God is disproven by science? Really?

[Subduction Zone]

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. And once you either admit that you were wrong or support your claim properly then I will show you why that is not the case.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I will even say that the Christian God has not been refuted

I believe that I have two proofs that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist, one pure reason, the other empirical.

The deity of the biblical scriptures is in violation of the law of noncontradiction the way a married bachelor would be, and several times over, as with the argument from evil, or the perfect god that regrets its errors.

Also, in my opinion, the evidence in support of the theory of evolution has already ruled out a god that is incapable of lying, miraculously created life, and told man about it. We already know that didn't happen even if the theory were falsified today. The only logical possibility remaining at that point is that a deceptive intelligent designer planted that evidence to make it look like naturalistic evolution had occurred, which need not be supernatural. In fact, an advanced extraterrestrial race becomes the likeliest explanation for how that happened.

If there's a flaw in either of those arguments, I can't find it. And if there isn't, doesn't that make them disproofs of that specific god?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent.

See above. Only specific kinds of gods can be ruled out. Non-interventionalist gods - gods that don't leave revelation, come to earth, perform miracles, or answer prayer - can never be ruled out, but also don't matter. If the deist god exists or existed and has gone away, knowing that provides no useful information.

intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

Critical thinking can protect us from false beliefs.

You or anybody cannot tell me that I am wrong unless you knew very well the topic of intelligence.

That statement is wrong.

In the topic of origins, both religions and science are faith-based.

No, just religion. Science is empirical.

I have the right to say non-intelligent since I discovered intelligence and its definition and explanation in science, as used in OP. All, you do not have that right and privilege, unless, you rediscover intelligence and answer the question above correctly.

Actually, you've disqualified yourself from having any say. For one thing, you haven't articulated any argument, nor produced what can be called a definition of intelligence. What you're doing is the equivalent of stutteringly banging a drum and calling yourself a virtuoso musician.

This may be wasted on you, but there is a philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric), which mentions ethos, or the meta-message a speaker or writer sends his audience distinct from the text (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

I doubt that it would be of any value to you for me to tell you what message you are sending with your content-free bombast.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

That isn't even wrong. Intelligence isn't a difficult concept to define in the main. That isn't close. It's closer to a definition of natural selection than intelligence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When you sit in judgement of someone is not taking an honest view of yourself, it does reveal something about your character though.

I guess you don't see the irony there. How is it that you come to know his character?

Really? You’ve never lied, stolen, premarital sex, pornography, neglected to do something you should have, unforgiveness, gossip, drunkenness, you have things in the closet you’ve done that you want to take to the grave, you’ve already blasphemed God, how about greed, envy, covetousness? Just asking

I've done all of those things. But I'm not a Christian, so I understand those things as normal development, have no concept of sin now or then, feel no guilt, and need no forgiveness. That's for you because you choose for it to be.

you’re living a sinful lifestyle by your own admission just like the rest of us.

No. You are living a sinful lifestyle because you believe you are. I am not.

So do you condone and support abortion as well seen as you’re concern for innocents is mentioned.

This is another religious position. Have you noticed how few humanists hold it? And of course, you have been taught that that is because they are immoral for lacking the beliefs you have accepted uncritically. But neither you nor your Bible are arbiters of morality for anybody else.

An automobile, an engine, a bridge, a building, a house, a boat etc. are all evidence of intelligent design.

And all very distinct from a mountain, river, or tree, which were not intelligently designed. You're actually making an argument against intelligent design by noting the difference between a designed thing and a natural object. This is the same flaw in the watchmaker argument. The man in the heath passes hundreds of natural objects, but first considers intelligence when he sees a manufactured item. Like you, he knows the difference between nature and artifice.

you were standing in judgement of God

What we judge is the biblical depiction of this deity and the things believers say about it. Atheists don't judge gods the way you don't judge leprechauns or vampires. You might judge the stories about them, however. You might call a vampire evil without meaning that you believe such things exist. The Christian deity as described is morally flawed, but that doesn't mean an actual deity is being judged, nor that it would be improper if it were. You believe that your god and a chief demon exists. Do you hold opinions about their morals? I'll bet you consider one good and the other evil. That's you standing in judgement of them both, just like the rest of us, the difference being that you consider them real.

I will assume there really are no atheist just people who claim they are to excuse themselves

You reveal a poverty of imagination. It should be easy for you to conceive of unbelief in gods, even if you consider it an error in judgment.

There's a term in the cognitive sciences called false consensus, which refers to the error one makes (cognitive bias) when he assumes that people are more alike than they are, specifically, more like himself than they are.

Even I could follow and understand the OP

Nobody can.

Then asking to your own words to define intelligence? He has.

No, he has not. I'd bet quite a lot that you don't what what his definition of intelligence is. Nobody does. He provided a group of incoherent words which others have identified as word salad, that define nothing and that have so little meaning that they cannot be paraphrased.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are many forms of evidence that are valid.

Evidence is neither valid nor invalid. Arguments are.

