How is the balance between boys and girls maintained?

[Elok]

Elok, that's a bunch of nonsense. It seems like you don't believe anything significantly different than I do, but you call my beliefs inane. Again, this is such an ******* move it's incredible. This is far worse than anything BK has done.

If you'll notice, I called your argument inane, not your beliefs. And it is. "Gender ratios are balanced, ergo God did it" is no more compelling than "we have opposable thumbs, ergo God did it" or "some of us have red hair, ergo God did it." It's a complete non sequitur. Not seeing how my objection to your non sequitur is worse than, say, claiming the horrific violence of the Fourth Crusade was the Greek victims' fault, let alone the whole threats-of-violence bit.

Let me get this straight. You believe as has been explained by atheists (lightblue, don't know for sure that he is one) that sex is determined randomly, but at the same time God is in control. I'm getting a predestination feel here. But you will probably balk from that.

It's interesting to think how the ability to see all times at once (I favor Boethius and Lewis's vision of God's relation to time, though of course I don't know for certain) affects what we would think of as "chance." Even if God lets the roulette wheel spin freely, He knows exactly what will happen so it's never really out of control--it's a conscious decision achieving a definite result. However, that's assuming that what we think of as "chance" is really random. Actually, as I've said, chance is really the interaction of a multitude of independent causes we can't all measure and keep track of at once. You might say that God has, in effect, shot five hundred octillion pool balls in all directions simultaneously and is now enjoying the effect as they bounce off each other and the sides. We describe this as chance because it is beyond our control or comprehension, and we create a system of rules to describe the system that emerges from the whirlwind of interactions. There's no conflict here. Bringing in human choices complicates things a bit, but again it's just a matter of perspective. You might say that He sees all actions and their consequences simultaneously.

It doesn't matter. If God is in control then He dtermines the number of males and females. For example, if He determined everything in advance then whatever the distribution is has nothing to do with chance.

I read something online recently about how, during the middle ages, a shift occurred in Muslim theology. Where previously scholars had thought of science as a way to learn more about God through His creation, the prevailing view came to be that all things happen entirely through the will of Allah and that's THAT, He could will tomorrow to make fire cold and ice hot so why should humans have the temerity to try to understand things?

It was around this point that the Crusades happened and Westerners took those ideas earlier Muslim scholars had come up with to start doing experiments of their own. The Muslims stopped looking just as we started, much as the Chinese halted naval exploration shortly before 1492. And that's at least part of the reason why we're healthy and prosperous while the Islamic world is, generally speaking, a craphole.

DICK!

NIXON!

[Kidlicious]

The christian god is not some god who rolls the dice and cheats when he doesn't like what he rolled. That makes no sense. Anyone who believes that is a fool.

But even if he were the result would be the same, meaning that outcomes aren't determined by chance.

[Kidlicious]

Of course I can't quote the Bible when debating christianity with elok. Nice, elok can say christianity is whatever he wants it to be.

[Hauldren Collider]

There's some really good **** in the communion wine of that church.

It's fluoridated. That's why he was communist before--Soviet mind control!

[Kidlicious]

Elok, YOUR argument is inane. The reasonable thing to do though, when you believe what someone is saying but you think you have a better argument, is to present your argument along side. Only an ******* and a moron would argue against their own beliefs and offend those who believe as they do. What a penis you are.

[Elok]

The christian god is not some god who rolls the dice and cheats when he doesn't like what he rolled. That makes no sense. Anyone who believes that is a fool.

Then it's fortunate that I said nothing of the sort. Einstein knew a lot more about sciencey stuff than I did, and he was outraged by the mere suggestion that God plays dice. He didn't bring cheating into it at all. Cue some third party here quoting the relevant blurb from SMAC...

But even if he were the result would be the same, meaning that outcomes aren't determined by chance.

I'm getting the feeling that you're not actually reading my posts here. Allow me to say for the third time, at least: what we call chance is simply the product of our own limited perspective trying to describe an unfathomably complex system. A rhetorical shorthand, if you will. From God's perspective, chance would not exist. Much as we can say "God does the impossible" without contradiction because our notions of possibility do not apply to the Almighty.

