Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[Tiberius]

Exactly! Therefore, only something that is not missing (namely, the non-spatio-temporal cause) can be responsible for creating space-time. Jackpot!

I don't think you understand my point.

If he says that the Big Bang was a singularity, and also the a singularity is a missing point of space time, then he is claiming that the universe came from something that is missing. Which you have just claimed is impossible.

Great. As long as you define your dragon in a certain way (that is, in a way that makes very specific predictions prior to the discovery), this will significantly increase the probability that your magical dragon is the right explanation of the phenomenon.

Yes, I will be very specific.

The magic dragon can do anything at all.

That has the same sort of vagueness that is used when describing God's capabilities.

 

[Tiberius]

imagine that you look at the sky and the clouds suddenly arrange and spell the words " Good Morning" in 10 different languages

would you conclude design? (obviously yes)

now let's say that scientists discovered that given the wind, the volume, mass the initial position of the clouds etc. this pattern of letters was unavoidable (the good morning sign was fully determined by the laws of nature)....... would you still conclude design at some level? (obviously yes)

so my point is that it doest matter if laws where fully determined and the values could have not been different, that wouldn't harm the FT argument....... you would still need an explanation for why the values are precisely within the life permitting range.

The problem is that you are specifying the end point before it starts.

To continue your analogy, what if I decided that I will check the shape of the clouds, and the first ten shapes I see, whatever they may be, I will use as the written characters for the term "Good Morning" in ten different languages. I then tell you that those shapes are the characters for "Good Morning." Would you conclude design in this case?

 

[rational experiences]

In reality every human talking was once an innocent human baby.

False preached to by it's false preacher adult humans.

Actually.

Who are any of you egotistically to not accept natural presence human in your natural living equal heavens status.

Natural humans had to argue for human rights and life continuance versus our philosophical scientist destroyer.

Today even medical science proves it's wisdom is included in life's destruction.

Science the human answer why and how was human life natural in its environment made to suffer unnatural bio genesis death.

The reason a book of scientific advice was written. Science caused it.

 

[Magical Wand]

If he says that the Big Bang was a singularity, and also the a singularity is a missing point of space time, then he is claiming that the universe came from something that is missing. Which you have just claimed is impossible.

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. The singularity (a missing point) implies there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang. Therefore, only something non-physical could be responsible for actualizing space-time. No contradiction found. Try harder.

Yes, I will be very specific.

The magic dragon can do anything at all.

That has the same sort of vagueness that is used when describing God's capabilities.

But we're not talking about God's capabilities in the context of the Kalam. Rather, we're talking about his nature, which is non-spatial, non-material and non-temporal (at least, sans the universe for time). This is very specific in comparison to your magical dragon analogy. Try harder.

 

[Tiberius]

It is impossible for something to come from nothing. The singularity (a missing point) implies there was nothing physical prior to the Big Bang. Therefore, only something non-physical could be responsible for actualizing space-time. No contradiction found. Try harder.

So then why is it that you agreed with me (post 419) when I pointed out the apparent contradiction (post 417)?

But we're not talking about God's capabilities in the context of the Kalam. Rather, we're talking about his nature, which is non-spatial, non-material and non-temporal (at least, sans the universe for time). This is very specific in comparison to your magical dragon analogy. Try harder.

The magic dragon, being magical, can have all those properties. Thus, the dragon remains a legitimate explanation.

 

[Magical Wand]

So then why is it that you agreed with me (post 419) when I pointed out the apparent contradiction (post 417)?

I don't see any contradiction. Would you mind explaining exactly how it is a contradiction and at the same time take into account my clarifications? That would be helpful.

The magic dragon, being magical, can have all those properties. Thus, the dragon remains a legitimate explanation.

It doesn't matter. If those properties were not explicitly mentioned prior to the discovery, they are postdictions. So, it is not analogous to the case of the Kalam argument.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't see any contradiction. Would you mind explaining exactly how it is a contradiction and at the same time take into account my clarifications? That would be helpful.

Given that it seems like this is just a case of us each misunderstanding what the other is saying, I don't think there's much poi

It doesn't matter. If those properties were not explicitly mentioned prior to the discovery, they are postdictions. So, it is not analogous to the case of the Kalam argument.

I am mentioning it now (and I already mentioned it when I said the dragon was magical), so any future discoveries will be covered. And this is exactly what I said in post 417.

 

[Deeje]

That you see "clear evidence" of intelligent design does not for a fact make, and if you are to make claims such as "God exists" then yes, the burden of proof is on you. Proof that, unless it can be clearly demonstrated, replicated, and presented with consistency is not likely to convince anyone of the veracity of your claims.

