CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This just proves your statement was false. You need to look at the starry sky and also think about where those stars come from. It takes more than you said it would take.
You have made your whole debating strategy the pursuit of talking one definition and claiming that if something fits the one definition it means the thing is also every other definition (not how dictionaries work), and now you are going to give me a hard time about the thing we are describing being the exact thing the definition describes (which is all you ever look for). Can you please get some consistency?
The definition of God is not the supernatural. Just because things like dark matter exist and we don't know everything about them (yet) doesn't mean that they must exist outside the natural plane of existence.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or real
a specific "being of supernatural powers" is different from just anything supernatural. Your argument seemed to me to be that because dark matter and the stars exist, something that can be considered supernatural, God must exist. But... couldn't that be an equal argument for dragons existing? Or multiple gods? Or anything?
Sorry if I didn't understand the original argument, I don't have a good grasp of the belief system you mentioned.
Google it. I cannot understand why people use the internet and then act like it is completely useless to actually learn something, the reason I don't drink bottled water.
Man, you are really bad at the basic concept of dictionaries. A magician can do magic, but not all things magic are done by magicians. You have completely misunderstood what I said.
The stars did not come into existence by themselves, some entity had to design the universe, I believe that entity is God.
If your argument is that because something exists, it must have been designed, who can you solve that problem by introducing another thing that must exist?
'God did not come into existence by itself, some entity had to design him.' If you accept that God did not have a creator, why couldn't the stars not have a creator?
That argument falls flat very quickly. What created god? Nobody, god always existed. Well then who is to say that the universe couldn't have always existed?
God and religion belong to a faith and belief system and the existence of God/Gods/deities etc etc throughout many civilisations has been the basis of their societies for many thousands of years, well before christianity arrived on the scene.
God does exist in the hearts and minds for many people and fills their need to believe in that existence.
There is something inherently superstitious in the human psyche that we have and continue to need a supreme being or beings or deities to exist so that our existence becomes meaningful.
Why indulge this need of filling a "void" in people's heart through God? God is simply a medium, what us homo sapiens sapiens really need is love between ourselves, not to some non - entity.
in the MIND of those who believe.... they construct him/her, they imbue him/her, they fantasize about him/her... and so for them.... it becomes very real.
Christmas doesn't really exist because of Jesus. Christmas is the celebration of the winter solstice and was hijacked by Christianity in order to convert pagans.
If the only motivation you have towards the faith in god are the festivals, then something is wrong. You can have festivals even without the existence of god.
Jesus could just have been a rip off artist whose mom went along with the whole "son of god" thing to cover up the result of the life of a prostitute in those days. Then he got followers and he became famous. Then he got a holiday after he died, probably made by his disciples, who were also rip off artists because somehow they were "THE ONLY ONES WHO SAW HIM WALK ON WATER" and anything he showed anyone else was nothing more than an old school magic trick. Anything too extravagant was "only shown to his precious disciples." Perfect explanation of the existence of Jesus.
It never fails to astound me that many people who do not accept Christianity feel compelled to justify that non-acceptance by ridiculing, vilifying and denigrating a religion that has been around for 2015 years. Most of these people steep themselves in Modern Progressive Liberalism, an ideology that has been in existence for some five decades and is, along with its attendant evil Political Correctness, solely responsible for ever negative facet of our society today.
Did you really just say that "Modern Progressive Liberalism" and "Political Correctness" are "solely responsible (silly considering you just said two things) for every negative facet of our society today?
You have to know that can't possibly be true, right?
I said "Modern Progressive Liberalism, along with its attendant evil Political Correctness". surely you must realize that PC is part of MPL, therefore "solely" is the correct word.
Now I challenge you to defend even one concept of modern progressive liberalism, that shameful and unprincipled ideology that climbed out of the slime at U C Berkeley back in the early 1960s.
I said "Modern Progressive Liberalism, along with its attendant evil Political Correctness". surely you must realize that PC is part of MPL, therefore "solely" is the correct word.
No, it is not a part of it. They often go hand in hand, but Political Correctness exists outside of "Modern Progressive Liberalism", and said ideology can and does exist without Political Correctness.
