Evidence

[Subduction Zone]

With lack of conclusive evidence I simply mean that there is “reasonable doubt”…… I am not trying to use creative semantics………………all I am saying is that

1 there is a consensus among scholars that organisms evolve (we share a common ancestor with chimps and bannanas, the human eye evolved from a simpler organ etc.)

2 there is no consensus on HOW organisms evolve nor what is the main mechanism, perhaps mainly through the Darwinian mechanism , (random mutation + NS) perhaps some other mechanism (many have been mentioned before)

This is not supposed to be controversial; I even remember seeing an interview with Eugene Scot, (super anti creationists activist) agreeing with this very point.

Two is wrong. There is a general consensus. In fact they do agree that it is mainly through natural selection and variation. By the way, random mutation cannot be part of the "Darwinian" mechanism. Think about it. You can get it if you try. The thing is that they agree that there are other natural forces at work. Those are not Darwinian. In fact random mutation is not Darwinian. There is a reason that that term was dropped. It does not mean that Darwin was wrong, it only means that there is a more thorough explanation.

Why do so many creationists think that a more thorough explanation is somehow a refutation of Darwin? Einstein did not "refute" Newton. His work did not mean that planets no longer orbit the Sun. His work was a more thorough explanation of why. And guess what? His explanation is not perfect either. Someone, somewhere, sometime in the future will find a more thorough explanation (I probably should have said "someones", as science gets more complicated the lone scientist solving problems becomes more and more a thing of the past).

You misunderstand the stance of scientists and pretend that means that they agree with your poor arguments.

So, yes, there is a consensus on evolution. When one gets to the very fine points is where there is some debate. But as to you sharing a common ancestor with a banana there is no significant doubt about that fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Things that are real in the material world, but God doesn't exist in the material world so the same standards of evidence cannot be applied to God. Logic 101.

Please don't refute yourself in one sentence and then try to claim "Logic 101".

 

[Trailblazer]

And now, if you'll excuse me, my materialist, hedonist philosophy beckons me to walk with my wife down to the shore to enjoy a couple of margaritas as the sun goes down over the lake after my nap, followed by some teppan yaki and then dancing to live music.

As the scriptures say, "this too shall pass."
So enjoy it while it lasts, since soon it will be no more.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please don't refute yourself in one sentence and then try to claim "Logic 101".

God doesn't exist in the material world so the same standards of evidence that are used for material things cannot be applied to God. Logic 101.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it a pity?
Usury is denounced in the OT.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

— Babylonian Talmud

It is more emphatically denounced in the Qur'an.



What you mean is, that you do not take heed of such warnings.
..just like the climate-change deniers .. they know that there is scientific evidence that proves it, but it doesn't suit them.

Are you telling us that you have never bought a house? Or a car? How was your education paid for? It might not be like here where people go into ridiculous amounts of debt for an education. "Usury" is not just perceived excessive interest in the Bible and I do believe in the Koran as well. It is any interest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God doesn't exist in the material world so the same standards of evidence that are used for material things cannot be applied to God. Logic 101.

Think about that. You can't claim "Messengers" if that is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Think about that. You can't claim "Messengers" if that is true.

Why not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No .. that is your assumption.
You see religious belief as "irrational", so you make the assumption that people do not have rational reasons for their belief.

I cannot believe that a well-educated person who is a Doctor, with a very good understanding of Biology, worships God on a daily basis for irrational reasons. That is very far-fetched.

No, it's not an assumption. It's just a fact of human nature, which I study for a living. What I said of course, and not the thing you've tried to make me say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not?

Because you are making communication with 'Messengers" impossible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because you are making communication with 'Messengers" impossible.

I am completely confused. Why would communication from God to 'Messengers" be impossible?

 

[F1fan]

Why is it a pity?
Usury is denounced in the OT.

Odd for there to be so many Jewish bankers, eh?

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

— Babylonian Talmud

It is more emphatically denounced in the Qur'an.

So what? So Mohammad copied those rules. Notice that Christians have no such prohibition so what’s up with that?

Jews are OK with it, Christians are OK with it, so we are all supposed to follow Islam?

What you mean is, that you do not take heed of such warnings.

No more than Jews and Christians, so what do you think about their indifference to usury?

..just like the climate-change deniers .. they know that there is scientific evidence that proves it, but it doesn't suit them.

Bad analogy since climate change has actual data that conspiracy theorists ignore. You offer no facts or data. All you do is cite your belief based on your interpretation that your fellow Abrahamics disagree with. I'll bet even Bahai aren’t afraid of using credit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am completely confused. Why would communication from God to 'Messengers" be impossible?

I know that you are. Because in your own words "God doesn't exist in the material world ".

