INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Kilgore Trout]

Now them's there a right big bunch o'words.

 

[1robin]

Fallacious appeals to the majority of beliefs, the bandwagon fallacy.

What was? Fallacies are a sort of default claim that atheists appeal to when out of actual responses. There is no more abuse and apparently misunderstood issue on your side of things. Fallacies are only fallacies if they concern claims to fact or proof. If I said macroevolution is a fact or proven because many scientists believe it (a claim made by your side constantly) then that would be a fallacy. If I said a factor that is justifiably considered as contributing to the probability of macro evolution being true is that many scientists believe in it that would not be a fallacy. Every claim I have made here is of the latter type. Expert witnesses are used in trial after trial across the world every day to contribute to a decision concerning the probability of a claim being true. It is no less valid in a scientific argument and in fact is used in them every single day by secular academics. Please just wait to make meaningful claim about the actual topic once I post it. These misdirected exit ramps are a waste of time.

 

[Agnostic75]

After complaining that even my CDC stats on homosexuality were invalid the fact you swallowed this stuff whole is certainly indicative.

But I never said that your CDC stats were invalid. My main objections were your preposterous claims that 1) since 20% of homosexuals in 21 major American cities have HIV, the other 80% who do not have HIV are immoral., and that 2) all homosexuals should practice abstinence, even healthy, monogamous homosexuals.

That is absurd. If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would all Muslims be immoral? If 20% of Buddhists were thieves, would all Buddhists be immoral?

No major medical association, including the CDC, would ever claim that abstinence for life is a good solution for homosexuality.

Since you have confirmation bias, you believe that homosexuals are much worse off than they are. It is a fact that the majority of homosexuals do not have HIV/AIDS, are not alcoholics or drug abusers, are not pedophiles, and widely oppose NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Your post #304 in a thread on homosexuality has lots of false claims. I would like to discuss each one of those claims with you, and find out specifically why you accept the claim.

 

[1robin]

But the best informed people regarding evolution are biologists, and biochemists, who have Ph.D.s. Surely over 90% of them accept naturalilstic or theistic evolution.

There is no reason to argue over sources since anyone who is interested can contact the department of biology at any state university and find out for themselves how few biologists who have a Ph.D. accept creationism. Do you know of any chairman of a state university department of biology who is a creationist? I am not aware of any.

I do know that many professional scientists in biology have grave reservations about macro-evolution. Until they have an example that can be observed they are making faith based guesses. That is not my standard it is teh scientific method. I never said I know it isn't true. I said no one knows one way or the other but I lean towards some limits on evolution and there are valid biological issues that hint at that limit. We can't predict what the weather will be like 48hrs from now and we can't even agree what happened in the civil war that took place 150 years ago when we have battle reports and eyewitness testimony yet you claim that they know exactly the steps that a cow took to become a whale (or vice versa)500 million years ago. I do not have that much faith. My job is to fix the mistakes Phd's make concerning testable high tech electronics and it is a constant battle. Just today a cable meant for an F-15 fighter was found to be wored backwars. Not by the tech that built it but by an engineer who designed it and it is not a billion years old. If everything is a gradual increase in complexity why are the earliest eyes the most complex? Why do all major body types appear with no evolutionary history in a geological instant.

If you think that you understand irreducible complexity well, please critique an article at The Flagellum Unspun by Ken Miller about the flagellum, and irreducible complexity. He mentions William Dembski, who is one of your sources.

I wil try to and you may remind me if you wish but this thread is basically about 5 against me and so I have to economise my time here and so as I said will when posted only stick to the cosmological argument until that is settled. It makes perfect sense since if you can't get a universe without God then evolution is a non issue.

But I never said that your CDC stats were invalid. My main objections were your preposterous claims that 1) since 20% of homosexuals in 21 major American cities have HIV, the other 80% who do not have HIV are immoral., and that 2) all homosexuals should practice abstinence, even healthy, monogamous homosexuals.

If you think that an 80% rate of success versus a 20% rate of misery and death warrants allowing a practivce that has no corrosponding gain then it is you that is being perposterous.

Since you have confirmation bias, you believe that homosexuals are much worse off than they are. It is a fact that the majority of homosexuals do not have HIV/AIDS, are not alcoholics or drug abusers, are not pedophiles, and widely oppose NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). Your post #304 in a thread on homosexuality has lots of false claims. I would like to discuss each one of those claims with you, and find out specifically why you accept the claim.

