Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

Why this question is relevant?

Here is why this question is relevant. Because we don’t have prove for or against, either for me or you. All we have is philosophical argument and then a leap of faith, both for you and me. That leaves room for the fact that one of us could be wrong, either me, or you. Now that being said, I REALIZE that if I am wrong, all that time praying to God, would be a waste of time (although not a complete waste of time since it helps me gather my thoughts as well and helps me think) but I can think without praying, but praying does help you think. But regardless of that, I would have wasted my time talking to this God; I would have also wasted my time making effort to keep my life free from sin both in my thoughts and words. Although it would not be completely a waste of time, since refusing sins is a good thing. So I realize I would have wasted my time committing to this God. Now if you’re wrong and I am right, that means you would have wasted your time by NOT committing to this God. Then you die and find out you must pay for this. So this God sends you to hell, what would you tell him if he sends you there? What would your final last words be? It’s relevant because if you’re wrong, the way you respond to him matters. So, what would you tell him?

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?

Yes, those who have put their trust in his plan of salvation, will be still judged, but will be justified through his plan of salvation for them. Those who have rejected this plan, will be judged, and not judged justified, but judged condemned.

Also yes since he is God, he can be judge, jury and prosecution all at the same time. He can be judge, because well he is the highest authority, and he can be jury because he is VERY OBJECTIVE, the MOST objective being of all and he can see all motives and thoughts and everything that is in the dark.

I'd say that infinite wisdom would find a way to outsmart any line of argument including it's own.

Actually, no, if it’s perfect wisdom, then it cannot outsmart its own perfect rules and decisions and wisdom, since it’s already perfect.

Infinite wisdom by definition could prove anything beyond doubt yet also prove the exact opposite to be true.

Basically it’s like this, God has a perfect wisdom and perfect standard. That which is perfect cannot be proved imperfect. God is not going to prove himself wrong, he is going to ask you to try to do that.

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.

God has a standard, it’s a perfect one, it’s the best one. If anyone falls short of it, they are under his condemnation. That means the whole world is under his condemnation. Therefore, he sets up a plan for mankind to be saved, why? Because he is a merciful judge. But how does he do this and remain consistent with his justice? Well, he comes down as a man and dies in our place. And those that put their trust in this plan, are then saved. Therefore he remains both just and merciful at the same time. And that provides a way for us to be saved. But, we must sign up through putting our trust in it and following him beyond that. So apart from that plan, he cannot find infinite reasons, not even ONE reason to absolve the person and still remain merciful and just

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?

You misunderstood. I was asking you to not JUST say I don’t understand science and math, but rather demonstrate or show me where and WHY I don’t understand it. All you have done is assert I don’t understand these things, but have not said why that is the case. So you can say I don’t understand it, but if you do, please say why you’re saying it.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

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

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this….. oh my gosh. I have shown why there has to be a first cause and you nor anyone else has made an argument for why there cannot be a first cause. Oh, my gosh. The assertion has been presented that the universe could have been here for eternity, but then I said there is problems with that because either then it would take eternity for events to happen, thus they would never happen, or there would be no motion, so therefore how do you deal with this point?

But you have not shown that the phrase

'break the cycle of eternity' has any meaning outside your own head.

Ok, let me explain it further. If the cycle of eternity is not broken a FIRST cause or a BEGINNING for the universe or for something for that matter cannot happen, and here is why: eternity going backwards has no starting point in order to begin something. Therefore for the universe to begin, it would take forever for it to begin, and for all events in the universe to happen, it would also take eternity for all them to take place, thus they would never happen. OR if they are all taking place at the same moment in time, that would mean there is no motion (but there obviously is motion). So the cycle of eternity has to be broken for there to be a beginning. Now mindless eternity energy would have no knowledge that this needs to be done, but an intelligence would understand it needs to be, therefore it is more plausible (philosophically) that an intelligence broke the cycle rather than mindless energy and chance did it.

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.

Oh my gosh……oh my gosh, I can’t believe this….oh….my….gosh .

Ok, let’s try again. It was asked of me to cite sources OUTSIDE the biblical writings, so I did. The biblical writings ATTEST to the resurrection and NONE biblical writings (church fathers) also attest to the resurrection. Now, attesting to it without dying for it, is not evidence, and dying for it, without witnessing it, is not evidence, but witnessing it AND dying for it, IS evidence! And THAT is JUST the case. The apostles witnessed the resurrection, and they DIED FOR IT.