Now I challenge you to defend even one concept of modern progressive liberalism
Well first off, despite you using that term over and over, it doesn't have that much meaning in political science. It is mostly a term used by the right to denote negative connotations of their political enemies. Progressivism is something that can and does exist on the right and the left (though, to be fair, more so on the left than the right). As it pertains to Liberalism, Progressive ideology holds that economic inequality is a negative force upon society (most certainly true), that the working class tends to be treated unfairly (most certainly true), and that the government should strive to fix these problems. Now progressives will certainly have different views on how this should be done, which is why you have a wide variety of types of Progressives out there.
Oh, and Progressivism dates back to the 19th century. It did not originate from U.C. Berkly, or from the early 1960's.
Since I'm the person who first used the term Modern Progressive Liberalism I happen to know what it encompasses and PC is just one of it's manifest evils, I'll throw in "multiculturalism", the celebration of homosexualism, abortion upon demand, hedonism, sodomy, licentiousness, ad infinitum. I don't give a damn about political science especially since the term is meaningless, I'm talking about reality. Incidentally, modern progressivism did begin in the 60s, and you misspelled Berkeley. I also note that you did not rise to my challenge and I know why--the liberal ideology is indefensible.
Since I'm the person who first used the term Modern Progressive Liberalism I happen to know what it encompasses and PC is just one of it's manifest evils, I'll throw in "multiculturalism", the celebration of homosexualism, abortion upon demand, hedonism, sodomy, licentiousness, ad infinitum.
Ohh, I get it: You decided to make up a term and throw everything you don't like into it.
Oddly enough, since you are the only person using it, that would mean that nobody follows it.
I don't give a damn about political science especially since the term is meaningless,
You are right, the term you made up and are employing is indeed meaningless.
I'm talking about reality.
No, you are talking about a term that you just made up.
Incidentally, modern progressivism did begin in the 60s, and you misspelled Berkeley.
Exactly, Modern Progressive Liberalism encompasses every evil besetting our society today, I'd include an alphabetical list but I have other things to do.
There is no relation between the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) and politics, hence the term Political Science is meaningless.
I don't use internet sites since I have no way of knowing whether or not they are fact based, anyone may put anything into cyber-space--also sitting in front of a computer is bad for one's health.
And you don't think for yourself, you permit Modern Progressive Liberalism to do your thinking for you. I've been on this planet for a long time now and not once have I experienced "income inequality", I was always paid an amount that reflected my education, capability, and dedication. That's one of the wonders of the United States, one may go as far as one chooses as long as one doesn't kowtow to Modern Progressive Liberalism and embrace the idea that one is a victim of corporate greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, being a hyphenated American and not born rich. In short, your entire argument is a litany of liberal bullshit. You have the last word, I have important things to do that do not involve sitting in front of the computer.
Exactly, Modern Progressive Liberalism encompasses every evil besetting our society today, I'd include an alphabetical list but I have other things to do.
So something that you just made up is to blame for everything. Funny.
There is no relation between the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) and politics, hence the term Political Science is meaningless.
That actually isn't true, but you clearly haven't bothered to study legitimate political science (as opposed to simply ideology and theory).
I don't use internet sites since I have no way of knowing whether or not they are fact based, anyone may put anything into cyber-space--also sitting in front of a computer is bad for one's health.
Yeah, you might come across someone making up their own term and declaring it the cause of all the world's ills. Oh wait...
And you don't think for yourself, you permit Modern Progressive Liberalism to do your thinking for you.
Yes, I let something that doesn't exist do my thinking for me. Clearly.
I've been on this planet for a long time now and not once have I experienced "income inequality", I was always paid an amount that reflected my education, capability, and dedication.
Ah, well clearly your anecdotal evidence covers the entire world, so there is no point arguing with someone who is omniscient.
That's one of the wonders of the United States, one may go as far as one chooses as long as one doesn't kowtow to Modern Progressive Liberalism and embrace the idea that one is a victim of corporate greed, racism, homophobia, sexism, being a hyphenated American and not born rich.
There we go with that omniscience again.
In short, your entire argument is a litany of liberal bullshit. You have the last word, I have important things to do that do not involve sitting in front of the computer.
I never provided an argument, but I do find it funny how you sit at a computer telling other people that you have something more "important" to do than exactly what you were doing.