I do not believe anything. I go to the CDC get the numbers and use them. Unless the CDC is after you as well as every one else that statement makes no sense.

If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would all Muslims be immoral? If 20% of Buddhists were thieves, would all Buddhists be immoral?

If the 20% of Muslims were terrorists because Islam made them terrorists (which in my opinion is the case) then yes Islam is immoral. The same goes for buddhism but in this case and probably the other case they are not facts they have no value here. Also please kkep that suff in it's thread. I will not address it further in this one.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: If you do not accept macro evolution, and common descent, the vast majority of biologists, and biochemists, disagree with you. Those are the best qualified people, not medical doctors, and not William Demski, who is a mathematician.

By the way, although Michael Behe accepts irreducible complexity, he also accepts common descent. Consider the following from Wikipedia:

Just simply for the sake of time let me state this another way. What you are doing is very close to a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy to say that since so many people believe X then X is true. You are saying something very close to that. You are saying that since many people believe X is true I should. In fact that is a fallacy or very very close to one. Regardless, that is not why I am rejecting it. I have spent years checking into these things. I have a PhD, 1 masters, two bachelors and a national merit scholarship winner, all in engineering in my close family and I have a math degree so I understand the concepts and probability involved well (we discuss them at length whenever we meet up) and we have all found absurdly problematic issues with non-theistic evolution and macro-evolution that a bunch of grant hungry scientists opinions will not over turn so easily. I am also very well aware that in recent times people have been fired, lost tenure, and been ostracized if they did not toe the line on evolution. Unfortunately academics has become extremely political and lost a lot of the honor and prestige it once had.

Your argument from numbers is no more meaningful to me than for me to tell you that you should believe in God because 2 billion people claim to have experienced him and the vast majority of people throughout history have believed God exists in one form or another. I think you are overstating the issue about biologists being the most or only ones qualified to evaluate evolution. Evolution can be stated in mathematics alone. I have a famous paper on it and most of its concepts are very simplistic. Natural selection can be understood by a 12 year old. Darwin thought he understood it and he existed long before we knew the majority of what we know about biology and was not sufficiently trained in any science. BTW I did not submit those stats as an argument they just happened to be in what I wanted to post. However your numbers were simply ridiculous.

I hope you got all this out of your system for a bit because I plan to start with the cosmological argument and then go to abiogenesis next. If you can’t get a universe without God and there is not a single exception to the biological law that life only comes from life, the things you mention are academic. You are welcome to participate providing I am able to follow through but I will not talk about evolution or homosexuality especially in this thread until those arguments are hashed out. Have a good weekend.

 

[steeltoes]

You are saying one of two things. Both wrong so I will cover both.

1. Once again you know exactly what I meant but I suppose semantic technicalities are the only response possible for you. You I think believe I claimed that Christian's had phenominal succes in every area of science because of their faith. I made no such claim but the fact is, it is true. If necessary I have a list some where of Newton and many others saying it was their faith they credit for their interest and the basis for assuming that natural law is rational. Regardless what I said was a counter to a common pathetic claim of non theists. That anyone of faith must be excluded from making scientific claims because they have faith. That is undefendable and rediculous and reality bears it out undeniably. Science would shrink to a small fraction of what it is if not for Christians. You mention that theologians who I do not use as scientific authorities but did in fact arrive at wrong conclusions are proof of something. The most famous ones are the ideas that the Earth was the center of everything and that the Earth was flat. The facts are that the Earth was the center of the universe was a scientific claim from a (pagan I believe) scientist that was only adopted by clergy based on missinterpretation of the Bible. A flat earth was not invented by clergy it was a common secular belief but I do not know the origin, that was again adopted by clergy based on missinterpretation. Secularism produced both claims. At least one was proven false by a believer.

