INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

No, I said that it is fine for laymen who know a lot about biology to discuss macroevolution.

The majority of people in the world do not know enough about biology to oppose macroevolution based upon their own personal knowledge of biology.

If I am not qualified to oppose it in your mind, then you are not qualified to defend it and there exists no basis for discussion.

You do not know nearly enough about biology to win a debate about macroevolution with an expert in biology. Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, most experts would still disagree with you, and most people are not able to adequately judge debates among experts.

I am not debating a biology professor. You can not have a debate by proxy.

A large consensus of skeptic and Christian experts accepts macroevolution. I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept their opinions.

I am not aware of any good reasons to accept that what they believe is reliable. I do not reject it, I simply assign the proper amount of skepticism to macro-evolution as the data demands.

What I quoted was from a Wikipedia article about macroevolution. The pertinent footnotes are as follows:

I did not see any links. I have been so consistently disappointed by these "examples" of macro-evolution or abiogenesis that I am not going to look at a reference unless it is in a link form.



Y

ou are welcome to study, and try to adequately refute those sources if you wish.

First give me a link to an example of observed occasions where one species became another. I know they do not exist so I am not going through a lot of effort to track down your references.

That is much different from your former claim that all of macroevolution has problems.

My statement and the fact that macro evolution has problems are compatible.

You are entitled to your own personal opinions, and to the opinions of a very small number of creationist experts, many of whom also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory.

This a tactic not an argument. I cannot be placed in a box with fundamental creationists and that box be dismissed. I do not hold any fundamental literalist views on Genesis and regard the matter as open at this time.

It is obviously from Behe's book "The Edge of Evolution." The quote easily shows that Behe accepts macroevolution.

The same Wikipedia article at Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that I quoted also says:

I am very surprised to hear Behe swallows the whole theory of evolution. He is known as a proponent of irreducible complexity. Holding that view and acceptance of macro evolution as a whole seems incompatible.

 

[1robin]

You said:



I merely answered your question, and you replied with a bunch of nonsense that had nothing to do with my reply to your question.

That is not an explanation or a statement of understanding concerning your posting so exhaustively. I answered your question exactly in the way it should be. I gave several examples and added that a list of what I am not competent in is too long to post. What is nonsensical about that?

I have never said that you did.

Then why post a rebuttal to a point I did not make? Faith in God comes from agreement with the gospels and being born again based on them. It does not come from accepting a fundamental position on creation.

I did not make a strawman argument since, as I told you, my only reason for discussing macroevolution is because many conservative Christians reject it.

Your not debating against other Christians. Your contending with me.

On the contrary, there is not anything wrong with laymen accepting a theory that is accepted by a very large consensus of skeptic, and Christian experts. Dr. Ken Miller is a Christian, and he applauds the research of his skeptic biologist associates.

There most certainly could be. To believe in a helio-centric solar system, a flat earth, or a steady state universe at one time and in certain places would have defied conventional views and been right.

If you mean that naturalism is the wrong method, I am an agnostic, not a naturalist. Anyway, the Bible puts all non-Christian theists in the same boat as naturalists.

I do no think your an agnostic. I think your a soft atheist. Naturalism is the default of the non-adoption of the supernatural.

As I told you in another thread, I think that Christian Science produces people who are generally more moral than Christians are. The same might be true of deism.

I don't know about Christian scientists (and there is no way you know about the majority of them), nor about deism. There certainly is nothing in their doctrines that can possibly ground morality in more solidly than Christianity.

What are you referring to?

Never mind.

You do not know nearly enough to win debate about textual criticism with skeptic experts, or even with knowledgeable skeptic amateurs, such as some knowledgeable skeptic amateurs at Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View forum - Christian Texts and History that I previously told you about. There is also at least one professional there too. His name is Stefan Huller, and he has his own website.

I am not debating them. There is no debating by proxy.

On the contrary, deism is far more probably true than Christianity is.

You cannot possibly know that and the weight of evidence suggests your mistaken. The bible by far contains the most justification for faith. Deism by necessity would have far less evidence available even if true. Deism by definition lacks any evidence in almost all categories.

Yet again, my only reason for discussing macroevolution is because many conservative Christians reject it.

They are not here. I am.

But since you later admitted that no one knows how many Christians there are in the world, no one knows whose personal religious experiences are authentic since no one knows who is actually a Christian, and how many Christians have personal religious experiences.

