• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I think it needs to be pointed out here that there is no "secular" science versus "religious" science or something. There is just the scientific method.
I did not invent the distinction I adopted it from non-theists. They always said to post what secular science agrees with. I think it more accurate to say secular scientists not science by why the need for clarification I do not know.

And I'll point out yet again, that it is possible for life to come from non-life.
Yes it is possible for life to do so, even with effectual laws against, probabilities so absurd they are humorous, and no known example even on purpose ever observed, but yes possible. The issue is reasonably likely. The answer is NO.

It is possible I might win the Lottery 100 times in a row but not dang likely. Abiogenesis is far far more improbable.
Remember how the building blocks of life were found to be able to be formed from inorganic matter? I'm not letting you repeatedly make the claim over and over that this can't possibly happen when we know that it can and when it has been pointed out to you a zillion times now.
I do not think I ever said impossible in some hyper literal sense. You sure spend a lot of time discussing semantics and technicalities all the while leaving the issue untouched. What point is there is discussing everything that is not completely impossible. It is not impossible you are an alien. It is not impossible that reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I instead discuss things I have reasons to believe exist or should.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Gonzalez is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. He's a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, so it sounds to me like he is employed. He wasn't fired from his job anywhere, he was denied tenure at Iowa State University based on the fact that during his 7 years there he had no major grants, he hadn't published any significant research in all that time and that he had only one graduate student finish a dissertation. Now, I don't know how much you know about professorship and tenures and such, but that's a perfectly valid reason to deny someone tenure. If you're not producing anything (which is your job), why should they keep you on? If you work as a server at McDonald's and haven't served any food to anyone in your 7 years with the company, are you a productive, efficient worker, or not?

He didn't lose his job because he believes in god.



Marks is a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, not a biologist. He's currently employed at Baylor University.

I'm not sure why you listed him.


Egnor is a neurosurgeon, not a biologist. (That's 0 for 3 so far). He has been serving as a professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Stony Brook University since 1991. So this guy wasn't fired from anywhere for believing in god either. (0 for 3 again.)



Crocker is an immunopharmacologist, not a biologist. (She also has a Master's degree in medical microbiology). She wasn't fired from her job for believing in god, her non-tenure contract simply wasn't renewed by . That's not weird or outrageous, it's fairly normal. She's upset because the universities she was employed at wouldn't allow her to make long ago debunked claims about creationism in her classroom (rightfully so) and furthermore, she was teaching material that wasn't part of the curriculum which is unfair to her students.

I don't know why you listed her either.


I suggest you continue reading the rest of this page you've linked me to.


Funny how you don't mention religious folks like Frances Collins, who is currently Director of the National Institutes of Health. Gee, how did a god believer get to such an important position? Sounds to me like you're not actually describing what's going on, given the fact that none of the people you listed are biologists, none of them lost their jobs due to their belief in god and most of them are currently employed. And the example I just provided (Frances Collins) further refutes your conspiracy argument.

You should probably throw your copy of Expelled into the garbage where it belongs.
Ok you got me here. I mistakenly made an unnecessarily very specific claim. Way more specific than intended or needed. If you were half as capable with issues as you are with technicalities and trivial semantics you would have a Nobel. However you are right, my mistake. I intended to say that science based professionals have suffered for reasons associated with their faith at the hand of non-faith groups or individuals. Of course you will find some excuse for their punishment, do you really expect them to say "of course we fired him he brought a Bible to the teachers lounge". Come on. Have you ever seen No intelligence allowed. I haven't but understand it was about these issues. If I posted half the occurances of this I have ran across in my days of apologetics it would be in the hundreds and hundreds. As the apostle of common sense said the freedom of religion means the right to discuss any religion but your own. Heck, the most powerfull empires on Earth attempted to kill us off a few times. What goes on in academia is light weight stuff.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I agree they produced very low complexity entities by guessing what was true 4 billion years ago. I never even thought iron, copper, water; amino acids and countless simple things can't be created by nature. No one does. However higher complexity chemical evolution is problematic and life is on the complexity scale so far away from amino acids it can even be detected.


You never thought that? Then why do you keep asserting it's impossibility?

