This is a response to your video "10 questions" [#1197]

[DL]

Response to "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"

To this day I haven't really decided if I'm a Christian or not yet but I am a very rational open minded, but down to earth, person and the first thing I noticed about your video is that it speaks in absolutes, and to assume that these answers are the only way to make sense of the questions is irrational and here's why...

You've managed to conclude that all you need to create a consistant rational respose to each question is to give them all a similar answer, yet most of what you say you have no absolute proof of. However, I myself do have proof towards the likelihood of a God actually existing, just not the Megalomaniacal or All Loving God most believe in. It is at the heart and soul of every God believer, and gives them the gut feeling they have to believe in a God yet most are incapable of articulating or even realizing what this feeling is and expressing it. It too can answer nearly every question you ask entirely on its own, but takes a little more effort than an assumption or a likelihood to explain.

I'm reminded of a video made by Evolutionist Dr. Ken Miller proving Irreducible Complexity wrong by using the same device of a mouse trap which Intelligent Designers would use to prove it right. Ken Miller goes on to prove that the mouse trap is completely functional if you take parts away, but that it becomes functional for different purposes. Here's the link to the video if you want to watch...



Now for the answer to those 10 questions, keep in mind that scientist have concluded recently that the mutation gene in humans has ceased its function... Our predecessors were stronger than us, some of our eyes are not as good for human purposes as they should be, etc. This leads to the fact that evolution breeds better survivors based on emotional needs much more so than physical ones. Matter itself cannot percieve but only store information, the information must be inturpreted and translated. Therefore the process of evolution requires intention not probability. You mentioned sad facts of life to impude that if there were a God it would mean he's not infallible, yet even though mutated and deformed babies are born all the time they are born out of the desire to create life not perfect life, only something to care for. Are not tumors, cancers, amputation, starvation, etc. ways to create unique lives, different perspectives of emotion which I've mentioned before that evolution accounts for. A stable perception is necessary for any conscious mind to sustain itself, and because the emotional spectrum reaches as far in both directions as the spectrum of light and dark, in order to evolve emotionally to be more fit to survive in the human form we must be capable of facing the extremes of both the light and the dark sides of emotion no matter how uncomfortable they may get. The physical world around us is taking care of this by creating emotionally staggering events in as many different forms as we could possibly bare or would be capable of keeping up with. The mutation gene within humans has ceased its function. Meaning that most likely our physical form is the perfect device for exploring all directions of the emotional spectrum, or at least close enough. Why then has the mutation gene ceased in humans, this means that we will not evolve physically but only mentally from this point on. If you are a rational person you're already beginning to see the truth. The only conclusion is that the goal of life on earth has been to reach a form that will allow for the total exploration of the emotional spectrum, and nothing further. That sounds like an intention more than anything I've ever heard, meaning not probability but purpose. Evolution doesn't argue in favor of no God, misconception, it argues that the physical world is built mostly on probabilities not intentions, and I believe it's right, but that doesn't mean that it is built without intentions either. Intention implies intelligence, intelligence implies perception, perception implies emotion. Therefore if there is a God, in order for it to maintain itself it would need a purpose. SO, why do people suffer? How else is a person going to reach vast levels of the emotional perception that God has created or been created by to be able to relate to this God if we never suffer ourselves. I know if I was God, that the thing I would want more than anything else would be someone I can relate to and someone who can relate to me. This doesn't paint the picture of a God that is all powerfull, but instead all vulnerable. Not a God that is egotistical, but a God that is unavoidably, unrelentingly, and eternally thirsty.

[Tails_155]

evolution isn't based on what a creature wants, it's based on what, after the creature receives it, doesn't kill the creature before it breeds

[aeriph]

keep in mind that scientist have concluded recently that the mutation gene in humans has ceased its function...

Are they saying there's a specific gene that causes other genes to mutate? If this were the case, and it were true that this gene "has ceased its function" then no-one would develop cancer any more. Despite this, they go on to say

Are not tumors, cancers, amputation, starvation, etc. ways to create unique lives

Even without the earlier contradiction, this second statement really is awful. I wonder if the mailer would be prepared to say that to a sufferer of one of these conditions.