I made no point about authenticity. I made a point about the numbers that claim experience. They are far too large and of such a character as to write off as either mistaken or some kind of grand scheme. When you have hundreds of millions of claims to X. It is biased and inexcusable to ignore conservative estimates concerning them. Even if you arbitrarily deny that 70% of them are genuine you are still left with numbers far too large to ignore.

What kinds of miracles are you referring to?

That is irrelevant. There are hundreds of millions of claims to events that have no natural explanation. It makes no difference whether they are healings, speaking in tongues, being born again, being slain in the spirit, prophecy, etc........

If God is an evil imposter, he would easily be able to perform miracles.

Imposter of what? On what basis would you know God was evil (wrong)? What standard could possibly sit in judgment of the creator of morality? Who's' law is he in violation of? Claiming God is evil is a meaningless exercise.

But without a reasonable estimate of how many Christians there are in the world, your theory is useless.

I have given many times, reasonable and conservative estimates on how many born again Christians there are and the data that backed them up.

What kinds of personal experiences are you referring to?

The only relevant criteria would be they are experiences that do not have a natural explanation. Beyond that it would not matter.

 

[1robin]

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macroevolution. That would naturally include the majority of Christian experts. I am not aware of any good reasons for laymen to reject the opinions of those experts.

So far you have no provided a single solution to or example of any of the tiny fraction of evolutions problems. There exist great reasons to accept all of evolution and great reasons to remain skeptical. Those reasons remain even if 100% of every group accepted the theory.

There is not any need for me to bring it up unless you claim that the scientific evidence for macroevolution is not very good.

I have no scale by which I can measure scientific evidence. What I do know is that there is no solution or example of exceptions to the problems I provided. Until (for example life) is shown to come from non-life is abiogenesis not a good reason to be weary of the theory. Another example is that no example of an exception to IC exists. Theories exist but no reliable evidence. Until a good percentage of these problems are resolved skepticism is justifiable.

No, but having a degree in biology helps a lot regarding adequately understanding macroevolution.

I don't care how man degrees a person has. The problems I provided fr4om among the countless that exists are still unresolved.

I am not a naturalist.

You insist your position is firmly planted in no where. I think you hold firm positions but desire the flexibility of an ambiguous stance. There are no heroes in neutrality.

No, the judge did not decide what science is, he accepted the opinions of a large consensus of experts. Part of what I quoted from the judge's opinion is as follows:



Please note:

"ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

Why is a judge deciding what is scientific? If there are proofs that Id is wrong then provide them. Adding what a judge said does not ad anything to the claim. I do not need a judge to see the sky is blue. His decision adds nothing to my ability to evaluate the sky's color on my own.

If you were one of the 99.86% of American experts who accept macroevolution, you would not believe that intuition has very much to do with the vast majority of experts accepting macroevolution.

Either certainty exists of faith is involved. Macroevolution whether true or not does not have enough evidence to make it a certainty. Faith is involved just as I suggested. If I told that 99% to put the proof of macroevolution on the table not a single one would be able to do as requested.

Most experts believe that the evidence for macroevolution is much better than the evidence against it. If you agree with that, we do not need to discuss macroevolution any more.

That might be true. I do not have all of the evidence available in order to be certain. Lets say there are 100 reasons to believe in macro-evolution and only 30 to remain skeptical. The fact that the 100 reasons for it are so heavily faith laden and the 30 reasons against it are so crucial and obstinate full faith in the theory is IMO not justifiable. However I hope our discussion on it are at an end.

 

[1robin]

Surely if you really do have a scientific education you would know that macro-evolution is an observed fact?

I sure do hear a lot of saber rattling but no one will take the shot. An actual example of observed macro evolution would put the finder on the cover of time and probably win the Nobel. I unaware on that having occurred or a single example of it existing. Perhaps you could actually produce what you claim exists. I agree with most evolutionists that even if macro evolution is true it would take place so gradually and over such a long time it would not be observable to single person and maybe even the human race in totality. True or not I do not think it has ever been observed.

 

[Bunyip]

I sure do hear a lot of saber rattling but no one will take the shot. An actual example of observed macro evolution would put the finder on the cover of time and probably win the Nobel. I unaware on that having occurred or a single example of it existing. Perhaps you could actually produce what you claim exists. I agree with most evolutionists that even if macro evolution is true it would take place so gradually and over such a long time it would not be observable to single person and maybe even the human race in totality. True or not I do not think it has ever been observed.