I am not out to prove anything to anyone because I don't have to.......but I just present the reasons for why I cannot accept what science "believes" about macro-evolution specifically......this is vastly different to what science "knows", and can "demonstrate, replicate and present with consistency"....I do not have any issues with true and provable science, nor am I a YEC proponent....its the theoretical stuff like evolution that I have issues with.

In equal measure, if a scientist makes a positive claim (e.g. "time is relative to gravity") they would be expected to provide the same measure of evidence to support their claim. Where so many of you Christians make mistake is that you try to quantify your god; prove him scientifically. Granted, often this is demanded but usually in response to theological claims made on a scientific stage.

As I said, I have no issues with what science can prove....I have issues with what science cannot prove and then substitutes conjecture and suggestion as if it were fact.

The fact that "science" says that something "might have" taken place in a certain way, doesn't automatically make it true for me......science is not my religion......and their gods are not my God...and their scripture is not my scripture....if they are yours, then what will I say to convince you otherwise?...and vice versa.

If one cannot word their beliefs well and as such, one just shouldn't try.

Indeed....so how about you go ahead and take your own advice......I know exactly what I believe and why I believe it.....who needs to try and convert those who don't want to know any different?

 

[Magical Wand]

I am mentioning it now (and I already mentioned it when I said the dragon was magical), so any future discoveries will be covered. And this is exactly what I said in post 417.

Being magical is not a very specific prediction; it is too vague. That was my point before when I said that being non-spatio-temporal and non-material is a specific prediction. In the case of God, it is false that "any future discoveries will be covered". For example, if the discovery was that the cause of the universe is actually material, then that wouldn't be in accordance with the theistic prediction. So, to sum up: your magical dragon is not a good explanatory theory and the theistic one is (at least, you failed to show it is not).

 

[Tiberius]

I am not out to prove anything to anyone because I don't have to.......but I just present the reasons for why I cannot accept what science "believes" about macro-evolution specifically......this is vastly different to what science "knows", and can "demonstrate, replicate and present with consistency"....I do not have any issues with true and provable science, nor am I a YEC proponent....its the theoretical stuff like evolution that I have issues with.

You know, the only ones who make the distinction between macro and micro evolution are creationists? The actual scientists who study it understand that the process is the same, the only difference is how long it goes for.

To say you accept micro evolution but not macroevolution is like saying you think someone can walk to their letterbox, but they can't walk down their street.

 

[Tiberius]

Being magical is not a very specific prediction; it is too vague. That was my point before when I said that being non-spatio-temporal and non-material is a specific prediction. In the case of God, it is false that "any future discoveries will be covered". For example, if the discovery was that the cause of the universe is actually material, then that wouldn't be in accordance with the theistic prediction. So, to sum up: your magical dragon is not a good explanatory theory and the theistic one is (at least, you failed to show it is not).

And, of course, "non-spatial," "non-material," and "non-temporal" are ever so specific, aren't they...

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I just present the reasons for why I cannot accept what science "believes" about macro-evolution specifically......this is vastly different to what science "knows", and can "demonstrate, replicate and present with consistency"...

Only they can. And they do, with frequent consistency. Flat-out rejection of Biological Evolution usually comes about through misunderstanding and willful refusal to observe and understand evidence in favor of faith and mythology.

If "Science" could not provide evidence for a given study, it would not be presented, plain as that. Scientific publication does not generally work in half-measures.

Lastly your continued depiction of "Science" as some entity, organization or religion is immensely flawed. Science is a process, a tool. It is like you're trying to claim that Cooking claims certain things, and the religion of Cooking worships the almighty yeast. It's patently silly.

how about you go ahead and take your own advice

Cheeky, but I have no issue whatsoever wording my beliefs as such, and presenting them in a way that does not come across as dogmatic preaching without sufficient evidence.

 

[Deeje]

There are to many assumptions, claims, assertions whatever you want to call them being made. I've got to go through a fallacy every sentence for 10 paragraphs. Unfortunately, I just can't type that fast. I feel bad you must have put a lot of time and thought into this but, Is there any way you could condense this maybe go through this take out your best argument. Even if you were able to summarize some hand picked arguments maybe bullet point your claims it would be a huge favor and allow me to address your arguments in a timely manner. Did I see an intelligent design argument in there? Anyways, Thanks so much for your response. I look forward to being able to address this soon.

I take great care with my responses and am confident as to the validity of my own beliefs....for me.

I do not expect them to be accepted by those who have another agenda, so if all that was posted to you was you having "to go through a fallacy every sentence for 10 paragraphs"....then I am not sure what else I can add to the conversation. As far as I am concerned, at this point, "shaking the dust off my feet" seems to be in order, as I don't see you changing your mind any time soon, regardless of your assurances that your mind is changeable.....I don't believe it is, and I can see by the responses so far that your challenge has raised quite a bit of interest......not bad for a "newby". ....but an exercise in futility, for me I think.
I am a great believer in the old adage..."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still".....what is the point of the irresistible force challenging the immovable object?