Yes it is, my testimony is consistent with everyone who has been born again of the Holy Spirit for thousands of years now, continuing today.

But those are meaningless words outside of your religion. When I read somebody telling me that they are born again, I understand that to mean only that they have accepted Christian doctrine. I'm sure that you recall our previous discussion about the definition of a Christian. I said that for me, a Christian is anybody who says he is, that is, anybody accepting Christian theology as truth. You bristled at that, and said that the Bible tells you that a Christian is somebody that has been born again. Same definition by my reckoning of what that means.

Well, one problem is you said you left Christianity 1.5 years ago, yet you are an experienced medium and have been doing that since childhood. Sorry but you failed the test of being a Christian by your own testimony.

Passes my requirements. She was a Christian with a few extra beliefs. Have you ever seen Christians speaking in tongues? They claim to be mediums channeling the Holy Spirit.

If DNA is your strongest evidence then it fails. Someone had to write the script and the language

There is no literal language or writing in DNA unless you want to count Venter's watermarks.

Well science doesn’t know: 7 Theories on the Origin of Life

There is one scientific hypothesis for abiogenesis. Organic molecules evolved chemically into a population of replicators. What you have are seven ideas for where that occurred - seafloor vents, tidal pools, etc., and how it was powered - sunlight, lightning, or geothermal energy. And what science doesn't know, nobody knows, including those reading holy books for answers.

The science version makes no sense at all

You have to learn it first for it to make sense. Like so many other creationists, you criticize science you don't understand, yet think that such uninformed opinions are meaningful to those who do know the science. Did you see what I just wrote about ethos? When you speak about science, all others hear is your meta-message: I don't understand what I am criticizing.

billions of years, we are the only planet with life and you can’t see the obvious?

This would be a fine example of you undermining your ethos by revealing that you really know very little about this subject. Science not only disagrees, it's been searching for life on various moons and planets including planets orbiting distant stars. And you should think about the implications of the word obvious when YOU use it. What you see is not useful to a person who knows more about the matter than you do.

I don't think you care about that, but I really don't know why. I don't think you care about your meta-message or how counterproductive you are at your apparent purpose, which I presume includes being taken seriously. If you cared about that, you would care about how you are perceived.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If DNA is your strongest evidence then it fails. Someone had to write the script and the language, it’s common design by the Creator using His language. Our technology uses His ideas, instead of honoring and thanking God for this we slap ourselves on the back.
Can science predict the future of humanity by using the theory of evolution?

DNA is neither a script nor a language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that I have two proofs that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist, one pure reason, the other empirical.

The deity of the biblical scriptures is in violation of the law of noncontradiction the way a married bachelor would be, and several times over, as with the argument from evil, or the perfect god that regrets its errors.

Also, in my opinion, the evidence in support of the theory of evolution has already ruled out a god that is incapable of lying, miraculously created life, and told man about it. We already know that didn't happen even if the theory were falsified today. The only logical possibility remaining at that point is that a deceptive intelligent designer planted that evidence to make it look like naturalistic evolution had occurred, which need not be supernatural. In fact, an advanced extraterrestrial race becomes the likeliest explanation for how that happened.

If there's a flaw in either of those arguments, I can't find it. And if there isn't, doesn't that make them disproofs of that specific god?

Oh .... You can't go by scriptures. That almost immediately refutes him. I was thinking of a very liberal interpretation of the Bible where a God sent a teacher. Not a perfect one, but one that had far better morals than most.

If one bases one's beliefs too much on the Bible, and especially the Old Testament that God is toast.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Evidence is neither valid nor invalid. Arguments are.



But those are meaningless words outside of your religion. When I read somebody telling me that they are born again, I understand that to mean only that they have accepted Christian doctrine. I'm sure that you recall our previous discussion about the definition of a Christian. I said that for me, a Christian is anybody who says he is, that is, anybody accepting Christian theology as truth. You bristled at that, and said that the Bible tells you that a Christian is somebody that has been born again. Same definition by my reckoning of what that means.



Passes my requirements. She was a Christian with a few extra beliefs. Have you ever seen Christians speaking in tongues? They claim to be mediums channeling the Holy Spirit.



There is no literal language or writing in DNA unless you want to count Venter's watermarks.



There is one scientific hypothesis for abiogenesis. Organic molecules evolved chemically into a population of replicators. What you have are seven ideas for where that occurred - seafloor vents, tidal pools, etc., and how it was powered - sunlight, lightning, or geothermal energy. And what science doesn't know, nobody knows, including those reading holy books for answers.



You have to learn it first for it to make sense. Like so many other creationists, you criticize science you don't understand, yet think that such uninformed opinions are meaningful to those who do know the science. Did you see what I just wrote about ethos? When you speak about science, all others hear is your meta-message: I don't understand what I am criticizing.



This would be a fine example of you undermining your ethos by revealing that you really know very little about this subject. Science not only disagrees, it's been searching for life on various moons and planets including planets orbiting distant stars. And you should think about the implications of the word obvious when YOU use it. What you see is not useful to a person who knows more about the matter than you do.