You claim to be scientifically literate, and yet are unaware that macro-evolution was observed before the term itself was coined in the early 20th century. There are dozens of examples where it has been directly observed, dating back more than a century.

Google ' observed instances of speciation' and you will find many examples from plants to animals. Not only has macro-evolution (speciation) been observed but so has evolutionary transitions up to the level of phyla. The reason why the Nobel prize was not awarded would be because the first observations of speciation occured before it existed.

The reality is that had you any training in evolutionary biology whatsoever - or for that matter even a sound grasp of the basic principles you would know that macro-evolution was a fact.

Some well known examples include;

Nereis acuminata, Rhagoletis pomonella, Drosophila paulistorum, Drosophila melanogaster. The Drosophila observations occured more than 40 years ago, and yet you seem unaware of them - when did you study biology?

 

[Agnostic75]

That is utter nonsense. You easily lost the debates on homosexuality. Whether or not you will admit it, the most important issue by far is what should be done about homosexuality. From a secular perspective, no action is wrong unless there are reasonable alternatives. Your recommended solution was that all homosexuality should practice abstinence. All major medical organizations would disagree with that, and yet you claimed that you won the debate.

There was not a single challenge to even one of my two primary claims.

You are referring to the following to claims that you said:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Regarding item 1, I already adequately refuted it, but you ignored what I said. I told you that that was a composition fallacy since it does not apply to many homosexuals.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is easily justified for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years, and much more for those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. The health risks of long term abstinence are not justified for healthy, long term monogamous homosexuals. Many homosexuals who tried long term abstinence suffered more than they did when they practiced sex, and needed medical treatment. It would be ridiculous for those homosexuals to continue harming themselves by practicing long term abstinence.

So, for many homosexuals, long term abstinence has no justification what so ever for its cost. All major medical organizations agree with that, and disagree with your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

 

[Agnostic75]

A large consensus of skeptic and Christian experts accepts macroevolution. I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept their opinions.

I am not aware of any good reasons to accept that what they believe is reliable. I do not reject it, I simply assign the proper amount of skepticism to macro-evolution as the data demands.

I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept that what they believe is reliable.

If I am not qualified to oppose it in your mind, then you are not qualified to defend it and there exists no basis for discussion.

That is what I have been trying to tell you, and now you finally understand that you, and I, and most other people in the world, do not know enough about macroevolution to claim that it is, or is not true.

I am not debating a biology professor. You can not have a debate by proxy.

You said that you like a challenge. Debating an expert in macroevolution would be challenging for you, and it would show many people that you are not qualified to oppose macroevolution.

I am very surprised to hear Behe swallows the whole theory of evolution. He is known as a proponent of irreducible complexity. Holding that view and acceptance of macro evolution as a whole seems incompatible.

You are not qualified to question Behe.

Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Ken Miller are all theistic evolutionists. They have their differences, but they all accept common descent.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you mean that naturalism is the wrong method, I am an agnostic, not a naturalist. Anyway, the Bible puts all non-Christian theists in the same boat as naturalists.

I do no think your an agnostic. I think your a soft atheist. Naturalism is the default of the non-adoption of the supernatural.

You are wrong. I am an atheist regarding the Gods of all religious books, but I do not claim that no God exists since no human could possibly know that even if it was true.

It would be wonderful if a loving God exists.

As I told you in another thread, I think that Christian Science produces people who are generally more moral than Christians are. The same might be true of deism.

I don't know about Christian Scientists (and there is no way you know about the majority of them), nor about deism. There certainly is nothing in their doctrines that can possibly ground morality in more solidly than Christianity.

You could not know that unless you had some credible pertinent sociological studies, and I do not think that you have them.

Christian Science is partly based upon the Bible. Therefore, it is partly grounded on biblical principles.

You said that non-Christians should accept Christianity even if just for its moral teachings, but it would be impossible for non-Christians to accept Christianity when they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

You claim to be scientifically literate, and yet are unaware that macro-evolution was observed before the term itself was coined in the early 20th century. There are dozens of examples where it has been directly observed, dating back more than a century.

Google ' observed instances of speciation' and you will find many examples from plants to animals. Not only has macro-evolution (speciation) been observed but so has evolutionary transitions up to the level of phyla. The reason why the Nobel prize was not awarded would be because the first observations of speciation occured before it existed.

The reality is that had you any training in evolutionary biology whatsoever - or for that matter even a sound grasp of the basic principles you would know that macro-evolution was a fact.