"Higher complexity chemical evolution" is apparently only problematic in your mind and it runs counter to the available evidence. I see you've shifted the goal post here.
Amino acids are not alive. BY the way water and oxygen destroy amino acids yet that is what they are claimed to have been formed in. :


They are organic compounds (formed from gases in the Miller-Urey experiment) which are used to build proteins which catalyze metabolic reactions, respond to stimuli, replicate DNA, etc. Which again, is the point.

It's strange that you would assert that water destroys amino acids because water was one of the components used to carry out the Miller-Urey experiments.

Something is off. This is part of it
Miller's first step was to create an atmosphere containing the chemicals of which amino acids are composed. He then passed a spark through his chosen atmosphere. Small amounts of amino acids were produced.2
Does this mean life could form?
There were problems:
• Only around half of the twenty amino acids from which proteins are formed were produced.
• A much larger quantity of other chemicals, mostly useless tars, was also formed.


So what? Quit avoiding the point.

• Had there been oxygen in the atmosphere it would have combined with the other chemicals in the atmosphere so that no amino acids would have formed. Some researchers think oxygen was there all along:
"But many researchers now hold that the ancient Earth's atmosphere, compared with the earlier view, had more oxygen and less hydrogen-as the atmosphere does today. Amino acids don't form as readily under that condition as they did in the 1953 experiment, and when they do form, they tend to break apart."3


This is false. The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere contained 0.1% oxygen (maybe even less).
• After the first spark had produced amino acids, additional sparks would have broken them down again. To prevent this, Miller built a trap into the apparatus to take newly formed amino acids out of the cycle and save them from destruction. The trap is usually more or less ignored, but its presence means Miller's experiment does not show what might happen in nature. The trap ensured the survival of amino acids. In nature, where there is no trap, if any amino acids were created, the quantity which survived would have been negligible. That is why Miller included the trap.
"How Life Began" - Chapter 1


So what? Quit avoiding the point.

There is more than one Miller-Urey experiment. There are also others conducted by other scientists that I mentioned to you days ago.
See:
-Juan Oro was able to produce the organic compound known as adenine which is one of the 4 bases of RNA and DNA.
-Friedrich Wohler was able to synthesize the organic compound known as urea.
-Sidney W. Fox showed that amino acids can spontaneously form small peptides.
-Sol Spiegelman was able to produce a lifeform with just 48 nucleotides.
-Sumper and Eigen discovered that given the right conditions, a mixture containing no RNA at all but only RNA bases and Q-Beta Replicase, can spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA.

Should I go on? Are you going to continue to evade the point?

Again Amino acids are not life. Life is a cell. Amino acids compose things that compose things that compose things that compose cells. The steps in complexity reach insane puposrtions. Is Miller the best they have even after 50 years and he cheated. Surely there has been better attempts even if still abject failures.


I'm not saying amino acids are life. I'm saying they are the elements that make up life, just like proteins and nucleotides. Without them, you don't have life as we know it. It's not all that complex, especially when it can be shown that one builds upon the next and that they come together and produce chemical reactions.

Miller is not the best they have and you know that since I've already mentioned several others. Ignoring them doesn't bolster your argument.

I find it extremely odd and somewhat hilarious that you consider the formation of organic materials from inorganic materials (something you've said is impossible) to be abject failures. Are you kidding me?

Let me say it one last time. Actually I will give an example since explanations are not working. If you break up a thousand piece puzzle and put the pieces in a bag and shake, you will occasionally get a few to fit together but never enough to even recognize what the puzzle is. An amino acid is like 2 or 3 pieces getting together. However like all natural processes you will never get a significant portion of the puzzle together. The reason is the simple fact that the chances things form wrong or break apart is absurdly more probable than they form up correctly and stay there until all 3.2 billion pieces of just one DNA strand for instance is created. This is why lower than equilibrium complexity is very common in nature and why much higher than equilibrium complexity never occurs unless directed through information which can only come from mind as it's dynamics are even more restrictive. It is a little simplistic but a very accurate example and I got it from a brilliant and famous Chemist and 3 star General.


Your analogies are nonsense and have been refuted by others. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat them. They're just false. You're arguing against things we already know can (and do) happen.

PhD A. E Wilder (which even if divine and perfect, you will do anything necessary to try and discredit) Good luck.
Excuse me?

No, it's called producing a condition that does not reflect the condition that existed for the specific purpose of getting what you want even if what you want is not 1 trilionth enough.
Nope, it isn't. It's called experimentation.

You're still evading the point.