I don't think you care about that, but I really don't know why. I don't think you care about your meta-message or how counterproductive you are at your apparent purpose, which I presume includes being taken seriously. If you cared about that, you would care about how you are perceived.

Well science is wrong about billions of years and has no clue. They take liberty because it won’t be proven until the end of this age is when we meet our Maker.
And your definition of a Christian is also wrong. You aren’t a Christian just because you say you are.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

science is wrong about billions of years and has no clue

No, science is correct. And its discoveries reveal that the Bible is wrong wherever it contradicts the science. The universe began expanding 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years ago and still is, the solar system existing for about the last third of that time. You won't find that in the Bible, but you will find it here, along with an explanation of how we know.

Remember, when you phrase your beliefs as faith-based - "this is what I have been taught and have believed," there can be no argument with you, nor is there any reason to disagree. OK, fine, that's what you believe. But when you phrase it like you did, it merits correcting. It's not science that is wrong or clueless.

They take liberty because it won’t be proven until the end of this age is when we meet our Maker.

The science has already been demonstrated to be correct.

And if we have makers and meet them, they will undoubtedly tell you that you were wrong and the science correct. With empiricism and critical thought, it is possible both to be correct and to know it. That is why when Einstein was asked by a student what he would have done if Sir Arthur Eddington's famous 1919 gravitational lensing experiment, which confirmed relativity, had instead disproved it, he answered, "Then I would have felt sorry for the dear Lord. The theory is correct."

And your definition of a Christian is also wrong. You aren’t a Christian just because you say you are.

You are with me, assuming that one believes he is a Christian when he says so. Your definition of Christian is useless to me until I translate born again, saved, and filled with the Spirit into what those phrases means to me, after which your definition is the same as mine, since none of those things refer to anything real. I have no behavioral or doctrinal requirement. The phrase true Christian has no meaning for me. Anybody who calls himself a Christian is as much of a Christian as any other person that makes that claim, even if they aren't the same kind of Christian.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well science is wrong about billions of years and has no clue. They take liberty because it won’t be proven until the end of this age is when we meet our Maker.
And your definition of a Christian is also wrong. You aren’t a Christian just because you say you are.

Science can demonstrate it's claims. We're still waiting for you to do so.
Until then, I'm gonna go with the science.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Science can demonstrate it's claims. We're still waiting for you to do so.
Until then, I'm gonna go with the science.

Go ahead, you do you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well science is wrong about billions of years and has no clue. They take liberty because it won’t be proven until the end of this age is when we meet our Maker.
And your definition of a Christian is also wrong. You aren’t a Christian just because you say you are.

Really? Prove it. I can show that you are wrong.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You are with me, assuming that one believes he is a Christian when he says so. Your definition of Christian is useless to me until I translate born again, saved, and filled with the Spirit into what those phrases means to me, after which your definition is the same as mine, since none of those things refer to anything real. I have no behavioral or doctrinal requirement. The phrase true Christian has no meaning for me. Anybody who calls himself a Christian is as much of a Christian as any other person that makes that claim, even if they aren't the same kind of Christian.

God defines what born again means and that’s in the Bible. Any meaning contrary to that is wrong.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Go ahead, you do you

I would suggest that if you want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe in as many false things as possible, as I do, then you should go with the demonstrable science as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go ahead, you do you

No, that is not how it works. When you make baseless claims and refuse to support them after being called out that is the same as you admitting that you are wrong.

Currently you are admitting that you were wrong about all sorts of things.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Really? Prove it. I can show that you are wrong.

Yeah, no human being was alive to observe that, all scientists can do is say this may have happened. Show me how far back the human records go and that’s what can be shown. There are no witnesses and cannot be proven. The earliest legible records are when 6-7 thousand years ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

God defines what born again means and that’s in the Bible. Any meaning contrary to that is wrong.

This is just so amazingly wrong. God does not say anything about being "born again". If you want to you could claim that Jesus in the Bible uses that phrase, but it is never well defined. You would have to prove that Jesus was God at that time, and I doubt if you can prove that. Using a phrase is not defining it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, no human being was alive to observe that, all scientists can do is say this may have happened. Show me how far back the human records go and that’s what can be shown. There are no witnesses and cannot be proven. The earliest legible records are when 6-7 thousand years ago?

We don't need anyone to observe it. Events very often leave evidence. A concept that you should try to understand.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I would suggest that if you want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe in as many false things as possible, as I do, then you should go with the demonstrable science as well.

I agree so probably drop the science theory, they have multiple theories on how life started. Not too promising and they leave God out of the picture, so they are wrong on all counts.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is just so amazingly wrong. God does not say anything about being "born again". If you want to you could claim that Jesus in the Bible uses that phrase, but it is never well defined. You would have to prove that Jesus was God at that time, and I doubt if you can prove that. Using a phrase is not defining it.

John 3 and other verses, you seem to just want to get your post count up so I won’t be answering yours anymore.