INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

You should have said that is not a convenient answer for you, for anything. In fact is a perfect answer and about the only one available.

What I say is that it's not actually an answer, nevermind a perfect one. An answer should be something that provides an explanation as to how something exists or operates. "God did it" doesn't do that. It just takes something you don't know or can't explain, and inserts something else you don't know or can't explain. Especially if you can't demonstrate that the thing you're inserting as the explanation (god, in this case) even exists at all. You're just compounding the confusion. Even if you could say "god did it," you've provided no explanation as to how that god did it. I.e., it gets you nowhere.

I heard a PhD say one time that he rejected "God did it" because it did not allow science to do anything. So what? Reality does not exist to allow scientists something to do.

What he probably said was what I said above, that it doesn't provide any actual answers or explanations. And it doesn't. Even if you could say "god did it" you haven't determined which god did it, or how that god did it. It's really a non-answer. That's fine for people who are okay with non-answers, but some of us really care about what's true and what isn't and the way to find that out isn't just to insert god into an equation when we don't even know if there are any gods in existence in the first place.

If God did it, he did it whether anyone believes or likes it or not. That is a silly determination.

Some god either exists or it doesn't. If it does, there's no reason to believe it's the god you believe in. Maybe it's Thor, or Zeus, of Allah.

"If god did it, then god did it" doesn't get us anywhere either. Which god? How?

Regardless the reason God is a good or in fact the only known candidate for what created the universe is that philosophers have concluded that before the nature existed (that immediately rule out natural causes, nature can't create its self) only two concepts can possibly exist.

Philosophy is great and all, but I'm interested in what's demonstrable.

Your god is not, in fact the only known candidate for what created the universe (there are many possibilities, probably some we haven't even thought up yet). You have yet to demonstrate your assertion with actual evidence.

Abstract concepts and disembodied minds. Abstract concepts do not create anything. That leaves a disembodied mind. By the laws of cause and effect it is also fairly certain that whatever the cause was had to have almost the exact characteristics given to God 4000 years ago and long before they knew what characteristics a cause needed in order for them to fake it.

And again, we have no known examples of minds existing without brains. You need to demonstrate that such things do exist, if this is the idea you want to posit. And if you want to follow your own law of cause and effect then you are left having to explain where your god came from, unless you want engage in a special pleading fallacy.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the bolded part of your statement. What characteristics? Because it's pretty obvious to me that the people who wrote the Bible had no access to any special information that none of us are privy to today, in fact, I would argue they knew a helluva lot less about everything than we know today. It's pretty obvious to me, that the Bible was written by humans in an attempt to make some sense of the world around them and that it was written for the people that lived within the time it was written, rather than for future humans thousands of years into the future.

Convergent confirmation is powerful. That being said, certainly we may some day discover another cause. However as of today God is the only candidate whether that is convenient or not.

I would say confirmation bias is powerful.

It may be the only candidate in your mind, but again, it doesn't provide us with any actual explanations.

If you doubt that science conclusion are driven by theological preference please read this:
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, (and they were all wrong) and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; ( They complained about a scientific conclusion because they did not like its implications) this objection was later repeated by supporters of thesteady state theory.[41] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[42] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" (so science facts are determined by what he likes or dislikes, ughhh) to him.[43][44] Lemaître, however, thought that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Bolded comments are mine.

The hypothesis of a steady state universe was discarded when new evidence was discovered that countered the hypothesis (this is how science works). That evidence included the discovery of quasars and radio galaxies which were found only at great distances and the biggest nail in the coffin was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965.

Now, onto the point you're trying to make, which I gather is that scientists determine what they accept or not based on their religious beliefs (or in this case, their lack of religious beliefs). If that were actually the case, as you assert, then the big bang theory would not have been adopted as the prevailing explanation for the formation of the universe. And yet it is. So there goes your point.

The negation of your point further proves mine - that scientists go in the direction where the evidence leads them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The scientific community demanding rigorous proof from a faith based theological system, however only supply faith based guesses in many cases from their own "fact" based scientific field and deciding what is true based on what is preferred is hypocritical and exhausting.

You don't get to repeat this anymore because you just demonstrated that it's false.

This may or may not apply to you, I have not made it past your first statement but is generally true concerning science. Any fantasy will do in science, evidence, no evidence, even contrary evidence and God resisted, no matter how much, how high the quality, nor if there even exists no competing theory. At this pace my response will be 100,000 words.

False.

And let's just get this straight: Science doesn't look for god or look to negate god. It's purpose is to find and demonstrate evidence and explanations that describe how this universe we live in operates. In order to do this, we need demonstrable, empirical and usable explanations.

Exactly and if fact they do. The evidence for purple unicorns is just as great as for multiverses. I conclude God exists using the exact same methods as science does for dark matter and energy. Neither can be detected, however the theorizing of each explains facts known to exist in reality and both concepts are perfect fits for the effects. In fact God is more quantified and more evidenced than dark matter.

You've repeated this more times than I can count. Please provide demonstrable evidence for the existence of your god. (Please spare us the William Lane Craig arguments).

Yet he is resisted with militant commitment and dark matter is rarely even questioned.

Again, dark matter, string theories, etc. are based on some basic evidential information but are not asserted as absolute fact. These are things scientists are currently still working out.

Again this is not necessarily directed at you but in general.
There is a huge amount of stuff that a natural explanation is not even eligible to answer. For instance morality. Natural law states what is. Morality is what should be. Evolution can produce survival based preferences it can't provide objective right and wrong.

We've been through this one several times now too. Myself and others have explained to you the various avenues by which humans have come by moral behaviors. You can assert til your blue in the face that there is no morality with god, but that's all it is: an empty assertion at this point.

Also in a post I wrote to which you have not responded, I explained how Christianity appears to me to be simply about obedience to authority, rather than a system of morality, which is far more arbitrary than the system that humans have actually adopted. I don't see how the Christian assertions about obedience to authority is moral in any sense of the word.

In our context nature is not even a candidate for the universe because it did not exist prior to the universe. In fact nature can't cause anything to exist. The law 2 + 2 = 4 can't produce 4 of anything. If you wait for math to put money in your account you will be bankrupt. If you wait for a natural explanation for nature you will be intellectually bankrupt.

I disagree. Practically every time in history when humans have grafted godly characteristics onto what they considered unexplainable phenomena without god, we have found a perfectly valid and reasonable naturalistic explanation for all of them.

Can you even imagine what a small fraction of knowable things we actually know?

There is a ton of stuff we don't know, but that doesn't mean we'll never know. Think about how little the people living 4000 years ago knew about their world. We've come a pretty long way since then, wouldn't you say?

Almost every major question of existence has no natural explanation possible.

BS.

What is the meaning of my life?

Whatever you make it.

What is the purpose of the universe and humanity?

Whatever we choose to make it.

Where are we going?

Who knows?

Why does 99% of the world believe murder is wrong even if everyone else disagreed with each individual?

Because 99% of the world decided at some point that it's more beneficial for everyone to live together in social communities to help each other survive, and so we determined that living in a community where anyone could kill anyone for any reason whatsoever cannot accomplish this, so we outlawed murder and decided to punish those who would murder on a whim because they threaten the safety and security of the civilization we have made.

Why are over 2000 plus Biblical prophecies accurate in every detail?

They're not.

Why do all cultures believe some supernatural dimension exists?

Because people want answers for things they don't understand and can't explain.

Why is mind greater than matter?

Neuroscientists are working on this one. They've made a lot of progress on it.

Why is there anything at all?

Good question. There could be nothing instead.

Why do we have an abundance of life when no exception to the rule life only comes from life is known?

We've been over this one a thousand times, and I can see you're never going to change your tune on it, no matter what evidence is presented to you.

*Sigh*

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do we have absurdly complex information encoded in nature when the only known source of information is mind? etc ad infinitum.