Of course I can't quote the Bible when debating christianity with elok. Nice, elok can say christianity is whatever he wants it to be.

This isn't really a debate about Christianity, but I didn't say you couldn't quote the Bible. I suggest you don't, just because it was written before science really took off and thus doesn't say anything directly to the present point.

[Kidlicious]

Looking back, you said the OP is inane. So yes you said my beliefs are inane. Good job *******!

[Elok]

Elok, YOUR argument is inane. The reasonable thing to do though, when you believe what someone is saying but you think you have a better argument, is to present your argument along side. Only an ******* and a moron would argue against their own beliefs and offend those who believe as they do. What a penis you are.

As I have explained, you are playing a losing game here trying to convert atheists without coming to terms with their point of view and working with it. I understand that POV reasonably well, I think, and I do see certain weaknesses in it, but all that is beside the point because:

A. Nobody was ever converted by reason alone. Possibly not even reason primarily. People have to want God before they will see Him. No unbeliever here has such a desire AFAICT, and if they do that desire will not be nurtured by attacking their existing beliefs. Certainly not in the blunt fashion you've been doing.
B. Any such effort would be doomed from the start as long as you continue to play the theological equivalent of the Ugly American--see A.

[Kidlicious]

:facepalm: The problem is that you are really not saying anything different than what I did, yet you're confusing the matter with a bunch of crap which is intended to give the appearance that you are disagreeing with me.

[Elok]

:facepalm: The problem is that you are really not saying anything different than what I did, yet you're confusing the matter with a bunch of crap which is intended to give the appearance that you are disagreeing with me.

Yes and no. It's possible that we have similar beliefs about God's role in space/time/space-time/etc. I, however, do not assert them as any kind of proof or argument for God, because these statements do not make a compelling argument from a nonbeliever's POV. And that, as I see it, is the main point of contention here.

[Kidlicious]

As I have explained, you are playing a losing game here trying to convert atheists without coming to terms with their point of view and working with it. I understand that POV reasonably well, I think, and I do see certain weaknesses in it, but all that is beside the point because:

A. Nobody was ever converted by reason alone. Possibly not even reason primarily. People have to want God before they will see Him. No unbeliever here has such a desire AFAICT, and if they do that desire will not be nurtured by attacking their existing beliefs. Certainly not in the blunt fashion you've been doing.
B. Any such effort would be doomed from the start as long as you continue to play the theological equivalent of the Ugly American--see A.

That's for God to decide not you. Christians are free to try to convert others how they wish. Again, I don't interfere with you. But this kind of **** that you're pulling in this thread is Lording over people in a way that discourages others from wanting to be christians. Admittedly I shouldn't call you names. But please look at your actions. Drop your personal agenda or issue with me. It makes you commit horrendous sin!

[Elok]

While modesty forbids me from commenting on myself, I don't think the way you argue here makes Christianity look attractive at all. And I don't think disagreeing with you (mostly) politely is a horrendous sin.

[Kidlicious]

Yes and no. It's possible that we have similar beliefs about God's role in space/time/space-time/etc. I, however, do not assert them as any kind of proof or argument for God, because these statements do not make a compelling argument from a nonbeliever's POV. And that, as I see it, is the main point of contention here.

No. I understand what you're saying. It's confusing in the sense that you aren't making a clear argument. In fact the nonbelievers are so confused they think you're saying something different from me. They really don't know what you are saying. THS IS YOUR STRATEGY?!

[Kidlicious]

YOU AREN'T EVEN A PRIEST AND YOU INSIST IN LORDING OVER OTHER CHRISTIANS! Do you know of priests who get on the internet and try to determine who can talk about christianity? ****! This isn't normal behavior. Ever hear of humility? Your more arrogant than KH!

[Kidlicious]

Again, you said, "the OP is inane" disagreeing with your own beliefs. What if I had let that stand? That happened because you insist on being Christian Lord of apolyton. You have a serious problem dude!