I said "Modern Progressive Liberalism, along with its attendant evil Political Correctness". surely you must realize that PC is part of MPL, therefore "solely" is the correct word.
Now I challenge you to defend even one concept of modern progressive liberalism, that shameful and unprincipled ideology that climbed out of the slime at U C Berkeley back in the early 1960s.
I didn't say that for sure. He could also have just been a lunatic. Ever thought about that? There's almost no proof he was correct. Scientists identified a person named (several people in fact) "Jesus" living in Nazareth at the time. However, its unlikely that there will ever be proof he was telling the truth. The only people who saw him walk on water were "his wonderful disciples" and his mom. You haven't addressed that as an argument. You've addressed practically nothing I said. I'm not saying it for certain, I'm stating it as a possibility because that's about as likely as him being a profit.
I didn't say that for sure. He could also have just been a lunatic. Ever thought about that? There's almost no proof he was correct. Scientists identified a person named (several people in fact) "Jesus" living in Nazareth at the time. However, its unlikely that there will ever be proof he was telling the truth. The only people who saw him walk on water were "his wonderful disciples" and his mom. You haven't addressed that as an argument. You've addressed practically nothing I said. I'm not saying it for certain, I'm stating it as a possibility because that's at least as likely as him being a profit.
You didn't address anything I said. I didn't state it as a fact. I simply stated it as a possibility. Is there anything wrong with that possibility? IMO, its at least as likely as Jesus being legitimate, if not more likely.
God's existence cannot be understood by just staring at the sky and looking for him. In the words of swami vivekananda, -
" He is everywhere, the pure and formless
One, the Almighty and the All-merciful.
"Thou art our father, Thou art our
mother, Thou art our beloved friend, Thou
art the source of all strength; give us
strength. Thou art He that beareth the
burdens of the universe; help me bear the
little burden of this life." Thus sang the
Rishis of the Vedas. And how to worship
Him? Through love. 'He is to be
worshipped as the one beloved, dearer
than everything in this and the next life' ".
God can be perceived as a presence. He needn't necessarily be in the forms we see in photographs but he does exist, just as someone who created us, and someone who's taking care of the universe every moment.
Until proven otherwise, those that believe in God, Believe he exists. So until those secular Humanists who like to attack and insult the religious can prove that God Does not exist, the Believers win this debate. As the believers have always claimed to have a belief in God. Where the secular Humanists are making a positive statement that God does not exist, so now they have to prove that statement
I am not attacking anyone. A belief is not a positive claim. You and your sidekick fido, made the positive claim that God does not exist, so where is your proof
That is why it is not a positive claim to say that God does not exist.
All the proof I need to provide to say God does not exist: I have no evidence that suggests that God exists. As such, I have no reason to believe that God exists. If you wish to prove that God exists, you must provide said evidence.
The only one making a positive claim about God is you, so come on, where is your evidence to back up your claim, or are you going to tuck your tail and run away now
Do you want me to list each and every one of your attacks since you came onto this website? I would be glad to do so.
The only one making a positive claim about God is you, so come on, where is your evidence to back up your claim, or are you going to tuck your tail and run away now
Then quote the positive claim about god that I have made. Once you can quote it, I will provide evidence.
You made the claim that God does not exist, not that you believe he does not exist, but that he does not exist, well here is your chance prove your positive claim .
That's not what I asked. So we can continue in this conversation effectively, can you tell me what you think a 'positive claim' is, as we clearly have conflicting definitions for the term.
You have a belief that your car will start tomorrow morning but you can't prove that it will. I believe that Modern Progressive Liberalism is manifestly evil but I can't prove it, the belief however becomes stronger every day because of evidence of that evil. The true insult is the existence of Modern Progressive Liberalism which lacks even a scintilla of common sense.
You have a belief that your car will start tomorrow morning but you can't prove that it will. I believe that Modern Progressive Liberalism is manifestly evil but I can't prove it, the belief however becomes stronger every day because of evidence of that evil. The true insult is the existence of Modern Progressive Liberalism which lacks even a scintilla of common sense.
Except it doesn't exist, outside of your mind and writings. It is a term you just made up out of thin air. It does not apply to any actual ideology or school of thought.
