Pericles.. nicely said
as a passionate conservative evangelical ( I think in leftish secular speak that resolves to 'right wing bible bashing, pulpit pounding hyper fundamentalist extremist moron")

my view on the Tsunami, expressed elsewhere in some other topic is...

"He who buildeth his home on low lying coastal land, while knowing of the rare but real possibility of a Tsunami, should not be blaming God when one comes".

And ur quite right, our position is based on faith. Very reasonably based faith I would add, but yes, faith.

I hope and pray that you will one day (soon) come to know the 'One' who by faith we live for :)
BOAZ

Pericles,

The challenge has been avoided yet again.

I asked for facts and logic to SUPPORT the atheistic evolutionary mythology re origin of life and cosmos. I didn't ask you to prove that God didn't exist.

As you quoted me in yout last post (but I have added EMPHASIS) "I challenged you to come up with facts and logic to SUPPORT your ridiculous religious (faith-based) mythology that there is no god." Later I said "I think I can argue sucessfully that atheism and atheistic evolution are logically more ridiculous than creationism."

I then argued that case and said "In my opinion I have demonstrated that such beliefs [atheism and evolution] are contrary to logic and fact and rely on ignorance or blind faith." And the immediate context re "such beliefs" was:
"Atheistic evolution must believe that somehow dead stuff collected the information programme and the machinery to run it and (miraculously?) became a living cell. Whatever the mythological evolutionary story used to 'explain' life, one needs massive faith to believe it. Given simple life, somehow, what next? Nothing! because evolution has NO demonstarted mechanism necessary to get the NEW information necessary to go from klunge to Kenny via who-knows-what. Not a single mutation has been observed to add the sort of info that turns Kludge into Kangaroos, or chimps into Kennys. All known 'beneficial' mutations involve a LOSS of function. Then natural selection, which really works in forming genetic subsets for new species, ONLY culls information - it does NOT create new info. So evolution is actuall proven to have all the mechanisms and characteristics of devolution towards extinction. Which is what the fossil record shows!"

I asked for facts and logic to support the atheistic evolutionary mythology re origin of life and cosmos. The challenge has again been avoided.

PERCY me mate :)
your last post was quite powerful.. but if I can add a brotherly prod, was just a tad like Moses "I'll show u rebellious Jews.. u want water ????? OK...I'll GIVE you water.. *WHACK-WHACK*.. on the rock "
(When it was mean't to be a touch).
We want to see that promised land of renewed lives and hearts. I have to discipline myself on this score too... the weakness of many of these atheistic faith positions is quite a juicy target for those of us with a thinking perspective on those issues.
Perc.. more Labrador and less Pit Bull :)
(In Him) BOAZ

Percy, listen to your friend Boaz. You are approaching this in an intemperate and somewhat overzealous manner. Step back for a moment, and allow that a non-believer might have thoughts and opinions too.

I did not comment on your follow-up post, because it simply regurgitated a couple of tired old creationist and "intelligent designer" arguments which have been debunked so many times I didn't want to bore everyone else. So I chose to use the abstract language of logic in order to say something that I considered really simple: believers believe, non-believers don't. The corollary is that applying logic to try to support an argument based upon belief is about as appropriate as watering your roses with engine oil.

You said, and I quote: "In my opinion I have demonstrated that such beliefs [atheism and evolution] are contrary to logic and fact and rely on ignorance or blind faith." What I attempted to point out is that any application of logic will find your arguments as empty - or put more charitably, as convincing - as those presented by the atheist, simply because you would be using inappropriate tools - logic and facts.

I have no problem with the fact that you and I live in totally different worlds, but this is a matter of choice. I choose to accept the world at its face value, without the need to invent an entity to whom I ascribe some form of responsibility for its existence, shape and content. You choose to believe that all this could not exist without it being the will of such an entity. I consider this to be an easy option - a cop-out, if you will - for people who choose not to continue to think about life, the universe and everything. But I don't blame you, or think any the less of you for doing so; life is plenty full of other issues and concerns, and it is comforting to be able to park the big questions.