Or

2. You believe that the fields are a part of natural law. This one is not even technically right. Calculus did not exist in nature before Newton and Leibniz (both believers I think) formulated it. The fundamental definition of a limit does not exist in nature. It is a manmade notation describing a nature concept. Things behaved in certain ways before they came along. Calculus was invented by them to describe the way things act. The same thing can be said of the field of electromagnetic theory. It did not exist in nature as a unified field. It took man to invent language to describe how electromagnetic things work. If you claim electromagnetism existed then fine but that is a force not a field of study. A field is an arbitrary group under which certain things that already existed within no category are put in one for convenience. This field was invented by another believer as well (Maxwell). My claim about Christians and fields of science would never have been made if people on your side would not use a person’s faith as a way to arbitrarily dismiss whatever they say. It is ridiculous, meaningless, and intellectually dishonest. Even though my claim about fields of science was true you could have avoided this whole thing by not asserting that faith retards science ability because reality shows in no uncertain terms you are wrong. Instead of meaningless half wrong semantic complaints, or completely wrong claims about the effects of faith on scientific ability, just wait a bit and I will give you a breakdown of the cosmological argument and you can make bad counter claims about an actual issue instead of these technical exit ramps you prefer. Why don't you wait and see if nature coughs up a superunified theory or M-theory without man's help.

I will not entertain any attepts to dismiss a scientific claim because it came from a Christian. It does not deserve it.

No one said any such thing. Science has established itself in spite of Christianity.


"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: 'Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the **** [rooster] wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.'" Robert Green Ingersoll, American politician and lecturer (1833-1899).

 

[Agnostic75]

I do know that many professional scientists in biology have grave reservations about macro-evolution.

The vast majority do not, including the majority of Christian biologists.

It makes perfect sense since if you can't get a universe without God then evolution is a non issue.

It would be an issue for creationists since they insist that theistic evolution is not true.

If you think that an 80% rate of success versus a 20% rate of misery and death warrants allowing a practice that has no corresponding gain then it is you that is being perposterous.

But 80% of homosexuals do not have anything to do with HIV. How does them having sex harm anyone? If the 80% of homosexuals who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not affect HIV statistics. The statistics would only have been different if some of the 20% had practiced abstinence.

If there is no solution to a medical problem, no one is to blame. How is abstinence a solution to homosexuality? Percentage wise, few people in the world, with the exception of some religiously motivated people such as Roman Catholic priests, and nuns, would find it appealing to live a life of sexual frustration, a life of loneliness, and not having anyone to share your hopes and dreams with, and to live with. In another thread, you said that tens of millions, maybe billions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life. However, I assume that you know that you cannot provide reasonable evidence about that. The true figure must be a very small fraction of what you said. Other than Roman Catholic priests, and nuns, how many people do you know who have practiced abstinence for at least 25 years?

The CDC most certainly does not recommend abstinence as an effective way to deal with HIV. Rather, they recommend having safe sex.

In another thread, I asked you would you object to homosexuality if only 1% of homosexuals had HIV. You conveniently refused to answer the question. Here is what was said:

Are you saying that percentages do not matter? If only 1% of homosexuals had HIV, would that make any difference to you compared with 20%? You must have some arbitary percentage of your own in mind or you would never have brought up statistics in the first place.

I am saying that your claims about only 20% have no meaning, application, or relevance to anything. I am not discussing 1% because that is not the case. The case is millions suffer so others can fulfill their lust.

You obviously did not want to discuss 1% since you would have had to admit that you would even object if 1% of homosexuals had HIV. A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, but you still object to homosexuality back then.

A Wikipedia article at List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows the HIV/AIDS rate in many countries. In 2011, for adults aged 15-49, the lowest rate in the world is Afghanistan, with a rate of only 00.01 percent. Second is Australia with a rate of only 00.10 percent. The U.S. has one of the highest rates, with a rate of 00.60 percent. In 2011, there were 1,200,000 documented cases of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. In Australia, there were 18,000. In 2009, 22,523 people in Australia died from ischaemic heart disease alone.

Apparently there are some health problems in the world that are more serious than HIV/AIDS, and with much easier solutions since heart disease can often be easily prevented merely by eating healthier foods, and getting enough exercise. In your opinion, which is easier, to eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise, or to practice abstinence for life?

I will cut and paste this post to the thread on homosexuality where you and I were having some discussions. You can reply to my post there if you wish, and leave this thread to discuss the existence of God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following:

http://www.aibs.org/mailing-lists/the_aibs-ncse_evolution_list_server.html

American Institute of Biological Sciences

AIBS conducts a number of activities to support the teaching of evolution in schools and to ward off efforts to teach creationism in science classes or distort the teaching of evolution. One of these AIBS activities is a joint project with the National Center for Science Education (www.ncseweb.org) to establish and maintain an e-mail list server for each U.S. state, for Canada, and for other select areas.