 

[Alien826]

So done then, right?

Not a hope. This is so entertaining to the observer (I've given up trying to rebut their assertions because they've heard it all before and reject it).

What they do is look into the scientific literature at the fringes of a theory, where scientists are still exploring the possibilities, find that there is disagreement (what a surprise!), claim that means that the main theory is weak (just a theory!) and go on to say that proves that the Bible is correct.

 

[Trailblazer]

I know that you are. Because in your own words "God doesn't exist in the material world ".

You are still not answering my question...
Just because God doesn't exist in the material world why would communication from God to 'Messengers" be impossible?

 

[Alien826]

That is incorrect. The evidence sources are inclusive of all Claims of Divinity.

No one has seen God, the only way we know of God is via another human passing on the stories (There are cultures that see God reflected in Creation)

There are Bible passages supporting this OP that tells us how to determine a True Prophet of God, all that advice comes back to the evidence God provides us.

The Person
The Revelation
The resulting Word.

If that person is given of God, then God emanates from them, we are essentially looking at a mirror and seeing the attributes of God.

All other men do not have this station. Thus the person is the first line of evidence, were they different than other men?

A person who makes a claim saying they are from God, when they are not, will not be able toI reflect God, they can borrow aspects and use them, but there will be no reflection of all the attributes.

The Baha'i Faith is used in this regard, only because the records are recent, are mostly first hand accounts and if not, are only 2nd hand of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

We do not have a lot of records of the lives of past Messengers, yet what has survived indicates they were not like other men.

Regards Tony

Wow, way to ignore most of what I said.

OK, not just the Baha'i faith. Now how about the rest of it, which was about why the thread has gone on so long when your OP was so simple?

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Usury" is not just perceived excessive interest in the Bible and I do believe in the Koran as well. It is any interest.

Yes, you are right. It is inflationary.

Modern paper currencies are no longer based on gold or silver reserves, they are just manipulated by interest rates.

For many centuries there were only two forms of monetary policy: altering coinage or the printing of paper money. Interest rates, while now thought of as part of monetary authority, were not generally coordinated with the other forms of monetary policy during this time.
Monetary policy - Wikipedia

The manipulation of currency by interest rates, squeezes the poor and rewards the better off, at at time when they are already being hit by inflation. This is socially disasterous.
It also is the underlying system promoted by the wealthier nations, on an international level.

In 2013..

• half of the world's net wealth belongs to the top 1%,
• top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth,
• top 30% of adults hold 97% of the total wealth.

This means that the bottom 70% of people hold 3% of wealth.
Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still not answering my question...
Just because God doesn't exist in the material world why would communication from God to 'Messengers" be impossible?

Because communication is a physical process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you are right. It is inflationary.

Modern paper currencies are no longer based on gold or silver reserves, they are just manipulated by interest rates.

For many centuries there were only two forms of monetary policy: altering coinage or the printing of paper money. Interest rates, while now thought of as part of monetary authority, were not generally coordinated with the other forms of monetary policy during this time.
Monetary policy - Wikipedia

The manipulation of currency by interest rates, squeezes the poor and rewards the better off, at at time when they are already being hit by inflation. This is socially disasterous.
It also is the underlying system promoted by the wealthier nations, on an international level.

In 2013..

• half of the world's net wealth belongs to the top 1%,
• top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% of the world's total wealth,
• top 30% of adults hold 97% of the total wealth.

This means that the bottom 70% of people hold 3% of wealth.
Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia

No, it is economically necessary. Like many tools it can be abused. Abuse does not prove that a tool does not work. Put your foot in the way of a plow cutting through a field and you will not like the results. That does not mean that we should go back to being hunter gatherers. You really need to stop constantly jumping to black and white fallacies. it makes you far too easy to refute.

 

[Alien826]

You are like a breath of fresh air that just blew in off the Caribbean coast.

Awwww! How about we take a stroll along the beach and you can tell me about your cats and I'll tell about my dog, and NO discussion of religion?

I sure hope I am as logically coherent as you are when I get to be your age. You make more sense than of any of the atheists that I have ever met. It would be great if other atheists could read what you write and come to understand the basic logic behind it.

Careful, you'll get me kicked out of the Atheist Guild!

 

[muhammad_isa]

No more than Jews and Christians, so what do you think about their indifference to usury?

The same of what I think about the majority of Muslims, who are indifferent to it.

Bad analogy since climate change has actual data that conspiracy theorists ignore. You offer no facts or data.

There's plenty of data showing what is happening in the world due to usury.
The distribution of wealth in the world is getting worse all the time.
Do you deny that the increase in global emmissions coincides with the industrial revolution?
Do you deny how it was financed?