Some well known examples include;

Nereis acuminata, Rhagoletis pomonella, Drosophila paulistorum, Drosophila melanogaster. The Drosophila observations occured more than 40 years ago, and yet you seem unaware of them - when did you study biology?

Oh come off it. Knowing about Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) studies is not the criteria for being scientifically literate. I can invent arbitrary tests for scientific literacy and you will fail them. For example tell me how to repair the raster high G compensator on an f-15 HUD. Can't do it. I guess your not literate. That is trivial, arrogant, meaningless and of no help or relevance. That is why I have not and will not say such a thing in earnest. Everyone has at least heard of the fruit fly experiments. As far as I have ever heard, only fruit fly's were ever created, even unlike nature when genomes were intentionally scrambled. Some had curly wings, some had black bodies, shorter or longer bristles, white eyes, etc..... yet they were all fruit flys. Now if unknown to me some scientists arbitrarily threw one of these variations of what was still obviously a fruit fly into a new species category, and you think that settles it, then you have misunderstood my request. I am not talking about categories in a book but the reality they represent. I want an example where a fruit fly in nature produced a non fruit fly. I want actual examples of a species X becoming a species not X. I want a dog to produce a non dog, a cat a non cat. I am not interested in a scientist reclassifying a Siamese as a new species and claiming macro-evolution has been observed. That is even assuming that this is the case with fruit flys. I have seen hundreds of pictures of the various fruit fly types. They are all fruit flys even if a scientists slaps a new label on them. I do not need a biology degree to see they remain fruit flys, a child can see that.

 

[1robin]

You are referring to the following to claims that you said:



Regarding item 1, I already adequately refuted it, but you ignored what I said. I told you that that was a composition fallacy since it does not apply to many homosexuals.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is easily justified for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years, and much more for those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. The health risks of long term abstinence are not justified for healthy, long term monogamous homosexuals. Many homosexuals who tried long term abstinence suffered more than they did when they practiced sex, and needed medical treatment. It would be ridiculous for those homosexuals to continue harming themselves by practicing long term abstinence.

So, for many homosexuals, long term abstinence has no justification what so ever for its cost. All major medical organizations agree with that, and disagree with your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

You will not wear me down. You had your chance to contend with my claims. I repeatedly asked and begged for someone to do so. It did not occur. I am not re-opening that futile effort and you cannot wear me down enough to do so. Your wasting a lot of time.

 

[1robin]

I am not aware of any good reasons not to accept that what they believe is reliable.

If I am not qualified to oppose it in your mind, then you are not qualified to defend it and there exists no basis for discussion.

That is what I have been trying to tell you, and now you finally understand that you, and I, and most other people in the world, do not know enough about macroevolution to claim that it is, or is not true.

I have understood your point since the first time you posted it. I do not agree with it but I understand it. What I do not understand is why you do not act consistently with your own point. If you believe what you say then no discussion is warranted. Despite the fact I disagreed with your point I was willing to act accordingly, to slim down the subjects which you comment on. Why aren't you?

You said that you like a challenge. Debating an expert in macroevolution would be challenging for you, and it would show many people that you are not qualified to oppose macroevolution.

I did not say I have the time or the opportunity to seek out professionals. They do not have the time to spend contending with informal debaters. I do not have the time. It is not a part of debate on any level to challenge your opposite to duel with others. Your suggesting an inappropriate and irrational absurdity. However I would love to debate a Dawkins but it is not practical.

You are not qualified to question Behe.

Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Ken Miller are all theistic evolutionists. They have their differences, but they all accept common descent.

I did not question him. I posted my surprise and my opinion concerning two mutually exclusive positions. If I was not qualified to question him why was he brought up. I wish to goodness that you actually had the courage of your convictions and acted accordingly. It is a hyperbolic absurdity to bring up someone that is beyond questioning in a debate. In fact the idea that someone is so omniscient as to be above contention is pathetic to begin with.

 

[1robin]

You are wrong. I am an atheist regarding the Gods of all religious books, but I do not claim that no God exists since no human could possibly know that even if it was true.

Your description proves I am right. Agnosticism is the position of not holding faith concerning God/God's but to be awaiting evidence. Your in your own words actually opposed to all textual accounts of God. Since the textual accounts of God are by far more likely to be true than God's that exist in theory and speculation you have by default pretty much eliminated faith in any God. IMO you retain the agnostic label so that you are not painted in any box, you can be credited with an open mind, and do not have to defend the position. I do not think you are technically an agnostic but you label yourself one anyway. However none of this matters. What labels you apply to yourself have no bearing on the issues.