Now answer this question, why would they DIE FOR what they (((((((KNOW))))))) is a lie?

It just doesn’t make any sense…..does it? That means it is TRUE…..

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

AHUH! So your saying they were sincere in there martyrdom! Ok, if they CLEARLY witnessed it over a 40 day period (as the biblical account says they did) how in the world could they have mistaken it? And it was not just 1 person mistaking it, it was all 12 apostles, plus the women, plus another 500 witnesses that Paul mentioned!

 

[Jollybear]

Willamena

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

Ok, let me put this more simple. My God is not contained IN space (finite), he is infinitely big in space (infinite). Baal on the other hand is contained in space (finite). Therefore my God is bigger then baal, therefore baal cannot be the true God. And why? Because he is finite, he is contained in space, while the true God would be bigger then that, he would be the creator of space (different forms of it that is).

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, let me put this more simple. My God is not contained IN space (finite), he is infinitely big in space (infinite). Baal on the other hand is contained in space (finite). Therefore my God is bigger then baal, therefore baal cannot be the true God. And why? Because he is finite, he is contained in space, while the true God would be bigger then that, he would be the creator of space (different forms of it that is).

Why not just say that God permeates space, but also transcends it (is also outside of space as space is a creation)? I think it sends the same basic message, but doesn't use strange wordings about space and infinite. Also, be careful about using ontological arguments, messy business that stuff is.

 

[Autodidact]

J

Ok, let’s try again. It was asked of me to cite sources OUTSIDE the biblical writings, so I did. The biblical writings ATTEST to the resurrection and NONE biblical writings (church fathers) also attest to the resurrection.

I'm sorry, I must have skimmed past that. What was that non-Biblical source that attests to Christ's resurrection?

Now, attesting to it without dying for it, is not evidence,

sure it is.

and dying for it, without witnessing it, is not evidence, but witnessing it AND dying for it, IS evidence! And THAT is JUST the case. The apostles witnessed the resurrection, and they DIED FOR IT.

No, if they witnessed it, they didn't tell us, because they left no written record, and we have no idea how they died, assuming there were any such people.

Now answer this question, why would they DIE FOR what they (((((((KNOW))))))) is a lie?

1. They didn't.
2. People make mistakes.

It just doesn’t make any sense…..does it? That means it is TRUE…..

I have to agree that it doesn't make sense. But no, that does not make it true.

 

[Autodidact]

Willamena



Ok, let me put this more simple. My God is not contained IN space (finite), he is infinitely big in space (infinite). Baal on the other hand is contained in space (finite). Therefore my God is bigger then baal, therefore baal cannot be the true God. And why? Because he is finite, he is contained in space, while the true God would be bigger then that, he would be the creator of space (different forms of it that is).

Sorry, this is gibberish.

 

[Autodidact]

Why not just say that God permeates space, but also transcends it (is also outside of space as space is a creation)? I think it sends the same basic message, but doesn't use strange wordings about space and infinite. Also, be careful about using ontological arguments, messy business that stuff is.

You could say it, and you could say that purple smells funny, but neither sentence makes any sense.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Jollybear, I simply don't think you understand my objection to the argument from complexity. Let me try and simplify it a bit more then I have been.

We have two complex things that we're dealing with: The Universe and god.

Now, your argument appears to be that the universe is so complex that it could not possibly have happened naturally, it must therefore have been designed. Now, in order to explain this you bring in an even more complex deity and say that the deity was not designed, it's always been.

You're taking the less complex thing and saying "designed" and the more complex thing and saying "not designed". To use your house analogy, it's like looking at a tiny one room shack and saying "Well, clearly someone built this." and then looking at a huge five-story mansion and saying, "No one built this, it's always existed."

Do you not see the problem?

To argue that complexity needs design and then bring in something even more complex to explain it just doesn't work. It makes no logical sense.

Now, I can already hear you screaming 'first cause' and that's all well and good. I have no problem with a first cause. The problem is that science has yet to explain what the first cause was. Now, does that mean that, because science hasn't done it yet, it automatically never will? Well, let's look at biology. There was a time when we couldn't understand where all of the phylum of the world came from. The natural answer in those days was a hearty "God did it." People believed that we would never understand where life on earth came from and, more so, to even try was encroaching on a territory owned solely by god.
We not only didn't know, we shouldn't know.
It wasn't until the theory of evolution by natural selection arose that we began to understand the origins of the great variety of life on earth. Our knowledge of the natural world took a great leap forward. Even today, science continues to advance our knowledge by leaps and bounds.
Now, are there things that science has yet to answer? Of course, but why give into the idea of the "god of the gaps"?

