Evidence God Is

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. These are arguments that you keep trying to put in my mouth.


Could you show me that please.


I'll like first to see that evidence showing that it's not design.

The person who needs to demonstrate that life is a product of design is YOU - the one making the claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

The person who needs to demonstrate that life is a product of design is YOU - the one making the claim.

Sheesh dude, pay attention....he's already done that. Let me explain.

We all agree design requires a designer, right? Well, since life is designed, it therefore stands to reason that there must be a designer!

There....done....QED.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fact: We know that design requires a designer. See the OP, if you haven't already done so.
Does life require a designer? Yes, because life is a product of design - living machines. I asked for this to be disproved before.
Therefore, using deductive reasoning - design requires a designer; life is a product of design; life requires a designer. How many times did I present this argument?
Please prove otherwise, if you disagree.

See?

 

[viole]

In the post I quoted you listed multiple things that you found irrational. One of them was:

"The being my son will incarnate to. What should he look like....."

The proposition that homo sapiens were not a part of evolution is irrational due to the large amount of evidence against it. But what argument do you have against the rationality of incarnation under the circumstances it is purported to have taken place?

Rationality for a god to incarnate? Or rationality to believe that she did?

Theology is an actual academic discipline and has been a part of academic institutions for as long as they've existed. It's going strong today still with plenty journals and institutions dedicated to it.
Last time I checked, the study of leprechauns enjoyed no such status.

Your attempts at degrading theology by comparing it to such things are only damaging your case more.

Really, there is little difference between cheap creationist arguments that are seen in the OP and the stereotypical atheist polemic that you're flaunting here.

Degrading theology? Since there is no evidence of any God whatsoever, including vanilla variety gods like the Abrahamic ones, I really wonder what I am degrading. Ceteris paribus, they deserve as much respect as leprechauns or superman, since they share the exactly same evidence and plausibility. Academia or not.

Probably, If there were more people believing in leprechauns, and leprechaunology were in academia instead, then they would probably say that I am degrading them, by comparing them with totally implausible gods, each with its own set of weird claims.

You should try to see things from the third person persective, and it will become apparent to you, too.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Apologes]

Rationality for a god to incarnate? Or rationality to believe that she did?

What reason do you have to think it is irrational for God to choose homo sapiens for the incarnation?

Degrading theology? Since there is no evidence of any God whatsoever, including vanilla variety gods like the Abrahamic ones, I really wonder what I am degrading.

Whether there is evidence for God's existence is a question for philosophy of religion and theology (the line between the two gets blurry often) so you really can't participate in these debates without doing theology (or at least attempting to) which makes your attempts at dismissing theology as something ridiculous pretty obstuse.

Ceteris paribus, they deserve as much respect as leprechauns or superman, since they share the exactly same evidence and plausibility. Academia or not.

One would think that a discipline being recognized as such even by formidable secular scholars would be an indication of the intellectual rigor put into it.

For the record, theology would remain a respectable discipline even if it were the case that there is no God just as how metaethics would be a respectable discipline in the case of moral realism being false.

Probably, If there were more people believing in leprechauns, and leprechaunology were in academia instead, then they would probably say that I am degrading them, by comparing them with totally implausible gods, each with its own set of weird claims.

Talk about extravagant assumptions. Perhaps if you actually dropped all the typical antitheistic condescension you would see that there is a huge historical difference between believing in God and in folklore as well as the huge difference in the ways these beliefs shaped themselves and the world.

 

[nPeace]

And once again you don't address the questions that matter, the large holes in your coat.

How did the first sloth come about?

How does magic work?

Are you now saying the designer is God?

What is a sufficient definition of a real God such that we could determine whether any real candidate is God or not?

So as usual...
1. you cannot back up your arguments with credible data/information.
2. you ignore all my questions - never answering any.
3. you just keep repeating yourself - repeating questions you asked before, and I have already answered.
The only thing I think I need to make clear then, is the argument you claim I am making.

I believe in reproduction - what God created when he designed the reproduction system to accomplish this purpose, and which is observed.
According to science, reproduction = genetic variation (mix of genes from (X) + genes from (Y) = new combination of genes)
I accept that through this process a mutation (a copying error, or repaired damaged DNA) may get passed - harmful, neutral, or beneficial, but the information in the genes is from X and Y. It's not new added information - just inherited.
A mutation can cause a small change in how the organism appears, or it can cause a big change. The big change spells trouble, and most certain - death, either by the mutation itself, or natural selection. The small change one can live with - such as shown below.

