patience for repeating myself, I know I have done in the past, but for my own sanity I will now not do so.

There are at least three logical possibilities, as to why I don't see the flaws in my own argument. And only one of the three would be my fault.

1. There are no flaws.
2. There are flaws, but you haven't made a good enough argument, showing the flaws.
3. I just refuse to see the flaws in my own argument.

Dan wrote:
If you cannot see any flaws in your own point of view, then there is no point in further discussion with you, because it indicates you have a closed mind and nothing will be gained by further argumentation.

Again, your logic is flawed. See three above possibilities, as to why I can't see any flaws in my argument. Your assumption that I don't see flaws in my own argument, is because I'm closed minded, seems to go completely against the argument you were pushing in the gay cake discussion. Specifically, that we should show grace. What kind of grace are you showing me by saying I'm closed minded if I don't see the flaws in my argument?

Do you believe you have objective truth in this situation?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I never called Rick a bigot or said that he is totally close minded, I said in this particular argument if he cannot recognise the flaws of his argument (because there are always flaws in every argument) and he refuses to admit there are any, then he is close minded in this particular situation, that does not mean in every situation!!!

You guys read in to what I say say and take it out of context.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I never called Rick a bigot or said that he is totally close minded, I said in this particular argument if he cannot recognise the flaws of his argument (because there are always flaws in every argument) and he refuses to admit there are any, then he is close minded in this particular situation, that does not mean in every situation!!!

You guys read in to what I say say and take it out of context.

Please re-read what I said, as I never made accusatory statements. Rather, I was just saying something I did identify with as containing truth with what you said re: aspergers. Such Christians could likely use more tact, to show they don't really hate the person disagreeing with them but do love them, but their tic often gets the better of them.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Wow Daniel. I just don't know what to say, other than your flawed logic carries over even after the argument itself.

dan wrote:
I already have, if you cannot see them then that is not my fault. I have very little patience for repeating myself, I know I have done in the past, but for my own sanity I will now not do so.

There are at least three logical possibilities, as to why I don't see the flaws in my own argument. And only one of the three would be my fault.

1. There are no flaws.
2. There are flaws, but you haven't made a good enough argument, showing the flaws.
3. I just refuse to see the flaws in my own argument.

Dan wrote:
If you cannot see any flaws in your own point of view, then there is no point in further discussion with you, because it indicates you have a closed mind and nothing will be gained by further argumentation.

Again, your logic is flawed. See three above possibilities, as to why I can't see any flaws in my argument. Your assumption that I don't see flaws in my own argument, is because I'm closed minded, seems to go completely against the argument you were pushing in the gay cake discussion. Specifically, that we should show grace. What kind of grace are you showing me by saying I'm closed minded if I don't see the flaws in my argument?

Do you believe you have objective truth in this situation?

I don't understand what you're asking. If you want a response, please rephrase the question.

Kurieuo wrote:I was just very round-about like usual in getting to my point.

Dan wrote:
Do you recognise that your argument has flaws and can you work out on your own the flaws that exist in your argument? I know I can with mine, I can break it down and accept that there are weaknesses in some areas, but it is strong in others and I can accept that yours has areas of weakness and strength, can you do the same?

Kurieuo wrote:Sorry Rick, hope I didn't offend in using you as an example. You know we often make similar jokes and fall off that cliff. I could have easily said take myself for example.

RickD wrote:

Dan wrote:
Do you recognise that your argument has flaws and can you work out on your own the flaws that exist in your argument? I know I can with mine, I can break it down and accept that there are weaknesses in some areas, but it is strong in others and I can accept that yours has areas of weakness and strength, can you do the same?

Dan,

My argument is simply that those cake bakers in Ireland, and the cake baker in the US, who refused to bake a cake with a message that goes against their conscience, have a moral obligation to refuse to bake that cake. And, they should be protected by law, to discriminate against a message that goes against their conscience. Nowhere am I arguing that discrimination against a customer, just because the customer is gay, is acceptable.

It was the message on the cake that was found to go against their conscience, not the fact that the customer was gay.

With that said, I don't see any flaws in that argument, as stated. Could I be wrong? Of course.