Why, if we don't understand something now, must we automatically attribute it to a god?

"Can't understand how all these animals got here? Right then, god did it! No need to look any further than that."

"Can't understand how the universe could have arisen naturally? Right then, god did it! No need to look any further than that."

 

[johnhanks]

Oh my gosh, I can’t believe this….. oh my gosh. I have shown why there has to be a first cause and you nor anyone else has made an argument for why there cannot be a first cause.

Now there's a neat switch: you are suggesting that to refute your case that there has to be a first cause, we have to show that there cannot be one. No deal, JB: it's sufficient to show that there doesn't have to be; and others here have done that very effectively.

Ok, let me explain it further. If the cycle of eternity is not broken a FIRST cause or a BEGINNING for the universe or for something for that matter cannot happen, and here is why: eternity going backwards has no starting point in order to begin something. Therefore for the universe to begin, it would take forever for it to begin...

Not if the universe - or an infinite cycle of universes - and 'eternity' were coterminous. What evidence do you have that there has ever been such a state as 'nothing'?

Ok, let’s try again. It was asked of me to cite sources OUTSIDE the biblical writings, so I did. The biblical writings ATTEST to the resurrection and NONE biblical writings (church fathers) also attest to the resurrection. Now, attesting to it without dying for it, is not evidence, and dying for it, without witnessing it, is not evidence, but witnessing it AND dying for it, IS evidence! And THAT is JUST the case. The apostles witnessed the resurrection, and they DIED FOR IT.

Now answer this question, why would they DIE FOR what they (((((((KNOW))))))) is a lie?

It just doesn’t make any sense…..does it? That means it is TRUE…..

Autodidact has answered this one very well for me; so, what she said.

 

[bossbozz]

Bossbozz

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

You said that if you are 99% sure then I can only be 1% sure, this is wrong as we can both be sure of our individual views. However you seem to think that because you are 99% sure then I can only be 1% sure of my view which is utter nonsense. Also using this nonsensical method you decided that it must prove your view to be right over mine, I wondered why you thought your view must be the right one?

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

Stop being lazy, if you are really interested then look it up for yourself.

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.

Time is a non-entity? So you are saying time doesn't exist? I think you just make this nonsense up as you go along.

Prediction one is, we will never find anything TRULY simple, we will always find complex, and irreducibly complex things.

That's an observation, not a prediction. Life is complex, so what? It evolved to be that way.

Prediction two is, we will never find a credible view for why the universe could come about randomly or by chance from nothing.

Yes we do, we already have plenty of credible views. This is just an opinion anyway, not a scientific prediction... do any of these have a thesis to back them up?

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.

Won't we? Why not... can I see a thesis stating why please? These are just mere speculations, not scientific predictions. You can see why I think you don't understand science.

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

]

Oh... here's why we can find no thesis to back up these random opinions... because you took the ideas from a blog! You do know the difference between a credible scientific thesis and a blog post don't you?

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.

Article? That was the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin... your ignorance amazes me as does your laziness, it would seem on seeing that it was too long to read that you dismissed it entirely including the author! Find me one creationist thesis that has had anywhere near as much impact on our understanding of life as Darwins. If it is such a credible science then it shouldn't be hard to find one.

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

Having a belief in god and being a scientist doesn't make you a creationist scientist. I see you are floundering trying to find any real credibility in creationism as a science.

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.

I doubt what I say on this forum will have much of an impact on research. Are you suggesting that I in some way have held back humanity? I don't recall torturing and killing scientists and censoring their work, can you say the same about the church?

Here is why this question is relevant. Because we don’t have prove for or against, either for me or you. All we have is philosophical argument and then a leap of faith, both for you and me. That leaves room for the fact that one of us could be wrong, either me, or you. Now that being said, I REALIZE that if I am wrong, all that time praying to God, would be a waste of time (although not a complete waste of time since it helps me gather my thoughts as well and helps me think) but I can think without praying, but praying does help you think. But regardless of that, I would have wasted my time talking to this God; I would have also wasted my time making effort to keep my life free from sin both in my thoughts and words. Although it would not be completely a waste of time, since refusing sins is a good thing. So I realize I would have wasted my time committing to this God. Now if you’re wrong and I am right, that means you would have wasted your time by NOT committing to this God. Then you die and find out you must pay for this. So this God sends you to hell, what would you tell him if he sends you there? What would your final last words be? It’s relevant because if you’re wrong, the way you respond to him matters. So, what would you tell him?