It would be wonderful if a loving God exists.

There exists no greater proof of love than self sacrifice. There exists no possible greater example of self sacrifice than the cross. No other God in human history has even a fraction of the evidence the biblical God has. If you reject him your are not an agnostic and you have by default eliminated all less evidenced God's. A long time ago when I decided to either eliminate the possibility that God existed or confirm it, probably the most meaningful decision I made was to forget every argument I had adopted for or against God. I would suggest you do the same. Reading the bible after ignoring all of the convenient reasons I had accumulated to deny it made a huge difference. Read it with the attitude that no matter how bizarre or how improbable it may seem does it stand on it's own feet. I like billions found it did once the walls of convenient pre-conceptions went down found it does.

You could not know that unless you had some credible pertinent sociological studies, and I do not think that you have them.

The only relevant aspect would be doctrinal. Which doctrine provides the best basis for morality. This other stuff may be involved but is irrelevant in a theology forum.

Christian Science is partly based upon the Bible. Therefore, it is partly grounded on biblical principles.

Then your unqualified opinions on their morality is not a contention against the bible.

You said that non-Christians should accept Christianity even if just for its moral teachings, but it would be impossible for non-Christians to accept Christianity when they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists.

I consider any theological doctrine largely based on the bible among that group. Christians science would be among the group not in contention with it.
Deism would not be but as deism has no doctrinal texts at all, it not a basis for morality at all to begin with. You brought a pillow to a gun fight.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are referring to the following to claims that you said:

Quote:

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Regarding item 1, I already adequately refuted it, but you ignored what I said. I told you that that was a composition fallacy since it does not apply to many homosexuals.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is easily justified for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years, and much more for those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. The health risks of long term abstinence are not justified for healthy, long term monogamous homosexuals. Many homosexuals who tried long term abstinence suffered more than they did when they practiced sex, and needed medical treatment. It would be ridiculous for those homosexuals to continue harming themselves by practicing long term abstinence.

So, for many homosexuals, long term abstinence has no justification what so ever for its cost. All major medical organizations agree with that, and disagree with your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

You will not wear me down. You had your chance to contend with my claims. I repeatedly asked and begged for someone to do so. It did not occur.

No, it occurred a number of times, including what I just quoted that I posted today. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that you made a composition fallacy since nowhere near all homosexuals need to practice abstinence. You are trying to fix some cars that are not broke. That is utterly absurd.

 

[Agnostic75]

If I am not qualified to oppose it in your mind, then you are not qualified to defend it and there exists no basis for discussion.

That is what I have been trying to tell you, and now you finally understand that you, and I, and most other people in the world, do not know enough about macroevolution to claim that it is, or is not true.

I have understood your point since the first time you posted it. I do not agree with it but I understand it.

Are you disagreeing with my claim that most people do not know enough about macroevolution to claim that it is, or is not true?

What I do not understand is why you do not act consistently with your own point. If you believe what you say then no discussion is warranted. Despite the fact I disagreed with your point I was willing to act accordingly, to slim down the subjects which you comment on. Why aren't you?

I have already told you that I have not debated macroevolution, and that I have only mentioned what most experts say about it. I have not supported macroevolution based upon my own knowledge of biology, but you have opposed it based upon what you think you know about biology.

You said that you like a challenge. Debating an expert in macroevolution would be challenging for you, and it would show many people that you are not qualified to oppose macroevolution.

I did not say I have the time.......

Your frequent presence at these forums shows that you have sufficient time for a debate with an expert on macroevolution.

.......or the opportunity to seek out professionals. They do not have the time to spend contending with informal debaters.

On the contrary, there are some professionals at Physics Forums, and some of them will be happy to discuss macroevolution with you. The link is Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums. The biology forum is at Biology Forum. Physics Forums has over 385,000 members, and a number of them have Ph.D.s, or Master's degrees.

At Evolution Debate Forum - Topix, there is a discussion forum that is devoted entirely to evolution. Many members there would probably know much more about evolution than most members at this forum do.

You are not qualified to question Behe.

Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Ken Miller are all theistic evolutionists. They have their differences, but they all accept common descent.

I did not question him. I posted my surprise and my opinion concerning two mutually exclusive positions.

I assume that Behe would disagree with the reasons for your surprise.