[GALLERY=media, 8731]Curled Ears by nPeace posted Nov 19, 2018 at 2:45 PM[/GALLERY]

However, none of these mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

So only magic can cause natural selection and mutations to cause a crocodile to grow wings, for example.
If it grows an extra tail however, it still a crocodile, is it not?

I argue that you have no evidence that there is any mechanism to cause evolution beyond the above stated.
Assumptions have led persons to conclude that evolution happened on a large scale, and yet they don't know how it happened.
Yet you ask questions such as how does creation happen? How was the creator not created? etc.

It is evident that information is required for life, yet evolutionist accept that it does not require an intelligent mind. It magically sprang from nowhere. In fact, nothing created everything.
I am not the one believing in magic, am I? I believe in what makes sense - what's reasonable; what logical.

The Bible as far as I have seen, makes sense, and is truthful.
Psalm 10:4  In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

@SkepticThinker, there are many lines of evidence, which convinces me that the Bible is true. I left a few links in this post.

 

[Looncall]

Sheesh dude, pay attention....he's already done that. Let me explain.

We all agree design requires a designer, right? Well, since life is designed, it therefore stands to reason that there must be a designer!

There....done....QED.

Nope. Apparent design follows from the universe having properties. No mind is involved in forming a snowflake, just chemistry. The same goes for organisms.

You have been conned by scoundrels. The promoters of ID are scum making a living by lieing to the gullible. You might like to check out the "Wedge Document".

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. Apparent design follows from the universe having properties. No mind is involved in forming a snowflake, just chemistry. The same goes for organisms.

You have been conned by scoundrels. The promoters of ID are scum making a living by lieing to the gullible. You might like to check out the "Wedge Document".

Ahem......just a hint.......next time pay closer attention to the use of emojis. A rolling eyes emoji signifies sarcasm.

 

[Looncall]

Ahem......just a hint.......next time pay closer attention to the use of emojis. A rolling eyes emoji signifies sarcasm.

Thanks for the tip. An emoji for contempt might be better here. Is there one?

 

[nPeace]

The bible had one chance to show it knew science, but it claimed pi was 3.
The end.

1 Kings 7:23 King James
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

"This is very very awful. Ask any high school student the value of pi and they'll say, "Three point one four, and then some." Then what on earth is a value of 3 doing in the infallible Word of God? Anything else we can translate and interpret into neat fashion but numbers stand like diamonds: they're either right or they are wrong. And the value of 3 for pi in the Bible is wrong. Now what?

• The Bible isn't a science book. It's more like a story. Like an analogy.

Fine. Science the way we do it didn't exist until the seventeenth century. But if the Bible isn't a science book, there should be no pi in the Bible. The Bible shouldn't make any scientific statement. Now that it did, we see that it states a fallacy."
1 Kings 7:23 | Yikes! The number Pi in the Bible | A groovy commentary



So the question is now to creationists who say the earth is 5 or 10,000 years old because the bible says so.
If pi is wrong how do you know the bible wasn't also off on the age of the earth?

Of course the larger question is weather the universe had a creator or not this doesn't mean any religion is literally true at all. Not even a little? If the universe was created can Zeus be real?
That still wouldn't make any sense and nor does any religion.

You are right about the Bible not being a science text book.
I don't know where you saw PI in the Bible. I saw measurements. So mathematics is mentioned in the Bible, and from the very beginning.
So when you say that it is said that the earth is 5,000 to 10,000 years old. That surprises me, because nowhere in the Bible have I seen that. Have you? Would you mind showing me where please.

Regarding the measurement mentioned in the Bible book of Kings...
*** g00 7/22 p. 24 A Most Useful and Elusive Number ***
For many applications, using a value of 3.14159 for pi will be accurate enough. But pi can never be calculated exactly. Why not? Because it is an irrational number - that is, it cannot be written as a simple fraction. When written as a decimal, it simply goes on and on. In fact, it can be calculated to an infinite number of decimal places. Nevertheless, this has not deterred mathematicians from laboring tediously to calculate the value of pi to ever more decimal places.
It is not known who first realized that pi remains constant regardless of the size of the circle. But an accurate value of the elusive number has been sought since ancient times. The Babylonians approximated pi as 3 1/8 (3.125), and the Egyptians, slightly less accurately, as about 3.16. In the third century B.C.E., Greek mathematician Archimedes made perhaps the first scientific effort to compute it, arriving at a figure of about 3.14. By the year 200 C.E., it had been worked out to the equivalent of 3.1416, a figure that Chinese and Indian mathematicians had independently confirmed by the early sixth century C.E. Today, with the help of powerful computers, pi has been calculated to billions of decimal places. But as useful as pi has proved to be, notes Fractals for the Classroom, “it would be hard to find applications in scientific computing, where more than some 20 digits of [pi] are necessary.”