It's only as relevant as what you would say to any of the other 2869 deities that man has said to exist at one time or another, have you spared any time to think about what you would say to each of these? Even if a god/gods do exist then you have a one in 2870 chance of having picked the right one to devote yourself to so the odds are really stacked against you here. If the prospect of hell really worries you so much then I suggest you spend time thinking about a good excuse for every other god in the world (or at least those that will judge and punish you, you better get researching). Of course this probably sounds preposterous to you just as your question is preposterous to me. Hell is your worry, not mine.

Yes, those who have put their trust in his plan of salvation, will be still judged, but will be justified through his plan of salvation for them. Those who have rejected this plan, will be judged, and not judged justified, but judged condemned.

Also yes since he is God, he can be judge, jury and prosecution all at the same time. He can be judge, because well he is the highest authority, and he can be jury because he is VERY OBJECTIVE, the MOST objective being of all and he can see all motives and thoughts and everything that is in the dark.

Ok so god is the pinnacle of objectivity...

God has a standard, it’s a perfect one, it’s the best one. If anyone falls short of it, they are under his condemnation. That means the whole world is under his condemnation. Therefore, he sets up a plan for mankind to be saved, why? Because he is a merciful judge. But how does he do this and remain consistent with his justice? Well, he comes down as a man and dies in our place. And those that put their trust in this plan, are then saved. Therefore he remains both just and merciful at the same time. And that provides a way for us to be saved. But, we must sign up through putting our trust in it and following him beyond that. So apart from that plan, he cannot find infinite reasons, not even ONE reason to absolve the person and still remain merciful and just

...hmmm but this sounds highly subjective?

I can say I want everyone to be happy, this is objective as it is undistorted by personal bias or emotion. But if I then say but I don't like apples so I don't want anyone who likes apples to be happy, everyone else can be happy apart from people who like apples... well that is highly subjective. So is god objective or subjective?

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

God=supernatural=magic=miracle.
Physics=natural=real

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.

It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

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.

It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

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

As of yet, you have not shown a capacity to understand physics.

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.

In other words, at this point and time.
It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

(BTW, you just defeated your own ontological argument)

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.

Yes, on the atomic level and above, it would be foolish to assume there is no cause.
But we are talking not only about the quantum level, but also the lack of physical laws beyond the Singularity.

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

I wouldn't know. I do not put blind faith in supernatural beings who manipulate physics to fool people.

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.

It has not been shown that a cause is necessary at the quantum level.
Nor is it rational to insert cause/effect natural laws beyond the singularity.
The necessity of cause in either of these scenarios has not been shown.

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?

These are the questions currently being asked in physics. Questions drive science to further study. Nothing is accepted on blind faith. Not are supernatural answers inserted to "fill in the blanks".

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.

Silly Jolly,
There is no contradiction or dogma in accepting current finding in physics, yet expecting more answers, that may of may not confirm past findings.
This...
"No cause has been found to be necessary."
does no contradict this...
"This does not mean a cause may not yet be found."
in fact, it avoids dogma by leaving open the possibility of further knowledge, while refraining from inserting uneducated speculation.

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

Oh, I wouldn't say you're LITERALLY blind.......
Only that your dogmatic faith has prevented you from understanding reality.

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.
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).

As I said, you have yet to show an 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........

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Please note, in this one paragraph, Jolly has eliminated his own cause/effect argument for God.
:clap

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Please note, in this one paragraph, Jolly has eliminated his own cause/effect argument for God.
:clap

W00t! W00t! Party time :jiggy:

 

[painted wolf]

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.

wow... looks like I hit a nerve there huh?

But essentially you are claiming a lot of things to be facts... without any solid evidence to back them up, other than your insistence that they are indeed facts.

You also refuse to acknowledge any information that would in any way alter your views one jot... that is the antithesis of an argument, which is an informed back and forth discussion. You seem to be just shouting your point of view a lot and hoping to drown everyone else out.
Again, the antithesis of an actual argument.