What in the world is natural about a scientist in a lab putting the most probable chemicals in tank, making sure the ones that are harmful are absent even when we know they were there and possibly in higher concentrations they are today, and zapping them with an artificial spark until you get what you want and then stopping the spark with a trap. There is not one natural thing in that experiment.
This has been explained to you umpteen times already. Quit ignoring it and simply repeating yourself.

Avoiding what? Abject failure to do even a small fraction of what is necessary to overcome abiogenesis, or did you create life while I was not looking. Organic does not equal life. In fact anything containing non binary carbon is organic.

AVOIDING THE POINT I'VE MADE A HUNDRED TIMES NOW. The building blocks of life come together to form life. What on earth do you think life is made up of????

If life is composed of let's say a million things happening. Miller got half of number 6 right by cheating and you yell victory. I hope you grade any tests I take in the future.
What I yell is, "Wow that's awesome! Who would have thought it was possible! Let's continue experimenting and see what else we can come up with."

You stick your fingers in your ears and yell, "Amino acids aren't life! Scientists cheat when they experiment with possible early conditions present on earth! They conspire to kick god believers out of the lab! God did it!"

Come on.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Since there is no way to even if it exists to study or evaluate it I think whatever standards you use will be futile. You are locked onto this exit ramp like grim death. Why?

Sure there is, by testing the hypothesis. By looking for examples of minds existing without brains. By testing brains.

Well it is very nice to hear someone actually say this. Let me ask you this then, why are these faith based guesses used as a counter argument to the solid, current, and God consistent cosmological model of a finite universe?

Because they're not faith based guesses; there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural; the fine universe model isn't exactly solid; and the god hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

After further experimentation and discoveries, they could be thrown out and replaced with new models based on the evidence produced from earlier experiments. That's one of the things I like about science.

How can quantum mechanics which is in it's infancy and relativity which is also little understood but are both only known to be true or applicable to this universe able to identify something we have no access to any level.
We attempt to access it and test it. That's how.

By all means keep researching them but they are no more substantial that a disembodied mind and currently there is no competing model for many things we find in reality that we can actually access. Not that I think the concept one that can be meaningfully evaluated, at least I am honest about it.

Because we know minds are products of brains. Do you have evidence otherwise?

Theology and fantasy mostly. It is like Dark matter in a way. Can't be detected, can't be measured, is unlike anything we know about "light" matter but yet almost logically necessary given the reality of Galaxies. Both are place holders for whatever is actually is that is producing effects we can measure. A mind also is consistent with theology, and the only candidate even possible by philosophy. Before nature only two things could exist. A non-contingent mind and abstract concepts. Abstract concepts are non-causal.

How is a disembodied mind considered logically necessary?

Not only do I not know how complex, no one does, or even can speculate.

I can speculate as long as I want to. I can apply logic and reason, and I'm pretty sure you can too. The fact that you won't even go there is perplexing to me.

Seriously, if your god created the entire universe which you find to be extremely complex, doesn't god have to be even more complex than that to have done such a thing? Think about it.

As for where he comes from that is simple. Only things that begin to exist have origins. If you balk at this then consider this. Given an effect it can't possibly have an infinite causal regression. It absolutely must have an uncaused first cause. The universe began to exist, (it quite literally can't have always existed and current cosmology agrees). By philosophy it's cause is non-natural, non-material, independent of time, more powerful, and knowledgeable than we can comprehend. That is exactly the way a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age Hebrews described God 4000 years before they had any idea what to fake.

Nah, Kalam's cosmological argument is full of holes. William Lane Craig's is filled with even bigger holes. One of which I pointed out to you.

I assert that a bunch of Bronze Age Hebrews who didn't understand the world they lived in just made things up to explain them. Just like all the people who came before them who posited thousands of different gods and who didn't understand where lightning came from. My 4 year old nephew does the same thing to explain where Batman came from or why the sky is blue. He thinks our dead loved ones can come down from heaven on a slide and visit us.


Well I know little to add but one thing I have checked into is NDEs. This area is a minefield of cons, garbage, mistakes, and a few that defy explanation. There are dozens of stories, well documented of people near or at death that knew things they had no way to perceive like events at other locations. One I saw recently was a lady they literally killed her brain on purpose, not only that they drained the blood from for some last ditch extreme procedure. She woke up with knowledge she had no method of detecting. Others about trips to heaven or hell. Of course we should all be skeptical but every once in a while there are very documented ones that strike me as genuine and details exist that have only one explanation. There are recent bestselling books on some of them. Currently I believe it is possible the mind is greater than biology (more so than millions of universes exist and especially that eternal ones do) but don't know.
I've had lots of dreams too. Our brains are good at that.

