Christianity

[Belinda]

I already did. The force of gravity is natural as is natural selection. Also I suppose there may remain on the face of the Earth some as yet undiscovered life form or maybe an underground stream that has not yet been re-designed by man. Actually I saw a newspaper photo of a deep sea fish , formerly unknown to man, who has a transparent head. He was not intentionally designed.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, the Devil can speak true, just as the biased man can speak true - but you're a fool if you default to believing either, because, often enough, and significantly enough, they sure as hell do not.

So check the history.

Were the Sioux, or the Iroquois, or the Comanches, nature-loving, sustainable wonders, or vicious tribes of primitives who brutalized, enslaved, raped, burned and tortured?

Go and read the history. Then come and tell me whether I'm speaking the truth or not.

[Immanuel Can]

I already did.

Nope, you didn't.

You have offered no proof that "the force of gravity" or "nature" aren't "designed." You've just assumed it without offering any evidence of its truth.

But I'll let you off the hook. You'll never find anything that has design but is not designed. Because design presupposes a designer.

What you have to believe, instead, is that things like gravity or nature or the universe are just the most lucky set of accidents ever. But you can't say they're "designed."

[Harry Baird]

Were the Sioux, or the Iroquois, or the Comanches, nature-loving, sustainable wonders, or vicious tribes of primitives who brutalized, enslaved, raped, burned and tortured?

False dichotomy. Environmental sustainability is compatible with human aggression.

[Immanuel Can]

Were the Sioux, or the Iroquois, or the Comanches, nature-loving, sustainable wonders, or vicious tribes of primitives who brutalized, enslaved, raped, burned and tortured?

False dichotomy. Environmental sustainability is compatible with human aggression.

Then find out if they burned their lands. (They did.) And find out if they had less waste products than normal human beings, or were more aware of environmental science, or closer to the divine than other people were, or any of that mythological claptrap.

[Harry Baird]

Were the Sioux, or the Iroquois, or the Comanches, nature-loving, sustainable wonders, or vicious tribes of primitives who brutalized, enslaved, raped, burned and tortured?

False dichotomy. Environmental sustainability is compatible with human aggression.

Then find out if they burned their lands. (They did.)

So did indigenous Australians, but as I pointed out before, this was very, very carefully done, in an organised fashion, so as to minimise damage and maximise utility to all.

And find out if they had less waste products than normal human beings

I don't need to "find that out", because it's quite obviously true - they weren't burning fossil fuels, manufacturing products with ghastly by-products, nor even mining. Duh.

or were more aware of environmental science

They had no need to be, since they weren't producing the crap (admittedly useful at times) that we do.

or closer to the divine than other people were

Here, your bias asserts itself, because I haven't made a claim to that effect. What I do claim is that they had/have their own connection to the divine, of which colonialism has tried, with great injustice, to deprive them.

or any of that mythological claptrap.

Again: your bias asserts itself.

And with that: farewell, for the moment, PN. It is time for a rest.

[Belinda]

I already did.

Nope, you didn't.

You have offered no proof that "the force of gravity" or "nature" aren't "designed." You've just assumed it without offering any evidence of its truth.

But I'll let you off the hook. You'll never find anything that has design but is not designed. Because design presupposes a designer.

What you have to believe, instead, is that things like gravity or nature or the universe are just the most lucky set of accidents ever. But you can't say they're "designed."

These are designed in the sense that they harmonise with each other in the great orderly system called nature. Nothing that happens is accidental: all that happens necessarily happens.

[Harbal]

What you have to believe, instead, is that things like gravity or nature or the universe are just the most lucky set of accidents ever. But you can't say they're "designed."

There's nothing lucky about it. All the matereal, and all the principles existent in the universe, were bound to arrive at some kind of balance eventually. Anything you mix together will settle down into something in the end. And any life within the universe will have evolved to suit the environment in which it developed.

[Immanuel Can]

False dichotomy. Environmental sustainability is compatible with human aggression.

Then find out if they burned their lands. (They did.)

So did indigenous Australians, but as I pointed out before, this was very, very carefully done, in an organised fashion, so as to minimise damage and maximise utility to all.

Ah, yes...I'm sure they were all a bunch of far-sighted proto-Socialists...and no doubt, much better people than you and I. Far more moral, far more pure, far more nature loving, uninterested in "self." Yes, I'm sure.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Perhaps we can compromise with this one?

I like it. I don't understand its context, but I like it.

He's saying If I were Presidente I'd stop all wars, shut down the military, lower taxes, etc. etc. At the end he pleads for your vote . . .

Heck, I'd vote for him if he'd throw in a toaster . . .

This is Brown Man's music Harry and I'm glad that at least you like the rhythm. . . .

[Immanuel Can]

All the matereal, and all the principles existent in the universe,

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

It's obvious that we are here. Both sides of the argument agree that's so. But the question is, "How did we get here?" In fact, it's "How did anything get to exist anywhere?"

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

[Belinda]

Then find out if they burned their lands. (They did.)

So did indigenous Australians, but as I pointed out before, this was very, very carefully done, in an organised fashion, so as to minimise damage and maximise utility to all.

Ah, yes...I'm sure they were all a bunch of far-sighted proto-Socialists...and no doubt, much better people than you and I. Far more moral, far more pure, far more nature loving, uninterested in "self." Yes, I'm sure.

Whatever they were they certainly were not "primitives" (To quote IC).

[Belinda]

All the matereal, and all the principles existent in the universe,

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

It's obvious that we are here. Both sides of the argument agree that's so. But the question is, "How did we get here?" In fact, it's "How did anything get to exist anywhere?"

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

There is an uncaused cause.

[Immanuel Can]

So did indigenous Australians, but as I pointed out before, this was very, very carefully done, in an organised fashion, so as to minimise damage and maximise utility to all.

Ah, yes...I'm sure they were all a bunch of far-sighted proto-Socialists...and no doubt, much better people than you and I. Far more moral, far more pure, far more nature loving, uninterested in "self." Yes, I'm sure.

Whatever they were they certainly were not "primitives" (To quote IC).

Yeah, actually...by definition, they certainly were.

No strike against them. Every society was once primitive.

[Immanuel Can]

All the matereal, and all the principles existent in the universe,

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

It's obvious that we are here. Both sides of the argument agree that's so. But the question is, "How did we get here?" In fact, it's "How did anything get to exist anywhere?"

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

There is an uncaused cause.

Yes, there has to be. Mathematically, we can know that.

But what was "it" or rather, who is He?