Sorry if that makes you mad.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

RedOne77

Why not just say that God permeates space, but also transcends it (is also outside of space as space is a creation)? I think it sends the same basic message, but doesn't use strange wordings about space and infinite. Also, be careful about using ontological arguments, messy business that stuff is.

The reason I am not saying it as you said it is because I want to be SUPER careful here how I say something. Because you see, if I contradict myself, they’re going to be right on that like lions.

To me God is infinite in space, or permeates all space. And he transcends all his creation, and any created space (bubbles of space) he also transcends. But since he is infinite in space, he does not transcend himself.

Also why is ontological arguments messy business?

 

[Jollybear]

Audodidact

I'm sorry, I must have skimmed past that. What was that non-Biblical source that attests to Christ's resurrection?

The church fathers writings all preached and wrote about the resurrection of Jesus. They were not witnesses though, but they did KNOW the witnesses, but the witnesses (apostolic writers of the New Testament) they testified of the resurrection AND were witnesses of it. Do you really want me to dig for all the quotes from the church fathers talking about the resurrection? There will be too many of them, trust me.

Here is one quote for you though (there is lots more) you can dig for them here if you wish http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/

Here is one quote for you from the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.
“For He (Jesus) is my hope; He is my boast; He is my never-failing riches, on whose account I bear about with me these bonds from Syria to Rome, these spiritual jewels, in which may I be perfected through your prayers, and become a partaker of the sufferings of Christ, and have fellowship with Him in His death, His resurrection from the dead, and His everlasting life”

Source of quote here http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-1-apostolic-with-justin-martyr-irenaeus/ignatius/epistle-of-ignatius-ephesians.html

sure it is.

I mean….just claiming someone was raised from the dead and that you saw it happen is NOT evidence, that is what I meant.

But if you die for that claim THEN that is evidence, for who in their right mind dies for a known lie? Makes no sense.

No, if they witnessed it, they didn't tell us, because they left no written record, and we have no idea how they died, assuming there were any such people.

Lol, that is funny. If they didn’t tell us then why do we have 22 new testament writings from a variety of authors? Plus numerous writings from church fathers who knew the writers of the New Testament writings?

1. They didn't.

They didn’t get martyred? Then how do you explain the church fathers saying they did and how do you explain them testifying themselves they were in danger in the New Testament writings?

2. People make mistakes.

Explain how or why they would make this mistake. First off, 12 apostles, plus the women, and 500 witnesses as well, saw him alive. The apostles saw it over a 40 day period and saw him ascend up into the clouds. They saw his tomb empty, they saw him die on the cross. How were they mistaken?

I have to agree that it doesn't make sense. But no, that does not make it true.

Why does it not make it true?

Sorry, this is gibberish.

Why is it gibberish?

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

Now, your argument appears to be that the universe is so complex that it could not possibly have happened naturally, it must therefore have been designed. Now, in order to explain this you bring in an even more complex deity and say that the deity was not designed, it's always been.

I was not claiming that the deity was MORE complex, or less complex or equally complex. Some have argued that the biblical God is simple, but I don’t believe that because it poses the problem that he would not exist, if he is PURE simple. As for equally complex, that does not really pose a problem, it just shows that he would be as complex as his universe he made, but he would be more powerful then it. And if he is more complex then the universe, you say it poses the problem that you mention below, which is the mansion is not designed but the house is concept.

Well, I take either he is equally complex or more complex.

You're taking the less complex thing and saying "designed" and the more complex thing and saying "not designed". To use your house analogy, it's like looking at a tiny one room shack and saying "Well, clearly someone built this." and then looking at a huge five-story mansion and saying, "No one built this, it's always existed."

Do you not see the problem?

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see the problem because something has to be a first cause, it’s either nothing (which is crazy) or it’s mindless energy (which is more plausible then nothing, but still not great because it needs to break the cycle of eternity to begin something) or it’s God (which is more plausible then the other 2 because he is something and he knows the cycle of eternity needs to break in order to begin something).

Looks like God wins.

I mean something had to do it because we are here (well some folk don’t think we’re here, but they are crazy, WE ARE HERE).

To argue that complexity needs design and then bring in something even more complex to explain it just doesn't work. It makes no logical sense.

To say everything come from nothing is also not logical, to say that mindless energy is eternal and it created everything is not logical either. To say we are not here is not logical either. To say God did it, is MORE logical then the others.