I was talking about several of their songs that contradict each other. LOL, but that was one of them. That must be the only non-violent song they have.
You know they came out as Evangelicals, right? Miracles was their debut and their subsequent work has, accordingly, departed from their earlier work as well. Rather fascinating, actually.
My opinion is that even if God did exist, he would only help those who helped themselves. Thus, helping ourselves is the most important thing - Leave nothing up to "God". Of course, through our abilities, let us help make a person's life better rather than sacrificing blind offerings and praying for the blessings of "God", if he did exist.
For the strong and self reliant God does not exist, and the suggestion that he does needs to be vigorously and aggressively slapped down. That is until, they're in a position such as in an aircraft flying at 35000 feet and hear the captain announce, this is an emergency announcement, fasten your safety belts and adopt the ''brace position, ''brace, brace, brace'', then it's;- our father who art in heaven, please save me, let everyone else perish, but I must survive, praise the Lord, hallelujah brother, hallelujah.
For the strong and self reliant God does not exist,
You can believe in God and be string and self-reliant. What about people who are weak and rely on others? Are you saying that they must all believe in God?
Hi Starchild, Check out both of my posts on this thread, then see if you can spot the sarcastic irony in the one to which you refer by reading all of it.
Claiming the existence of God is a positive claim, and as such those with that claim have the burden of proof. Since I have yet to see any objective evidence that suggests the existence of God, I have no reason to believe that God exists.
Then you were born with your eyes shut and have yet to open them. Our very existence is a result of some grand design, ergo there must be a designer. Incidentally, it is possible to believe in the existence of God without religious belief; religion is a work of man not of God.
In your experience have you ever encountered anything that did not have some design behind it? One plants a kernel of corn with the hope that one will someday partake of an ear of corn, that kernel is the design of an ear of corn. Existence requires origin and to my mind that origin is God. Proving the existence of God or proving that God does not exist are both exercises in futility. I choose to believe that our universe is not merely chance.
The reason I mentioned religion is that whenever this debate occurs religion is brought into it, look at some of the replies you have received. To most people God and religion cannot be separated.
I haven't the slightest idea of the origin of God, the question has no answer. It's like trying to determine the original image in a house of mirrors.
While you are wrestling with this problem it is good to remember that the United States was founded upon a belief in God and our whole ethic is based upon Judeo-Christian principles, so believing in God has something to say for it.
I haven't the slightest idea of the origin of God, the question has no answer.
If you can accept that about God, why can you not accept that of the universe?
While you are wrestling with this problem it is good to remember that the United States was founded upon a belief in God and our whole ethic is based upon Judeo-Christian principles, so believing in God has something to say for it.
So? The United Stated was founded in part upon racism and sexism as well; that doesn't mean these things are inherently good. Saying something is good because other people thought it was good in the past is very foolish.
I haven't the slightest idea of the origin of God, the question has no answer. It's like trying to determine the original image in a house of mirrors.
So you aren't willing to accept that for the origin of reality, but you will accept that for the origin of god. Questionable, to say the least.
While you are wrestling with this problem it is good to remember that the United States was founded upon a belief in God and our whole ethic is based upon Judeo-Christian principles, so believing in God has something to say for it.
I can not remember that which is not true. The United States was founded upon the ideals of post-Enlightenment Liberalism, and while most of those who founded the United States believed in god, said belief was not the "foundation" of this country. Additionally, our ethic is based upon concepts that predate the Abrahamic Religion, much like the principles and ethics you are referring to, all of which date back to works such as the Code of Hammurabi.
And you are a victim of modern revisionist history since you are "remembering that which is not true". I will ask you to reacquaint yourself with the nation's motto and the Declaration of Independence, particularly to the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second.
Well, I don't think you exactly got my point. I personally don't see the need for a creator of everything, but if that is what you want, the idea of 'God' does not solve your dilemma.
If everything needs a creator, where did the creator come from? If you accept that this creator came from nothing, why couldn't existence do the same?
Our very existence is a result of some grand design, ergo there must be a designer.
You have repeated this multiple times, but without any sort of legitimate argument. It is circular reasoning: You believe in god, therefore believe that god created the universe, therefore the universe is evidence of god. That is not evidence, that is just stating your beliefs in a different way.