The only known source of information is mind? What?

Oh yes science does insert mysteries. Science has become a manufacturing plant for mysteries.

The scientific method was designed as an attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe, and continues to do so.

However the only mystery that will not be even considered is God.

People have been asserting the existence of tens of thousands of different gods since the dawn of humanity and none of them have yet to demonstrate the existence of any god.

That is very revealing and also predicted in the Bible.

Wow, so it's predicted in the Bible that people wouldn't believe the claims of the Bible?

Big deal. They're some pretty far out claims. What a great way to convince people that the claims are true.

God either did or did not create everything. Whether that is convenient, allows science to do science, or whether that is explainable to anyone is irrelevant.

Again, which god? How do you know it's your god?

It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant to people who are concerned about what is true and what isn't true.

Science is as faith based as theology.

No, it is not. And repeating it over and over will never make it true. Again, stop trying to equate religion with science, they have very little, if anything, in common.

How can science prove reality did not begin 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age? It presuppposes all kinds of stuff: The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.
Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The big bang is based on observable evidence, as noted above.

In fact philosophers say science and math can't even prove science and math are true.

I don't really care what philosophers say about it. Philosophers don't do science.

 

[Skeptisch]

I don't really care what philosophers say about it. Philosophers don't do science.

“In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

 

[SkepticThinker]

“In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, "The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”
― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Great book!

 

[1robin]

What I say is that it's not actually an answer, never mind a perfect one. An answer should be something that provides an explanation as to how something exists or operates.

An answer should be correct. Its reliability is independent of its detail. Dark matter dis it does not explain how it does it. In fact it is not even detectable. Why is it a perfect answer for gravity questions and God not for existence questions? What branch of thought an answer lies within and whether it meets arbitrary explanatory criteria has nothing to do with it's being true or not. God as a concept is virtually identical to the characteristics given for whatever it is that created the universe. The fact that it is not (or falsely claimed) not claimed to be under a "scientific" heading makes no difference. The God hypothesis in many ways is identical to and submits to the exact same methods as many "scientific" concepts. The only difference is that God comes with accountability and other undesirable (to many) additions and that is why preference is introduced. I can supply quotes to prove this if needed.

"God did it" doesn't do that. It just takes something you don't know or can't explain, and inserts something else you don't know or can't explain.

Nope, God is not an unquantifiable or nebulous concept. It's parameters and characteristics already existed long before science. No different that the philosophers stone, dark matter, multiverses, or the Johnny come lately dark matter ideas. Heck not even gravity is a "thing" we understand. We know it exists because of its effect/ We Know God exists because of effects that have no natural explanation and some that have no natural explanation even possible.

Especially if you can't demonstrate that the thing you're inserting as the explanation (god, in this case) even exists at all.

You prove dark matter, multiverses, holographic space, and strings exists then you may have a slight point.

You're just compounding the confusion. Even if you could say "god did it," you've provided no explanation as to how that god did it. I.e., it gets you nowhere.

My job is not to explain how. In countless places science doesn’t know how, and in many it does not even know what and simply invents place holders. My interest is not in explaining how God did it. That is a false criteria in considering if he did. This is double standards nothing more.

What he probably said was what I said above, that it doesn't provide any actual answers or explanations. And it doesn't. Even if you could say "god did it" you haven't determined which god did it, or how that god did it.

I can determine which God is vastly more likely than any other to exist and have done it very easily. I do not care if I know how he did it. Science can't answer that for half the known things it claims. How does Gravity pull things. We know it does and gave this mysterious force a name but that makes it no more explainable than God. Half the crap theoretical scientists invent has no known evidence of any kind. When they start obeying the rules of what they require then it might become relevant.

Some god either exists or it doesn't. If it does, there's no reason to believe it's the god you believe in. Maybe it's Thor, or Zeus, of Allah.

Now that is an ignorant statement. There are innumerable ways to establish the reliability, sufficiency, and quantity of evidence for each God concept. One way is that 99.9% of God's create the universe out of an existent something (proven wrong by cosmology). The Biblical God created time, matter, and space out of nothing. Add that with the other billions of ways of evaluating this issue and almost all God concepts fail in seconds.

"If god did it, then god did it" doesn't get us anywhere either. Which god? How?

Only your side would claim that knowing God exists does not mean anything. The kind of mentality that can reduce the most profound discovery in human history to a footnote is appalling. It would make everything ever discovered in science rolled into one almost irrelevant in comparison. This is baffling.

Philosophy is great and all, but I'm interested in what's demonstrable.

Much in science isn't. Demonstrate macroevolution, abiogenesis, a universe from nothing, multiverses, dark matter, oscillating universes, a natural reason for fine tuning, a natural explanation for many of nature’s constants, the rationality of the universe or any of about a million well accepted theories in science and then you may have a point. The only criteria for science is that whatever is dreamed up is not capable of being proven wrong. You can invent anything in science, even things with no evidence nor even any potentiality of any as long as it is dressed in scientific language and not capable of being easily shown false. (Even that last requirement is thrown out at times).

Your god is not, in fact the only known candidate for what created the universe (there are many possibilities, probably some we haven't even thought up yet). You have yet to demonstrate your assertion with actual evidence.

God requires less faith given more evidence than a multiverse. Currently there are not many reliable possibilities in science. At one time cosmology shows nature did not exist. What causal potentiality does nothing have exactly? Whatever caused everything isn't natural and therefore not in sciences realm. It is by definition supernatural with or without a God. continued below:

 

[1robin]

And again, we have no known examples of minds existing without brains. You need to demonstrate that such things do exist,

I am under no obligation what so ever to explain where an uncaused eternal concept came from. It was good enough for steady state scientists at one time why not Christians. Man this double standard stuff gets old. BY the way every cosmologist prior to 1930 was wrong and would have said a Big Bang had no examples and by your logic could not possibly exist. Fallacies are over used little understood crutches. I almost never use them and instead explain why something is invalid if so. However claiming we have never seen an X and therefor no X exists is completely fallacious.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the bolded part of your statement. What characteristics? Because it's pretty obvious to me that the people who wrote the Bible had no access to any special information that none of us are privy to today, in fact, I would argue they knew a helluva lot less about everything than we know today. It's pretty obvious to me, that the Bible was written by humans in an attempt to make some sense of the world around them and that it was written for the people that lived within the time it was written, rather than for future humans thousands of years into the future.

It demonstrates that scientist "demigod's" used theological preference as an input into what is true or false. You mean you would have known the particulars of Ezekiel by observation? I there is nothing new in the Bible then why were medical "scientists" killing people by the millions up until 1865 or so when the Hebrews 300 years earlier knew about sanitation and disease. There is not one supernatural claim and countless natural ones in the Bible science would have never discovered on it's own.

I would say confirmation bias is powerful.

Agreed. Now whose side is the most guilty. We were all born non-believers, only theists have shown that ability and courage to change their mind and follow the evidence.

It may be the only candidate in your mind, but again, it doesn't provide us with any actual explanations.

There is no requirement that it must beyond the evidence it is true. Why are you demanding things that cause other things meet other demands you arbitrarily make up? The understanding of every detail of mechanism is not the goal of God or the universe.

The hypothesis of a steady state universe was discarded when new evidence was discovered that countered the hypothesis (this is how science works). That evidence included the discovery of quasars and radio galaxies which were found only at great distances and the biggest nail in the coffin was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965.

Yes I know how the big bang came to be the latest educated guess. We have been wrong a thousand times in the past but are always sure we got it right this time and ridicule anyone that challenges it. When science finally does get to the top of the mountain they are haltingly blindly groping up they just might find a group of theologians that have been sitting on the summit for thousands of years. That certainly is the trend.

Now, onto the point you're trying to make, which I gather is that scientists determine what they accept or not based on their religious beliefs (or in this case, their lack of religious beliefs). If that were actually the case, as you assert, then the big bang theory would not have been adopted as the prevailing explanation for the formation of the universe. And yet it is. So there goes your point.