Now, I can already hear you screaming 'first cause' and that's all well and good. I have no problem with a first cause. The problem is that science has yet to explain what the first cause was. Now, does that mean that, because science hasn't done it yet, it automatically never will? Well, let's look at biology. There was a time when we couldn't understand where all of the phylum of the world came from. The natural answer in those days was a hearty "God did it." People believed that we would never understand where life on earth came from and, more so, to even try was encroaching on a territory owned solely by god.

We not only didn't know, we shouldn't know.
It wasn't until the theory of evolution by natural selection arose that we began to understand the origins of the great variety of life on earth. Our knowledge of the natural world took a great leap forward. Even today, science continues to advance our knowledge by leaps and bounds.
Now, are there things that science has yet to answer? Of course, but why give into the idea of the "god of the gaps"?

Here you are making an argument then giving an example, but the example is based on an assumption that I disagree with. Evolution STILL has not answered this question with proven facts.

Also this thing with “we shouldn’t know” that is said by FALSE religious people, that is not what I SAY. So, I don’t care what they say, I disagree with them too, we should know.

So here you are saying we should not resort to the god of the gaps, but you assume science has filled the gap with evolution. They have not filled it with facts, but assumptions.

Why, if we don't understand something now, must we automatically attribute it to a god?

For two reasons we must attribute it to God. First reason is because it is the most plausible view out of the 4 views I mentioned (the only views that exist actually) and second, people are going to find out it was God, but they’re going to find out the hard way (after they die) and finding out then is too late. That’s why agnosticism is NOT safe and I find it absolutely amazing that they think they are safe. They need to be shaken up a little bit.

"Can't understand how all these animals got here? Right then, god did it! No need to look any further than that."

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, nothing plus chance plus time did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, eternal mindless energy did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, the animals created themselves! No need to look any further than that”

Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, study the animals because we don’t know how they got here, but we know the first 4 views cannot be it (although we don’t know how we really know that) and then we keep studying and keep studying till doomsday (literally doomsday) and still find no answer.

Also one more thing I must add. Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of my position and intelligent design position. I have heard this misrepresentation time and again and I am tired of hearing it and correcting it every time it’s posed to me.

Just because we believe God did it, that does not = no need to look further and study it. Studying it does not mean we doubt that God did it, studying it means we want to know how it works.

Let me illustrate. By looking at a house, it has the hallmarks of design, therefore just by looking at it and knowing what design is, I call the house designed by intelligence. However I have not studied the house, I don’t know how the house works, I don’t know the ins and outs of plumbing, wiring and flooring and all those things. But if I studied those things, then I would know how houses work. I am not a mechanic, but I know when I look at a car, someone made the car, but a mechanic can describe how cars work, while I cannot do so.

So, resorting to intelligent design does not = not studying nature, and studying nature does not = doubting design, it means wanting to know how that design works.

There, that is the correct representation. Please represent it like that, by all means disagree with it if you wish, but this is my position and the position of intelligent design proponents, this is how it should be represented.

"Can't understand how the universe could have arisen naturally? Right then, god did it! No need to look any further than that."

My answer is ditto from above.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

Now there's a neat switch: you are suggesting that to refute your case that there has to be a first cause, we have to show that there cannot be one. No deal, JB: it's sufficient to show that there doesn't have to be; and others here have done that very effectively.

You have not shown that there does not have to be a first cause, you certainly have not proven that there does not have to be a first cause. But, you have not even shown why it is not necessary for a first cause. For you to show this, you would have to refute or rebut (that means make an effort to do that) my argument that showed that if there is no first cause, there would be no motion, or nothing would take place. You have to refute that argument with ANOTHER counter argument. You have not done that, nor has anyone else as of YET.

Not if the universe - or an infinite cycle of universes - and 'eternity' were coterminous. Wht evidence do you have that there has ever been such a state as 'nothing'?

This don’t make no sense. Let’s assume for the moment that many universes were evolving from eternity past. Ok, which universe came into being first? And how could it do so since it’s starting from eternity past, which means it’s not even starting from somewhere. Therefore it will take eternity to start, therefore it will never start.

How do you deal with this? Or do you just dust it under the rug?

Also I am not even dealing with that question yet of “what evidence do you have that there has ever been such a state as nothing” plus I don’t believe there ever was a nothing anyway. So why should I provide evidence for it?

Autodidact has answered this one very well for me; so, what she said.