Incidentally, it is possible to believe in the existence of God without religious belief
No, it is not. Theism (the belief in a god) is itself a religious belief. You can be a theist without adhering to a particular religion, however.
You can believe in a higher power and not be religious , you on the other had show a very religious belief about God, you believe in the religion of secular Humanism, and yes secular Humanism is a religion, that is why you attack the Christian God.
And Again, no one is making a positive claim that God exists, you on the other hand are making a positive claim that god does not exist, hence you need to provide your proof
LOL, you are really grabbing at straws here, and it is evident you have no idea of what you are saying. No one made a positive claim before your positive claim that God does not exist. Since you refuse to back up your claim, we will accept that you were lying and just attacking that other poster
LOL, you are really grabbing at straws here, and it is evident you have no idea of what you are saying. No one made a positive claim before your positive claim that God does not exist.
For the last fing time, I never claimed that God does not exist. I am not* an atheist. Christianity is predicate upon the positive claim that God exists. When someone disagrees with said belief, they are not making a positive claim.
Do you know what a positive claim is? It is not inherent that God exists, as such, if you want to show that he does, you have to provide proof. If God doesn't exist, there would be no proof to show. He simply wouldn't exist.
If you wanted to prove the existence of unicorns, it is your job to provide some unicorns or evidence of unicorns. It's not the job of others to scan every atom of existence to show that there aren't unicorns. Until that evidence is provided, it is logical to assume that unicorns don't exist.
If you are cut up into billions of little pieces and, somehow, kept alive... Do you exist?
Everything that exists in the universe right now was once compressed into a space smaller than the head of a pin. That was God. But He got bored (or something) and blew Himself up to create everything in the universe.
But He's immortal. And the pieces started clumping together and the pieces of His consciousness became us... life. Sentient life.
It is up to us to reconstruct Him or abide by His death wish.
God is a character that you give either gratitude or complaints to, yet, it does not exist. The reason people do this is quite simple. Life seems very easy when you try to create a being with supernatural powers that you feel can be blamed for the good and bad. The law of attraction is a law, that shows that if you think about something for long enough, it will happen. There is science behind why this happens. Also, you pray, and something happens. What if there was no god, no coincidence, but in fact the power of attraction. http://www.personal-development-planet.com/law-of-attraction-for-beginners.html
Of course god doesn't exist!! There is no evidence that proves god is real! (Now that's a start!), I am not the first person to look up to the sky. And all that exists up there is clouds, stars, space, a moon, a sun, and that's almost all we know about (apart from the planets and galaxies). God is just fake! How could he be real.
Well no, since there is nothing to suggest the evolution of certain beings; though your comment is one that evolutionists (and many athiests) would conversely posit. Nevertheless, by saying that creation is not as legitimate I'm assuming you believe that evolution bears more credence as an explanation, in spite of your stance that God does not exist?
Well no, since there is nothing to suggest the evolution of certain beings
Which beings would those be?
Nevertheless, by saying that creation is not as legitimate
I didn't say that, I said that the argument you are using for creation is a less legitimate version of an argument that can be made for evolution.
I'm assuming you believe that evolution bears more credence as an explanation
I do, because evolution has actual, observable evidence, where as creation does not.
in spite of your stance that God does not exist?
That is not my stance. I am what is referred to as a Pragmatic Agnostic (I prefer to jokingly call it Hardline Agnosticism), which means that I do not believe anyone can know where or not God(s) exist, and that humans are not (currently at least) capable of knowing. If god(s) exited, then I would say that evolution would clearly be the tool employed to change and develop life. As it stands, I only go with what we have evidence for.
I guess I used the term âcertainâ loosely; I mean any, human or otherwise.
I do, because evolution has actual, observable evidence, whereas creation does not.
What observable evidence would that be?
I am what is referred to as a Pragmatic Agnostic (I prefer to jokingly call it Hardline Agnosticism), which means that I do not believe anyone can know where or not God(s) exist, and that humans are not (currently at least) capable of knowing. If god(s) exited, then I would say that evolution would clearly be the tool employed to change and develop life. As it stands, I only go with what we have evidence for.