[velkyn]

You've managed to conclude that all you need to create a consistant rational respose to each question is to give them all a similar answer, yet most of what you say you have no absolute proof of. However, I myself do have proof towards the likelihood of a God actually existing, just not the Megalomaniacal or All Loving God most believe in. It is at the heart and soul of every God believer, and gives them the gut feeling they have to believe in a God yet most are incapable of articulating or even realizing what this feeling is and expressing it. It too can answer nearly every question you ask entirely on its own, but takes a little more effort than an assumption or a likelihood to explain.

sorry, that's not proof.  If your claim was proof, then all gods would then supposedly exist.  Do they?  Do feral children have this "gut feeling?  No. 

[deconvertedone]

You've managed to conclude that all you need to create a consistant rational respose to each question is to give them all a similar answer, yet most of what you say you have no absolute proof of. However, I myself do have proof towards the likelihood of a God actually existing, just not the Megalomaniacal or All Loving God most believe in. It is at the heart and soul of every God believer, and gives them the gut feeling they have to believe in a God yet most are incapable of articulating or even realizing what this feeling is and expressing it. It too can answer nearly every question you ask entirely on its own, but takes a little more effort than an assumption or a likelihood to explain.

sorry, that's not proof.  If your claim was proof, then all gods would then supposedly exist.  Do they?  Do feral children have this "gut feeling?  No. 

Why don't you just write your own bible and make up your own religion?  Oh wait that's already been done.

[Helper52]

keep in mind that scientist have concluded recently that the mutation gene in humans has ceased its function...

Are they saying there's a specific gene that causes other genes to mutate? If this were the case, and it were true that this gene "has ceased its function" then no-one would develop cancer any more. Despite this, they go on to say

Are not tumors, cancers, amputation, starvation, etc. ways to create unique lives

Even without the earlier contradiction, this second statement really is awful. I wonder if the mailer would be prepared to say that to a sufferer of one of these conditions.

Since no one knows what causes Cancer your first argument is totally out the window, bye, gone, adios, whatever; so along with it goes the second. When he says mutation gene that means that this one gene that used to be brown hair is now blonde hair. Not brown hair develope into Cancer!! The problem with people is that they look at the whole picture but find one flaw. The focus every thing they have on that one flaw and say, "Nope, it can't be true! 1+1=2 but what you guys are getting only adds up to 1.9999 so it can't be true.

[none]

Since no one knows what causes Cancer your first argument is totally out the window, bye, gone, adios, whatever; so along with it goes the second. When he says mutation gene that means that this one gene that used to be brown hair is now blonde hair. Not brown hair develope into Cancer!! The problem with people is that they look at the whole picture but find one flaw. The focus every thing they have on that one flaw and say, "Nope, it can't be true! 1+1=2 but what you guys are getting only adds up to 1.9999 so it can't be true.

IMO free radicals cause cancer.

[Tails_155]

actually cancer is often caused by irregular mutations in cells which then cause damage, not all mutations are the same, they are on an allelic scale, but the effects are drastically different depending on the location, type of mutation, and what is mutating

[Ashe]

This is a quibble and doesn't fully relate to the message but...

To this day I haven't really decided if I'm a Christian or not yet but I am a very rational open minded...

For some reason it really bothers me when people use that phrase or term (whether they are atheists are not). Everyone likes to think they are rational. It feels like a kind of...I don't know...useless bragging. When someone promotes their own rationality I feel the same way as if they proclaim that they are the coolest person on Earth or something weird like that. Like their trying to say they are superior. I feel like rationality is one of those qualities that no one should have to announce to the world. If you are rational, you are rational, and you will be able to demonstrate it rather than having to tell people.

[Helper52]

Since no one knows what causes Cancer your first argument is totally out the window, bye, gone, adios, whatever; so along with it goes the second. When he says mutation gene that means that this one gene that used to be brown hair is now blonde hair. Not brown hair develope into Cancer!! The problem with people is that they look at the whole picture but find one flaw. The focus every thing they have on that one flaw and say, "Nope, it can't be true! 1+1=2 but what you guys are getting only adds up to 1.9999 so it can't be true.

IMO free radicals cause cancer.

What I meant was that peole have cancer from different reasons some have it from one thing some have it from another.