All existing evidence points to the fact that minds are products of brains. Apparently given that minds cease to exist when brains do.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I did not invent the distinction I adopted it from non-theists. They always said to post what secular science agrees with. I think it more accurate to say secular scientists not science by why the need for clarification I do not know.


Okay, I guess I have to take your word for it. I just find it a bit strange.

Yes it is possible for life to do so, even with effectual laws against, probabilities so absurd they are humorous, and no known example even on purpose ever observed, but yes possible. The issue is reasonably likely. The answer is NO.


What laws against it?

Your probablitiy argument has been blown out of the water by others on this thread.

And we do in fact have several known examples of this occurring.

It is possible I might win the Lottery 100 times in a row but not dang likely. Abiogenesis is far far more improbable.


It's possible that an omniscient, omnipotent disembodied mind that exists outside of time and space, who cares about every aspect of human life, created the universe but not dang likely.

Abiogenesis is in fact probable, as has been demonstrated.

I do not think I ever said impossible in some hyper literal sense. You sure spend a lot of time discussing semantics and technicalities all the while leaving the issue untouched. What point is there is discussing everything that is not completely impossible. It is not impossible you are an alien. It is not impossible that reality was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I instead discuss things I have reasons to believe exist or should.
Leaving the issue untouched? Are you kidding me?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Ok you got me here. I mistakenly made an unnecessarily very specific claim. Way more specific than intended or needed. If you were half as capable with issues as you are with technicalities and trivial semantics you would have a Nobel. However you are right, my mistake. I intended to say that science based professionals have suffered for reasons associated with their faith at the hand of non-faith groups or individuals. Of course you will find some excuse for their punishment, do you really expect them to say "of course we fired him he brought a Bible to the teachers lounge". Come on. Have you ever seen No intelligence allowed. I haven't but understand it was about these issues. If I posted half the occurances of this I have ran across in my days of apologetics it would be in the hundreds and hundreds. As the apostle of common sense said the freedom of religion means the right to discuss any religion but your own. Heck, the most powerfull empires on Earth attempted to kill us off a few times. What goes on in academia is light weight stuff.
Trivial semantics? You made a claim. I refuted it. Your claim was shown to be in error. Thank you for being honest about it but I take issue with your assertion that this is all just trivial semantics.

I have seen No Intelligence Allowed, which is why I said you should throw it in the trash. It's a terrible mischaracterization of science. Frances Collins should not be Director of the NIH if anything in that silly documentary has any merit. They're not going to say "we fired this guy for reading a Bible in the teacher's lounge" because that's not what happened.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Color commentary an argument does not make, especially when inaccurate.
I'm sorry, but I find it to be highly accurate.

If it's okay for you to make the assertion in regards to other people when you feel it's warranted, it should be okay for me to do the same.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I'm sorry, but I find it to be highly accurate.

If it's okay for you to make the assertion in regards to other people when you feel it's warranted, it should be okay for me to do the same.
You are nothing if not prolific. I diassagree with this but no longer care, for today anyway. I will post soon, have a good weekend.
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
You do realize this is not my rule but a rule used in secular science don't you? If you disagree then tell them they are the ones who decided to equate these things.
Borel's Law = ...Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 1050 have a zero probability of ever happening.... This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel....
I will say I have no idea how pervasive adoption of this law is. Could be everyone, could by only a certain percentage. I have never looked. Heck we can just assume it isn't zero. Still won't get life from non-life. The numbers actually involved are staggeringly higher.
1) This is not a Law but more like a rule of thumb for making approximations.
2) Mathematicians do not agree with it.

From RationalWiki:
It was intended as a rule of thumb for specific scenarios before they happen. Borel introduced it in a book written for non-scientists, as an example of the kind of logic that any scientist might use to generate estimates of the minimum probability below which events of a particular type are considered negligible. It was created for specific physical examples, not as a universal law. It certainly does not mean that any probability below 10−50 is automatically zero, which is contradictory.