If I was not qualified to question him why was he brought up.

Because many laymen accept the opinions of experts, and Behe is an expert, and is part of a large consensus of experts who accept macroevolution.

I wish to goodness that you actually had the courage of your convictions and acted accordingly.

You can be pretty slow sometimes. I obviously do not have any personal convictions about macroevolution because I have told you a number of times that I do not know a lot about biology, and that I only accept macroevolution because most experts accept it.

It is a hyperbolic absurdity to bring up someone that is beyond questioning in a debate. In fact the idea that someone is so omniscient as to be above contention is pathetic to begin with.

Behe is not beyond questioning since his claims about irreducible complexity are rejected by most experts. What I was referring to was your being surprised by Behe's acceptance of common descent, and irreducible complexity. I do not think that you know enough about that to be surprised with Behe's acceptance of common descent, and irreducible complexity.

You will not get any discussing macroevolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are wrong. I am an atheist regarding the Gods of all religious books, but I do not claim that no God exists since no human could possibly know that even if it was true.

Your description proves I am right. Agnosticism is the position of not holding faith concerning God/God's but to be awaiting evidence. You're in your own words actually opposed to all textual accounts of God. Since the textual accounts of God are by far more likely to be true than God's that exist in theory and speculation you have by default pretty much eliminated faith in any God. IMO you retain the agnostic label so that you are not painted in any box, you can be credited with an open mind, and do not have to defend the position. I do not think you are technically an agnostic but you label yourself one anyway. However none of this matters. What labels you apply to yourself have no bearing on the issues.

Now I see what you mean. Ok, then I am an atheist regarding all religious books, but I am still an agnostic regarding the existence of other possible Gods. I reject all religious book since none of them make any sense, but I think that deism is a reasonable possibility.

There exists no greater proof of love than self sacrifice. There exists no possible greater example of self sacrifice than the cross.

On the contrary, you have not provided any credible evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. In addition, since God does not have free will, he did not sacrifice anything since morality has no meaning without choice.

No other God in human history has even a fraction of the evidence the biblical God has. If you reject him your are not an agnostic and you have by default eliminated all less evidenced God's.

On the contrary, deism is far more probably true than Christianity is.

 

[Agnostic75]

You could not know that unless you had some credible pertinent sociological studies, and I do not think that you have them.

The only relevant aspect would be doctrinal.

Obviously not since history, sociology, and psychology are all definitely pertinent to why people choose their world views. Adequately discussing why Christianity grew to be a large religion would take years just to discuss the basics, and would largely involve discussing history, sociology, psychology, and theology. Many people who have less intelligence, and education, and have less access to information, are not able to make informed decisions about all of those fields of knowledge.

Which doctrine provides the best basis for morality. This other stuff may be involved but is irrelevant in a theology forum.

If that is true, then deism is a much better choice for a world view than Christianity is.

Christian Science is partly based upon the Bible. Therefore, it is partly grounded on biblical principles.

Then your unqualified opinions on their morality is not a contention against the Bible.

You said that even if the Bible is false, the world would be a better place to live if skeptics became Christians. I did not agree, or disagree with that. I only said that Christian Science is a reasonable alternative to Christianity as far as having better societies is concerned.

You said that non-Christians should accept Christianity even if just for its moral teachings, but it would be impossible for non-Christians to accept Christianity when they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists.

I consider any theological doctrine largely based on the Bible among that group. Christian Science would be among the group not in contention with it.

I said:

"it would be impossible for non-Christians to accept Christianity when they do not believe that the God of the Bible exists."

What you said was not a reply to that. People cannot force themselves to accept any world view just because they want to live more orderly lives.

From a biblical perspective, it is ultimately not any better to be a non-Christian theist than it is to be an atheist. Consider the following Scriptures:

First Corinthians 15

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Paul would have strongly disapproved of your claim that skeptics should become theists even if only to live more orderly lives. In addition, Revelation 3:16 says "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." That means that your claim is unscriptural since God only approves of committed Christians.

Christian Science is definitely in contention with the Bible since it claims that Jesus was an ordinary, but gifted man. If skeptics were to choose between Christianity, and Christian Science, I think that they should choose Christian Science.

Deism would not be but as deism has no doctrinal texts at all, it does not have a basis for morality at all to begin with. You brought a pillow to a gun fight.

If all that you want is more order in society, Christian Science can provide it.

