it has it's similarities to Genesis... wouldn't doubt it...

I couldn't disagree more. Fine tuning, origin of life, natural law vs law of nature, the existence of human rationality, etc.

Do you realize that atheist philosophers have to try to explain why human thought can be trusted? If your mind is the result of undirected evolution, why trust what your mind tells you? Wouldn't your brain be wired for survival and not truth?

i would disagree there... understanding truth help us evolve faster...and may save us from extinction...or cause it, whatever... truth is important

Truth is important, because we value it. Why do we value it? From an evolutionary standpoint, truth serves no purpose. Show me truth. You can't, it only exists in the mind.

This brings us to another problem with naturalism: Intentionality. Why can brains assume an intentional state, but other material objects cannot? It must mean that there is a transcendent nature to the brain, or in other words, the brain is a receiver and the mind or soul exists elsewhere.

(sigh)


You seriously don't see any evolutionary advantages for a social creature that hunts, gathers, communicates, and evades prey to value honesty or accuracy?

Are you trolling or something?

How can you not see the evolutionary advantage?

You put your conclusions before your reason.



Yes, it must. lol. Only possible conclusion there.

Or maybe you just like that idea, so you distort everything to fit the idea that you like.

So, your argument, is that atheist philosophers are all stupid. Got it. I'm going to disagree. They see the problem, theistic philosophers see the problem, it sounds to me like the issue with seeing the problem is on your side.

What purpose does seeking metaphysical truths play in evolution? None.

How many thinking inanimate objects are you aware of? How many tables dream of chairs? None, you say? Well then, what makes brains unique? What other attribute can you think of that ONLY applies to one single type of matter and only for a limited time?

the truth is the truth, bottom line... if there is no truth, everything is speculation...

just because some says there is a god or isn't a god means nothing, no truth in either statement...

That's plain foolishness. I don't know if you are a man or a woman, but I figure if I say you are a man and another says you are a woman, one of us has gotta be right.

one of us would be, thats a tangible truth. it can be proven true without a doubt.

weather there is a god or not may never be proven.. no truth there, a philosophical question...

the mind is powerful than any experiments man could muster. Look at Einstein he never had citations of previous works when he published his theory of relativity. And yet then we have benefited from his works. His works made us see things from different perspective and we have to admit he is mostly right with his theories. He never admitted he is a genius, he just said he was very curious and keen, so as Newton. Quoting Einstein " Our problems can never be solved on the same level we are, as we when we created them".

Smart girl.

I think the world testifies to the creative power of God. Have you ever looked at a night sky or a sunset or a beautiful woman? How can a man can look at those things without seeing proof of God's existence is beyond me.

lol, it's beyond me how anyone can think a "god" created it... just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it has to be a god... science can show how things work, why things do what they do, why it formed... science has all the answers, we just have to figure them out without attaching a god like thing to them...

Same way with evolution and plate tectonics. Atheists are the horse thieves of science.

lol, thats funny

Darwin was a Catholic priest?

From Wiki:

Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school.[1] With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[2][3] On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed.[4][5] By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.[6]

Following Darwin's marriage to Emma Wedgwood in January 1839, they shared discussions about Christianity for several years.[7] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[8] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[9] Until 1844 he followed Paley in viewing organisms as perfectly adapted with only a few imperfections, and only partly modified that view by 1859. On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver,[10][11] and later recollected that at the time he was convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause and deserved to be called a theist. This view subsequently fluctuated,[12] and he continued to explore conscientious doubts, without forming fixed opinions on certain religious matters.[7

well,since Truth serves no purpose,you basically claim that a Loaf of Bread,and a Rock are identical!
Tried having a buttered Rock for Breaky this morning?

You can't?
But,that's really only a prejudice in your Mind,isn't it?

Kant died 5 years before Darwin was born, wrote down the same ideas and got credit. "What do you mean this is your horse? It's got my saddle on it."