Like heck she did, she did not answer that question. I posed the question to her again; let’s see if she answers it.

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

You said that if you are 99% sure then I can only be 1% sure, this is wrong as we can both be sure of our individual views. However you seem to think that because you are 99% sure then I can only be 1% sure of my view which is utter nonsense.

We can both say we are 99% sure, but only ONE of us can TRULY be 99% sure. That means the other one who is not truly 99% sure, they just THINK they are. But watch this, even if your right and we can both be 99% sure, that speaks relativism, that means I can ask you the question “what if I am right, and you are wrong, what then?”

Also using this nonsensical method you decided that it must prove your view to be right over mine, I wondered why you thought your view must be the right one?

Well I have proven my view to be most plausible, philosophically speaking. And as for why my view is right, I have been telling why through this whole thread.

Stop being lazy, if you are really interested then look it up for yourself.

For someone who calls me lazy, and then tells me to look up the answer for myself, why does he reject looking up the links I give him about intelligent design predictions? Is that not being lazy on your part? You tell me to do this, while you refuse to do it yourself. You tell me to explain the predictions, not just give you a source, then I consent and say ok, but then when I ask you a question, you don’t answer it, NOR do you even provide a link to me (like I did for you) you just call me lazy and tell me to look it up for myself.

Well, that don’t show no character on your part to do this. You’re the one who mentioned the thing about tolemeres, so why not answer questions about it since you apparently believe in it? Or do you believe in something you don’t understand and that is why you can’t answer the question!?

Come on now big mouth, with your big words calling me lazy, when I am definitely not. Answer the question otherwise don’t make an argument you don’t understand anything about.

Time is a non-entity? So you are saying time doesn't exist? I think you just make this nonsense up as you go along.

This is supposed to be a debate; you’re not debating anymore, you’re judging and your judgment does not even address what I said. Nice job genius. You think that makes you look good? It may to those who agree with you, but it certainly does not to those who are true seekers listening in. And for the record, no I don’t make this stuff up as I go along. I have believed time was a non entity for a good long while now not just since we talked about it.

Here is what I said, now ADRESS it or move along.

“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.”

That's an observation, not a prediction. Life is complex, so what? It evolved to be that way.

It evolved to be that way? < is that an observation? NO! You believe that something very simple evolved into something very complex over much time. That is not observed. The PREDICTION IS (it stands, it&#8217;s not just an observation) we will never find things that are TRULY SIMPLE!

Ok? That is a prediction, YES IT IS, YES, IT IS.

Ok genius?

Yes we do, we already have plenty of credible views. This is just an opinion anyway, not a scientific prediction... do any of these have a thesis to back them up?

Oh yea, what is the MOST credible view you have so far out of all them? Let&#8217;s hear it!

Also if it&#8217;s an opinion, not a fact, does this opinion make predictions that its opinion will be proven as scientific research progresses? If it doesn&#8217;t, why hold the opinion for? Come on genius, answer the question.

Won't we? Why not... can I see a thesis stating why please? These are just mere speculations, not scientific predictions. You can see why I think you don't understand science.

I find myself having to exercise some patience with you. I have been saying through this whole THREAD why I believe all the other views beside the God view are wrong.

Plus all the views have not been proven as true or false 100% either way. Now that being the case, I did not speculate, I PREDICTED that all the views beside the God view will NEVER be proven to be true.

I don&#8217;t mean this as an insult, but you are either not very intelligent or you are playing dumb with me.

Read this, I PREDICT that we will never find out that the universe was always here. THAT IS a prediction. Apparently you don&#8217;t know what a prediction is, or you&#8217;re just playing dumb with me. But either way, I don&#8217;t like it.

If it&#8217;s the former, then develop your intellect before you continue debating; if it&#8217;s the later, then stop playing with me.

Also read this: I predict we will never find out that something can have NO cause. Yes, that is a prediction, it&#8217;s MY prediction, it may not be YOUR prediction, but it is a prediction and it is MY prediction. It is the intelligent design positions prediction, YES, it is a prediction.

If you&#8217;re going to argue with me, make some intelligent arguments. I mean I can still call something I disagree with intelligent, but what you have said I can&#8217;t call intelligent. Now it could be that your just playing with me, if so, WHY?

 

[Jollybear]

Oh... here's why we can find no thesis to back up these random opinions... because you took the ideas from a blog! You do know the difference between a credible scientific thesis and a blog post don't you?