Even if everyone is the world was a Christian, heart disease, cancer, obesity, and global warming would still be essentially as harmful as they are today, and humans would still probably one day destroy most, or all human life on earth. Many Christians claim that Old Testament Hebrews lost some wars because they did not obey God, but that is ridiculous. Surely at least some Hebrews were faithful servants of God, and no loving God would punish his faithful followers along with his unfaithful followers. Regardless of how Old Testament Hebrews acted, they would still have gotten diseases, and lost wars.

The Bible says that God made a covenant with Abraham, and promised him and his descendants all of the land of Canaan as an everlasting covenant, but today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan, and there is not any credible evidence that they ever did. If Old Testament Hebrews did occupy all of the land of Canaan, then the covenant began, but it did not last since today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan.

As far as I know, the Bible does not predict that global warming will be most dangerous problem that humans have ever had. If global warming gets much worse than it is, and becomes the biggest problem that humans have ever had, how would you explain that the Bible did not predict it?

I do not know of any research studies about the crime rate of deists as compared with professing Christians.

 

[Agnostic75]

If God is an evil imposter, he would easily be able to perform miracles.

Imposter of what?

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How could Paul have been reasonably certain that God is not masquerading as an angel of light?

On what basis would you know God was evil (wrong)?

On what basis could Paul have known that God is who he says he is?

What standard could possibly sit in judgment of the creator of morality?

If God is masquerading as an angel of light, who are you to question his morality?

Who's' law is he in violation of?

If God is masquerading as an angel of light, and tells lies, he is obviously not in violation of any of his nature.

Claiming God is evil is a meaningless exercise.

On the contrary, if good and evil supernatural beings exist, it was a meaningless exercise for Paul to claim that Satan masquerades as an angel of light since no mere human could possibly be reasonably certain of that even if it even if it was true. If a God inspired the Bible, an excellent case can be made that it is plausible if not probable that God does not love humans, or animals. For example, some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer for a few days, and die. Sometimes, the parents give up religion as a result. There is not any credible evidence that God needs to cause, or allow that to happen in order to fulfill any fair, worthy, and just goals. In addition, God does not need to harm innocent animals in order to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals.

 

[Agnostic75]

But since you later admitted that no one knows how many Christians there are in the world, no one knows whose personal religious experiences are authentic since no one knows who is actually a Christian, and how many Christians have personal religious experiences.

I made no point about authenticity. I made a point about the numbers that claim experience.

Nonsense, if the God of the Bible exists, no human can reliably estimate how many Christians there are in the world. Jesus said that only a few people would be saved, and the New Testament says that many are called, but few are chosen.

They are far too large and of such a character as to write off as either mistaken or some kind of grand scheme. When you have hundreds of millions of claims to X. It is biased and inexcusable to ignore conservative estimates concerning them. Even if you arbitrarily deny that 70% of them are genuine you are still left with numbers far too large to ignore.

The Bible itself disagrees with you. It does not mention numbers, but it implies that today, there are far fewer Christians than the number of people who profess to be Christians.

What kinds of miracles are you referring to?

That is irrelevant.

Obviously not since if it was irrelevant, any experience that a large number of people claim would be authentic, and common sense shows that that is not true.

There are hundreds of millions of claims to events that have no natural explanation.

Thousands of historians, sociologists, and psychologists would disagree with you, and it would take years just to study the basics, let alone make informed conclusions.

It makes no difference whether they are healings, speaking in tongues, being born again, being slain in the spirit, prophecy, etc........

The followers of many religions claim miracle healings.

Speaking in tongues is irrelevant since the majority of Christians reject that experience, and there are some good reasons why they should which I can discuss with you if you wish.

Being born again is a very subjective experience since the Bible through the power of suggestion claims that the experience is wonderful, and elating. Lots of former Christian felt wonderful, and elated when they became Christians.

Being slain in the spirit is something that many people who speak in tongues experience, so that is also irrelevant since the majority of Christians reject it.

Regarding prophecy, you have not provided any credible evidence that any Bible prophecy is true.

 

[Agnostic75]

The most important thing to do is to resolve it's nature. The punishment or pardon of theft cannot even begin to be discussed until the nature of theft is determined.

But as you know, most experts say that all of the causes of homosexuality are unknown. Pending the results of future research, you recommended that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. All major medical organizations disagree with you. So does common sense since 1) some homosexuals have very low risks that justify them having sex, 2) long term abstinence has proven health risks, and 3) having sex provides important physical, and emotional benefits.

