Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

Does your God concept comply with all natural laws?

Your missing something, my God MADE the natural laws, but he made them supernaturally, not magically. Also if you want to say he made them magically, then that means he can change them at his own will magically. But, that is not so, he can change them at his own will supernaturally.

If he made them, he can switch them at any given time.

Or does it create man from dust, speak words that become matter, impregnate virgins without physical contact.
Magic.

Like I said, if he made the natural laws, he can switch them at any given time he wants for given purposes.

The maker of the laws is not BOUND by the laws.

What I believe is irrelevant to what has been shown.

Yes, it is relevant since I am talking to YOU about this issue, it IS relevant. If I am telling you and defending my views to you, why are you arguing views you don’t believe in?

Also you have NOT shown proof that science has shown proof that at the quantum level there is NO cause, or that no cause is necessary. Saying that no cause is necessary is the same thing as saying there is no cause. And if you think otherwise, then define your terms in more detail; because I don’t understand what you’re saying. And I mean that, in all honesty, I am not saying it just because I am debating you, I am saying it because I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying to me.

A cause has a predictable and repeatable resulting action.
Get it?

Yea, I get it, but do you get it that some people can make wrong predictions?

Wrong and not the point I was making.
You claimed Loki...oops, I mean God, was tricking physicists into thinking events and particles behaved erratically and without determined cause.

No, in that case God would be the cause for those particles doing what they do; just God would be messing or playing with the scientists. You know, God is a parent that likes playing with his kids. And he also likes to frustrate those who don’t trust him and think there so smart.

Anyway, there IS patterns at the quantum level. When the particles are observed, they act differently, when they are NOT observed, they act differently again. That is the pattern, therefore there is a OBVIOUS cause for it, they just don’t know what it is.

No cause is necessary. That is, it has been shown that beyond the constraints of physical laws in our Universe, and at the Quantum level, there is no necessity for a cause.

Prove there is no necessity for a cause?

This can be translated as 'there may, or may not be, a cause'. As it has not been shown that a cause is necessary.

May or may not be a cause? That contradicts what you just said though. Let’s assume that your “may be a cause” part is correct. If there IS a cause, that means a cause WOULD be necessary since there would be a cause.

In science, one does not attempt the illogical process of proving a negative. What must be evidenced is the positive.

Well if they don’t prove a negative, don’t ASSUME anything, UNLESS it’s admitted the assumption is a viewpoint.

That is, a cause must be shown to be necessary before such cause is accepted.

And the statement “no cause is necessary” has to be shown to be true in order for it to be accepted.

 

[Jollybear]

Unless, or until, that happens, the basic truth of the matter is that no cause is necessary.

Wrong, if no cause is shown to be necessary and no cause is shown to be unnecessary, then don’t assume it’s necessary and don’t assume it’s not necessary. And if there is an assumption, admit it’s a viewpoint.

Some carry their education and knowledge further than others. Free of dogmatic constraints.

Absolutely foolishness. No one, absolutely NO ONE is free from having UNPROVEN viewpoints on issues and worldviews. It does not matter HOW educated and brilliant they are.

That they believed it to be true does not make it true. Like I said, many the martyr has died for beliefs other than Christianity. And they believed as strongly as the Christians.

There is a big difference for dying for what you believe and then dying for what you witness. What you witness is not belief, its knowledge.

So my question still stands, why would they die for a KNOWN lie?

I am assuming for your sake and for the sake of argument that the resurrection is a LIE, ok, why did the apostles who were in the position to KNOW, because they witnessed it and saw him alive, why did they DIE for his cause, message and resurrection?

I really had a laugh when I read this.
Pascal's Wager
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

· Which God, gods, or deity must one insert into the wager? What assurance is there that the deity you believe in, worship and praise, is the correct deity? What if you chose wrong? With the multitude of belief systems in the world, the wager is useless.

As I repeatedly keep making the point and I don’t know why it’s not being addressed. But the point is, polytheistic gods are finite, therefore are contained IN space and therefore are not God, but are created beings, if at all they are created and exist. Indeed the bible does make mention that gods exist, it says Satan is the god of this world, little G of course. But, Satan is finite and was created. Now also if one says Yahweh is not God, but the pink unicorn IS God, and they describe him or define him the same way as I define Yahweh, then really are talking about the same God just naming him different names or labels. Then in that case it is a thing of semantics.

I find it frustrating and discouraging not because you disagree with my position, but because this point of mine is constantly ignored and not addressed. It seems like I say it to many folk and they don’t answer it. And for real though, it is an important point.

Should one choose belief based on weighing your odds? Would the deity you choose really appreciate this?

Very good question. Since this God did not give 100% proof of his reality, we have to make a decision based on limited evidence, or limited data that is interpreted. However, does he want us to gamble the decision, such a big decision, the BIGGEST decision of our life pretty much, of our eternity as well, does he want us to gamble that? The short answer is, yes and no. Yes he wants us to have an ELEMENT OF faith. And mind you, this kind of faith is not just a belief, but more of a COURAGE you could say. This kind of faith says, you know what, I GOT to make a decision and I got to make the RIGHT ONE, because it’s NOT SAFE to make NO decision, so I will make one, I will make that LEAP (faith, or courage). God wants us (apparently he wants us to have courage or exercise it) and make a leap. However is this a completely BLIND leap? Is it a PERFECT gamble? That is where the “no” part of my answer comes in. You see God would not be JUST in punishing people if it was a PERFECT gamble or a completely blind leap. Therefore God has set it up in such a way to where his existence is the MOST plausible out of the 5 views I had mentioned. Even though none of the views can be proven or disproven 100% either way, ONE of those views are more plausible then the others based on philosophical argument alone. Therefore, there will be NO EXCUSE before God on judgment day for any of us.