The probability of an event with odds of 1 in 1050 is 10−50. Small, yes. Negligible, yes — but not zero. You can observe such events happening to you every night. Although the probability of a photon emitted in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2.6 million light years from Earth, reaching your eye is only 8.1 · 10−51, the galaxy is clearly visible in the night sky. If you roll a fair ten-sided die 51 times, the probability of rolling this particular sequence is 10−51. These observations are impossible according to the proponents of universal application of "Borel's law."
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Borel's law:

p=1 only when n->∞. It's not p=1 when n=x. Creationists epic fail!

Borel strong law of large numbers - Encyclopedia of Mathematics

With that said:
Sometimes, arguments exhibiting Hoyle's Fallacy also invoke Borel's Law, which claims incorrectly that highly improbable events do not occur.[1] (If all possible outcomes of a natural process are highly improbable, then a highly improbable outcome is certain). The true Borel's Law is actually the Strong Law of large numbers, but creationists have taken a simple statement made by Borel in books written late in his life concerning probability theory and called this statement Borel's Law.

This "Borel's Law" is actually the universal probability bound, which makes sense mathematically, but when applied to evolution is axiomatically incorrect. The universal probability bound assumes that the event one is trying to measure is completely random, and some use this argument to prove that evolution could not possibly occur, since its probability would be much less than that of the universal probability bound. This, however, is fallacious, given that evolution is not a completely random effect (genetic drift), but rather proceeds with the aid of natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

And so on... it's just another fundamentalist creationists weak attempts of throwing as much as they can on the wall and hope some of that spaghetti sticks.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Ok you got me here. I mistakenly made an unnecessarily very specific claim. Way more specific than intended or needed. If you were half as capable with issues as you are with technicalities and trivial semantics you would have a Nobel. However you are right, my mistake. I intended to say that science based professionals have suffered for reasons associated with their faith at the hand of non-faith groups or individuals. Of course you will find some excuse for their punishment, do you really expect them to say "of course we fired him he brought a Bible to the teachers lounge". Come on. Have you ever seen No intelligence allowed. I haven't but understand it was about these issues. If I posted half the occurances of this I have ran across in my days of apologetics it would be in the hundreds and hundreds. As the apostle of common sense said the freedom of religion means the right to discuss any religion but your own. Heck, the most powerfull empires on Earth attempted to kill us off a few times. What goes on in academia is light weight stuff.

Typical 1robin tactic:

1- Make a specific claim.
2- Be asked for evidence of that claim.
3- Present evidence of claim.
4- Evidence is thoroughly and completely refuted and claim is revealed to be entirely untrue.
5- Desperately try to make out like the claim was actually a different claim, and blame any inconvenient facts on giant, scientific conspiracy while asserting that you have lots of other evidence for it that you will probably never present.

I've seen dishonesty in my time, but this is a whole other level.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I do not think there is a massive conspiracy in science.
Yes, you do. You've claimed several times that people who try and insert God into science are cast out and that scientists only ever look for possible answers which don't involve God, and even those who believe there is are kept quiet or their jobs are threatened. That's a conspiracy.

In fact I hate and reject just about every conspiracy claim I have ever heard. What they do is attributable to simple human fallibility and their theological presuppositions. It has little organization or cohesion and exists in all belief systems. What makes their actions unique is that unlike most others they deny bias and assert evidence as the judge of all.
What you are suggesting is that millions of scientists have a "theological presupposition", and that that presupposition creates results within science based on a particular bias. That's called a conspiracy theory.

They and the ones that give them an almost omniscient status go on and own about proof and evidence but violate their own requirements in the majority or areas that are used for arguments against theism.
Violations which you have never, not even once, demonstrated. And scientists en masse say nothing whatsoever about theism, this claim is blatantly false.

Multiverses, string theory, abiogenesis, eternal universes, oscillating universes, teh dismissal of the supernatural etc... Have almost no evidence what so ever, in some cases not even a potentiality for any, and in some actually contradict very well evidenced science, or claim that things that have never been observed are concrete facts.
You're not qualified to dismiss these (mostly theoretical) claims, and none of them have anything whatsoever to do with theism.

You may assign whatever motivation to this you wish it exists and is a fact.
No, it isn't, it's a conspiracy theory.

I only demand consistent standards not any certain standard. In fact I can prove that every single fact of science has a large element of faith involved.
You really, really can't. Are you seriously that arrogant?

I do not even think that is wrong, I just insist it be admitted as I do with my claims.
Please, don't bring everyone down to your level.