I did not say it was determinative, I said it was influential. Many held out as long as possible against the God indicating finite universe as long as possible (there are a few steady state guys left as well). It seems the moment the Big Bang became too much to fight then instantly, multiverses and oscillating universes were needed. They never stop resisting God even when fantasy is the only retreat.

The negation of your point further proves mine - that scientists go in the direction where the evidence leads them.

Not always willingly and never completely.

 

[1robin]

The only known source of information is mind? What?

Have you been in a hole somewhere?
I work for a PhD who contributes to information theory. He along with many scientists know of only one source for information. Mind. Nature can copy it (though it can't produce the copying mechanism alone) but it can't originate it. Nature can't create greater than equilibrium complexity on its own. However information is much worse. Information is not just complex it is specified complexity. A string of A's from a typewriter is complexity but not specific complexity. It even gets worse information is useless without a decoder tuned to interpret that type of language. So first nature would have to generate not just extreme complexity by its self which is impossible, not just specific extreme complexity, but extreme complexity by one mechanism and then an extremely complex and "tuned" mechanism to decode it in an independent mechanism. Can't be done. Can you name a real example where complexity grows over time outside of evolution?

The scientific method was designed as an attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe, and continues to do so.

The method requires observation and or reproduction. This however is trampled into dust routinely by the same people who hold it up as some kind of intellectual high ground. Has life from non-life ever been observed. I do not know if you were the one who kept saying so, but simple organic matter IS NOT LIFE. How many multiverses have been observed? How whales turning into cows have been reproduced? Don't demand what you will not abide.

People have been asserting the existence of tens of thousands of different gods since the dawn of humanity and none of them have yet to demonstrate the existence of any god.

There are far more facts only explainable by God than are explained by dark mater exclusively. IN fact every atom and process in the universe, without God has no original source.

Wow, so it's predicted in the Bible that people wouldn't believe the claims of the Bible?

That was not the point. It was pointed out in the Bible people would use false standards, invent false history, it even specifically says false science will be used.

Big deal. They're some pretty far out claims. What a great way to convince people that the claims are true.

That was not my purpose. In a forum environment there exists very few people who can possibly change their minds about any world view issue. It is only rarely that someone will concede the slightest point and never a paradigm. I am here for reasons that have nothing to do with evangelism specifically.

Again, which god? How do you know it's your god?

Is this some type of get of theology free card. There are ways of examining what religion sis true that are far better and based on vastly more evidence than which cosmology is true, than evolutionary path is true, or which political system is better. It is absurd to assert if disagreement exists then no answer possible. This is a different topic and a very large one so I have avoided it here but if you wish to discuss comparative religion I am capable.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant to people who are concerned about what is true and what isn't true.

Even if you have to invent it. I was the one that said if God did it then that was a fact. You’re the one that said that if he did it then that did not allow "omniscient scientists" a role and therefore is irrelevant. My view is far more consistent with desiring facts than yours. If God did it he did, if Allah then he did, if no one then no one. I, unlike you add no additional requirements for truth to be true.

No, it is not. And repeating it over and over will never make it true. Again, stop trying to equate religion with science, they have very little, if anything, in common.

Until it has been countered or rendered pointless I will point out that science in many cases is not even faith but pure speculation based in preference. How many facts line up with multiverses exactly? In many others it is faith based educated guesses? Has anyone seen or detected Dark matter? In others it has reasonable evidence but vast holes and problems like evolutionary theory. You believe life came from nonlife but no one has ever seen or demonstrated it. As long as science is faith based in large part I will continue to point it out. BTW billions claim to have experienced God which is something no one can say about string theory.

The big bang is based on observable evidence, as noted above.

The Big Bang is a theory based on fragmentary evidence. One I support and one which indicates God very strongly. In fact of all the fantastic cosmology theories it is by far the most consistent with God but it is still a theory and one so indicative of a God that it has caused much resistance for no other reason but preference. How much evidence is there that multiple universes are real? NONE. Then why is it an acceptable theory and the vastly evidenced God hypothesis not. PREFERENCE and double standards.

I don't really care what philosophers say about it. Philosophers don't do science

Actually philosophers were the first scientists and is a science not that if it wasn't it would be less absolute. This science is the arbiter of all truth is disturbing, wrong, and just plain silly. IT appears to be an ineffective defense mechanism. Philosophy deals with what is truth. Science deals with what someone thinks about material reality and my comment was by a philosopher of science. Going by the odds I probably do more science in a day than most do in a year and know very well the inexactitude of it.

Since the whole discussion is circling the same few drains I will attempt to summarize the core points.

In order to make since out of current cosmology there are several possibilities.

1. Multiverses: No evidence, None even theoretically possible
Accepted or allowed as a valid hypothesis.

2. Oscillating universe:, Virtually no evidence, Counters things current cosmology indicates are even possible.
Accepted or allowed as a valid hypothesis.

3. Some future discovery: No evidence, ???????????
Accepted or allowed as a valid future hypothesis.

4. God: Unending evidence, Most comprehensive explanation possible.
Resisted like the plague for no good reason.


Rinse and reapeat for every fact ever discovered. Accuse theology of having no evidence, even when it fact is has and many scientific theories do not. Assert that contention equals impossibility of resolution, when the same is true of science and is an illogical conclusion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

An answer should be correct. Its reliability is independent of its detail.

What do you mean by that?

Dark matter dis it does not explain how it does it. In fact it is not even detectable. Why is it a perfect answer for gravity questions and God not for existence questions?

Who said dark matter is a perfect answer for anything? It's an hypothesis based on observational evidence regarding expansion rates of the universe, which may or may not pan out. Nobody (especially scientists) says it's the be all and end all of explanations. I don't know why you keep asserting that they do.

Please tell me you know the difference between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories.

What branch of thought an answer lies within and whether it meets arbitrary explanatory criteria has nothing to do with it's being true or not. God as a concept is virtually identical to the characteristics given for whatever it is that created the universe. The fact that it is not (or falsely claimed) not claimed to be under a "scientific" heading makes no difference.

If it doesn't fit under the "scientific" heading then it's not scientific.

The God hypothesis in many ways is identical to and submits to the exact same methods as many "scientific" concepts.

Except that it's not demonstrable in any way.

The only difference is that God comes with accountability and other undesirable (to many) additions and that is why preference is introduced. I can supply quotes to prove this if needed.

Don't bother playing this card with me. I don't have a lack of a belief in your god because I'm afraid of being accountable to an invisible entity. I don't believe in your god because I see no good evidence to demonstrate its existence. (Much in the same way that you lack a belief in Allah or Thor.)

Bottom line: Science is limited to what is demonstable and/or observable. I have yet to see anyone (including yourself) demonstrate the existence of your god. Besides bold assertions, that is.

Nope, God is not an unquantifiable or nebulous concept. It's parameters and characteristics already existed long before science.

Those parameters and characteristics are ... ? Wait, are you referring to Kalam cosmological argument?

That's funny since depending on who you're talking to, there are a whole bunch of different definitions of god(s) and have been thousands upon thousands over the centuries.

No different that the philosophers stone, dark matter, multiverses, or the Johnny come lately dark matter ideas. Heck not even gravity is a "thing" we understand. We know it exists because of its effect/

Right! Gravity is demonstrable. Now you're getting it!

We Know God exists because of effects that have no natural explanation and some that have no natural explanation even possible.

And yet, as I and others have said countless times now, every time someone has posited a supernatural explanation for something, the scientific method has been able to produce a perfectly reasonable and naturalistic explanation for it.

You prove dark matter, multiverses, holographic space, and strings exists then you may have a slight point.

First of all, science doesn't prove things. It provides evidence for things.
Scientists are currently working on doing just that for the hypotheses you've noted above, which once again, are hypotheses.