At Career Cornerstone Center: Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, Math and Medicine, there is an article that lists 42 American associations of biologists. I assume that all of the boards of directors of those associations accept macro evolution, and oppose the teaching of creationism in public schools. I also assume that you would not be able to find even one chairman of a state university department of biology who is a creationist.

The board of directors of the National Academy of Sciences accept macro evolution, and so do the board of directors of the National Center for Science Education.

However, I doubt that statistics really matter to you since they don't regarding the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV. A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, but you still object to homosexuality then.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are saying that since many people believe X is true I should.

No, I am saying that since the vast majority of people in the world do not know a lot about biology, it is reasonable for them to trust a large consensus of experts that includes the majority of Christian biologists.

I doubt that you know enough about biology to adequately refute Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun. What do you personally know and understand about the article? Surely many creationnists do not know enough about the article to refute it.

Ken Miller would probably reply to what you said by saying that he can back up what he says based upon his personal knowledge of biology, and that he does not accept theistic evolution just because the majority of experts do. There is no way that you could defeat Ken Miller in a debate about evolution. You much prefer easier pickings at this forum since there are few if any experts here. I do not blame you since you would do poorly in debates with experts who accept evolution.

Don't you believe that faith alone is all that Christians need to accept creationism? The following Christian experts do:

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse merely use science as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with the Bible. That is not true science. However, I compliment them on their honesty since they were not embarrassed to state that their primary bias is religious, not scientific.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have a PhD, 1 masters, two bachelors and a national merit scholarship winner, all in engineering in my close family and I have a math degree so I understand the concepts and probability involved well (we discuss them at length whenever we meet up) and we have all found absurdly problematic issues with non-theistic evolution and macro-evolution that a bunch of grant hungry scientists opinions will not over turn so easily.

But that does not address the science. You need to show which biologists are grant hungry, and how they are wrong. Idle rhetoric will not get you anywhere.

Problems with non-theistic evolution do not mean problems with macro evolution. Millions of Christians accept macro evolution, as do the majority of Christian biologists.

You did not say that any members of your family have a degree in biology, or biochemistry. Those are obviously the two fields of science that teach the most about evolution. Surely none of your family would have a chance debating macro evolution with Ken Miller.

I am also very well aware that in recent times people have been fired, lost tenure, and been ostracized if they did not toe the line on evolution. Unfortunately academics has become extremely political and lost a lot of the honor and prestige it once had.

Politics? What do you mean? What is politics? Was politics involved when homosexuality was included in the DSM (Diagnostical and Statistical Manual)? No, it was politics, and religion. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "politics" as follows:

a: the art or science of government

b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

According to those definitions, politics is a very important part of modern societies. Conservative Christians are as involved in trying to guide, influence, and control the government as anyone else is. In the U.S., in 2012, a record number of regulations were passed by Republican governors in an attempt to limit abortion. A list of politically motivated conservative Christian organizations would be very large.

Michael Behe says that he greatly admires much of the work that his theistic evolutionist colleagues have done, and that he accepts common descent.

As Ken Miller and others have noted, when a scientific theory gets as well established as evolution is, it is quite natural that a relative handful of dissenters will not be taken seriously by some scientists.

Before the 1800s, creationists had a big advantage, so you can't complain about what happened before the 1800s. Creationists had the advantage, and a more than fair playing field, but lost (as far as the vast majority of experts, and a large percentage on non-experts are concerned) as evolution became popular.

Regarding the Dover trial, consider the following that the judge said, who is a Christian, a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)

A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;

Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not 'teaching' ID but instead is merely 'making students aware of it.' In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants' argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

Of particular note are "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation," and
"after a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science."

Ken Miller discusses the same thing in an article at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/defense-evolution.html. Consider the following:

Now, I'm a scientist and I have faith in God. But that doesn't make faith a scientific proposition. Faith and reason are both necessary to the religious person for a proper understanding of the world in which we live, and there is ultimately no necessary contradiction between reason and

faith.

Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you think that an 80% rate of success versus a 20% rate of misery and death warrants allowing a practice that has no corresponding gain then it is you that is being perposterous.