Whatever causes homosexuality, lots of research reasonably proves that it is very difficult to change sexual identity.

I do not doubt that environment can be an important part of homosexuality, but if genetics is also an important part of homosexuality, which many if not most experts believe is the case, environment alone cannot prevent homosexuality in the majority of cases.

I posted lots of scientific evidence in various threads that show that genetics is probably an important part of homosexuality, but as far as I recall, you refused to reply to most of it. Part of the evidence that I posted was about research about fraternal, and identical twins. The research showed what the scientists expected, which was that fraternal twins were homosexuals a good deal more than non-twin siblings were, and that identical twins were homosexuals a good deal more than fraternal twins were. I also provided evidence that shows that genetics has an influence in the womb.

You conveniently confused to reply to my argument that most children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If environment was the primary cause of homosexuality, that would not be the case.

In your post 1312 in the thread on homosexuality, you said:

I posted much that indicates it isn't genetic at all.......

I do not recall that you posted anything evidence at all that says that homosexuality is caused entirely by environment.

.......but the jury is still out.

I assume that very few of the jury believe that homosexuality is caused entirely by environment, and that the majority of the jury believe that genetics is an important part of homosexuality.

Two articles that discuss homosexuality and genetics are at http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality, and at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121211101832.htm. I do not understand the articles very well, but they both mention mathematical modeling. If you have any questions about the articles, you would probably be able to contact some of the researchers if you wish.

NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals) is perhaps the best-known, and most influential Christian group that promotes reparative therapy, and says that environment is an important contributing factor to homosexuality. At http://rossolson.org/homosexuality/causes_narth.html, NARTH says:

Today, the majority of respected scientists agree that homosexuality is due to a combination of social, psychological, and biological factors.

That contradicts your sources that say that homosexuality is entirely caused by environment. However, the article misses the boat with the following:

When the sexually confused young man is introduced to the gay community through the Internet, or perhaps a school counseling program, the struggle is over.

That is partly true. Being in an accepting environment can sometimes cause confused men to embrace homosexuality, but many of them would have accepted it anyway, and many if not most of them had predominantly same-sex urges when they experienced puberty, which would usually be years before they associated with a lot of gay people. And of course, NARTH cannot explain why the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexual. In addition, NARTH cannot explain Dr. Warren Throckmorton's article at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warren...ey-on-twin-research-and-sexual-reorientation/. Dr. Throckmorton is college professor of psychology, and is an acknowledged expert on homosexuality. In the article, he discusses a famous twin study by Dr. Michael Bailey, and he sometime quotes Bailey, who basically said that there is very little doubt that genetics is an important part of homosexuality.

Dr. Throckmorton quotes Dr. Bailey as saying:

The main issue is nature-nurture. Heritability (which can be estimated from twin studies) generally is consistent with nature. But environmentality (the complement of heritability) DOES NOT MEAN nurture as it is typically assumed (i.e., social and reversible causation). MZ twins [monozygotic or identical] can differ (and I expect usually do) for biological reasons. At this point neither hypothesis (biological or social causation of MZ twin differences) has strong evidence to for it.

Dr. Bailey is one of the most widely respected researchers on homosexuality in the world.

I also have stated that if just a single person (of which there are probably many thousands) ever chose to leave homosexuality or heterosexuality and did so completely it would prove it is chosen.

The founder of the recently disbanded ex-gay group Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual orientation, and that 99% of the homosexuals who came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual orientation. Regarding those who give up homosexuality, and practice abstinence, many are very frustrated, and some have had to get medical treatment for depression, and stress. That is understandable since the risks of long term abstinence are well-known by many experts. Regarding those who give up homosexuality, and have children, many admit that they still have moderate, or strong same-sex urges. Documented complete changes of sexual orientation are very rare.

They don't care how much it costs in money, lives, and suffering to those who do not practice it.

It is no wonder that you conveniently vacated that thread since you made so many bad arguments there. You have no case at all since the greatest health threat to heterosexuals by far is themselves, as easily proven by many preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. In 2010, 40 times, or 4,000% more Americans died from heart disease alone than died from AIDS. Some experts predict that by 2030, which is only 16 years from now, 50% of Americans will be obese, and that that will add about 500 billion dollars a year to health care costs.

You have said that lust is not a good reason to have sex, but most married heterosexuals often have sex only for pleasure, and the majority of married heterosexuals over 45 years of age have sex only for pleasure.

Please reply to my previous six posts.