First of all once again even if true you have absolutely no way to know this about creationists.
You mean, except if I demonstrate that they continue to lie and make arguments which have been utterly refuted?

First you do not have the capacity nor the education to have verified the majority of what creationists have said.
I have the reading comprehension and the basic grasp of science required to read and identify lies when I see them.

Also, I love the fact that I "do not have the capacity or the education" to analyze creationist claims; yet you, apparently, have both the capacity and education to prove that every single fact in science is based on faith. Irony?

Second creationists are a diverse group and some of their claims are almost identical to secular science.
An incredibly diverse group made up almost entirely of fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. Yeah...

You did not say the claim I made was false. You said I lied and that will not be put up with by me for several reasons.
In spite of the fact that it was an obvious lie?

1. Asserting a lie is offensive and honor demands that the one making it be sure. 2. Lying requires intent. 3. You can't possibly know that I knowingly made a false statement even if it was true. 4. I am the only human on Earth that knows why I said what I said.
You said something that clearly false, that you had a vested interest in saying based on your presuppositions, and something that - given even a basic understanding of genetics - you would have known was utterly and ludicrously false. You're a smart guy, so I assume you have at the very least a basic grasp of genetics, so therefore I accused you making a claim that was a lie rather than just wrong, because you clearly present yourself as someone who at least attempts to know the facts.

Instead of whining about "honor", how about your just apologize for your mistake, or demonstrate that you weren't lying?

Summary: Your claims of lying are dishonorable, wrong, theatric, and probably made for effect, and there is little to be gained in a discussion with a person with those motivations and lack of honor.
We're not jousting, 1robin. This is a debate. In a debate, when one side feels the other is lying, they should call them out on it. I gave my reasons, now you either admit that you made a mistake or admit that you lied. Either is acceptable.

I never evangelize but am interested in apologetics. I have spent years watching every debate, reading every transcript and book, and debating people of every persuasion I can. It is always the non-theist (mostly atheistic) evolutionists that are apparently so miserable and mad at everything and everyone that disagrees who will make unknown assertions and false accusations.
You mean, like your unknown assertions that there is a massive theological prejudice in modern science? Or the false claims you make constantly about probability, abiogenesis and genetics? Why is it that you're allowed to call millions of scientists liars, without any evidence whatsoever, but it's always "us damn atheists" who resort to "unknown assertions and false accusations?" Remove the log from your eye. I'm sick of your horrendous double-standards.

You did the same thing again and even got the motivation so wrong it's abhorrent. You 1. Can't know my intent.
Then you can't know the intent of millions of scientists, either.

2. Can't know why I lied even if I did.
I have my reasons and explained the evidence I had for them. It's quite elementary, really.

Yet claim knowledge of both. Pathetic, not to mention stupid. I stand to lose everything I have, if I follow a belief I have to justify by lying.
Then you shouldn't be a creationist. I've already demonstrated lots of lies you believe, either knowingly or otherwise.

There is zero motivation and actually quite a bit of inconvenience. I am not a Pope holding onto power, nor a Jihadist brain washed from child hood. I was an atheist for 27 years and saw things that convinced me I was as you are, wrong.
And now have a vested interest in preserving your newfound allusion, even at the cost of spreading misinformation, as you are now doing.

Here is a very important point. I then followed the Gospels spiritual roadmap and found exactly what I it promised. I literally experienced God and it was unmistakable and perfectly consistent with what salvation is described in the Bible as (which I did not even know or expect at the time). I have personal confirmation that God exists and you have no confirmation he does not, even possible.
What does this have to do with your lying? I'm not interested in your personal delusions, I'm interested in the facts and how accurately we represent them.

That means I can personally justify my faith even if 95% of the Bible was a fairy tale, I need no lies to protect no claims because my faith is not derived by intellectual consent to a historical proposition but an actual spiritual proof, and evolution is no threat to either.
And? Your faith is not in question; your claims are.

That is different. I know that many of the claims they make are guesses, faith based, or nothing based. I never or usually never use lie nor even dishonesty. 9 out of 10 times I say they are using double standards and drawing a metric ton of theory from a gram of data if that much. It is the quality of information not the motive I mention most times, there is no equality with what you said.
And there is no logic, reason, evidence or factual basis of any kind for anything that you have said regarding this subject.