But if the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV. The statistic would only have been noticeably lower if the 20% of homosexuals who have HIV had practiced abstinence. Since most of the 20% are not interested in monogamy (although about half of homosexuals are), they quite naturally would be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life than practicing monogamy. Since the 20% are much less likely to practice abstinence for life than to practice monogamy, it is quite obvious that the 80% would have much less of a chance to influence the 20% to practice abstinence for life than to influence them to practice monogamy. Thus, logically, it would be better for the 80% to try to use monogamy to influence the 20% than abstinence for life. As far as HIV is concerned, two uninfected monogamous homosexuals have almost no risk of getting HIV from each other.

If you care about homosexuality from a secular health perspective, what about all of the heterosexuals who have preventable health problems? One study shows that in the U.S., by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, increasing health care costs by over one half of a trillion dollars from obesity alone. Obesity is often preventable, and so are heart disease, problems from smoking cigarettes, and many other health problems. No one who has a serious preventable health problem is in a position to criticize homosexuals, especially monogamous homosexuals, and that would probably include a large percentage of heterosexuals who oppose homosexality. So, you should check out the conservative Christian organizations that oppose homosexuality and tell them that they are hypocrites if they have a serious preventable health problem. Even if their claims about homosexuality were true, they should not be the messenger if they have serious preventable health problems. Actually, they should not be the messenger if they commit any deliberate sins, such as getting divorced except in cases of adultery, and lusting for someone other than their spouse.

In your opinion, which is easier, eating fewer greasy foods, and getting enough exercise, or practicing abstinence for life?

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. Jones is Prosvost at Wheaton College, and Yarhouse teaches at Pat Robertson's Regent University. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Jones and Yarhouse are honest enough to admit that their primary bias is religious no matter what science says, and no matter how healthy homosexuals might be in the future. How about you? You refused to answer my question about what if one 1% of homosexuals had HIV? You refused to answer the question because you did not want to admit that you oppose all homosexuality no matter what. A difference between you, and Jones and Yarhouse, is that they do not mind plainly stating what their position is. A similarity between you and Jones and Yarhouse is that you all merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with the Bible. That is not true science. Many creationists know very little about biology, but love to quote creationist experts. I do not know very much about biology, and I quote experts who support evolution, but the difference is that accepting the opinions of a very large consensus of Christian and non-Christian experts makes sense for laymen unless there are some good reasons not to. If you think that religion is a good reason not to, just say so and stop trying to appeal to science to criticize homosexuals since science does not make moral judgments. Not only that, but there is not any widely supported scientific evidence that promoting abstinence for life for all homosexuals is the best way to lower HIV statistics. The CDC would scold you for such an absurd notion, as would every other major American medical assocation, and the majority of people in the Western world.

In another thread, you claimed that tens of millions, maybe billions of people have practiced abstinece for life. That is patently absurd, and cannot be reasonably documented from any source. Regarding people who practice abstinence for life, it is reasonable to assume that most of them are religiously motivated. That is a reasonable assumption since it is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, and that often, it does not work well even for them. So, you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals.

For the vast majoirty of people, it is not appealing to live an entire life of sexual frustration, no one to touch, to hold, to caress, and to share life with. Romance is a wonderful thing. However humans came about, most of them are not at their best practicing abstinence for life.

Your post #304 in the thread on homosexuality shows how much you have confirmation bias. The post makes lots of false, outrageous claims. There is no way that you know that the majority of those claims are true. You simply look for a conservative Christian website that has the same confirmation bias that you do, and copy what they say regardless of what they say. I do not question your CDC information, but the CDC most certainly does not recommend abstinence for life for all homosexuals just because a minority of homoesxuals have medical problems.

A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, and you still object to homosexuality then.

 

[Agnostic75]

I'll ask Aron to do what I will also promise to do: not to make knee-jerk assumptions that our opponent is wrong on particular details without confirming the error. Light fact-checking on this would have confirmed for Aron that he was linking to the same stats he criticized me for posting, and that would have spared us all the first half of this, my Round Two post.

Your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html disqualifies you from saying anything about fact-checking.

Yes, the percentage of educated people, scientists or doctors who believe in evolution, or in aliens (as most atheists do), or for that matter in geocentrism (as Plato did), does not indicate the truth or falsehood of such assertions.

