Subjective Evidence of Gods

I have never thought Lewis' arguments were particularly compelling. Actually they seem quite simplistic to me.I am not sure I would go as far as this guy(looks like it is John Loftus).
C.S. Lewis was an idiotBut I think he makes some valid arguments against Lewis.Here is a more scholarly refutation of Lewis and his arguments. C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion
By John BeversluisEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I see Catholic Scientist wants to be the EVC policeman.The post was an aside from the current topic. All I wanted to do was let GDR know that he should examine some criticisms of Lewis. He might want to know what others think of the arguments presented by Lewis. Since he repeatedly mentions his love for Lewis, I felt it was more than appropriate to point out that there are major flaws with the arguments that Lewis uses. If you followed the links you would see that these people also thought that the arguments put forth by Lewis were not very good arguments.If you want to discuss Lewis start a thread. I personally do not feel a need to pursue the subject more.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I originally had read a critique of Lewis by Loftus a few months ago. I did not critically read this to notice that it is a slam on Loftus.Loftus wrote a critique of "CS Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion" on Amazon that was picked up by a few sites. I was taken in by the attempt at parody. I thought it was the same or something similar.My bad.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Can you not understand what you read or are you just a liar for Jesus? Quote mining is as low as spamming.This is what the link you provided says.Here is the headline

quote:

---

When Comet LINEAR broke apart last year it revealed what many scientists thought all along: Water in Earth's oceans could have come from outer space.

---

That one line destroys your interpretation. You had to have read it in order to get to the part you posted.More from the article

quote:

---

"The idea that comets seeded life on Earth with water and essential molecular building blocks is hotly debated, and for the first time, we have seen a comet with the right composition to do the job," said Michael Mumma of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Mumma is the lead author of a paper about this research that appeared in the May 18th issue of Science.

---

And what is the next line after what you posted?

quote:

---

However, Comet LINEAR apparently was born in a part of the solar system where water was more Earth-like.

---

Do you really think we will not look at the sources?Now that I have destroyed your credibility you may apologize to everyone here for your dishonesty and quote mining.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Maybe you should learn more about Buddhism.

quote:

---

The refutation of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions. In Buddhism the sole aim of spiritual practice is the complete alleviation of stress in samsara,called nirvana. The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless. Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism, but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.

---

Wrong!Did you read the wiki article at all? Here are a couple very relevant sentences.

quote:

---

The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator, denies endorsing any views on creation and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless. Some theists beginning Buddhist meditation believe that the notion of divinity is not incompatible with Buddhism, but belief in a Supreme God is eminently considered to pose a hindrance to the attainment of nirvana, the highest goal of Buddhist practice.

---

How can you then say? Emphasis addedThat is a completely false statement and highly insulting to Buddhism. You seem to have some perverse need to express Buddhism through your Christian view of what a religion should be. As far as Buddhism is, that is completely wrong.This whole reply is disingenuous at best. You even quote mine yourself. Lets look at the full sentence. You are using the beliefs of Buddhist as your "evidence" for a supposed coming together of ideas about a god. If Buddhist don't believe in a god, how do you get by in using them as evidence for the existence of god?I have a message of peace and love also. Do you truly believe that only believers in your god or any other god are the only people that believe in peace and love?

Names of these witnesses please. At least can you provide the original source that lists the 500. Please show your source for this claim.Oh is your source for all of this your bible? Seems a little lacking in sourcing. Even if what you claim happened, who has said that they knew it was false. Just because a group of people believe something does not make it true.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Ever heard of a chicken?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Where is the evidence? Anecdotes are not evidence.

You won't provide evidence but you give a negative rating for a call for evidence? You really don't understand how this works do you.Yeah, you are going to make a real good admin.Please some evidence. Where is the evidence? Anecdotes are not evidence.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.