Nope, but I do prioritize and am very suspicious of theoretical people.
And I'm suspicious of people who experience personal delusions and use them as a basis for looking at reality.

I have 190 sem hours in technical fields and a math degree. I would wager given the odds that my job is vastly more technical and scientific than yours unless you have a masters or higher and I am obsessed with the debates about these issues and have probably watched more than 200 hours of them and have transcripts of many. I know very well what the current status of argumentation is in general.
And yet you claimed that 99.9999...% of mutations are fatal. You're clearly not as educated, or at least as honest, as you're trying to portray.

That is why I resent the incessant claims by your side that if anyone disagrees it is because they are stupid or ignorant.
Even if the claims are true? Which, in my experience, they are.

The rest of your post is just rambling, and I'm not remotely interested in it. If you want to demonstrate that you are honest, there is one way to do it that beats going on extended autobiographical rants about how honest you are. And it's really very simple: make honest claims. So far, you have made very few.
 
Last edited:

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Hey check it out
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87669-god-did-not-create-anything.html

something to throw into your Mathmatical formula, God is not the only infinite person in existence.

Right.

"Creating" is really about remodeling, reforming, and renewing. Creation is a form of Evolution. A painter for instance uses existent paint, canvas, material, motif, tools, etc. And "creates" something new by applying existing paint to existing canvas using existing tool, etc. Nature "creates" constantly when a plant grows up in a spot where nothing has grown before, or the plant looks slightly different than any other "sibling". Or when a sand dune is formed in a spot and shape different than before. It's all what real creativity is about.

That "creative" force (spirit according to Thief) of existing material is infinite, eternal, and non-changing (in the sense that it will always do this). The existing material (substance according to Thief) is also infinite and eternal, and will always exist. Spirit and substance are two, yet one, and omnipresent and eternal.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Right.

"Creating" is really about remodeling, reforming, and renewing. Creation is a form of Evolution. A painter for instance uses existent paint, canvas, material, motif, tools, etc. And "creates" something new by applying existing paint to existing canvas using existing tool, etc. Nature "creates" constantly when a plant grows up in a spot where nothing has grown before, or the plant looks slightly different than any other "sibling". Or when a sand dune is formed in a spot and shape different than before. It's all what real creativity is about.

That "creative" force (spirit according to Thief) of existing material is infinite, eternal, and non-changing (in the sense that it will always do this). The existing material (substance according to Thief) is also infinite and eternal, and will always exist. Spirit and substance are two, yet one, and omnipresent and eternal.

Do you allow for illusion to be included in the creative process? Because if you do, then this CAN account (quite beautifully) for the 'material' from which the universe is composed in that the problem of origin is solved. What we see as the physical universe is nothing more than a manifestation, an apparition. In other words, the 'material' we all are trying to figure out an origin for, is not real to begin with, and as I understand, current science tells us that the actual atomic material of the universe is something around 6%. The rest is empty space. In addition, cutting edge theoretical physicists are coming up with models that suggest a universe out of nothing, which is what the East has been telling us all along: that everything comes out of nothing.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda
 
Last edited:

Flat Earth Kyle

Well-Known Member

Do you allow for illusion to be included in the creative process? Because if you do, then this CAN account (quite beautifully) for the 'material' from which the universe is composed in that the problem of origin is solved. What we see as the physical universe is nothing more than a manifestation, an apparition. In other words, the 'material' we all are trying to figure out an origin for, is not real to begin with, and as I understand, current science tells us that the actual atomic material of the universe is something around 6%. The rest is empty space. In addition, cutting edge astrophysics is coming up with models that suggest a universe out of nothing, which is what the East has been telling us all along: that everything comes out of nothing.

"The universe is the Absolute as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation"
Vivikenanda

The problem is there is no basis that anything has ever come from nothing.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
The problem is there is no basis that anything has ever come from nothing.

There is, as I mentioned, now a scientific basis for that idea:


[youtube]9urEFoaI1iY[/youtube]
A Universe from Nothing - YouTube

But if you reject that idea, we are back to square one, and at square one, we are faced with the perennial problem: how did the matter of the universe originate?

But another question: on which basis do you determine that 'something' even exists? Were it not for nothingness, how could you possibly know? If you can follow this logic, then it becomes clear that every-thing is dependent upon no-thing, in exactly the same manner that solid is dependent upon space, and if everything depends upon nothing, then everything must have come from it.
 
Last edited:
Top