Sure, AND creationism.

And Aron, I agree with your claim that the majority of scientists believe in evolution, as I wrote, "not to directly dispute your claim, but to offer some contrasting evidence."

Most people are not nearly experts in biology. They have the following options:

1. Accept creationism based upon the Bible alone.

2. Accept creationism based upon the Bible, and whatever lthey think they know about biology.

3. Accept naturalism for various reasons.

4. Accept theistic evolution, and macro evolution based upon their belief that accepting the opinions of a very large consensus of Christian, and non-Christian biologists makes sense.

Do you think that item 1 is reasonable? Do you think that item 4 is unreasonable? If so, why?

If you would have looked at the study that we both were referring to, you would have seen why I said "a large percent," and didn't give an exact number, because the reports I have on the study, as I've summarized in my interview with Witt, indicate:

The APPLIED Science of Medicine Is Doubting Darwin: Dembski and Witt report on a Louis Louis Finkelstein Institute poll (see also at PhysOrg.com) of U.S. medical doctors by the Finkelstein Institute that found that:


- Jewish doctors: 32% reject Darwinism
- Atheist doctors: 2% reject Darwinism
- Buddhist doctors: 43% reject Darwin (compared to 36% who accept it)
- Hindu doctors: 54% reject Darwinism
- Catholic doctors: 78% reject Darwinism
- Protestant doctors: 81% reject Darwinism (largest group of U.S. MDs)
- Of All Medical Doctors: 60% believe that intelligent design plays a role in the origin of humans and 34% outright prefer intelligent design.

[The pro-evolution Finkelstein Institute has now removed from the web their complete 2007 study data that previously had been widely linked to.]

First of all, the best qualified people to consult regarding evolution are biologists, and biochemists, not medical doctors. Polls of biologists, and biochemists, would be much different than the polls that you mentioned. Out of at least 42 U.S. associations of biologists, I doubt that any of them support creationism. If there are any, they are run by creationists.

I am still amazed at how many creationists try to turn creationism versus evolution debates into creationism versus naturalism debates since evolution quite obviously does not have anything to do with the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else. The link is an obvious strawman since it largely addresses how many doctors reject naturalism, not evolution. The link mentions "naturalistic Darwinism." However, there is not any such thing since when Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist.

Michael Behe says the following:

Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism – natural selection working on variation – might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." Darwin's Black Box, pp 5–6.

For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Like Behe, many if not a sizeable majority of the doctors in the polls that you mentioned accept common descent, and macro evolution, which you reject.

Anyone with any expertise at all in biology knows that Darwinism does not even hint at naturalism, and makes no attempts at all to explain the origin or life on earth, or anywhere else.

In an article at The Flagellum Unspun, Ken Miller says:

"As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God."

It is no secret what is really going on here. This is mainly about conservative Christianity, not science. You cannot image that God inspired the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, and why he would create man over a very long period of time, often in small stages.
Among biologists, since creationism is only obvious to religious conservatives, there is not doubt that it is not primarily a matter of who know more about textbook biology, but about who believes what about religion.

Surely a good percentage of creationists know very little about biology. In 1,000 A.D., how much did most Christians know about biology, and about science in general?

 

[Agnostic75]

The percentage of educated people, scientists or doctors who believe in evolution, or in aliens (as most atheists do), or for that matter in geocentrism (as Plato did), does not indicate the truth or falsehood of such assertions.

If percentages do not make a difference to you, why did you say the following in your post #304?

Judging by this you have declared source wars. The only way to settle that kind of battle is by the principle of embarrassment. I declare that I can provide more secular scholars who agree that the cosmological argument is valid (with the exception that the cause even though identical to God is actually God) at a rate of 2 to 1 to your providing Christians who say the argument is invalid. If you thought the ideas at the source you gave (you notice I do not claim bias for it) are correct you should win that contest. If that is acceptable then please indicate so. If not we can discuss any individual claim at that site you think has significant merit and I will show why that is false but I do not think you would ever concede the point no matter how clear. Of course there are counters to the argument. It is so powerful it rocked the scientific world and caused a panic among the most atheistic of them and all manner of pure fantasy is appealed to in the desperate effort. Let me know how you want to proceed. I have stacked the numbers in your favor.