But, if you donât believe that humans are capable of knowing Godâs existence (i.e. so there is always that uncertainty), then how can you be confident that evolution particularly is the correct tool for modifying life? Surely then there is no basis to make such an assertion. Moreover, wouldnât the stance youâve described place even a modicum of curiosity in the back of your mind as to whether the capacity of our understanding can ever stretch far enough so we may possibly have that certainty of knowing said existence?
But, if you donât believe that humans are capable of knowing Godâs existence (i.e. so there is always that uncertainty), then how can you be confident that evolution particularly is the correct tool for modifying life?
Because, thus far, that is the concept that has the most evidence back it it.
Surely then there is no basis to make such an assertion.
The evidence is the basis.
Moreover, wouldnât the stance youâve described place even a modicum of curiosity in the back of your mind as to whether the capacity of our understanding can ever stretch far enough so we may possibly have that certainty of knowing said existence?
We are not talking about "certainty", we are talking about "to the best of our knowledge". I surely do not believe that we currently have any "certainty" regarding our origins, and would never claim otherwise.
Because, thus far, that is the concept that has the most evidence back it it.
I had a look through the links that you provided me and I can see why you and others would give a nod to these as evidence; however it presents ideas that are ripe for misinterpretation. The premise of Evolution (as described in one link) is change: specifically the constant change of different life forms over an extended time period (generational), resulting in the birth of new species.
The evidence is the basis.
Although all of your links include examples Iâll pick one or two for each section of evidence, starting with fossils: the 2nd link mentions a fossil (Archaeopteryx) with âjaws, a long bony tail and broad bird-like wingsâ. It goes on to say that âthis verifies the assumption that bird had reptilian ancestorsâ. Not so, and this is the problem with fossils being tied to evolution â if evolution is an ongoing process, then there should be existing fossils that mark the entire transitioning period of those specimens and not simply the beginning or end result so that we can get a full picture. Really, it would have been more feasible if the site had provided images of the whole process rather than a reconstruction of what they imagine the specimen would have looked like in life form. As it stands, it marks a difference in species, yes, but not the actual evolutionary process itself.
Secondly, Evolution also points towards homologies, as your 1st link terms, this being the similar characteristics that organisms share. It details that although frogs, birds, rabbits and lizards have different forelimbs, they have the same set of bones. Again, despite what the link suggests, this doesnât necessarily demonstrate a common ancestry (and even if it does, we have no idea of what that specific ancestor is) making such a claim seem like guesswork. It merely tells us that that the bone structure is versatile enough to allow these different animals to survive in their various environments.
Thirdly, there is of course the biggest of them all which concerns human beings: your 3rd link has a section on the development of embryos, comparing human embryos to those of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. Though the embryos may develop similarly, that still does not mean we share an ancestral species, as it suggests. The site does say however (and the other two links also allude to this) that âin spite of the differing traits the basic plan for the creatureâs beginning is still the sameâ. Instead I would argue that this fundamental similarity resembles the strategy a designer may use in having a basic mold from which to begin their creations, keeping some elements the same but making slight modifications to each in order to produce some diversity. Nevertheless, taking what evolution actually is (i.e. continual changing of life forms), then surely we as humans should not expect to coexist with apes at all because they were our âold selfâ, yet here they are alongside us.
We are not talking about "certainty", we are talking about "to the best of our knowledge". I surely do not believe that we currently have any "certainty" regarding our origins, and would never claim otherwise.
It is unfortunate that technically this debate question does not accurately represent your view since its structure is pretty black and white â either God does exist or He does not. However since, as youâve already suggested, you are not an atheist (meaning you are not completely opposed to the idea of such an existence), you are at least open to the concept of God bringing about what we know to be. Nevertheless, I only mentioned the term certainty because you seemed so decided in your opinion of evolution being the principle method, but really you must be willing to concede that, in alignment with your PA stance, evolution is a possible method that a possible God may have used, not a definite one.
Also, what I meant was because you donât feel we presently have any certainty in knowing our origins does this not make you desire to have it? According to you, to the best of our knowledge we have evolution to contend with, but the theory itself seems to be on shaky ground (with words like âassumptionâ and âprobableâ) and has undergone alteration to fit the existing evidence which would mean your mind will always be wondering what the truth is.