My job is not to explain how. In countless places science doesn’t know how, and in many it does not even know what and simply invents place holders. My interest is not in explaining how God did it. That is a false criteria in considering if he did. This is double standards nothing more.

Your job isn't to explain how? Then what is your job, simply to make bold, unsubstantiated assertions? What you're actually saying here is your "explanation" for the existence of the universe actually explains nothing and gets us nowhere in our understanding of how our universe operates. LIke I said, your god explains nothing then. Thanks for confirming that for me.

There is no double standard here, and I find it odd that you keep saying as much. Science attempts to explain things and has done an excellent job thus far. Your job, apparently is to just assert things and provide no explanations. Which again, gets us nowhere.

I can determine which God is vastly more likely than any other to exist and have done it very easily.

Right, you chose the god you already believe in. Way to go.

I do not care if I know how he did it.

I care. Other people care. Scientists care. Some people care about how these actually work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science can't answer that for half the known things it claims. How does Gravity pull things. We know it does and gave this mysterious force a name but that makes it no more explainable than God. Half the crap theoretical scientists invent has no known evidence of any kind. When they start obeying the rules of what they require then it might become relevant.

Wow, that's another pretty bold assertion which I'm sure you could never back up. The scientific method has given us every known explanation we have today. We wouldn't know most of what we know without it. Funny how you discard it so easily. Apparently, you only accept the science that agrees with your religious views.

Now that is an ignorant statement. There are innumerable ways to establish the reliability, sufficiency, and quantity of evidence for each God concept. One way is that 99.9% of God's create the universe out of an existent something (proven wrong by cosmology). The Biblical God created time, matter, and space out of nothing. Add that with the other billions of ways of evaluating this issue and almost all God concepts fail in seconds.

Says the person who doesn't actually care how their god does anything.

I could propose that an invisible pink pixie did the very same thing you claim your god did and we'd both be in the exact same boat with bold assertions and no evidence. See how it gets us absolutely nowhere?

Only your side would claim that knowing God exists does not mean anything. The kind of mentality that can reduce the most profound discovery in human history to a footnote is appalling. It would make everything ever discovered in science rolled into one almost irrelevant in comparison. This is baffling.

What?

What I said was, it doesn't have any explanatory power. Which you basically said yourself, above when you told me you don't care to explain how your god does anything.

Much in science isn't. Demonstrate macroevolution, abiogenesis, a universe from nothing, multiverses, dark matter, oscillating universes, a natural reason for fine tuning, a natural explanation for many of nature’s constants, the rationality of the universe or any of about a million well accepted theories in science and then you may have a point.

Macroevolution is demonstrable (not to mention that it follows from microevolution, both of which are the same thing, the only difference being the passage of time).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I've already given you the evidence for the Big Bang theory.

See Lawrence Krause for an explanation surrounding a universe from nothing.

I've already discussed mulitverses, dark matter, and oscillating universes because you keep repeating them over and over in practically every single post you make (which I'm beginning to think is just a cut and paste job, given it's repetitive nature).

Your fine tuning argument has already failed.

What else?

The only criteria for science is that whatever is dreamed up is not capable of being proven wrong. You can invent anything in science, even things with no evidence nor even any potentiality of any as long as it is dressed in scientific language and not capable of being easily shown false. (Even that last requirement is thrown out at times).

That's utter garbage. Nothing in science becomes well accepted until and unless it's verified with evidence. Which is why science is such a useful tool. And again, thanks to the scientific method, we know everything that we currently know about everything. Your god hypothesis has zero explanatory power.

God requires less faith given more evidence than a multiverse. Currently there are not many reliable possibilities in science. At one time cosmology shows nature did not exist. What causal potentiality does nothing have exactly?

[/quote]

In your opinion.

Whatever caused everything isn't natural and therefore not in sciences realm. It is by definition supernatural with or without a God. continued below:

Says you.

Sorry, I'll stick with the scientists. You know, those guys that study this stuff for a living.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am under no obligation what so ever to explain where an uncaused eternal concept came from. It was good enough for steady state scientists at one time why not Christians. Man this double standard stuff gets old. BY the way every cosmologist prior to 1930 was wrong and would have said a Big Bang had no examples and by your logic could not possibly exist. Fallacies are over used little understood crutches. I almost never use them and instead explain why something is invalid if so. However claiming we have never seen an X and therefor no X exists is completely fallacious.

Okay, now I'm beginning to think you don't know what a double standard is. Science bends and changes with the introduction of new evidence (unlike religion). If it didn't, we'd believe things that weren't true. What's the problem you have with this exactly? I mean, if you want to hold to old, disproven beliefs, then by all means, be my guest. The rest of us are going to move on though.

You're under no obligation to explain anything? Well good for you! Good thing we have scientists who are interested in finding explanations for things or we'd still be living in the dark ages.

It demonstrates that scientist "demigod's" used theological preference as an input into what is true or false. You mean you would have known the particulars of Ezekiel by observation? I there is nothing new in the Bible then why were medical "scientists" killing people by the millions up until 1865 or so when the Hebrews 300 years earlier knew about sanitation and disease. There is not one supernatural claim and countless natural ones in the Bible science would have never discovered on it's own.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that because the ancient Hebrews washed their hands before eating or something that they were somehow far more advanced than we are today and that they had access to some kind of special knowledge from god? That because they didn't want to eat food with a bunch of crap on their hands that they had some divine knowledge about cleanliness? Seriously, do you not understand how humans are capable of learning based on simple observation? You should read up on conditioned aversion then, it should blow your mind.

You're not really going to tell me that the level of scientific and/or medical knowledge of the ancient Hebrews is equivalent to what we know today are you? Because that's absurd. Why weren't they curing illnesses back then at the rate we've done since the advent of modern medicine? Did god just forget to give them the cure for cancer? I mean, if you want to produce some kind of evidence of divine authorship, that might do it. But hand washing and such ... gimme a break. How stupid do you think the Hebrews were exactly?

Agreed. Now whose side is the most guilty. We were all born non-believers, only theists have shown that ability and courage to change their mind and follow the evidence.

You mean, cram the evidence into whatever belief system they were raised in.
Most people end up believing whatever their parents/culture taught them to believe. Which is why most Christians reside in Europe or North America, and most Muslims reside in the Middle East and most Buddhists reside in the far east, etc.

Which is why a number of your religious beliefs fly in the face of current scientific understanding (e.g. evolution).

I used to believe in a Christian version of god well into my late teens because I was raised a Christian. It wasn't until I decided to read the Bible and start asking tough questions that I started leaning toward nonbelief. And now I consider myself an atheist. I'd be willing to believe in any god, given that there was good evidence for it's existence - I have yet to see any such thing. So spare me this "atheists are narrow-minded" nonsense. (Also, this is how science works, and why I accept it, I follow where the evidence leads me.)

There is no requirement that it must beyond the evidence it is true. Why are you demanding things that cause other things meet other demands you arbitrarily make up? The understanding of every detail of mechanism is not the goal of God or the universe.

I haven't arbitarily made up anything. Your god has no explanatory power. Which you basically said yourself when you refused to explain it.

And now you claim to know what god's goals are? How can you possibly make such an assertion?

Yes I know how the big bang came to be the latest educated guess. We have been wrong a thousand times in the past but are always sure we got it right this time and ridicule anyone that challenges it. When science finally does get to the top of the mountain they are haltingly blindly groping up they just might find a group of theologians that have been sitting on the summit for thousands of years. That certainly is the trend.

Really, because you just tried to tell me that they came to that conclusion because they reject your god and will seek any alternative explanation so long as they don't have to accept your god hypothesis.

Sorry, but science is the most useful tool we have for understanding reality, what is true and what is not. It works every time. One day your god may lay in the trash heap along with all the other tens of thousands of god claims made over the centuries.

