thebicker

Him: I don’t date black women. It’s just a preference.

Me: Based on what?

Him: Nothing, it’s just how I feel.

Me: Impossible, deliberate aversions come from somewhere.

Him: Its just a preference, that’s all.

Me: No, a preference is preferring broccoli to asparagus. You can say that because asparagus will always taste the same, even when prepared differently.

Him: And?

Me: And we’re not always the same at all. There are hundreds of millions of us and we’re each completely different from the next. If an employer said not hiring Black people was a preference would you agree?

Him: No, but that’s based on stereotypes.

Me: … And what is yours based on, facts?

azspot

A fact is a kind of truth, but not all truth is factual.

The English term “fact” comes from the Latin factum, which is a legal term referring to the act or deed of someone. In other words, a factum is something that is verifiable in a court of law. And, this is a kind of truth. A fact may also be something that is observable and repeatable, like a scientific fact. And this is also a kind of truth.

But, there is truth that is not accessible via a courtroom or the lab. There is truth that is verifiable via the human experience and this is the truth of the story of Noah and the Flood.

This story speaks truthfully concerning the forces of chaos in our world – reckless and indiscriminate chaos – like floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, plagues, famines, military invasions. How do we speak about God in the light of calamity and disaster? This is the truth of the story of Noah and the Flood.

Can we verify the story as it is narrated in the Book of Genesis in a court of law? No.

Can we observe and repeat the story as it is narrated in the Book of Genesis in a lab? No.

But, contrary to popular opinion, this does not mean that it is not true. The past cannot take the stand nor can the past be placed in test tube, but this does not mean that history is not true.

History-telling is meaningful and true insofar as it informs the present.

The story of Noah and Flood is both meaningful and true. For those who suffer great tragedies, and we all do, this story has the power to speak to that which is broken and undone.

The Noah story is just as true as the flying spaghetti monster. An just as uplifting. Maybe a little less but still. Enough said.

1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.
2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…
3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 
4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…
5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 
Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.
In reason:-FA


1) Who actually thinks that cosmology and geophysics are on the same level as creationism? They are as different as night and day, facts and lies, truth and superstition.

2)  I suggest you actually take the time to study “this” before trying to intelligently discuss them. If not is a waste of everyone’s time…

3) There are evolutionary records for the planets, stars and the universe itself. Again, I strongly suggest you read up on these topics. See my previous recommendations on where to start. Then you can ask intelligently. No one is bound to do your homework for you. 

4) Miracles to prevent catastrophic planetary accidents? Really? At this point I can only concluded you are a troll. Who hasn’t at least heard of gravity, orbits and black holes? C’mon…

5) No point going back and forth anymore. For those still interested the fact remains that asserting that a designer made the universe does not solve the problem of who designed the designer. If the assumption is that the designer had no need for anyone to design it/him/her then, why can’t we assert the same thing of the Universe itself? Per Occam’s razor (google it) belief in a supreme designer is superfluous and a total waste of time since no facts support it. 

Truly it is easier to sit on one’s couch and assert baseless things about the universe than actually taking the time to study and learn how the universe actually is and came to be. That is the difference between a lazy, uninformed person and one who actually seeks truth. May we always be the latter and never the former.

In reason:
-FA

Just received this. Here are my thoughts:

All we seen and have shown to be true about our universe indicates that complexity comes from simplicity. Be it evolution or cosmology, complex systems are nothing more than the sum of simpler more basic systems. At one point, at the begging of time, the universe was way more simple than what it is today. Just what we would expect from an unguided state of affairs. 

Now, If the complexity and/or mathematical precision of the universe today requires an even more complex designer than the universe itself, where did the designer’s complexity come from to begin with? What reasoning mind could side step such basic question? What reasoning mind would assert no need to explain the alleged designer’s complexity? If one side steps the question on the  designer, why not do it as well in regards to the universe itself? The designer idea becomes and is wholly unnecessary, and still we do have good hypothesis of how the universe came to be… 

I recommend the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Krause on the topic.

Isn’t such trite argumentation evidently self defeating? Only when a reasoning mind realizes that complexity comes from simplicity are the doors open to accept the fact that belief in a grand designer is superfluous. The universe itself is a witness against such fact lacking assumptions of design and unaccounted for complexity. 

In reason:
-FA

PD
Watch some Cosmos on Fox. Great program.

Just received this. Here are my thoughts:

All we seen and have shown to be true about our universe indicates that complexity comes from simplicity. Be it evolution or cosmology, complex systems are nothing more than the sum of simpler more basic systems. At one point, at the begging of time, the universe was way more simple than what it is today. Just what we would expect from an unguided state of affairs.

Now, If the complexity and/or mathematical precision of the universe today requires an even more complex designer than the universe itself, where did the designer’s complexity come from to begin with? What reasoning mind could side step such basic question? What reasoning mind would assert no need to explain the alleged designer’s complexity? If one side steps the question on the designer, why not do it as well in regards to the universe itself? The designer idea becomes and is wholly unnecessary, and still we do have good hypothesis of how the universe came to be…

I recommend the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Krause on the topic.

Isn’t such trite argumentation evidently self defeating? Only when a reasoning mind realizes that complexity comes from simplicity are the doors open to accept the fact that belief in a grand designer is superfluous. The universe itself is a witness against such fact lacking assumptions of design and unaccounted for complexity.

In reason:
-FA

PD
Watch some Cosmos on Fox. Great program.