Can one 'choose' to believe based on a wager?

· Basing belief on the odds is like planning your retirement on the hopes of winning the lottery, but instead of attempting to pick the right numbers, you are attempting to pick not only the right deity, but also the correct path that this deity requires for "salvation"
The only 'predicament' is for the person who accepts the wager.

My God has set up ENOUGH evidence or the most plausible philosophical argument for himself above the other 4 views I mentioned. Therefore it’s not taking a perfect gamble. Also this God has revealed his path or plan of salvation.

Next, when you say “the only predicament” is for the person who accepts the wager. There you are absolutely wrong. Even if we did have a perfect gamble between all the belief systems, STILL that would just mean (obviously mean) we would all be in a predicament.

Therefore, all of us need to be sure BEFORE we die, otherwise we are NOT safe. So whether you accept the wager or not, you’re not safe because you’re NOT SURE (And by sure I mean 100% proof).

There are two reasons why I make this point, first is because it’s OBVIOUS that were not safe, and second I absolutely HATE it when people take these issues LIGHTLY and have either no respect for the severity and sacredness of the decision or they don’t put any THOUGHT into the issue and just coast along in life.

I bolded it and underlined it because it weighs the most HEAVY on my heart probably more so then ANYTHING else in this entire world. I hate it when people treat it lightly.

However, I don’t think you treat it lightly; otherwise you would not be talking about the issue obviously and being on here and learning and researching and stuff like that. And I am sure you have put much thought into it. But I just wanted to state it anyway.

However you do show slight signs that you think your safe, when your clearly not. If you pick the “I don’t know” position and are wrong and I am right, you’re in trouble. If you pick the “I don’t know” position and I am wrong and many other unsafe views for you are wrong, then you’re ok. If you pick something other than the “I don’t know” position and they happen to be wrong and I am right or Islam is right then you are still in trouble. But you see, you don’t KNOW which one is right and which ones are wrong. And that makes you unsafe.

This is what you need to realize and then make a decision, and it has to be based on the most plausible argument (not just proof) and based on a leap (faith=courage)

But what It cannot be based on is a lack of careful investigation, a completely blind leap or the one that makes you most comfortable, or the one you grew up with. All of this has to be discarded.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Willamena



I think you may have misunderstood, maybe. It’s not about size, it’s about SPACE. The true God is not CONTAINED IN space, because that would mean he is created. Also the true God cannot BE space (space as we know it, kind of like a fish knows space different then we do). But the true God has to be INFINITELY BIG. Also space as we know it and as lets say fish know it slightly differently, all that space is created by this God. Therefore, if he created space he then cannot be contained within space.

Therefore the true God is infinitely big. But it’s not about size, it’s about space.

What do you think of this?

I think this is more meaningless assertion unless you have tangible evidence to back your claim.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

Now you're making a basic burden-of-evidence error. Unless you can show that 'breaking the circle of eternity' has some objective meaning outside your own imagination, I shall continue to refer to it as drivel, and its use to demonstrate the sentience of your alleged first cause as gibberish.

I told you why there has to be a first cause, and I told you why that first cause has to break the cycle of eternity for something to begin. Therefore, the most plausible is intelligence broke the cycle in order to begin something. The reason intelligence is most plausible is because it KNEW that the cycle of eternity had to be broken, while mindless energy would have no clue about it.

Now, that is a logical and plausible argument, but I cannot prove it. But this is not about proof, it’s about philosophical arguing. So, argue against my point?

You see you’re not going to get proof by your standard of it, and I am not going to get you to DISPROVE my proof, so all we really have to go on here is make an argument that sounds better then the argument that I just said. If you can’t, then we move on.

This is remarkable. You are straight-facedly citing a book published in 1563 as testimony to events which supposedly took place over 1500 years earlier? The claim -

here - was the existence of "MANY ancient writings" that attested to the resurrection; a 16th-century catalogue of martyrdoms does not do the job.

Check this out then. This article gives all the sources and puts it all together http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/history-of-the-apostles-faq.htm and here is a quote from one of the sources, from the church father (very early, like 30-100 AD)) it is 1st epistle of clement to the Corinthians and it says so beautifully and inspiringly (at least to me it is)

“Chapter V.-No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.(24) Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.(25) Let us set before our eyes the illustrious(26) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,(27) compelled(28) to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(29) and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(30) Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

Link here http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-1-apostolic-with-justin-martyr-irenaeus/clement-of-rome/

And here is another one that beautifully corroborates it, that is how historic evidence works. It is in Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (date 30-107 AD) and it says

“Chapter XII.-Praise of the Ephesians.
I know both who I am, and to whom I write. I am a condemned man, ye have been the objects of mercy; I am subject to danger, ye are established in safety. Ye are the persons through(87) whom those pass that are cut off for the sake of God. Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet(88) may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.
I know both who I am, and to whom I write. I am the very insignificant Ignatius, who have my lot with(89) those who are exposed to danger and condemnation. But ye have been the objects of mercy, and are established in Christ. I am one delivered over [to death], but the least of all those that have been cut off for the sake of Christ, "from the blood of righteous Abel"(90) to the blood of Ignatius. Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, inasmuch as he was "a chosen vessel; "(91) at whose feet may I be found, and at the feet of the rest of the saints, when I shall attain to Jesus Christ, who is always mindful of you in His prayers.”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-1-apostolic-with-justin-martyr-irenaeus/ignatius/

 

[Jollybear]

Here is another early church father, the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (date 65 -155 AD) and it says

“Chapter IX.-Patience Inculcated.
I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run(54) in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead.”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-1-apostolic-with-justin-martyr-irenaeus/polycarp/

Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

How can you compete with that? Just answer the question “why would they die for a KNOWN lie?” Insane, crazy? I don’t think so.