I did not say it was determinative, I said it was influential. Many held out as long as possible against the God indicating finite universe as long as possible (there are a few steady state guys left as well).

Apparently it was meaningless, because it is now the accepted theory. Again, this is how science works. Once enough evidence accumulates, it becomes accepted science. This takes time and repeated testing, validation and observation, and doesn't happen overnight.

It seems the moment the Big Bang became too much to fight then instantly, multiverses and oscillating universes were needed. They never stop resisting God even when fantasy is the only retreat.
Not always willingly and never completely.

I see you're just going to continue making false assumptions even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Big Bang has become accepted science based on the evidence that has been accumulated so far. I asked you before, a few times, to explain, in light of your belief that the scientific community discriminates against those with religious beliefs and/or doesn't even entertain religious beliefs, to explain to me how Francis Collins could have become the director of the National Institutes of Health given that he believes in god. You have yet to respond.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you been in a hole somewhere?
I work for a PhD who contributes to information theory. He along with many scientists know of only one source for information. Mind.

So you're comparing computer science with biology?

Nature can copy it (though it can't produce the copying mechanism alone) but it can't originate it. Nature can't create greater than equilibrium complexity on its own. However information is much worse. Information is not just complex it is specified complexity. A string of A's from a typewriter is complexity but not specific complexity. It even gets worse information is useless without a decoder tuned to interpret that type of language. So first nature would have to generate not just extreme complexity by its self which is impossible, not just specific extreme complexity, but extreme complexity by one mechanism and then an extremely complex and "tuned" mechanism to decode it in an independent mechanism. Can't be done. Can you name a real example where complexity grows over time outside of evolution?

Ummm, you should probably tell the Ph.D. you work for that "specified complexity" is widely viewed as mathematically unsound and isn't widely used for the basis of work in information theory or biology.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about here? DNA?
Because DNA, RNA and proteins explain very well what you have described above.

I don't know how you can compare chemical reactions to letters on a typewriter.

The method requires observation and or reproduction. This however is trampled into dust routinely by the same people who hold it up as some kind of intellectual high ground. Has life from non-life ever been observed. I do not know if you were the one who kept saying so, but simple organic matter IS NOT LIFE.

Oh boy, this again. Yes, that was me, and I see you're still missing the point somehow. THE POINT BEING that it is theoretically possible for life to come from non-life given that we know that inorganic matter can produce organic matter. Which contradictions your assertions you keep repeating over and over.

How many multiverses have been observed? How whales turning into cows have been reproduced? Don't demand what you will not abide.

How many whales turning into cows have been reproduced? Go read up on genetics, and the basics on common ancestry please.

There are far more facts only explainable by God than are explained by dark mater exclusively. IN fact every atom and process in the universe, without God has no original source.

Provide evidence or quit repeating the claim already.

That was not the point. It was pointed out in the Bible people would use false standards, invent false history, it even specifically says false science will be used. That was not my purpose. In a forum environment there exists very few people who can possibly change their minds about any world view issue. It is only rarely that someone will concede the slightest point and never a paradigm. I am here for reasons that have nothing to do with evangelism specifically.

So what? How is that evidence of divine authorship?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this some type of get of theology free card. There are ways of examining what religion sis true that are far better and based on vastly more evidence than which cosmology is true, than evolutionary path is true, or which political system is better. It is absurd to assert if disagreement exists then no answer possible. This is a different topic and a very large one so I have avoided it here but if you wish to discuss comparative religion I am capable.

It's a "your god explanation is as good (or bad) as any other god explanation" card. I.e., None of them have any explanatory power.

Cosmology, political systems and evolutionary pathways can be weighed and judged based on practical application, observation and empirical evidence.How do you prove which religion is more true and/or more accurate and then, how do you determine which particular branch of that religious is true and/ore more accurate? Of course there can be a possible answer, but how to get there?

Even if you have to invent it. I was the one that said if God did it then that was a fact. You’re the one that said that if he did it then that did not allow "omniscient scientists" a role and therefore is irrelevant.

What? When did I say anything about "omniscient scientists?"

My view is far more consistent with desiring facts than yours. If God did it he did, if Allah then he did, if no one then no one. I, unlike you add no additional requirements for truth to be true.

Uh sure. Except that you can't demonstrate the existence of this thing you believe in and even flat out refuse to do so.

I will follow wherever the evidence leads. If the supernatural can be shown to exist, I will have to believe it. So far ... nothing.

Until it has been countered or rendered pointless I will point out that science in many cases is not even faith but pure speculation based in preference.

I've countered this many times and yet you still repeat it.

How many facts line up with multiverses exactly? In many others it is faith based educated guesses? Has anyone seen or detected Dark matter? In others it has reasonable evidence but vast holes and problems like evolutionary theory.

This has been addressed soooooo many times now. These are hypotheses.

And no, evolution does not have vast holes and problems. Evolution is an accepted biological fact. It can be observed, demonstrated, and repeated. It has predictive power. It is a biological fact. There you go again, ignoring scientific evidence that you think contradicts your religious views.

As long as science is faith based in large part I will continue to point it out.
You believe life came from nonlife but no one has ever seen or demonstrated it. As long as science is faith based in large part I will continue to point it out.

I believe what the evidence supports.

We know that organic matter can form from inorganic matter, so it is theortically possible that life can come from non-life. That's not a faith-based belief. That is based on evidence.

BTW billions claim to have experienced God which is something no one can say about string theory.

The argument from popularity isn't going to get you anywhere. How many people claim to have been abducted by aliens?

The Big Bang is a theory based on fragmentary evidence. One I support and one which indicates God very strongly.

Oh okay, so this "faith-based" scientific belief you accept because it supports your god hypothesis? Come on.

In fact of all the fantastic cosmology theories it is by far the most consistent with God but it is still a theory and one so indicative of a God that it has caused much resistance for no other reason but preference.

And again, all these god-hating scientists you keep citing accept the theory, now don't they? Your argument is moot.

How much evidence is there that multiple universes are real? NONE. Then why is it an acceptable theory and the vastly evidenced God hypothesis not. PREFERENCE and double standards.

Okay, what don't you understand about the word HYPOTHESIS?

Your god hypothesis is not vastly evidenced, or it would be considered sound science. I've said before, that if your god does exist, and does involve itself in the day-to-day activities of human beings, that your god should be demonstrable in some way, and theoretically, testable. So where's all the evidence?

Actually philosophers were the first scientists and is a science not that if it wasn't it would be less absolute.

Yes I know. They outlived their scientific usefulness with the invention of modern science.

This science is the arbiter of all truth is disturbing, wrong, and just plain silly. IT appears to be an ineffective defense mechanism. Philosophy deals with what is truth. Science deals with what someone thinks about material reality and my comment was by a philosopher of science. Going by the odds I probably do more science in a day than most do in a year and know very well the inexactitude of it.

Science is the most consistently reliable method we have ever discovered for discerning fact from fiction. If you can come up with a better method, that consistently gives the same reliable results that the scientific method has, then go ahead and present it.

Anyone can say that on the internet. You have no idea what I do for a living (and I'm not about to share it on the internet), so I'm not sure that's a safe assumption to make. But hey, you're into making baseless assumptions, so have at it.

Since the whole discussion is circling the same few drains I will attempt to summarize the core points.

In order to make since out of current cosmology there are several possibilities.

1. Multiverses: No evidence, None even theoretically possible
Accepted or allowed as a valid hypothesis.

2. Oscillating universe:, Virtually no evidence, Counters things current cosmology indicates are even possible.
Accepted or allowed as a valid hypothesis.

3. Some future discovery: No evidence, ???????????
Accepted or allowed as a valid future hypothesis.

4. God: Unending evidence, Most comprehensive explanation possible.
Resisted like the plague for no good reason.

This is the part where you produce evidence of god, or stop going on about multiverses and other hypotheses that are not generally accepted science and repeating yourself ad nauseum.