Approximations of π - Wikipedia
Pi - Wikipedia
The earliest written approximations of π are found in Egypt and Babylon, both within one percent of the true value.

*** w66 5/15 p. 319 Questions From Readers ***
There is no reason to conclude that the writers were guilty of serious error. Jeremiah, who wrote First Kings, and Ezra, who penned Second Chronicles, were reliable men who wrote these accounts under divine inspiration.

Today, in mathematical calculations, it is customary to use pi, which denotes the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. According to general practice, it is a quantity equivalent to 3.1416. However, in ancient times persons did not give decimals down to the last fraction. For that matter, pi itself is not just 3.1416. Persons who insist on scrupulous accuracy and consider the Bible to be in error in giving the measurements of the molten sea would do well to realize that, to be more accurate themselves, it would be appropriate to carry pi to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265, though even a figure in excess of 3.1415926535 could be used.
Bible commentator Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie, who made this interesting observation regarding the measurements of the molten sea: “Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semidiameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.”

According to 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2, the molten sea was ten cubits, or fifteen feet, in diameter and it took a line of thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, to encompass it. That is a ratio of one to three, which, for practical purposes, was quite adequate for the sake of a record. Jeremiah and Ezra, therefore, gave approximate figures, which, of course, satisfy thoughtful Bible students.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think it would not matter if there is a a creator?
There is. It is right in front of our eyes - the evidence, I mean.
So consider...
Would it not matter, why the creator made a universe, and prepared an ideal home, and put us on it, not just to exist, but to be satisfied?
Would the creator not be concerned that we are ruining this home?

Suppose some officials came to your home, and gave you these documents with your name on it, stating that you have inherited a luxurious home in an ideal location, etc. - everything you dreamed of.
Would it not interest you, as to whom it was that was so generous to give you this, and why, and don't you think the person, if alive, would care if you trashed the house?

Consider...
What if the creator has given man the means to know him, and why he gave us our home, and what he has in store for us and our future?
The Bible fits hand in glove with that - a message from our creator.
It outlines all the above and more.
What if the following is 100% true....
Romans 1:18-20
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

Revelation 11:18 
But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

...do you not consider that serious?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for the tip.

No worries. That's kinda the trouble with being sarcastic online, not everyone picks up on it.

An emoji for contempt might be better here. Is there one?

? ?

 

[nPeace]

Nope. Apparent design follows from the universe having properties. No mind is involved in forming a snowflake, just chemistry. The same goes for organisms.

You have been conned by scoundrels. The promoters of ID are scum making a living by lieing to the gullible. You might like to check out the "Wedge Document".

See the post here, and please pay attention to "Randomness of design".

 

[nPeace]

First off: we do not believe in evolution. In the same way we do not believe the sun is a star. We know it. Belief is appropriate for less certain conclusions.

Of course, you also know that nothing started everything, and the Big Bang, etc. etc. everything imaginable. If that's your science, you can believe in it. I'll stick with true science.

Second: do you really think virtually all biologists think that zillions of cells assembled magically to form a thinking/believing machine? If you do, I suggest you attend some basic biology courses.

Of course I don't think that biologists think that zillions of cells assembled magically, but I know that there is speculation by some biologist, about the origin of the cell.
So it's strange that persons would claim that those who believe in intelligent design believe in magic, and they don't.

Third: you find mind boggling that people can “believe” evolution. I find it mind boggling that people, who demonstrably know nothing about biology, believe that all biologists are victim of a mass delusion. Your surprise is the same surprise that people have when they enter the freeway the wrong way, and wonder why all others drive in the same wrong direction.

Of course, I don't believe all biologists are victim of a mass delusion, and I don't know of anyone who does, so I don't know where that's coming from. Perhaps you have a reason for thinking that.

Fourth: the rational arguments that led me to disbelief the supernatural are probably the same arguments that you might use to dismiss Santa or Mother Goose. Since they have the same evidnce, they are all equally plausible.

Ciao

- viole

...but something from nothing isn't.

 

[blü 2]

So as usual...
1. you cannot back up your arguments with credible data/information.