That is my opinion, and I would be happy to defend it and debate it with you, and point out how it helps when facing life's traumas, small and large. What I will not do is to fall into the trap of trying to justify my position using logic, which - as I tried to illustrate earlier - can only fail to "prove" anything that is based upon belief.

Pericles
'your turn' :)
Your composition is truly graceful. One could easily be seduced into thinking it points to something gratifying and wholesome and meaningful about the world and that by avoiding the 'copouts' of "creative entities" we can all do very nicely thankyou very much.
The idea of intelligent design, has not been 'debunked' many times. When one looks at the devopment of the various attacks on the theory, one can see equally 'speculative' and at times it appears dogmatic steps in peoples thinking. I've just updated myself on the 'state of the debate' as best I can from what appear to be reasonable reports of the main criticisms of the ID argument. So, I feel quite at ease that the arguments have not been so debunked. Challenged yes, debunked not so. (sources would be welcome to show otherwise)

One problem with your position P, is that it leads directly to another one of the "old faithful" arguments for God, the 'moral' argument. One is faced with the ultimate 'choice' of a moral universe or an amoral one. May I be adventurous and suggest that your 'amoral' one will lead by 'social evolution' to NAMBLA (do a search please) and any number of more unpalatable manifestations of such a view. Not that this is intended to 'prove' anything about God, as much as our 'need' for that belief. Personally, I find no reason to believe simply over that predicament, because I feel belief should be reasonable and be very much on the side of the winning balance of probabilities. Taken as a whole, the Old and New Testaments, particularly the life of Christ, and of immense importance the conversion of Saul, and added to this the 'a man with an argument is always at the mercy of a man with an experience' approach, may I testify to you now that as sure as I'm writing this here, I have in my 56 yrs of life experienced the outpouring of Gods healing power ONCE. But it was a once that one rarely speaks of out of fear of ridicule, or of appearing as some kind of "Well, there I was, I had this awful headache, and the pastor prayed for me and I was slain in the spirit and VIOLA ..it was gone.. ITS A MIRACLE " kind of thing. I prefer to keep in close to my heart, because of the abuses and misrepresentations of money minded Televangelists. If u dug around, you would find numerous such examples as mine. The point I'm making, is that the belief which thus far eludes you, by choice, should not be a choice which is made in the face of examples of God in Christ showing His reality and power in daily life. John, in his gospel reports "Jesus did many other things, which are not recorded in this book, but THESE are recorded so u may believe and in believing, have life in His name" (20:21) so there is a place for the miraculous in regard to faith, in confirming that what is said is true. With so many charletons and Benny Hinz,'Leap of Faith' types (Did u see Steve Martin in that movie ? )
around, it is easy to lump all claims of the miraculous into either that category, or of some psychological explanation. But I suggest, the Christian faith, would have died out long ago if this was the case. One of the most powerful images or stories from the NT is in John where the man born blind is interrogated by the Pharisees they said ....

“Give glory to God by telling the truth,* because we know Jesus is a sinner.”

The formerly blind man replied...

25“I don’t know whether he is a sinner,” the man replied. “But I know this: I was blind, and now I can see!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is where the rubber meets the road.
If not for this, we are left with Nihilsim and the likes of politicized groups like Nambla for all who are brave enough to face up to the logical ramifications of the rejection of the Divine and moral. I recommend a very important movie, not bedtime viewing, but philosophically I class it as one of the most important of our generation. "Intensity" Starring John McKinly Jr. It has one pivotal scene, where the heroine is tied to a chair and the 'bad guy' and her have a dialogue.. most instructive.

I'm trying to be 'sage like and wistful' in mood as I write :) hope it comes thru.
BOAZ

Does Atheism struggle to find a moral basis upon which to condemn NAMBLA? I hope more than most of us condemn it even if we don't strictly agree on a moral/theological basis for doing so...