I'll even assert that god is "resisted like the plague" because it has no explanatory power, as evidenced by you, who will not explain it.

 

[1robin]

[/font][/color]
Okay, now I'm beginning to think you don't know what a double standard is. Science bends and changes with the introduction of new evidence (unlike religion). If it didn't, we'd believe things that weren't true. What's the problem you have with this exactly? I mean, if you want to hold to old, disproven beliefs, then by all means, be my guest. The rest of us are going to move on though.

This has nothing to do with anything. I was discussing criteria used for acceptance of a concept as a reasonable possibility. It is seemingly a standard with no boundaries for science and within infinitely tight ones for theology. Yeah the rest of you are certainly moving all-right. Into moral chaos and relativistic nihilism. We have actually went from thou shall not murder and every life has sanctity to killing innocent babies by the millions a year, we have hospitals (a large percentage were Christian built) and have filled them with patients who suffer with the natural diseases produced by immoral sexual conduct no longer a stigma, we have public school systems (many began by Christians to start with) that we now fill with gang activity and random shootings. We have tacked on an extra unproductive 20 years of life as well as developing the capacity to wipe all life out on the entire planet and the moral insanity to do so. Thanks but no thanks. We are smarter than we have ever been and are devoid of wisdom.
Weymouth New Testament
and are always learning something new, and yet are never able to arrive at real knowledge of the truth.
New International Version (©2011)
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/6-20.htm
We are becoming educated into imbecility and are arrogant in defense of it.

You're under no obligation to explain anything? Well good for you! Good thing we have scientists who are interested in finding explanations for things or we'd still be living in the dark ages.

Those BRONZE age guys were right about cosmology, sanitation, and morality 4000 years before today’s intellectuals screwed them up in many cases’. No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public or overestimating the fallibility of man.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that because the ancient Hebrews washed their hands before eating or something that they were somehow far more advanced than we are today and that they had access to some kind of special knowledge from god?

If I was I would have said exactly that instead of what I did. My point was they knew things 4000 years before science in many cases, exactly what I would expect with a benevolent God and an prideful, arrogant, but very fallible humanity.

That because they didn't want to eat food with a bunch of crap on their hands that they had some divine knowledge about cleanliness?

Then that makes the "science" of teh 1800's even devoid of that.

Seriously, do you not understand how humans are capable of learning based on simple observation?

Apparently we became so smart we unearned it is this case. Are you sure what direction we are headed in?

You're not really going to tell me that the level of scientific and/or medical knowledge of the ancient Hebrews is equivalent to what we know today are you?

Are we having two different conversations. The one that I actually said and the one that you assert I did?

Because that's absurd. Why weren't they curing illnesses back then at the rate we've done since the advent of modern medicine? Did god just forget to give them the cure for cancer? I mean, if you want to produce some kind of evidence of divine authorship, that might do it. But hand washing and such ... gimme a break. How stupid do you think the Hebrews were exactly?

That is not coherent. The Hebrews knew stuff science had apparently thought out of existence and killed millions in their ignorance and you ask me how stupid the Hebrews were? Your the only one that said stupid and Hebrew in the same sentence. If this stuff was so intuitive why could a thousands of men of 19th century science not get it. The point was never that God had produced lasers and Stereo lithography 4000 years ago. The point was that God occasionally makes a mockery of man's arrogance and claims to knowledge. God does not intend to fix the current world. We originally told him to go away and that we were fine on our own. The dreadful misery, potential annihilation, and ignorance we wallow in is to serve to exhibit this and it does in spades. On occasion, in connection with his followers mostly he intercedes every so often within a blinding vision of his superiority to remind a wayward rebellious race. The reality we see is identical to what would be predicted using the Bible alone. He does not constantly straighten our blindness out, but occasionally demonstrates his potential to do so. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

You mean, cram the evidence into whatever belief system they were raised in.
Most people end up believing whatever their parents/culture taught them to believe. Which is why most Christians reside in Europe or North America, and most Muslims reside in the Middle East and most Buddhists reside in the far east, etc.

This is an argument I have found some merit in but is a fallacy none the less (it is one of the few that have any teeth on your side). I almost never cry fallacy but I do not think reason helpful here. This is a classical genetic fallacy. I would also point out that faith is not the default position. Your side is the one that has demonstrated the same theological condition you appeared with. It is my side that has demonstrated a capacity to change and maintain that conviction even in the face of annihilation of the greatest empires in history. Wrong or right we have consistently demonstrated open mindedness and conviction.

Which is why a number of your religious beliefs fly in the face of current scientific understanding (e.g. evolution).

The Bible recorded evolutions existence thousands of years ago. It conflicts with no belief I have. Reality does conflict with the belief that evolution alone can produce what we have. See Cambrian explosion or the universe we would have if no God existed.

I used to believe in a Christian version of god well into my late teens because I was raised a Christian. It wasn't until I decided to read the Bible and start asking tough questions that I started leaning toward nonbelief. And now I consider myself an atheist. I'd be willing to believe in any god, given that there was good evidence for its existence - I have yet to see any such thing. So spare me this "atheists are narrow-minded" nonsense. (Also, this is how science works, and why I accept it, I follow where the evidence leads me.)

My statement was a reaction to the exact same claim made by you. I never initiate this type of argumentation. Your type of faith is what is called superficial consent to an intellectual proposition and comes with no conviction nor spiritual response. That is why so many like you are easily swayed by professors on a mission to attack faith. I had many of them in college (even in engineering). It is also why true faith withstands threat, torture, even death and superficial faith wilts at the slightest contention. Claims that the conclusion of most of humanity that they were not born with does not have sufficient evidence is ridiculous. I can sympathize with soft agnosticism, the rest is absurd. Modern militant atheism is diabolical.

I haven't arbitrarily made up anything. Your god has no explanatory power. Which you basically said yourself when you refused to explain it.

I said an explanation is independent from truth and I as of yet saw no requirement for it. It however has the most explanatory power even theoretically possible. No concept in human history explains so much as God. Right or wrong it is infinitely more comprehensive than all science put together.

And now you claim to know what god's goals are? How can you possibly make such an assertion?

I obviously speak within the context of my faith. The concept of theism is more consistent with a God that communicates than one who does not. I have 750,000 words in the most studied and cherished book in human history. The most textual accurate book of any kind in ancient history and the most influential and textual attested individual in human history. Not to mention the Holy Spirit. What is it that I am lacking again?

Really, because you just tried to tell me that they came to that conclusion because they reject your god and will seek any alternative explanation so long as they don't have to accept your god hypothesis.

What are you talking about? The Big Bang is the most God consistent theory in cosmology. The opposition to it is indicative of the desire to get out of that predicament not the theory itself. It drug most into it by virtue, even many that went kicking and screaming. I never indicated science will never adopt a God friendly conclusion, I said many resist it because it is God friendly and will literally invent anything to escape no matter how devoid or merit or evidence, then yell foul when we give well evidenced claims for faith.If you want to commit modern scientific suicide simply write a book or theory that even hints that God is an explanation for anything material or moral, however you may write “God delusions and God is not greats” till you’re sick . I have never seen it but there was a movie about this specific thing.

Sorry, but science is the most useful tool we have for understanding reality, what is true and what is not. It works every time. One day your god may lay in the trash heap along with all the other tens of thousands of god claims made over the centuries.

Science is simply a tool, not the tool. In fact it is completely impotent in all the most profound subject areas. Good luck laying my God in the trash. They laid him in the grave once. Didn't work out to well for them. The greatest empires in human history tried to eradicate him, so he converted them instead. It is worse than the old Tar baby story.

Apparently it was meaningless, because it is now the accepted theory. Again, this is how science works. Once enough evidence accumulates, it becomes accepted science. This takes time and repeated testing, validation and observation, and doesn't happen overnight.