Oh my gosh man, your impossible. Intelligent design websites (non blog websites) also have all the same information on it. But I was just looking for something simple and put together in a short list, and that was it as I did the Google search.

You&#8217;re wasting my time man. ADRESS something for goodness sakes. These are predictions, yes they are. Do you know what a prediction is? It certainly does not sound like you do.

I&#8217;m sorry but I have to ask you this even though I find it strange that I have to ask you this, but&#8230;. what is a prediction to you?

Article? That was the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin...

Dude, you&#8217;re really starting to tick me off. I don&#8217;t care if it&#8217;s an article or a book, I was not focusing on that or what I should have called it. And I still don&#8217;t care about whether I was accurate in calling it a book or a SUPER long article, I don&#8217;t care about that, that is not the issues we are talking about man! What is your problem? My point was, my article or LINK if we can call it that was shorter than your link. We are debating, reading the whole book and then responding to it on here is not practical for me to do, at least I was more courteous to you in giving you a short link. COME ON Man! Get with it. If I was an atheist or an agnostic I certainly would not want to be one like you.

your ignorance[ amazes me as does your laziness,

For someone who calls me ignorant, you sure sound ignorant on many lines and for someone who calls me lazy, he sure displays it himself.

it would seem on seeing that it was too long to read that you dismissed it entirely including the author! Find me one creationist thesis that has had anywhere near as much impact on our understanding of life as Darwins. If it is such a credible science then it shouldn't be hard to find one.

Yes, intelligent design is a credible science. You calling it not one does not make it not one. It just makes it called NOT one by someone like you.

Plus there are articles on the net with the main purpose of rebutting the origin of species that Darwin wrote. So why should I go through the effort of refuting line on line that book you gave to me in a link. I certainly would not mind reading it, but to refute it in an online forum would be massively HUGE task. A task I could very well do, but it&#8217;s not practical and would take a very long time.

Get your head out of the clouds man.

Having a belief in god and being a scientist doesn't make you a creationist scientist. I see you are floundering trying to find any real credibility in creationism as a science.

That is a contradiction. A scientist who believes in God, means that they believe God created this universe.

I remember reading a story about Isaac Newton and it stuck in my memory because it was really good to me. He had a man made model of the solar system in his place. And he had an atheist friend come over and talk with him. As the atheist friend looked at the model of the solar system, he said it was wonderfully made and whoever made it was brilliant. Isaac asked him &#8216;why do you believe someone made it?&#8217; the atheist said &#8216;because it&#8217;s obvious that someone made it, what kind of question is that, it&#8217;s complex, it has all kinds of parts to it, it obviously is made by someone, who made it?&#8217; Isaac said &#8216;no one made it, it just came about by chance&#8217; the atheist said &#8216;come on now, I&#8217;m not a fool, who made it?&#8217; (I am paraphrasing from memory of course, so don&#8217;t nit pick at it, thank you, capture the point, or else I am going to get more mad). Isaac said, it&#8217;s funny why you are so strong in believing that someone made this model which is far less complex then the real thing in the sky, yet you think that the one in the sky came about by chance.

Also as a side note, if a scientist who is a believer in God, but leaves his God at home and does not invite him along in the lab, is not a consistent TRUE believer, he is a COWARD.

I say that is the case FOR ANY FIELD. If your God serves YOU, and you&#8217;re not serving HIM, you got it backwards.

So, don&#8217;t tell me that if a scientist TRULY believes in God, that means he don&#8217;t believe God created the universe. Don&#8217;t talk such stupid nonsense to me.

I doubt what I say on this forum will have much of an impact on research. Are you suggesting that I in some way have held back humanity? I don't recall torturing and killing scientists and censoring their work, can you say the same about the church?

Your right, it will NOT have any impact on research, research will continue. BUT if all people, particularly all scientists truly believed it was bad design, THEN that would hold back research in finding out how to use the TRUE design that is there. Or how to use it correctly.

As for mentioning the church torturing people, that has nothing to do with the point I just raised. You do a FINE job at not addressing things and actually nit pick around my points. GREAT JOB at doing that! You have no character.

For the record also, what the church does and what I believe are too different things. If you want to go debate with the church on certain issues, by all means go debate them, heck, I&#8217;ll join you and we will be team mates in that regard because I don&#8217;t agree with them torturing. But if you debate me, debate me on the merits of my points.

What is your problem?