If there is an Almighty Creator to whom we are all accountable, then 'unbelievers' will know it soon enough. If there is not..."believers" will never know......so who wins?

I choose the side that speaks to my heart rather than just my head, not really swayed by "the science" when I can see right through it, (in this case, the guesswork of evolutionary science) its just an equal "belief system" IMO.
That makes science of no real benefit to anyone concerned about the future. If I have to rely on science to ensure that future......I see none....just a continual slide into into more and more man made chaos, which is already threatening all life on this planet in a multitude of ways. I don't believe that humans are quite as smart as they believe they are.....

If I rely on the power who created the universe, "who did not create it simply for nothing", then my future is assured.....(my 'present' as well as that of many others, leaves much to be desired)
I am very happy with my choice, and looking forward to the future with hope and not despair....so I have no real need to change your mind.... ....unless you actually want it changed.

 

[Deeje]

You know, the only ones who make the distinction between macro and micro evolution are creationists? The actual scientists who study it understand that the process is the same, the only difference is how long it goes for.

Only there is not a shred of actual evidence that proves that to be true.....it is an assumption, like so many others connected to theorizing about things in the natural world......theories abound as products of human imagination but they are not proven facts....they are ideas that are not usually backed up by anything concrete. If they were, there would no longer be theories.....no one would have to say..."do you BELIEVE in evolution?" There could be no such question....like asking "do you believe in oxygen....or molecules"?

To say you accept micro evolution but not macroevolution is like saying you think someone can walk to their letterbox, but they can't walk down their street.

Hogwash......adaptation can make very minor adaptive changes to produce new varieties within a species....ones capable of handling a new environment or food source....it can never take them outside of their taxonomy. Isn't that what Darwin observed? IOW....there is not one iota of actual proof that amoebas can morph into dinosaurs, no matter how many millions of years you throw at them. Whatever walked to the letterbox was the same species that left the house in that very long walk down the street.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But that's not actually evidence. For all you know, it could just be a random idea you had that you attributed to a God or other kind of higher power.

When reading the scriptures and realizing that what I read is what happens to me and what is experienced during the practice it is an answer to me that the teaching is real.

I can not tell other people what they will experience if they practice a religious or spiritual teaching, that is for them to experience personally.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Btw, i do not expect non believers to believe in what I speak of when it comes to my personal belief

 

[ratiocinator]

God isn't hiding from you, he's waiting patiently for you to get over the disappointment of discovering your earlier concepts were childish.

What possible reason would I have to believe this? And, as I keep saying, it wasn't a concept that convinced be, it was an experience.

I was 100% sincere at the time. The epitome of what you described (#356); "If you really desire to find the Loving Father then you will need to do that work yourself rather than demanding second hand reports from those who have." What I found was nothing but emotional self-deception. It's an empty promise. It didn't work.

Added: And of course, if a god exists, it is hiding. Look at all the endless different and contradictory version of god(s) people believe in. This is not the world we would expect if a god existed and wasn't hiding itself from people.

 

[ratiocinator]

You say there's no evidence for singularities, then go on to say there is very good evidence for black holes and that the equations call for singularities in black holes, but then claim again there is zero evidence for singularities?

So, you are saying there is zero evidence for A, but that we have very good evidence for B, and B is almost certainly caused by A. But no, not a shred of evidence for A.

Is that right?

Again: a singularity in the equations (of general relativity) happens when we know that both quantum effects and relativity will be significant, and we have no theory that covers that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I think @cOLTER was quite clear. There is no god outside of peoples minds. That's why you have to search for it within (your mind). (And you won't find it if you don't want to.)

Beyond rather than within the mind, I'd say. You have to transcend the chattering monkey mind, the radio station in the head that drowns out God Consciousness with it's incessant worldly clamour.

"Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful affliction, but we don't realise this because almost everyone is suffering from it. This incessant mental noise prevents you from finding the realm of inner stillness that is inseperable from Being."
- Eckhart Tolle

 

[Tiberius]

Only there is not a shred of actual evidence that proves that to be true.

Would be be able to provide a source that shows that the underlying principles behind micro evolution and the underlying principles behind macro evolution are in some way fundamentally different?

Hogwash......adaptation can make very minor adaptive changes to produce new varieties within a species....ones capable of handling a new environment or food source....it can never take them outside of their taxonomy. Isn't that what Darwin observed? IOW....there is not one iota of actual proof that amoebas can morph into dinosaurs, no matter how many millions of years you throw at them. Whatever walked to the letterbox was the same species that left the house in that very long walk down the street.

The genetic evidence says you are incorrect.