Now now! You're avoiding the issue, not addressing it. I've given the bases of evolution, and I can give you any number of links to further information.

You ignore my questions, never addressing the central issue between us.

3. you just keep repeating yourself - repeating questions you asked before, and I have already answered.

Your statement is wholly mistaken and I hope not dishonest. You have NEVER told me

how the first sloth arose

how magic works

whether by 'designer' you mean 'God'

or

a definition of a real god such that if we found a real candidate we could determine objectively whether it were God or not.

And this is the very center of the difference between us, whereas the nuts and bolts of evolution are not, though they're available all over the net if you want them, and I can give you links if you want them.

However, none of these mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings

Nor did they.

I argue that you have no evidence that there is any mechanism to cause evolution beyond the above stated.

Yes, you do argue that.

But that's no excuse for your failure to address the central questions regarding your own argument. Especially with so much information about evolution all over the net, and my willingness to assist you to it IF that's what you want.

Impartial onlookers would conclude you're stalling. Show them they're wrong. Give clear answers to the questions above.

It is evident that information is required for life, yet evolutionist accept that it does not require an intelligent mind. It magically sprang from nowhere.

You couldn't possibly make that statement if you understood even the basics of the theory of evolution.

And don't start an argument about that till you've answered the questions above.

I am not the one believing in magic, am I?

We won't know that till you answer the questions above.

The Bible as far as I have seen, makes sense, and is truthful.

Do you believe the earth is flat? Do you believe it's the fixed center of creation and that the heavenly bodies, fixed to the hard dome of the sky, rotate around it? Do you believe that if the stars become unfixed they'll fall to earth? Do you believe there were plants on earth before the sun existed? Do you believe there were birds before there were land animals? Do you believe that in the last 12,000 years Mt Everest was 15 feet under water? Do you believe pi=3?

Don't fail to give clear answers to each of those questions either, please.

 

[nPeace]

Now now! You're avoiding the issue, not addressing it. I've given the bases of evolution, and I can give you any number of links to further information.

Did I ask about evolution? No I did not.

Actual fact: we know that our observations of nature have never provided evidence of intelligent design. There is no factual basis for a designer. It's a religious assumption.

I asked you "Could you show me that please."

Actual fact: what I said above.
First, again what I said above. Second, evolution accounts for what you call 'design'. For that reason your division of things into designed and not designed is inept and misleading when applied to biology. Third, you still haven't told me how the first sloth arose.

I said, "I'll like first to see that evidence showing that it's not design."

 

[viole]

What reason do you have to think it is irrational for God to choose homo sapiens for the incarnation?

That was a question to you. However, if God existed we can safely assume he makes only rational things. Per definition.

Whether there is evidence for God's existence is a question for philosophy of religion and theology (the line between the two gets blurry often) so you really can't participate in these debates without doing theology (or at least attempting to) which makes your attempts at dismissing theology as something ridiculous pretty obstuse.

What? Evidence of X is a question to be answered by Xlogy? That sounds totally circular. I hope you are kidding, because I can easily plug X=leprechauns to have an argument for leprchauns as strong as yours. At least potentially, by making up a deep philosophy of leprechauns. Prima facie, that does not look too difficult.

One would think that a discipline being recognized as such even by formidable secular scholars would be an indication of the intellectual rigor put into it.

And? Authorities leave me cold in general. Not to speak of made up philosophies of X intended to study X, so that they have evidence of X.

Talk about extravagant assumptions. Perhaps if you actually dropped all the typical antitheistic condescension you would see that there is a huge historical difference between believing in God and in folklore as well as the huge difference in the ways these beliefs shaped themselves and the world.

I am not an antitheist. I believe if all the world would believe tomorrow that this is the only life they would get, then the world will be a very unstable place to live in. I like religion. Masterpeieces of western civilization like Michelangelos sistine chapel or Monty Pythons “the life of Brian”, would not have existed without christianity.

And you should stop your a priori antilepechraunism. That looks very arrogant to me.

Well, it is you showing contempt for myths just because you believe that another myth is somehow more serious. I am quote ecumenic for what concerns all beliefs in myths as factual. However, I agree that JJs (Jupiters and Jesuses) influenced western civilization). Thor influenced my culture a lot. We still use pagan symbols during Christmast.

I am scandinavian. As such, I happen to know several scandinavians. Some of my best friends are from Iceland. Like most Scandinavians they do not believe in a god, but like many icelanders they believes in trolls and elves. Seriously. They are the nordic equivalent of leprechauns.

