No I think Ill leave this argument before Im beaten any further...
Maltheism is "cool" because of two reasons:
1) It makes more sense, an all perfect, all powerful god would not exist (since existance is imperfection), would not create a universe (it would have no need of one and so, being perfect would not waste its energy), would not write a book about how great it was and control peoples lives (pointless and cruel).
2) Rebels in a tribal society had a good chance of overthrowing the dominant males and replacing them, therefore the females that were attracted to them at an early stage (while they were rebelious) had children that did well (as the children of a dominant male)... hence evolution... forget that one. Its obviously the case but since the thread is a debate on evolution... just complicates things up, an sub argument whose validity is questioned by the nature of the thread.
By the way, since most logicaly good children do well at science and are indoctrinated (yes I admit, scientists do it too) into evolution, science has an unfair advantage in these debates. Im impressed with some of excessive forces arguments and its better to NOT beleive but to understand than to beleive but NOT understand.
My younger brother beleives in evolution and laughs at the six days creation... but he has never made an effort to understand evolution, his faith is as blind and foolish as those who do not question the bible. I tried questioning him about how he can fully beleive things that he doesnt even understand but he got upset... to be honest Im still hoping hes adopted or somehow got all the opposite genes to me...
Maltheism is "cool" because of two reasons:
1) It makes more sense, an all perfect, all powerful god would not exist (since existance is imperfection), would not create a universe (it would have no need of one and so, being perfect would not waste its energy), would not write a book about how great it was and control peoples lives (pointless and cruel).
2) Rebels in a tribal society had a good chance of overthrowing the dominant males and replacing them, therefore the females that were attracted to them at an early stage (while they were rebelious) had children that did well (as the children of a dominant male)... hence evolution... forget that one. Its obviously the case but since the thread is a debate on evolution... just complicates things up, an sub argument whose validity is questioned by the nature of the thread.
By the way, since most logicaly good children do well at science and are indoctrinated (yes I admit, scientists do it too) into evolution, science has an unfair advantage in these debates. Im impressed with some of excessive forces arguments and its better to NOT beleive but to understand than to beleive but NOT understand.
My younger brother beleives in evolution and laughs at the six days creation... but he has never made an effort to understand evolution, his faith is as blind and foolish as those who do not question the bible. I tried questioning him about how he can fully beleive things that he doesnt even understand but he got upset... to be honest Im still hoping hes adopted or somehow got all the opposite genes to me...
Comment