And there is more sources. The evidence is overwhelming. There is no question that they died martyrs for their witness. The question is why would they die for it if it was a lie? And they were in the position to KNOW it was a lie.

Let me illustrate it like this. If I told you I SEEN a house levitate off the ground, would you believe me? Probably not, but if I was willing to die for that claim, you would then probably scratch your chin and think again about believing me.

Given that the earliest accounts of the alleged resurrection date from at least a generation later, what was 'witnessed' and what simply came subsequently to be believed are pretty well impossible to untangle.

This…..is….pure….ignorance. The witnesses were in the same generation of Jesus Christ. Many of the biblical new testament writings were written before 100 AD, depending on what book within the bible, you get a range from 50 to 100 AD. Not only that, but even some of the church fathers (after the apostles, apostles being the writers of the New Testament) even some of their books were written in Jesus generation, before 100 AD. I remember reading a quote from a book where an atheist said he had to admit some of the books of the New Testament were very early, in the span I speak of.

Now, just answer the question “why would they die for a KNOWN lie?”

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

This ones going on my Facebook status! Can you really not see what is wrong with your statement?

That’s fine, I want the world to see and know

Can you really not see what is right with my statement? Let me ask you this, if I am 99.99% sure, how can you be 99.99% sure? We both cannot be that sure, only one of us can, so it must be me, that means your view is least plausible.

Thankfully medical science doesn't share your view! Seems a bit flimsy to me to say sometimes it's a curse, sometimes sins, sometimes satan, sometimes because Adam ate an apple... I'd like a more certain diagnosis from any doctors I consult.

Ok, now you’re not getting it. I agree with medical science in the areas of undeniable facts. Also my statement you just did not get it. My statement was VERY general. Let me define some terms. What is a sin in regards to physical illness? Ok, let’s talk about ulcers (physical illness) if people worry way too much, what happens? Ulcers can form. What is worry? It’s a SIN! Ya, that’s right, a sin (according to Jesus anyway). Alright, so sin can cause illness. THERE YA GO. Now of course ulcers don’t happen ONLY because of worry, they can also happen by other means, bad diet let’s say, acid reflux perhaps? Ok, so in that case, it’s not a soul sin (worry) it is a sin that is against the body, that means the person does not know there bodily design very well and how it functions and works and what it needs. If they did, then they would feed it correctly and not have that stomach problem.

Now in the case with Adam, because he eat the fruit, we ALL grow old and DIE. God said to him, the day you eat the fruit you shall die. That is why we grow old and die. If you disagree with that, then what is medical sciences reason for why we grow old and die?

Also the “curse” is simply an imbalance in creation or the body which in turn creates malfunction.

Only as a mathematical concept. Is any of this getting through to you?

Ok, so if eternity exists as a mathematical concept, then it EXISTS in itself. Gotcha.

That site is the top result in Google for Intelligent design predictions... it's almost as if you hurriedly searched for some evidence and posted the first thing you found! Hardly credible predictions.. more like observations that are already explained thoroughly by evolution. The theory of evolution allows science to make predictions on what is going to happen in areas such as the mutation of viruses and bacteria, everyday real science. It is the the foundation of biological science.

Ya, nice try but this does not rebut anything in the article that makes ID predictions. Tell me why the predictions are wrong? Details please.

So tell why the predictions are not credible, don’t just say they are not credible. Also don’t just say they are explained thoroughly by evolution, explain how evolution explains them, give those actual explanations.

Your statement is not credible because it does not answer or rebut anything.

You want the easy way out, I’m not giving it to you. So, hah.

I know you said what if, I tire of your what ifs.

I tire of you not answering my what ifs. There is no tangible evidence for your case or mine, all we have to go on is philosophical argument and build our cases like that. So that being said, answer my question.
“And what if he sent you to hell, what would your final words be to him?”

An analogy is to draw a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect, in which case you are trying to compare me to Saddam Hussien. I don't know where the comparison can be drawn between a ruthless dictator with faith in god and a peaceful, fair person without a belief in god like myself? So you're saying that I get to state my case fairly but how can it be fair when judgment would already be predetermined?

Oh! But this is where you’re mistaken and you misunderstand! Yes God predetermines your judgment UNLESS you can prove God wrong. In other words you can change God’s mind. But watch this now: how can you prove wrong, infinite wisdom? How can you go up against, pure wisdom? Pure wisdom will surely beat your case that you try to make for yourself. So, you have to outsmart God. Think you can do it? So yes, God does give you a fair trial. Even those who have God’s favor will be put under trial, but of course they will be questioned differently then you.

I've lost track of your argument... remind me?

You were saying I have a lack of understanding of science and math. Stop saying that and demonstrate why I do and where I do.

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

I think this is more meaningless assertion unless you have tangible evidence to back your claim.

You can’t prove me wrong on that argument I made. You can however make an argument AGAINST my argument. Why not do it? I just finished telling you that there is no TANGIBLE evidence, that your going to get, until you die that is, or until you see an apparition (if you do) but then you would probably call it hallucinatory. But anyway, since you will never get this tangible evidence you want, and in your heart you KNOW you will never get it. Therefore, this has to become about philosophical cases, not tangible ones. Therefore, make an argument against my philosophical argument.