So you can provide more secular scholars than I can, but percentages of scholars do not have anything to do with the truth. Would you like to clarify your position on quoting experts?

Regarding the percentages of homosexuals who have HIV, you have protested the high HIV rate among homosexuals, but you would still object to homosexuality even if no homosexuals had HIV. A hundred years ago, no homosexuals had HIV, and you still object to homosexuality then.

You cannot provide any secular scholars who accept creationism, nor can you provide any evidence that even the majority of Christian biologists are creationists.

 

[1robin]

I apologize but am still busy today. I said I would start an in-depth discussion about the cosmological argument and proceed through it in detail. I only have time to present what it is about it that I claim.​

The Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is non-material or abstract.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

The first four are simple deductions that I can't imagine any one unburdened by presuppositions could possibly deny. The last is a possible conclusion but for this debate I will claim the conclusion to only be a entity with properties very similar to the God described by the Bible. Please list very shortly and simply which steps you disagree with (if any) and at first at least give a simple explanation of why. There were about 5 people who dismissed the argument and this is an attempt to deal with their objections in a practical manner. Thank you.


AGNOSTIC75 As I have said I will no longer respond to posts about homosexuality in this "evidence for God" thread.

 

[steeltoes]

I apologize but am still busy today. I said I would start an in-depth discussion about the cosmological argument and proceed through it in detail. I only have time to present what it is about it that I claim.​

The Cosmological Argument
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is non-material or abstract.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

The first four are simple deductions that I can't imagine any one unburdened by presuppositions could possibly deny. The last is a possible conclusion but for this debate I will claim the conclusion to only be a entity with properties very similar to the God described by the Bible. Please list very shortly and simply which steps you disagree with (if any) and at first at least give a simple explanation of why. There were about 5 people who dismissed the argument and this is an attempt to deal with their objections in a practical manner. Thank you.


AGNOSTIC75 As I have said I will no longer respond to posts about homosexuality in this "evidence for God" thread.

For 1, How do you go from "If the universe has a cause of its existence" to "then that cause is non-material or abstract." to "therefore God exists" ???

For 2, Why not therefore invisible pink unicorns exist? It makes just as much sense to substitute any invisible entity that one cares to. What makes your invisible entity the correct invisible entity? Because you say so?

and for 3, Everything we know of has a cause and effect and they all apply to the material or known fields that effect the material, so non material cause and effects are not something we have knowledge of so cause does not apply here. You just can't start explaining about things you or anyone else has no knowledge of, it just makes you a pretender.

 

[PolyHedral]

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.

This is nonsensical if time doesn't already exist, which is the opposite of what you are proposing.

(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Time in a near-singularity is highly non-linear. It might not have had a beginning at all; or may have multiple beginnings because time got split into multiple fragments for whatever reason.

 

[steeltoes]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Why call him God, why not Fred, or Jack? I know a Fred that is all knowing. Jack is a thoughtless being that makes himself non existent when we go looking for him to explain his actions, maybe he created the first something.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it's a supreme being. Everything needs a cause except for what set the first domino in motion. There must be one exception. If there wasn't an exception, then there would be an endless line of dominos because you'll always need one to knock down the next. And the dominos would never fall because there would need to be a cause for the first effect, that didn't have a cause. Or else that would need a cause and that would need a cause etc. There must be an exception.

Why must there be a first cause? The universe could simply always be & always have been.
After all, if you can posit this for a supreme being, it can be done for the universe.
But if there must be a first cause for the universe, why needn't there be a cause for a supreme being?

There are many premises to choose from, but we can't know if any one is true.

 

[Alceste]

Why must there be a first cause? The universe could simply always be & always have been.
After all, if you can posit this for a supreme being, it can be done for the universe.
But if there must be a first cause for the universe, why needn't there be a cause for a supreme being?

There are many premises to choose from, but we can't know if any one is true.

I skipped the other 34 pages, but I agree with this post.

I expect this thread I skipped has amply shown why the first cause argument is a) very disputable, b) highly irrational and c) not a proof.

 

[steeltoes]

I skipped the other 34 pages, but I agree with this post.

I expect this thread I skipped has amply shown why the first cause argument is a) very disputable, b) highly irrational and c) not a proof.

We all decided to leave it up to Oprah.