damnseriouselephant (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

all stupid arguments cept the thermodynamics

lonelyjew (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The vid is wrong about 7. Evolution is wholly reliant on random chance... It just happens that the certain random change that improve their chances of being spread (while the vast majority do nothing or the opposite). Evolution is not smart, it does not dictate evolutionary paths (unlike intelligent design), but rather describes natural selection, which again is based on random mutations.

vaLLarrr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@MonasteryK and btw, a chimp is not a monkey of course anyway.

vaLLarrr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@MonasteryK oh I was referring to your statement, not the video necessarily.

vaLLarrr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@jez2718 not at all. I am merely denying THEIR assertion that it IS a "flaw."it very well MIGHT be.good thing the burden of proof is on THEM.ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies."

MonasteryK (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@vaLLarrr "....such as the chimp shown in the vid" is the important part of my comment. Therefore the argument given in the video ('England is also still here...') ist just confusing

jez2718 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@vaLLarrr It is also your opinion that it isn't a flaw. What matters in this case are the arguments, who's opinion is more justified. Correct me if I'm wrong, so far you've challenged his opinion on omnipotence grounds, that a perfect being can do anything it wants. I question your opinion on omnibenevolence grounds, a perfect being wouldn't deliberately create harmful imperfections. My opinion is "perfect" is self-contradictory, based on the arguments against the 'omni's co-existing.

vaLLarrr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@jez2718 exactly. it is a "flaw of God" in THEIR OPINION, as if it were some kind of "fact."which it isn't, of course.opinion |əˈpinyən|nouna view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

jez2718 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@vaLLarrr It appears to me that they are arguing that it is a flaw of God if it creates imperfect objects, and thus there is something in the definition of perfection. That is what I mean by there being a point of contention. In the context of omnipotence the position seems invalid, though they may have a reply to my argument. The questions I'd ask you are "Is a perfect being loving?" and "Is it loving to create a being with flaws?".

vaLLarrr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@jez2718 this person just "decided" what an all powerful perfect God "can" or "can't do."there's nothing whatsoever in the definition of "being perfect" that says such a being CANNOT create imperfect beings if it wishes.these are two entirely different things.