well i will let you worry about the definition in this instance. and if logic dictates that dinosuars had sex and reproduced, because all things as we know them do, although there is no evidence then the same logic dictates that all things need a creator, as we kno it, therefore a creator HAS to exist
no mate I just want to clarify what being born a certain way has to do with the 'free will' to 'choose' to do something
why because you dont have an answer? I asked the question simply due to my views expressed earlier on in the thread people have a 'view' of God based on background, religion etc I dont share the view of God as most 'see' it. for example I am talking in terms of a 'creator' (which could be anything), whereas some see him as an old guyt with a white beard and robes etc
As you may have noticed I tend generally not to respond to you. for reasons best left alone here imo On here you made some points that I felt compelled to address as you seeemed (to me) to be genuinely interested If you are going to resort to personal insults then can I suggest we leave it at that
Under law, if I didn't want it then yes it would be rape. This doesn't prove free will. I asked YOU, was it rape How about mental illness? Do sufferers choose to suffer? this is relevant how to the debate? It doesn't matter what it is to me; by definition forcing someone to have sex is rape, though the argument isn't one based on semantics. If you are suggesting that desire is a sign of free will I'd argue that what you desire is dictated by nature and nurture, expressed by the activity of neurones and hormone secretion - causality. We pick up EVERYTHING based on experience. We don't get to pick and choose which variables apply to us, we are in thrall of everything. This is why I brought up the mental illness thing - if it isn't a choice how does it make sense that it isn't (and surely therefore a deficiency of the brain, certainly in comparison to others) while the desire to rape IS a choice? If you don't want to debate it then fine, you are busy talking to others.
As i said Nothing as we know it is created from nothing everything as we know it has a creator therefore it is logical to conclude there is a creator
I've said repeatedly that I don't accept any of the current theories. That's an answer. Everything. It makes the answer irrelevant, as it doesn't tell us anything. You don't like the answer that we don't know where everything came from, but that's still the answer that you get with this proposition, you've just moved it back a step. Where did we come from? I don't know. Apparently unacceptable. Where did we come from? God. Where did he come from? I don't know. Apparently acceptable. The absolute lack of evidence for one does suggest that one is unlikely, though. There's no current reason to accept that one exists. You've claimed that man didn't evolve into our current form, though. Wisdom teeth and our third eye-lid are clearly useless, so why do we have them? The uses that other creatures have for these vestigial remnants suggests that we also once had the same use for them. No, you just fail to understand what they're saying.
Bingo! We know dinosaurs had sex because we've found fossilised eggs and babies. Evolution is a widely accepted theory with screeds of supporting evidence. There is NO evidence that the universe was created by a creator and you cannot provide us with any. You've asked us about countless things and we've provided you with answers. Whether you accept them or not is up to you. You, however, expect us to accept that there must be a creator based on NO evidence.