When I pointed out to them that it is irrational to accept trolls and refute gods, since they have the same evidence, they felt hurt. They asked me how could I compare the existence of trolls, so supported by well documented evidence, to invisible gods and their ridicolous theology?

So, I caused a symmetric offense here. How should an outsider like me behave then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

So as usual...
1. you cannot back up your arguments with credible data/information.
2. you ignore all my questions - never answering any.
3. you just keep repeating yourself - repeating questions you asked before, and I have already answered.
The only thing I think I need to make clear then, is the argument you claim I am making.

I believe in reproduction - what God created when he designed the reproduction system to accomplish this purpose, and which is observed.
According to science, reproduction = genetic variation (mix of genes from (X) + genes from (Y) = new combination of genes)
I accept that through this process a mutation (a copying error, or repaired damaged DNA) may get passed - harmful, neutral, or beneficial, but the information in the genes is from X and Y. It's not new added information - just inherited.
A mutation can cause a small change in how the organism appears, or it can cause a big change. The big change spells trouble, and most certain - death, either by the mutation itself, or natural selection. The small change one can live with - such as shown below.

[GALLERY=media, 8731]Curled Ears by nPeace posted Nov 19, 2018 at 2:45 PM[/GALLERY]

However, none of these mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.

So only magic can cause natural selection and mutations to cause a crocodile to grow wings, for example.
If it grows an extra tail however, it still a crocodile, is it not?

I argue that you have no evidence that there is any mechanism to cause evolution beyond the above stated.
Assumptions have led persons to conclude that evolution happened on a large scale, and yet they don't know how it happened.
Yet you ask questions such as how does creation happen? How was the creator not created? etc.

It is evident that information is required for life, yet evolutionist accept that it does not require an intelligent mind. It magically sprang from nowhere. In fact, nothing created everything.
I am not the one believing in magic, am I? I believe in what makes sense - what's reasonable; what logical.

The Bible as far as I have seen, makes sense, and is truthful.
Psalm 10:4  In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

@SkepticThinker, there are many lines of evidence, which convinces me that the Bible is true. I left a few links in this post.

Good for you, I guess. I don't find your links to JW sites to be very convincing.

Is there some reason you thought that particular verse was true, or is it just that you accept every single thing in the Bible as truth, without exception?

 

[viole]

Of course, you also know that nothing started everything, and the Big Bang, etc. etc. everything imaginable. If that's your science, you can believe in it. I'll stick with true science.

Since i think that time is an illusion, the concept of start is not applicable to the Universe.

Of course I don't think that biologists think that zillions of cells assembled magically, but I know that there is speculation by some biologist, about the origin of the cell.
So it's strange that persons would claim that those who believe in intelligent design believe in magic, and they don't.

Virtually all biologists are convinced that life is the result of the evolution from an initial replicator/cell. The origin of that initial replicator is unknown.

So, let’s stick with what they know. One common ancestor, evolution and natural selection accounting for all todays complexity. No magic. Actually, a very simple algorithm.

Worry about this, before tackling the origin of life.

Of course, I don't believe all biologists are victim of a mass delusion, and I don't know of anyone who does, so I don't know where that's coming from. Perhaps you have a reason for thinking that.

I told you. Virtually all bilogists are convinced that the complexity of life we observe today is the result of evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor. I mean, hindus, christian, muslim, jujuist, janiist, jediist, agnostic, etc. biologists all accepting that. They do not agree on the god they believe in, but they agree on that.

Don’y you think they might have something up their sleeve?

...but something from nothing isn't.

Is God something? I hope so, if you are not an atheist. In that case, we have an example of something that does not need to come from nothing. But if that is true, assuming that only god can satisfy that property is eminently question begging.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did I ask about evolution? No I did not.

I asked you "Could you show me that please."


I said, "I'll like first to see that evidence showing that it's not design."

Where's the demonstration that it is designed? That's the assertion you're making.

 

[nPeace]

Good for you, I guess. I don't find your links to JW sites to be very convincing.

Is there some reason you thought that particular verse was true, or is it just that you accept every single thing in the Bible as truth, without exception?

What verse do you mean. Genesis 1:1?
I have not found any reason not to believe the Bible to be true. Every detail, including its prophecies regarding skeptics has proven incredibly accurate, so as to leave me awestruck.

Where's the demonstration that it is designed? That's the assertion you're making.

It's not. I have opened the door for anyone to prove it is just an assertion, but the best you can do is make assertions that I am making assertions. That's funny.