What is the theory again? What was meaningless?

I see you're just going to continue making false assumptions even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

I will grant that my motivation theories are speculative. However you may not say honestly the facts are not consistent with my claims nor that this same stupid cycle has not been repeated countless times throughout history.

Big Bang has become accepted science based on the evidence that has been accumulated so far. I asked you before, a few times, to explain, in light of your belief that the scientific community discriminates against those with religious beliefs and/or doesn't even entertain religious beliefs, to explain to me how Francis Collins could have become the director of the National Institutes of Health given that he believes in god. You have yet to respond.

I do not recall being asked for evidence that the scientific community is generally hostile or negative toward the concept of God. You also seem to be contending the degree not the reality of that claim. If you state what degree is significant enough to indicate invalidity then I may be able to provide evidence. For example am I to show 40% or 90% of science is negative toward faith concepts. I am out of time have a good afternoon. I will get to the rest soon.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This has nothing to do with anything. I was discussing criteria used for acceptance of a concept as a reasonable possibility. It is seemingly a standard with no boundaries for science and within infinitely tight ones for theology. Yeah the rest of you are certainly moving all-right. Into moral chaos and relativistic nihilism.[

LOL The rest of us are moving into moral chaos and relativistic nihilism? I'm a very moral person, actually, and I take it very seriously. Sorry to burst your bubble.

We have actually went from thou shall not murder and every life has sanctity to killing innocent babies by the millions a year,

Riiiiight. Thou shalt not murder unless god commands it. (That's what you should have said, as evidenced by your precious Bible).

And if you actually think that abortion is a modern thing, I've got a bridge to sell you.

we have hospitals (a large percentage were Christian built) and have filled them with patients who suffer with the natural diseases produced by immoral sexual conduct no longer a stigma,

AIDS is no longer a stigma? You can't be serious. Only immoral sex acts produce diseases? As in, premarital sex causes STDs? Is that what you're saying?

How about cancer? Is that a natural disease produced by immoral sex? How about cystic fibrosis? Muscular dystrophy? Alzheimer's disease? Where are these hospitals you're talking about that are filled with people who have sexually transmitted diseases?

we have public school systems (many began by Christians to start with) that we now fill with gang activity and random shootings.

Those appear to me to be products of American culture. How many Americans consider themselves Christian again?

We have tacked on an extra unproductive 20 years of life

Speak for yourself.

Maybe your last 20 years will be unproductive, I don't know.

as well as developing the capacity to wipe all life out on the entire planet and the moral insanity to do so.

Yeah, that sucks. But humans have always had destructive tendencies, look at our history of war (there's tons of it in the Bible). And let's not forget that your god deemed it morally right to destroy the entire world and everything on it.

Thanks but no thanks. We are smarter than we have ever been and are devoid of wisdom.

Again, speak for yourself. This is coming from a person who thinks that people who lived thousands of years ago were smarter, wiser and more knowledgable than we are today, which runs counter to factual reality.

Weymouth New Testament
and are always learning something new, and yet are never able to arrive at real knowledge of the truth.

So you think we're in our last days? Congratulations, Jesus thought they were in the last days thousands of years ago too. People have always thought so, apparently. And oops, they were always wrong.

New International Version (©2011)
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge

Masters submit to your slaves? I'm sorry, what's moral about slavery?

http://bible.cc/1_timothy/6-20.htm
We are becoming educated into imbecility and are arrogant in defense of it.[/quote]

And once again, speak for yourself.

Those BRONZE age guys were right about cosmology, sanitation, and morality 4000 years before today’s intellectuals screwed them up in many cases’. No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public or overestimating the fallibility of man.

LOL No they were not.

Do you think slavery is moral?

If I was I would have said exactly that instead of what I did. My point was they knew things 4000 years before science in many cases, exactly what I would expect with a benevolent God and an prideful, arrogant, but very fallible humanity.

Except that they didn't. The cosmology presented in the Bible is not accurate. And neither is the morality, if you ask me.

What I would expect from a benevolent god is clarity, not some vague passages in a dusty old book for which we have no original copies. Every single person on this planet currently is vastly more knowledgable about the world we live in than the most intelligent person alive in the Bronze Age. That's not to say they were stupid, but certainly they were ignorant to the vast amounts of knowledge we now possess. To say otherwise is absurd.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then that makes the "science" of teh 1800's even devoid of that.

Well, let's see. During the 1800s, the telephone was invented; radioactivity was discovered; enzymes were discovered; the light bulb was invented; the speed of light was measured; the first law of thermodynamics was discovered; the periodic table of elements was created; UV rays were discovered; x-rays were discovered; the first electric engine was invented; electrons were discovered; the theory of evolution was published; atoms were discovered; the battery was invented; steam locomotion was invented; the stethescope was invented; antiseptics were invented; pasteurization was invented; the internal combustion engine was invented; etc. That's what science gave us (among zillions of other things).

You were saying ...

Apparently we became so smart we unearned it is this case. Are you sure what direction we are headed in?

Yeah, the direction of progress.

Are we having two different conversations. The one that I actually said and the one that you assert I did?

Did you not say the ancient Hebrews were right about cosmology, sanitation and morality?

(I'd say we're a lot more moral than they were.)

That is not coherent. The Hebrews knew stuff science had apparently thought out of existence and killed millions in their ignorance and you ask me how stupid the Hebrews were?

What was the average life span for the ancient Hebrews?

Your the only one that said stupid and Hebrew in the same sentence.

I would say ignorant is a more fitting word.

If this stuff was so intuitive why could a thousands of men of 19th century science not get it.

Stop pulling numbers out of your rear end. How many surgeries did the ancient Hebrews perform?

The point was never that God had produced lasers and Stereo lithography 4000 years ago. The point was that God occasionally makes a mockery of man's arrogance and claims to knowledge.

Wow, that's nice of him. He gives us these great brains to use then mocks us for trying to use them. That makes perfect sense.

Why didn't god produce laser and stereo lithography 4000 years ago? How about just the cure for cancer or germ theory or something? What's the reasoning behind that, he just wants to mock us instead?

God does not intend to fix the current world. We originally told him to go away and that we were fine on our own. The dreadful misery, potential annihilation, and ignorance we wallow in is to serve to exhibit this and it does in spades.

Wow, great guy you worship there.

And you wonder why I think your god is immoral?

On occasion, in connection with his followers mostly he intercedes every so often within a blinding vision of his superiority to remind a wayward rebellious race. The reality we see is identical to what would be predicted using the Bible alone. He does not constantly straighten our blindness out, but occasionally demonstrates his potential to do so. Continued below:

Like when?

And again, if this is true, then your god should be demonstrable in some way. Except that it's not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is an argument I have found some merit in but is a fallacy none the less (it is one of the few that have any teeth on your side). I almost never cry fallacy but I do not think reason helpful here. This is a classical genetic fallacy.

It's a demonstrable fact of geography. How many Christians live in Europe and North America? How many Indians are Hindu? How many Muslims live in the Middle East? If you visit Saudi Arabia, what are the odds that the vast majority of people you run into are going to be Muslim?

I would also point out that faith is not the default position.

It is if you're indoctrinated into religion at a very young age.

Your side is the one that has demonstrated the same theological condition you appeared with. It is my side that has demonstrated a capacity to change and maintain that conviction even in the face of annihilation of the greatest empires in history. Wrong or right we have consistently demonstrated open mindedness and conviction.

True and not true. I was raised a Christian. I analyzed my Christian position, and changed it based on my findings.

Openmindedness? Is that why you disregard scientific findings that don't jive with your religious beliefs?

The Bible recorded evolutions existence thousands of years ago. It conflicts with no belief I have. Reality does conflict with the belief that evolution alone can produce what we have. See Cambrian explosion or the universe we would have if no God existed.