If you don’t, I am going to make another thread asking atheists to make a argument AGAINST theism, and that debate will not have anything to do with proving or disproving, it will have to do with only logic and argument and philosophy. Because face the fact, you will never get 100% proof until your dead.

 

[painted wolf]

You seem to have the term "argument" confused with the term "bald assertion".

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

Your missing something, my God MADE the natural laws, but he made them supernaturally, not magically. Also if you want to say he made them magically, then that means he can change them at his own will magically. But, that is not so, he can change them at his own will supernaturally.
If he made them, he can switch them at any given time.
Like I said, if he made the natural laws, he can switch them at any given time he wants for given purposes.
The maker of the laws is not BOUND by the laws.

Ergo, magic...

Also you have NOT shown proof that science has shown proof that at the quantum level there is NO cause, or that no cause is necessary. Saying that no cause is necessary is the same thing as saying there is no cause. And if you think otherwise, then define your terms in more detail; because I don’t understand what you’re saying. And I mean that, in all honesty, I am not saying it just because I am debating you, I am saying it because I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying to me.

I have shown all relevant findings, I am sorry that I cannot make it understandable to you. Physics is not for everyone.
I have also pointed out, again and again, that science is not about proving negatives.

Anyway, there IS patterns at the quantum level. When the particles are observed, they act differently, when they are NOT observed, they act differently again. That is the pattern, therefore there is a OBVIOUS cause for it, they just don’t know what it is.

Yea, I get it, but do you get it that some people can make wrong predictions?

No, obviously you do not "get it".

No, in that case God would be the cause for those particles doing what they do; just God would be messing or playing with the scientists. You know, God is a parent that likes playing with his kids. And he also likes to frustrate those who don’t trust him and think there so smart.

Not unlike Loki, the trickster god.

Prove there is no necessity for a cause?

Action at the quantum level.

May or may not be a cause? That contradicts what you just said though. Let’s assume that your “may be a cause” part is correct. If there IS a cause, that means a cause WOULD be necessary since there would be a cause.

No contradictions. Just lack of dogma.

And the statement “no cause is necessary” has to be shown to be true in order for it to be accepted.

It has been shown. Repeatedly.



Jolly, you are just spouting the same tired arguments over and over and over, ad nauseum.
I have come to accept that you have very little understanding of physics, and that cosmology is also not one of your strong points.
Since you lack either the ability or willingness to learn even the basics of these subjects, I leave you to your 99.99% surety of the facts that are facts because you believe them to be facts, and if my facts were facts you would know they were facts........

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_Evelyonian


Ok, based on your definition of evidence, only SOME people have that tangible evidence, it’s people who have seen apparitions of God (something you probably would call hallucinations). But even if you don’t consider them tangible, then you’re not ever going to get this tangible evidence you’re looking for. You’re never going to get it from anybody in your whole life. I am just being real with you man, you’re never going to get it.

Perhaps you missed it but this is a thread for evidence. Now, to say that I'm never going to get evidence from you for your claims begs the question: Why are you posting on an evidence thread if you have no evidence?

You may not like that answer, but it’s the sad reality. The reality is this, the evidence or should I put it (the data) is limited and is interpreted by us all, by you AND by me. Now based on this limited data, you have a choice and so do I. If you choose wrong, and I am right, you’re in trouble in the afterlife. If I choose wrong, then what happens to me is the same for what happens to you after death, just I would have wasted some time in THIS life.

What path do you want to pick? I am telling you, in your lifetime your NEVER EVER going to get this “tangible evidence” you want. No one will be able to give it to you, I have a high confidence in that because if anyone can give you it, it would be me since I have studied ALLOT about my religion and God, enough to make the best case there can be made for him.

You’re not going to get what you want. But that still leaves you in a predicament whether you like it or not.

I have asked you nicely in the past to please drop the "you're gonna find out you're wrong when you die" line of reasoning. Pascal's wager is meaningless because it's an inherently flawed argument. This has already been pointed out to you. Please, stop this 'predicament' nonsense.

Yes you can have it both ways in THIS case, and I kept telling you why I could. There has to be a first cause, I told why that was necessary, and I told you why nothing cannot create something and I also stated that chance is not proven, only factors are involved. I also argued that mindless energy cannot create the universe, for why would it not remain static? Also I have argued that it does not have the knowledge to realize that it needs to break the cycle of eternity in order to begin something. Therefore an intelligent cause is more plausible, to which another person just calls that gibberish without addressing it (exercise debate skill). Also eternity is not tangible, no more than TIME is tangible, but don’t tell me you don’t believe in time?


If I said God designed [g]od you would probably ask, who designed THAT God? Come on, there is a FIRST cause, if you don’t believe so, address my arguments about infinite regression or no motion. You’re never going to get this tangible SUPER HIGH standard of PROOF that you’re looking for, therefore it’s more reasonable to debate this issue using the philosophical path, instead of trying to push me or others down a SUPER high standard of proof path, which no one can give, and even YOU cannot give it for any views you may hold to either.


AND…..I told you WHY I draw the LINE in a certain area, I said all complexity accept God needs a designer because it’s all complex. And God don’t need a designer because something needs to be the first cause, IT is HIM. And why him and not nothing? Because NOTHING does not do SOMETHING. And why not eternal mindless energy? Because it does not have the intellegence to realize and figure out how to break the cycle of eternity in order to BEGIN something. Therefore, God is the most plausible, based on my philosophical arguments, which is ALL we can discuss, is philosophical argument, since NO PROOF either way 100% can be given.

Get use to that, it’s going to be that way for your whole life and into all the next generations.

Nobody is going to give you what you want. I have given you the BEST case for God that there can POSSIBLY be. Of course somebody else can come along and use the same case I used and say it all differently and package it with different words and phrases, but it’s still the same case.

Can you not see the flaw in your reasoning?!

Your entire argument is based on the fact that you can't understand how complexity could arise naturally, therefore god must have done it. If it seems difficult to imagine how the universe could have arisen naturally, can you imagine how much harder it would be for a god?!
The only way it seems that anyone can even start trying to explain god's existence is to first start creating loopholes in the complexity argument.

To say that since the universe is complex it must have been designed and then to bring in an even more complex god is contradicting yourself whether you like it or not. Why must the universe's complexity have been designed and not god's? It makes no logical sense. This is why I keep saying you can't have it both ways.

Simply beating everyone over the head with "there must have been a first cause" or "god wasn't created" doesn't help your argument one bit. You're still stuck having to explain how god's complexity doesn't need a designer and yet, for some reason, the universe's does.

It's a intellectual non-starter, as I've been saying from the get go.

 

[bossbozz]

Bossbozz



That’s fine, I want the world to see and know

Can you really not see what is right with my statement? Let me ask you this, if I am 99.99% sure, how can you be 99.99% sure? We both cannot be that sure, only one of us can, so it must be me, that means your view is least plausible.

Setting your mathematical error aside for a moment, why must it be you?

Ok, now you’re not getting it. I agree with medical science in the areas of undeniable facts. Also my statement you just did not get it. My statement was VERY general. Let me define some terms. What is a sin in regards to physical illness? Ok, let’s talk about ulcers (physical illness) if people worry way too much, what happens? Ulcers can form. What is worry? It’s a SIN! Ya, that’s right, a sin (according to Jesus anyway). Alright, so sin can cause illness. THERE YA GO. Now of course ulcers don’t happen ONLY because of worry, they can also happen by other means, bad diet let’s say, acid reflux perhaps? Ok, so in that case, it’s not a soul sin (worry) it is a sin that is against the body, that means the person does not know there bodily design very well and how it functions and works and what it needs. If they did, then they would feed it correctly and not have that stomach problem.

Illness can occur from having an unhealthy lifestyle but many occur because a persons body is naturally defective in some way. Many people just don't have a good enough stomach valve to contain that acid. Many women suffer from it during pregnancy. This would suggest an imperfect design.

Now in the case with Adam, because he eat the fruit, we ALL grow old and DIE. God said to him, the day you eat the fruit you shall die. That is why we grow old and die. If you disagree with that, then what is medical sciences reason for why we grow old and die?

It's quite a young area of research but it's looking likely that shortening telomeres are heavily involved in the aging process. DNA doesn't replicate perfectly, telomeres at the end of each DNA strand allow for a margin of error to occur without damaging the important DNA information held further along the strand. Cells need to constantly reproduce to repair the damage that they suffer over time, once the telomeres become too damaged and short then the DNA code starts to suffer and so we age, develop health problems and eventually die.

Ok, so if eternity exists as a mathematical concept, then it EXISTS in itself. Gotcha.

Gotcha? You're starting to sound quite childish here. So you're saying that infinity exists? Infinity is a mathematical concept, eternity would be to apply that concept to time. The concept of infinity has no beginning or no end, this is why you cannot apply logical mathematical operators to infinity. Infinity minus infinity is undefined rather than zero, infinity divided by itself is also undefined rather than 1. If eternity is defined as infinite time then it must by definition have no beginning or end, if it has no beginning then where does that leave any need for a creator? Are you so certain about the nature of infinity and eternity now?

Ya, nice try but this does not rebut anything in the article that makes ID predictions. Tell me why the predictions are wrong? Details please.

So tell why the predictions are not credible, don’t just say they are not credible. Also don’t just say they are explained thoroughly by evolution, explain how evolution explains them, give those actual explanations.

Your statement is not credible because it does not answer or rebut anything.

You want the easy way out, I’m not giving it to you. So, hah.

So, hah? Now you're sounding even more childish! Why don't you first tell me why they are credible? Would it be because you linked to the very first site you came across and didn't really spend any time to read or understand it? I'm not doing your research for you, if you can formulate a decent argument by conducting your own secondary research then I will be happy to debate this with you. If however you want me to research your side of the argument as well as my own, well I may as well just debate with myself! It is in fact you who is trying to take the easy way out by linking out to other sites and saying argue with them, first you need to show me that you understand what they have stated and why it is relevant. If we can just link out to other peoples thesis and present it as our own argument then by all means be my guest and rebut the statements made here: http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf

Or at least show me a creationist thesis considered to carry equal depth, relevance and impact on science... I mean if creationist science is credible then what scientific breakthroughs or advancements has it led us to?

I tire of you not answering my what ifs. There is no tangible evidence for your case or mine, all we have to go on is philosophical argument and build our cases like that. So that being said, answer my question.
“And what if he sent you to hell, what would your final words be to him?”

Why this question is relevant?

Oh! But this is where you’re mistaken and you misunderstand! Yes God predetermines your judgment UNLESS you can prove God wrong. In other words you can change God’s mind. But watch this now: how can you prove wrong, infinite wisdom? How can you go up against, pure wisdom? Pure wisdom will surely beat your case that you try to make for yourself. So, you have to outsmart God. Think you can do it? So yes, God does give you a fair trial. Even those who have God’s favor will be put under trial, but of course they will be questioned differently then you.

So this is a fair court but those who have faith will get treated differently? In what way could this be considered a fair trial god if acting as judge, jury and prosecution? I'd say that infinite wisdom would find a way to outsmart any line of argument including it's own. Infinite wisdom by definition could prove anything beyond doubt yet also prove the exact opposite to be true. God would be in somewhat of a paradox here when it comes to being certain about anything. Put another way, god could find infinite reasons to condemn a person and infinite reasons to absolve the same person.

You were saying I have a lack of understanding of science and math. Stop saying that and demonstrate why I do and where I do.

You want me to stop saying it and demonstrate it at the same time? I can do one or the other but satisfying request one negates the other by default... which would you like me to do?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_Evelyonian


You can’t prove me wrong on that argument I made. You can however make an argument AGAINST my argument. Why not do it? I just finished telling you that there is no TANGIBLE evidence, that your going to get, until you die that is, or until you see an apparition (if you do) but then you would probably call it hallucinatory. But anyway, since you will never get this tangible evidence you want, and in your heart you KNOW you will never get it. Therefore, this has to become about philosophical cases, not tangible ones. Therefore, make an argument against my philosophical argument.

If you don’t, I am going to make another thread asking atheists to make a argument AGAINST theism, and that debate will not have anything to do with proving or disproving, it will have to do with only logic and argument and philosophy. Because face the fact, you will never get 100% proof until your dead.

But what you continue to ignore is that this thread is not about philosophy, it is about EVIDENCE

If you want to start a philosophical thread then feel free, I'll be happy to take part in it.

 

[johnhanks]

I told you why there has to be a first cause...

You have presented your arguments for the existence of a first cause. Those arguments have been challenged at every stage, and remain moot.

... and I told you why that first cause has to break the cycle of eternity for something to begin.

But you have not shown that the phrase 'break the cycle of eternity' has any meaning outside your own head.

Check this out then. This article gives all the sources and puts it all together http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/history-of-the-apostles-faq.htm and here is a quote from one of the sources, from the church father (very early, like 30-100 AD)) it is 1st epistle of clement to the Corinthians and it says so beautifully and inspiringly (at least to me it is)

“Chapter V.-No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.(24) Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death.(25) Let us set before our eyes the illustrious(26) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,(27) compelled(28) to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(29) and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(30) Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

Fine. But your original claim, you will recall, was to cite "MANY ancient writings" that attested to the resurrection; not to the martyrdoms of those who believed in it.

Now, just answer the question “why would they die for a KNOWN lie?

It is not necessary that they believed it to be a lie for them to be have been profoundly mistaken.

 

[Gunfingers]

Wow, this guy is still going? Geez, it's like listening to one of those teenagers who think's he's really deep.

 

[Jollybear]

Gunfingers

If you don’t like it, go somewhere else, because I am not giving up.

 

[painted wolf]

If you don’t like it, go somewhere else, because I am not giving up.

LoL.. Gunfingers I think you just got creationist rick-rolled!

wa:do

 

[Willamena]

Willamena



I think you may have misunderstood, maybe. It’s not about size, it’s about SPACE. The true God is not CONTAINED IN space, because that would mean he is created. Also the true God cannot BE space (space as we know it, kind of like a fish knows space different then we do). But the true God has to be INFINITELY BIG. Also space as we know it and as lets say fish know it slightly differently, all that space is created by this God. Therefore, if he created space he then cannot be contained within space.

Therefore the true God is infinitely big. But it’s not about size, it’s about space.

What do you think of this?

I think you're speaking nonsense. In what way is "infinitely big" a measure of space-but-not-space, but not size?

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

You seem to have the term "argument" confused with the term "bald assertion".

If you’re going to make a comment, please make an intelligent one. I really should not have even responded to this. I think this statements is so stupid that you making it is just doing so to get on my nerves, and not really doing it because you’re stupid. Because I find it hard to imagine that you are this stupid. So you must be saying it to get me angry.


Tumbleweed41

Ergo, magic...

God doing it is more natural than nothing doing it. Nothing doing it is TRULY a greater miracle.

I have shown all relevant findings,

No you haven’t. You have not shown that science has proven that a cause is not necessary or that there is no cause at all. No you have not. The only thing that can be proven up to date is that science does not understand certain things at the quantum level. That’s it.

I am sorry that I cannot make it understandable to you.

Sorry indeed, the reason you cannot make it more understandable is because you don’t even understand it because you’re wrong. First you say no cause is necessary, then say that is not the same as saying there is no cause. You apparently don’t even know what you’re talking about to me when I hear that.

Physics is not for everyone.

Right, but it is for me, using this tactic line is not going to help.

I have also pointed out, again and again, that science is not about proving negatives.

Says who, you? True science has NOT PROVEN there is NO cause, or that no cause is necessary at the quantum level, and true science has not proven there is a cause and what that cause is at the quantum level YET. When it comes to JUST science (facts) without hypothesis and theories, the FACT is, we don’t KNOW if there is a cause or if there is not a cause. That is the fact. Now also the fact may be there is a cause, but the fact is at the moment we do not know what it is.

No, obviously you do not "get it".

If I throw a ball up into the air, I predict it will come down, and low and behold, it does, thus my prediction came true. The ball has a predictable action. However if I throw the ball up into the air and it does NOT come back down, then my prediction did not come true. So, does that mean there is no cause for why the ball did not come down? FOOLISHNESS! Of course not, there is a reason for why the ball did not come down. First I would respond by saying “what the heck happened to the ball!? Oh my gosh, where is the ball gone? I did not throw it that hard to where it flew off into space, so scratch that option out, I did not throw it up and forward, just up, so where the heck did it go? OH, maybe a bird came and captured it? I don’t know, but I do know something, something had to be a reason behind it.

No one would ever say no cause is necessary or there is no cause. That is foolishness.

Not unlike Loki, the trickster god.

Let me ask you this, is Loki infinite and eternal?

Action at the quantum level.

Oh man, action at the quantum level proves no cause is necessary? Oh wow. Well, no, action at the quantum level does not prove that. That is an argument you make, and I understand why you make it, but you have to take it on faith.

Ok, let’s assume your argument is true, no cause is necessary. Ok, why is no cause necessary? Why does something come from nothing? And here is a second question, why is there something rather then nothing?

No contradictions. Just lack of dogma.

Well for a fact it does contradict your other statement. You may call it lack of dogma, but your statement contradicts your former statement. It does, now you just told me WHY you did it, for lack of dogma, that is to say your motive, you’re not motivated by holding to a dogma. Well, that is fine, but if you do that, should you then let yourself be thrown by every wind of dogma back and forth? By doing that, you’re like a plant not getting its roots down; you keep planting yourself and uprooting yourself and then doing it all over again. By going back and forth between contradictory statements, yea it shows you’re not committed to a dogma, but it also shows you are willing to let yourself walk in contradiction.

Basically you have a choice, commit to no dogma and contradict yourself, or commit to dogma and be held accountable to any problems that may exist within that dogma.

It has been shown. Repeatedly.

Um….no. It hasn’t. If it has, I surely must be LITERALLY blind.

Jolly, you are just spouting the same tired arguments over and over and over, ad nauseum.

I have come to accept that you have very little understanding of physics, and that cosmology is also not one of your strong points.

I am saying it over and over because you keep saying over and over that you have shown repeatedly to me that no cause is necessary and I keep telling you that you have not shown me this. All you have shown me is an argument, not proof. But based on your argument, I have another question for it, which I gave you above.

Since you lack either the ability or willingness to learn even the basics of these subjects, I leave you to your 99.99% surety of the facts that are facts because you believe them to be facts, and if my facts were facts you would know they were facts........

I have both the ability and the willingness to learn these issues.

A fact is a fact, no one disputes facts (well, wait, there is some folk that do, it’s the folks that don’t believe nothing exists, it’s all one big delusion).

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

Perhaps you missed it but this is a thread for evidence. Now, to say that I'm never going to get evidence from you for your claims begs the question:

Wait, correction, you’re not going to get your standard of evidence FROM ANYBODY, and not only that, you’re not going to get it EVER through your whole life. That is my prediction, and mark my words, write that prediction into your memory and every day that goes by, up until the day you die, keep rehearsing it “Jollybear said, I would never get “TANGIBLE” evidence, and up to this day, on my death bed, he has been correct, I still don’t have it, DANG”.

Why are you posting on an evidence thread if you have no evidence?

I have provided evidence, which is from design and complexity. Evidence works by inferences based upon data. That is how it works.

And another reason I am posting is because you need to know that this is a philosophical issue, not just a science issue. With science you cannot prove or disprove 100% a worldview on origins one way or the other. So this debate should be a philosophical one rather than just a science or “tangible evidence” one.

Going down the philosophical path of debating this issue will show which view of all the unproven views is MOST plausible.

To wait for this “tangible evidence” would be a big waste of time, for one because you will never get it, and second because your position now is not safe (it’s a gamble). Every day that goes by, tick, tick, time is being wasted when you don’t know for sure and commit.

You need to be READY AND SURE and SAFE.

I have asked you nicely in the past to please drop the "you're gonna find out you're wrong when you die"

CORRECTION! I am saying what IF after you die you find out I am right, what then? Don’t you want to be SURE before you die?

line of reasoning. Pascal's wager is meaningless because it's an inherently flawed argument.

Show its flaw? Don’t just say it’s flawed, SHOW IT. Put your feet where your mouth is.

This has already been pointed out to you. Please, stop this 'predicament' nonsense.

It’s not nonsense; it’s very serious and sober thinking. YOU for a FACT do not KNOW I am wrong, you strongly BELIEVE I am wrong, but if you cannot prove me wrong, you don’t KNOW I am wrong.

Can you not see the flaw in your reasoning?!

No I don’t, SHOW me it. Don’t just say you have the chocolate, show it to me.

Your entire argument is based on the fact that you can't understand how complexity could arise naturally, therefore god must have done it. If it seems difficult to imagine how the universe could have arisen naturally, can you imagine how much harder it would be for a god?!

What? Look at a house, it’s complex, so we know because it is, it is designed. Its complexity implies it was designed. Can you prove that my house is designed though? Maybe my house was built by natural means? You don’t know because you did not witness anyone build it. Neither have I.
Also how much harder it would be for a God? Are you kidding me, it would be a lot easier for God to create the universe then the universe coming about by nothing and chance.

The only way it seems that anyone can even start trying to explain god's existence is to first start creating loopholes in the complexity argument.

To say that since the universe is complex it must have been designed and then to bring in an even more complex god is contradicting yourself whether you like it or not. Why must the universe's complexity have been designed and not god's? It makes no logical sense. This is why I keep saying you can't have it both ways.

Yes, it does make logical sense because I just finished telling you that there has to be a FIRST cause. No matter what that first cause is, it would have to be complex. To say the simple made the complex, is crazy. And when I say simple, I mean PURE simple; that means NOTHING creating the complex.

Simply beating everyone over the head with "there must have been a first cause" or "god wasn't created" doesn't help your argument one bit.

YES, it does help my argument. You know what? I am going to hold you to your own standard here. Just by simply beating me over the head with “Simply beating everyone over the head with there must have been a first cause or god wasn’t created doesn’t help your argument one bit” does not help your statement or argument one bit.

I showed you why a first cause must be, you ignore it or won’t address it. Don’t tell me I did not build my argument; that is nonsense. I did so.

You're still stuck having to explain how god's complexity doesn't need a designer and yet, for some reason, the universe's does.

It's a intellectual non-starter, as I've been saying from the get go.

I like progressive debates. But you’re just repeating yourself, your not showing me WHY my arguments are wrong. Just that, they are wrong. That does not do anything. It doesn’t work.

Do you agree there has to be a first cause? If no, why?

But what you continue to ignore is that this thread is not about philosophy, it is about EVIDENCE

Right, tangible evidence. But I am trying to show you that no such thing will ever be given, until you die of course.

If you want to start a philosophical thread then feel free, I'll be happy to take part in it.

Yes, philosophically I know I can demolish atheism. And show that God is real.

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

Setting your mathematical error aside for a moment, why must it be you?

Again, your just saying I am in error without saying why. Also why must what be me?

Illness can occur from having an unhealthy lifestyle but many occur because a persons body is naturally defective in some way. Many people just don't have a good enough stomach valve to contain that acid. Many women suffer from it during pregnancy. This would suggest an imperfect design.

No it don’t imply imperfect design, it implies either in SOME cases, malfunctioning design and in other cases, it implies people using their design improperly, that is eating the wrong stuff, or eating too much, and not exercising.

But you missed the point; I was defining my terms about the curse and sin.

It's quite a young area of research but it's looking likely that shortening telomeres are heavily involved in the aging process. DNA doesn't replicate perfectly, telomeres at the end of each DNA strand allow for a margin of error to occur without damaging the important DNA information held further along the strand. Cells need to constantly reproduce to repair the damage that they suffer over time, once the telomeres become too damaged and short then the DNA code starts to suffer and so we age, develop health problems and eventually die.

Ok, why does the telomeres shorten? And why does the DNA not replicate perfectly?

Gotcha? You're starting to sound quite childish here.

Right, gotcha, everyone has a child inside them they need to let out once in awhile.

So you're saying that infinity exists? Infinity is a mathematical concept, eternity would be to apply that concept to time. The concept of infinity has no beginning or no end, this is why you cannot apply logical mathematical operators to infinity. Infinity minus infinity is undefined rather than zero, infinity divided by itself is also undefined rather than 1. If eternity is defined as infinite time then it must by definition have no beginning or end, if it has no beginning then where does that leave any need for a creator? Are you so certain about the nature of infinity and eternity now?

Time is a none entity, time only applies to things that exist. Thus eternity only applies to God whom exists. For example, my computer is in front of me, it exists. The computer STILL exists, it STILL exists, and it’s there still, and once again, it’s still in front of me. Moments are going by and by and it’s still there. Those moments are the time. But time is a none entity, the computer however is an entity. So time only applies to things that exist. Without existence, time means nothing and basically is nothing. So God existed for eternity. That means he had no beginning in his existence.

There, Gotcha. Gonna get me back? Catch me if ya can.

So, hah? Now you're sounding even more childish! Why don't you first tell me why they are credible? Would it be because you linked to the very first site you came across and didn't really spend any time to read or understand it? I'm not doing your research for you, if you can formulate a decent argument by conducting your own secondary research then I will be happy to debate this with you. If however you want me to research your side of the argument as well as my own, well I may as well just debate with myself! It is in fact you who is trying to take the easy way out by linking out to other sites and saying argue with them, first you need to show me that you understand what they have stated and why it is relevant.

Prediction one is, we will never find anything TRULY simple, we will always find complex, and irreducibly complex things. Prediction two is, we will never find a credible view for why the universe could come about randomly or by chance from nothing. Number three, we will never find out that the universe was just always here. Number four is we will never find out that something can come about without a cause. Number 5 we will never find out that there are vestigial structures or junk DNA, that is to say, we will find a function for them eventually. If we lack understanding about the purpose of something, we will find the purpose, just wait. We will always see gaps in the fossil record; we will not see graduation of change (macro evolution).

Here is 9 all together, I just don’t want to write them all out. http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2008/01/nine-predictions-if-intelligent-design.html

If we can just link out to other peoples thesis and present it as our own argument then by all means be my guest and rebut the statements made here:

[URL="http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pd...of_Species.pdf[/quote]"]http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pd...of_Species.pdf[/quote][/URL]

That article is TOO long for me to respond to it. At least my article was a lot more smaller for you to deal with.

Or at least show me a creationist thesis considered to carry equal depth, relevance and impact on science... I mean if creationist science is credible then what scientific breakthroughs or advancements has it led us to?

Here is a list of scientists who believed in God and they made break through’s in science. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html#4ZzNbgPdGcI9

Furthermore I don’t understand how believing in God or even believing in YOUNG earth creation can prevent or hold someone back from doing PRESENT day research and discovery in science? How do you figure it can hold us back?

Actually when you said the acid reflux in pregnant women is bad design, THAT I would say HOLDS US BACK. And here is why, because by saying that, it stops research in finding out how to USE the CORRECT design that is given us. You know, like why even bother trying to figure out how to use that design so it can work better for us, if it’s just bad design?