No it didn't. You don't get to make things up.
I don't know what your reference to the Cambrian explosion is all about, but it's not proof of god and it's not evidence against evolution.

My statement was a reaction to the exact same claim made by you. I never initiate this type of argumentation. Your type of faith is what is called superficial consent to an intellectual proposition and comes with no conviction nor spiritual response.

I don't have any faith. I believe what the evidence demonstrates. I have many convictions, none of them having to do with religion or gods.

That is why so many like you are easily swayed by professors on a mission to attack faith. I had many of them in college (even in engineering). It is also why true faith withstands threat, torture, even death and superficial faith wilts at the slightest contention.

LOL Wow, are you ever wrong. I've never had one professor in my entire life even mention god inside or outside of a classroom.

In my opinion, the faith you're talking about is not noble in any way. It's blind belief and obedience to authority. There's nothing moral about that either.

Claims that the conclusion of most of humanity that they were not born with does not have sufficient evidence is ridiculous. I can sympathize with soft agnosticism, the rest is absurd. Modern militant atheism is diabolical.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive things.

LOL Why do you consider atheism diabolical?

I said an explanation is independent from truth and I as of yet saw no requirement for it. It however has the most explanatory power even theoretically possible. No concept in human history explains so much as God. Right or wrong it is infinitely more comprehensive than all science put together.

Your god explains nothing. "God did it" never got us anywhere and it's not an actual answer to anything. It has no explanatory power, further evidenced by the fact that you refuse to explain him/her/it although you're perfectly content to dictate what you apparently know (somehow) this god is thinking and what he wants from you (according to what some ancient peoples scribbled in a book).

I obviously speak within the context of my faith. The concept of theism is more consistent with a God that communicates than one who does not. I have 750,000 words in the most studied and cherished book in human history.

Great, so you have words on paper written by humans. How come all the other thousands of Christian sects don't exactly agree with you, or each other? How come there are Muslims and Buddhists and Taoists and Hindus? They all have ancient texts too. They're just deluding themselves, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The most textual accurate book of any kind in ancient history and the most influential and textual attested individual in human history. Not to mention the Holy Spirit. What is it that I am lacking again?

This is a huge pile of garbage. Spiderman comics mention places that actually exist too. That must mean Spiderman is real.

What are you talking about? The Big Bang is the most God consistent theory in cosmology. The opposition to it is indicative of the desire to get out of that predicament not the theory itself. It drug most into it by virtue, even many that went kicking and screaming. I never indicated science will never adopt a God friendly conclusion, I said many resist it because it is God friendly and will literally invent anything to escape no matter how devoid or merit or evidence, then yell foul when we give well evidenced claims for faith.

In your opinion. The opposition to it originally was that there was no evidence for it. The opposition vanished when the evidence was presented and verified. Again, that's how science works.

If you want to commit modern scientific suicide simply write a book or theory that even hints that God is an explanation for anything material or moral, however you may write “God delusions and God is not greats” till you’re sick . I have never seen it but there was a movie about this specific thing.

Yeah, like I said three times now, I saw that silly movie and it's riddled with errors (like that list you gave me of the people you claimed had been fired from their jobs for professing religious beliefs that turned out to be bogus). Unless you've watched it, I suggest you stop citing it to someone who's actually seen it and knows what you're saying is nonsense.

Science is simply a tool, not the tool.

As I said, it's the best tool we've ever come up with for discerning fact from fiction. It has served us extremely well thus far, and to argue against that I think would be absurd.

In fact it is completely impotent in all the most profound subject areas.

Such as?

Good luck laying my God in the trash.

Done. I don't believe in your god.

They laid him in the grave once. Didn't work out to well for them. The greatest empires in human history tried to eradicate him, so he converted them instead. It is worse than the old Tar baby story.

Your god's human armies did that. How very moral of them.

What is the theory again? What was meaningless?

Big bang theory.

I will grant that my motivation theories are speculative. However you may not say honestly the facts are not consistent with my claims nor that this same stupid cycle has not been repeated countless times throughout history.

I can honestly say that the facts aren't consistent with your claims.

I do not recall being asked for evidence that the scientific community is generally hostile or negative toward the concept of God.You also seem to be contending the degree not the reality of that claim. If you state what degree is significant enough to indicate invalidity then I may be able to provide evidence. For example am I to show 40% or 90% of science is negative toward faith concepts. I am out of time have a good afternoon. I will get to the rest soon.

You have been asked several times, and you even provided a list, which I refuted.

 

[1robin]

LOL The rest of us are moving into moral chaos and relativistic nihilism? I'm a very moral person, actually, and I take it very seriously. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If you take morality seriously then you are importing concepts that only have sufficient foundation if God exists. You are confusing moral ontology with epistemology (which seems to be chronic lately for the non-theists). An atheist may know murder is wrong because he has a God given conscience and other reasons. He however can't prove it wrong without God. This is a foundation not an apprehension issue. As the world becomes more secular we see greater moral chaos. It is simply an obvious fact but that does not mean any individual atheist is immoral but it does mean if he is he is borrowing outside some survival (not moral) value system that without God is illusory speciesm not objective right and wrong. There are two undeniable facts. 1. The world is becoming more secular. 2. The world is becoming vastly more morally ambiguous and chaotic.

Riiiiight. Thou shalt not murder unless god commands it. (That's what you should have said, as evidenced by your precious Bible).

Man, I can sure sense the resentment of the Bible in your posts. Let me ask you this. If there is a Biblical God that knows all, including the future, the thoughts of individuals and not only moral truth but is in fact moral truth himself then in what way if God decides to take back a life he gave is that unjust and who is it that can make such a change and by what standard can it be proven? The idea that God has sovereignty that you do not and takes actions you would not (even though you may wel should have) is not an argument against God. It is a complaint.

And if you actually think that abortion is a modern thing, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Did I say that? I said it is a modern view that abortion is somehow a "sacred right" and is practiced at an industrial scale. It has always existed, it has only recently been enshrined, declared a moral right, and practiced as a common form of birth control millions of times a year.

AIDS is no longer a stigma? You can't be serious. Only immoral sex acts produce diseases? As in, premarital sex causes STDs? Is that what you're saying?

I do not even know what to contend here. What does Aids is no longer a stigma even mean? Is it now a virtue or a blessing? Immoral acts kill millions a year (some who did not even commit them) that would if they were not committed have lived. Sin poisons the good and the bad. Why is it always the non-theist that argues he can justify morality and then proceeds to deny the harm of immorality and obscure simple moral facts?

How about cancer? Is that a natural disease produced by immoral sex? How about cystic fibrosis? Muscular dystrophy? Alzheimer's disease? Where are these hospitals you're talking about that are filled with people who have sexually transmitted diseases?

According to the Bible they are all a result of our telling God to get lost and therefore he did so and left nature to self-destruct, as a lesson. Is it not possible or practice to avoid cancer (except for immoral actions that directly produce some forms of it). It is a fact that an unnecessary act of self-gratifying lust that has no comparable positive justification produces millions of unnecessary deaths a year and costs billions. It is literally killing of large portions of Africa. Not even on the false but commonly claimed evolutionary moral "model" are these acts justified. Only self-gratification is possible as a "defense" for many of these diabolical actions. You are defending the indefensible and calling it progress.

Those appear to me to be products of American culture. How many Americans consider themselves Christian again?

I am unsure why that is relevant but about 80% claim to be these days. However when the public school systems were originally begun well over 90% claimed to be Christians and the purpose was mainly to teach literacy for the goal of reading the Bible.

Speak for yourself.
Maybe your last 20 years will be unproductive, I don't know.

This is uncontestable, in general. The last 20 years of life are by far a net negative drain on society. I can justify life in those circumstances. An honest evolutionist must condemn them as not conducive to overall survival or health of the "tribe". Continued below: