INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1198, #1199, and #1211 when you get time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

On what basis do you claim God was to provide an injunction against every wrong possible? This is an assumed optimality that God does not have the burden for. That being said he may not have because at one time a version of it was a logical necessity. He does give many laws about its more virulent forms.

What’s the point of the Bible then? What’s the point of the 600+ commandments? I mean, it certainly looks as though “he” tried to provide an injunction against every possible wrong given the number of commandments that are contained within the Bible.

Your god doesn’t necessarily have to provide injunctions against every wrong possible but if “he” wanted to convey that slavery is wrong, then maybe “he” shouldn’t have condoned it in the Bible. It’s not like “he” just didn’t mention it or something.

No, however this is a good question if stated differently. God never condoned slavery as it existed in the old south. However most of what man does is not preferred by God. He occasionally steps in and ends certain things. God abandoned us to the mess our rebellion caused yet you require him to fix everything. You may feel better to know the God you do not believe in probably does not exist and I have never claimed he did. The God of the Bible is a whole different issue.

Your god apparently condoned beating a slave, so long as (s)he didn’t die within a certain number of days. “He” also went on about how to trick a slave into becoming a slave for life, if you could find him a nice wife. If that’s not an endorsement of slavery, I don’t know what is. So he didn’t specifically state “slavery in the old south is not the kind of slavery I’m talking about.” So what? “He” clearly endorsed slavery.

Yeah, you know what? I do require your god to fix everything “he” messed up in the first place. I’m big on personal responsibility and all that. You may think it’s okay for such a god to blame his creation for all the mistakes “he” made, but I find that repugnant.

When you become the arbiter of all truth and I become the explainer of every fact we may then have a better debate. As long as you demand that God do as you wish and I am not that God, then there will be grey areas where you demand what you have no basis to and I do not always know why God does this or that. If God made a statement condemning every wrong that we can invent it would truly be the never ending story.

I’m not asking your god to do what I wish. I’m asking “him” to be clear in what “he” wants from his creation which clearly hasn’t been done given the number of Christian sects in existence on this planet. Not to mention every other religion humankind has ever believed in.

He did more than that. He gave a rational basis and reason for both those being true. However people (like someone I will not mention) said they would rather invent truth's they wished to be so, and God said then reap the whirlwind (we whipped up). It is a grave error that you assume God's purpose is to make this world right. It being wrong is the evidence of our limitations and the price of sin. He has moral justification to allow the evil we invent to exist to some extent.

How and when did “he” do that?
How did humans invent evil? We're not the creators of the universe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I left it out because it changes nothing.

It changes everything.

And the fact that he said he would abandon his “faith” if it proved to be misplaced distinguishes it from religious belief.

I do not think it matters if the question was about the merits of tidily winks. He used faith and claimed X to be true based on it.

No he didn’t. He used reasonable “faith” (if you can even call it that) based on what he knew about the laws of nature. Such laws are demonstrable and testable. For example, we all have “faith” that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it does so every single day. However, there is a chance that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but it’s not very likely.

Sagan is a weirdo.

He’s right on the money.

Maybe I missed something but I do not see what changed about it. Besides it was only one of the ones I posted and one of the dozens I could have. I have noticed this a tactic of Bible critics. If I give a list of a dozen things, one will be selected and confused or challenged (correctly or not) and the whole list dismissed. That's efficient but invalid.

Actually, that’s not true for me. For the most part, I tackle all of the examples or claims you make as best I can. Remember when I refuted every single claim you made about scientific hoaxes? Or the time I refuted every single claim you made about every single person being shunned from the scientific community based on your understanding of Expelled, the movie?

 

[1robin]

You are not in a position to question their opinions based upon your own personal knowledge of biology.

I never questioned them. You completely missed what I stated. I never said macroevolution was wrong or never happened. I said stating it as a reality is based in faith. They can't even begin to prove macroevolution. That does not make it false I am sure it is true to a certain extent though it does have massive problems. My point was they use faith and we use faith but it is they who deny it exists (which is a lie) and we who admit it is used in our conclusions.

Two of the leading Christian organizations that promote creationism are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG).

Again I have no idea what context this is in so I will instead simply post what I believe.
1. I have no idea if the Biblical flood or much of Genesis is literal symbolic or a combination of the two.
2. I do believe God is the original first cause and that evolution alone does not account for what we observe today. God is a virtual logical necessity at this time to explain what we observe.
3. I have no hard stance about creationism. However natural law alone will not explain what we have. My feeling is that it is a combination of natural law and the supernatural that has produced what we have and there is a mountain of evidence and philosophy to demonstrate this.

That does not compare favorably with the following:
How can someone who admits that they have no knowledge of biology be adequately informed about supposed major problems with all of macro evolution?

I did not say I had no adequate knowledge to judge the concepts I mention. You did. I said I have no personally acquired knowledge, meaning all the biology I know comes from others. BTW I do not go along with much of the creationism taught by Christians like DR Morris, nor do I go along with opposite end of the spectrum like Dawkins. I think the middle ground is where the truth lies. I must have watched 300 hours of debates between qualified biologists on both sides and took biology in college but never worked in it. Since both I and the Bible claim evolution exists to some extant but reality minus God does not explain its self I have no idea what it is specifically you think I am wrong about.

What counter claim did you make?
I assume that most biologists believe that Miller reasonably proved quite a lot with that paper, and with some of his other research.
If Miller was right, he certainly did prove a lot with that paper. In the article, Miller says:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. .... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on." (Behe 1996b)
Miller was quoting Michael Behe, a biochemist who originally came up with the irreducible complexity argument. If Miller is correct, then "an irreducibly complex system [can] be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system," which means that the story of Adam and Eve is not literally true as understood as accepted by the vast majority of Christian creationists.

I admit I am no biologist but I see no evidence that you are an expert with it either. First irreducible complexity has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. I am very familiar with Behe and the counter arguments. His argumentation in principle is absolutely undeniable. The issue is whether it actually operates in reality. I do not know if that can even be determined but I do know what is wrong with Millers counter claim. Miller argues that if a subset of components of a very complex system also have functionality then they are evolutionarily viable. He then went on to give a single example concerning one stage of one system that he found to exist and said that is his counter claim. First I want to see how much you know since you are so critical. What is the absolute flaw in this particular claim as I have posted it? Behe says that basically a flagellum is so complex that it would never accumulate sequentially because it has no subset functionality. Miller or at least the argument presented against this is that a syringe like organ or system which is subset functionality of the flagellum is proof that the concept of irreducible complexity is invalid. Where is the abject failure of that argument? I will illustrate it if you do not but wanted to see how much you actually know.

Such being the case, I assume that very few, if any creationist biologists would agree with your claim that "there is no doubt that even if [Miller] was right he did not prove anything in that paper."

My argument is so simple and so absolute that no one could successively counter it. It is based on brute facts. I understand this argument well as I have researched it many times. I may have given you the wrong impression and since you keep judging my capacity you have forced me to test you in return. My counter claim to the argument against irreducible complexity is based in irrefutable fact and relies on simple mathematical and physics principles and I do have a degree in math.

Like you, I do not know very much about biology, but a person does not need to know very much about biology to know that whether or not Miller is correct is very important.

Miller concept is reasonable and probably valid in principle but as a counter to irreducible complexity at least in principle it completely fails as I will explain if you can't.

Do you have reasonable proof that any supernatural events happened in the Old Testament?

I will illustrate this another way. Keep in mind reasonable faith is the criteria in theology, NOT SCIENCE. Two of the greatest if not the greatest scholars on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) both concluded that the Gospels meet every modern test in modern law and the historical method. I can literally add pages and pages of reasons I believe in the supernatural. One being that I have personally experienced it myself. However meeting you on the common ground of scholarship if those two names are not enough to justify faith no 1000 page tomb would be. If there was ever a greater scholar than these two on evidence and testimony I know not who. I think this would apply to any example you ask about as it is specifically applies to the most important and extraordinary supernatural events in the Bible. After all one supernatural event is just as improbable or likely as any other.

A similar argument can be made about the story of Adam and Eve, and the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus. If you would like to debate the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus, there is currently a thread about those issues at the Biblical Criticism and History forum and the FRDB (Free thought and Rational Discussion Boards). Many posters at that forum are very knowledgeable about biblical textual criticism, and some of them are professionals.

I make no claim that the flood was literal or not and so a defense of its literal reality is not demanded. Since the far more relevant and far more meaningful supernatural events and are well known to be literal are in the Gospels I suggests we contend on that far more certain ground. It is far more important whether Christ rose from the dead than whether a flood 5000 years ago was literal, symbolic, or local. Anything before recorded history is hard to evaluate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never questioned them. You completely missed what I stated. I never said macroevolution was wrong or never happened. I said stating it as a reality is based in faith. They can't even begin to prove macroevolution. That does not make it false I am sure it is true to a certain extent though it does have massive problems. My point was they use faith and we use faith but it is they who deny it exists (which is a lie) and we who admit it is used in our conclusions.

Nope. It is NOT based in faith. It's observable, it's demonstrable and it's testable. Go read up on paleontology, comparative genomics, genomic phylostratigraphy and evolutionary developmental biology.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do not seem to understand. A combat battalion is not 4th grade. There is no time for the liberalist agenda when phosphorous bits hotter than the sun are splattering all over the lines. Who cares what is fair or what rights someone claims from no known source. It makes no difference it was only the heterosexual folks at fault. Unit cohesion is a necessity and whatever compromises it (no matter whose fault in this context) must be eliminated. Screw up the work place, city parks, give preference at times, even brainwash children about homosexual acceptance but for God's sake do not compromise national defense any more than liberalism already does time and time again.

You ever been in a combat zone?

No, it certainly is not fourth grade. We are talking about grown adults, which makes it even more ridiculous. Grown adults need to act like grown adults. Gay men are there to perform the exact same tasks that the straight men are. They’re not they’re looking for dates, they’re there looking to serve and defend their country. They all share the same goals. How’s that for unit cohesion?

Practically every other free, industrialized country in the world has had absolutely no problem whatsoever integrating gay adults into the military and they haven`t had to compromise national defense. Why in the world are Americans not able to do the same, and why are you even trying to argue that they can`t?

That is an excuse, another effort to blame our faults on anything and everything but ourselves.

Uh, no. It’s simply the reality of the situation.

Straight people didn’t choose to be heterosexual any more than a gay person chose to be homosexual.

If our genes were responsible for a fraction of what they are blamed for they should be condemned to the gallows. Drunkenness, addictions of every kind, now homosexuality is biology’s fault. Tomorrow it will be espionage that's genetic. What is far more genetically of evolutionarily explainable is distrust of something so fundamentally against nature as homosexuality in humanity.

Homosexuality has always been biology’s fault, just as heterosexuality has always been biology’s fault. Why do you think we find homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom?

Addiction is hereditary in the sense that the presence of the gene creates a predisposition towards the addiction, which can be exacerbated by environmental and other biological, prenatal and neonatal factors.

What ever happen to the good old days when the most grotesque human faults brought shame and it was the acts not their critics that were condemned? In this brave new work the murder of a billion Baby's is a right, a physical act that is so unnatural it causes damage to the body is now celebrated and its critics condemned, shame is an enemy, and a rolodex of morality must be consulted daily to see what is wrong or right on this day. This never has nor ever will end well.

Ah, the good old days argument again.

We’ve since decided that there’s nothing wrong with being a gay human being. That’s what happened. Reason and rationality prevailed.

Heterosexual sex can cause damage to the body as well, so there goes that silly argument.

As well as murderers (a bunch), thieves, practices of sorcery, tyrants, and drunks. The only one that is no longer thought wrong is yours. Morality is not determined by a Washington lobby (or should not be).

Morality is not determined by a Washington lobby, it’s determined by humans and their social interactions, their environment, their genetics, their ability to reason and learn, all combined.

There have been all of these things and more. But isn’t it funny how we view murder, thievery and dictatorships as immoral, unacceptable and deviant? How do you think it is that we determine that a person is a sociopath or a psychopath?

If you suggest the acts of homosexuals and the damage they cause is not icky then I will post some of the abhorrent medical results from the practice. I am not being flippant. I am being practical. The military is the one place experimentation has already caused millions of deaths, there is no need for more, neither is there any moral reason there should be.

You are being dismissive of the dedication that gay men have to serving their country simply because they’re gay. You’re expressing an attitude that straight men are somehow more deserving of respect and praise for doing the very same thing because they’re heterosexual and you don’t find them icky.

And again, allowing gays into the military is not an experiment at this point in time, in any sense of the word. The rest of the free world has done it easily enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing that happens in the military (personally) is secret. Maybe you can call off the next battle and squeal at the God that you do not believe is there that things are not as you would have them. The rest of us must accept things as they are and fight for your right to squeal. That is why it causes so much trouble. If a man is as base and undisciplined as to practice a shameful act so unnatural it literally injures him severely in the most embarrassing manner how can I trust him in a foxhole.

What the hell does any of this have to do with a doctor blabbing about the medical problems of his patients?

Nobody cares if you think gay people are icky. They’re there serving their country in the exact same capacity as you are. Are you so arrogant as to believe they’re all just trying to get into your pants? Why are you even thinking about their sexual exploits at all, rather than focusing on the task at hand (given that you’re apparently in a foxhole)? Maybe you’re the childish one and not the gay people. Maybe the straight guy you’re in a foxhole with likes to dress up like a baby and have his diapers changed during sex. Heterosexuals can do some pretty icky things too ya know.

No, they are under the impression they do not trust anyone willing to compromise themselves in such a devastating manner. Trust is based in commonality not in perversion.

Well then that’s their problem. They should grow up and treat humans like humans.

No soldier I ever met claimed to be defending gay rights. They do not exist in nature nor in the Bill of rights. Actually I have no idea what you meant.

Stop the presses everybody, Robin has never heard a single person claim they were defending gay rights! So what?

Are they all out there just fighting to defend the rights they personally believe in then? I thought they were there defending freedom and the constitution?

That is not true but even if it was it only matters what works for our military.
Continued below:

Of course it’s true. You know, a whole world exists out there beyond the USA.
Oh I’m sorry, are Americans not just as human as everyone else on the planet?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is more closely associated with liberalism and liberalism is an component of secularism or a derivative of it. Conservative means to conserve (keep traditional values), liberalism as secularism means anything goes.

Where are you coming up with those definitions of liberalism and secularism???

Diseases once unheard of are now daily realities thanks to homosexuality. I made a small problem into an epidemic.

Which diseases, specifically?

The heck you do not experience to comprehend the Bible. It is 750,000 of the most ominous, apocalyptic, prophetic, and symbolic words on the most complex and profound issues ever written about.

It’s words on paper.

Differencing interpretations have started wars.

Don’t you find that sad and unnecessary?

Our own school system was began to enable partial comprehension over it. No subjects in human history have been as hotly contended, entire college programs exist, fields of study created, and lifetimes spent to properly understand the Bible.

It’s still words on paper. Interpreted differently by different people in different times, many to suit their own personal desires, needs, wants, etc.

However maybe you are the sage of the ages and should enlighten us all. I will not bet on it.

I can read it, same as you can. Obviously we take different things away from it. Obviously everybody does.

The subject of that verse is things envied, it is not in any way a statement on what is or is not property. That's absurd. I will bet John Wesley has a better handle on these verses than you do:

And all the things listed are things that are considered your neighbour’s property. It even says right in there that the listed things are things that belong to your neighbour.

Wesley's Notes
20:17 Thou shalt not covet - The foregoing commands implicitly forbid all desire of doing that which will be an injury to our neighbor, this forbids all inordinate desire of having that which will be a gratification to ourselves. O that such a man's house were mine! such a man's wife mine! such a man's estate mine! This is certainly the language of discontent at our own lot, and envy at our neighbor’s, and these are the sins principally forbidden here. God give us all to see our face in the glass of this law, and to lay our hearts under the government of it!
You can find six of the most respected commentaries in existence at that site and not one equates women with property. That is plain silly. I thought you had been debating very well or I very poorly in the last few posts but this one revokes all such sentiments.
In a hundred years’ time and as one sided as we both are they should dig one of us up and say "told you so". I fact Christ said he would do so.

How about just reading the damn thing?

"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor's house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
-Deuteronomy 5:21
http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/5-21.htm


You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
-Exodus 20:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A17&version=NIV

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.”
-Exodus 20:17
EXODUS 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maids...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then why didn't the doctor's even wash up then? Playing down what the Hebrews (who very well might have performed surgery) knew only makes what the 19th century men of science had unlearned even worse. By all means keep it up.
I would hope so they only had 400 years and millions of test cases killed in the process to learn things by.

They did wash up.

No you’re suggesting that the Hebrews may have performed surgeries? Where are the records then?

Again your making it worse. Why did they kill so many even though they had all this new stuff to use?

It wasn’t uniformly practiced. That’s not to say it was unknown. And not to mention that it would be extremely hard to practice in a war zone in 1863.

That or that it is a demonstrable fact of history. I even gave the evidence. Produce any that counters my claim. Instead the mere word "translated slavery" being PC kryptonite, is driving your entire argument made for effect and devoid of historical context and results.

The fact that you’re desperately trying to put it into context speaks volumes about where you’re coming from. It is not a demonstrable fact of history that the form of slavery practiced by the ancient Hebrews was the “most benevolent of its kind on earth.” Though you’re certainly trying to spin it that way because you have no choice but to believe so given the fact that you have to accept that your god said it was acceptable. Look at what you’re doing. You’re trying to tell me that it’s mostly wrong, but okay sometimes, using … what? YOUR OPINION and a specific interpretation of it taken from an ancient book and the fact that you have to accept it because your god condoned it and everything your god says or does must be right.

You may look at the 600 laws your self. I will post a few facts.
When dealing with disease, clothes and body should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13). For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water.

Let’s read it:

“When the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronounce them unclean. The raw flesh is unclean; they have a defiling disease.”


How do you get what you said from that?

Sanitation industry birthed (Deuteronomy 23:12-13). Some 3,500 years ago God commanded His people to have a place outside the camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste. Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste

Well, this is better than the last one:

“You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turnto cover up your excrement.”

OR, they figured out on their own (as most do) that poop smells and you probably don’t want it in the streets where you can step in it, in your house, in your backyard, etc. They didn’t need divine command to figure that out.

And maybe soldiers fighting in WWI didn’t want to stray too far from the trenches lest they be killed? Hmmm.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16).

“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”

This could have easily been observed along coastlines, which is where springs occur. The ancient Phoenicians were aware of them. Apparently there are many located around the Dead Sea.

How is this meant to be remarkable?

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6).

“The engulfing waters threatened me
the deep surrounded me;
seaweed was wrapped around my head.
6 To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in forever.
But you, Lord my God,
brought my life up from the pit.”

I read that as he is saying that the mountains start at the bottom of the sea.


Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”


Are you serious with this one?

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12).

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Many religions say the universe had a beginning of some kind. I guess Allah is real too.

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

“the birds in the sky,
and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.”

http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

Anyone who could observe birds flying in formation could deduce that they flew in paths. And anyone who used a boat or observed fish from land could see that they travel in schools along pathways. Are you trying to tell me that nobody could have known or did know such a thing until Matthew Maury came along? Because the ancient Polynesians and Phoenicians, Norse seafarers, Benjamin Franklin, Ponce de Leon, James Rennell, James Cook, etc. all seemed to know about these things.

A hundred more at that site available for your obscural.

I don’t see anything that would indicate the necessity of some kind of divine knowledge.

No, according to your side of the bench all sickness and death is thought (by believers) to be a supernatural event caused by God so this theory is out.

I thought this is what you had told me. That’s why I was asking you if that’s what you had meant.

Conditioned taste aversion is an actual testable, observable thing.

There has never been a time when most people were Christian, but there has been times when most science was.

What? Of course there has. European and American history is brimming with them. Remember when the Church ran the show for several centuries?

No it isn't and a vast number of atheist scholars are at least willing to admit it.

I’m calling BS on this.

It is to me, and it is to people who study sociology, history and anthropology.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have no objection to your being depressed even if there is no justification for it and I do not object to your answering a post I made to another person.

I'm in no way depressed, I can assure you.

That would indicate to us mere fallible humans that I had misunderstood and therefor distorted something you claimed. I was not responding to anything you said and was unaware of what you were referring to. There is nothing offensive about anything you did but there is nothing meaningful or logical about it either.

It doesn't neccessarily mean you have misunderstood or distorted something I have directly claimed. I think in any meaning of the word 'secularist' (if there is such a word, but you get my point) I would be included. If you are distorting or misunderstanding something about said group, then there is a personal aspect to that, much as there would be I misunderstood or made incorrect assumptions about Christianity.

My comments are about secularism not every individual secularist. I understand secularism very well as do countless theologians, philosophers, and historians through the ages. The data is far beyond anything that can be debated. A rise in secularism produces moral degradation in general.

Of course, there is no way you can include every secularist. The point is, though, the grouping is so large and diverse it is redundant in deriving conclusions from.

Because I am lazy and because it so accurate I will let this poem explain what I find wrong with secularism. It is a little hyperbolic but it's general philosophy accurately points out the drastic problems and irrationality that secularism produces:

I'm lazy too. This poem is a great example of what you are doing. Far from 'a little hyperbolic', I find it completely trite, self-serving, inaccurate and reliant on stereotypes to make the point that...umm...not sure what the point is. It is talking about atheism, rather than secularism for a start, but whatever...

Secularism isn't about living without God. It's about the separation of God and State. I'm not trying to stop anyone from living with God. Regardless, the same basic comment applies;

There is no secularist position. There is no atheist idealogy. They are umbrella terms encompassing a whole mass of humanity. The fact that you think you can assign meaningful values to that mass is what I have trouble with. I use myself as an example, since I'm ready at hand, and able to respond.

Poem removed to meet word count limit...

Ugh...sensationalistic, meaningless junk. Tell me something about my morals or beliefs. Tell me what I think of abortion, the death penalty, disarmament, communism, racism, sexism. Or better still, ask me. You're either on the boards to push your point of view, or here to learn about others. Either way, rubbish like this poem are only certain to make yourself more comfortable in your own self-righteousness, and achieve exactly neither of the other goals.

I will close by saying even if I was a secularist I would have no idea how to justify what it has produced in this country and in general elsewhere. Even one of its champions (Nietzsche) said this. Because philosophers and poets killed God in the 19th century, the 20th century would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would abound. Not only was the 20th the bloodiest, it surpassed the previous 20 centuries combined. Not only is a kind of moral insanity that produces secular gems like: a death row inmate may not be gassed but so far almost 1 Billion babies who never committed a sin may be murdered (most for the convenience of the guilty), not only this (the worst moral decision made in human history) but Nietzsche himself went quite mad. If there is a defense for what secularism produces I am unaware of it.

Awesome. Your ability to cherry pick things and assign them to secularism, and cherry pick other things and assign them to Christianity begets belief.

Homicide rates in Europe are now substantially lower now than in the middle ages. Can I use that as a sign that there is no Christian God? Phht...course not.
The worst atrocities in human history have always been committed by those who are most certain they are correct, whether the motivation is religion, idealogy, or madness. Are you really deigning to assign WW1 to secularism? No...the Russian Revolution perhaps...because that's what secularism is, right? I wonder if there are secular libertarians? Sure, they are so far politically removed from communists that it makes no sense to lump them in together...sure, some of them might be Christians...sure...ummm...



Reduce a complex argument to a ridiculously simplistic poem, and the only thing enlightening about it is what is says about you.

 

[Agnostic75]

I never questioned them. You completely missed what I stated. I never said macroevolution was wrong or never happened. I said stating it as a reality is based in faith. They can't even begin to prove macroevolution. That does not make it false I am sure it is true to a certain extent though it does have massive problems. My point was they use faith and we use faith but it is they who deny it exists (which is a lie) and we who admit it is used in our conclusions.

Theology is not a part of the scientific method. Creationism cannot be reasonably proven by using the scientific method. According to the vast majority of experts, including the vast majority of Christian experts, there is a strong probability that macro evolution is true. Ken Miller is a Christian. He has faith in God, but he does not deny what he believes that science shows about macro evolution. The main issue is obviously probability, not proof.

Since much of the very same minority of experts who support creationism also support the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, their scientific judgment is questionable, and they are trying to use faith to replace, and interpret science. It is quite obvious that everyone has faith, so the issue is not that everyone has faith, but to what extent they use it to interpret science.

You were wrong when you said that "there is no doubt that even if [Ken Miller] was right he did not prove anything in that paper."
In Miller's article at The Flagellum Unspun, he says:

"Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the 'poster child' of the modern anti-evolution movement. Variations of its image (Figure 1) now appear on web pages of anti-evolution groups like the Discovery Institute, and on the covers of 'intelligent design books.......To anti-evolutionists, the high status of the flagellum reflects the supposed fact that it could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary pathway."

It is quite obvious even to laymen that the anti-evolution crowd supports creationism, and irreducible complexity, and rejects macro evolution, and believe that the flagellum is an excellent example of why macro evolution is false. Now if the flagellum is excellent evidence that macro evolution is false, what are the alternatives? Well, for creationists, Adam and Eve, of course, is the best alternatives in their opinions, but you claim that Miller did not prove anything even if he is right. Most Christians creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve without any genetic predecessors, and that they looked pretty much like people look today. Macro evolution definitely disagrees with that, and irreducible complexity definitely disagrees with macro evolution. Logically, any "poster child" of the intelligent design/creationism movement would be very important. You are either very misinformed, and have missed something that is very obvious even to many laymen, or you know that it is very important whether or not Miller's article is important, but are pretending that it is not important. It definitely is important regarding creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve by implication.

From a scientific perspective, how can you claim that all of macro evolution has problems? You have already said that you refuse to debate an expert, but yet you keep claiming that macro evolution has lots of problems.

Are you claiming that Miller's article does not support macro evolution? If it does, then it has to imply that the story of Adam and Eve is false as it is understood by most Christians. I could easily settle this issue by starting a new thread at the Evolution vs Creationism forum at this website, and some more professional science websites. I am positive that Miller's article is very important, and that it supports macro evolution. Michael Behe thought that the issue of irreducible complexity, and the flagellum, was important enough to write a book about, but even he accepts macro evolution. He only disagrees with Charles Darwin about the mechanisms of macro evolution. Behe says:

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

You claimed that all of macro evolution has problems. Obviously, Behe disagrees with you, and so do the majority of other Christian experts. You admitted that you know very little about biology. Therefore, you are not in a position to make a scientific claim from your own personal understanding that all of macro evolution has problems. That is a nonsensical statement for a layman to make.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God. Why have you mentioned research by Vilinken, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, none of whom promote your claim that God is the leading candidate regarding the creation of the universe? As a Wikipedia article says, regarding quantum physics, often, what is counterintuitive to laymen is not counterintuitive to physicists. You are but a mere dabbler in physics, but most people who have read your posts in this thread would get the impression that you believe that you know what you are talking about. The truth is that a great many physicists would disagree with many of your conclusions, including some of your own sources. If, as you have admitted, science cannot settle the issue of the existence of God, why have you talked so much about science in this thread? If atheists cannot support their position by using science, neither can you. In addition, atheists might be right. The truth might never be found about the existence of everything from a scientific perspective since quantum physics is so complex. However, macro evolution is a much different matter according to the vast majority of experts who believe that it is very probably true.

You said:

"God is a virtual logical necessity at this time to explain what we observe."

Physics cannot confirm that you are probably right. As far as theology is concerned, I know plenty of skeptics at other websites who would demolish you in debates about theology, including some professionals. You are not nearly as well informed as you think you are.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You have complained that secular morals are bad for society. Why would Christian values be the best solution to poor morality? What is wrong with deist values? I think that deism makes much more sense than any other religion does. Presidents James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all deists. Madison is often called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution," and had a good deal to do with the Bill of Rights, and was a very strong proponent of the separation of church and state.

Are you suggesting that Christian values should be legislated? If not, how do you propose to get people to follow them? Who would be in the best position to interpret Christian values since there are many versions of Christianity regarding certain issues. Millions of Christians accept divorce, but millions do not. Millions of Christians accept women pastors, but millions of Christians do not. Millions of Christians approve of the death penalty, but millions do not. Many Christians do not object to allowing openly homosexuals people to become church members, but many do not. Millions of Christians want creationism to be taught in public schools, but millions do not.

I could mention many more issues, but if you are proposing that Christianity should dominate the U.S. to the exclusion of all other worldviews, you are violating the kind of country that James Madison thought he was helping to set up, not to mention many court precedents regarding the separation of church and state.

As far as government is concerned, secularism makes much more sense than a marriage of church and state does. As far as individual morality is concerned, how specifically do you propose to change individual morality regarding people who morals you disapprove of? Many of the most moral, kind, and productive people in the world are not Christians. The world, and the U.S., are continuing to become more diverse, and it seems that you are trying to get your religious beliefs to be predominant in the U.S. In a democracy, all groups of people have the right to practice their own world, and even many Christians in the U.S. support the separation of church and state.

Logically, there is not a correlation between the truth, and how different groups of people act. If everyone in the world became a deist, maybe the world would become a much better place to live. If so, that would not necessarily mean that deism is true. You cannot provide reasonable proof that from a secular perspective, life on earth would be considerably better is everyone was a Christian, and not a deist. In addition, non-Christians who are already very kind, and very moral, have no need of becoming Christians as far as reducing crime is concerned, and being moral, productive members of society.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following from a Christian website:

Macroevolution

In the last few decades of scientific progress many exciting milestones have been passed bringing new understanding of the intricate, amazing and complex biochemical working of biological machines. The result has been that some scientists think that most of the biochemical subsystems of these biological machines cannot be reduced to a simpler form and still maintain any useful functionality. That also means that they could not arise from a simpler form. This concept has become known as ‘irreducible complexity’ and it stands as a potential disproof of the current theories of macroevolution.

"Some scientists" is actually a relative handful, many if not the majority of whom also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, but I posted that in order to show you that Ken Miller's article about irreducible complexity does support macro evolution. According to most Christian creationists, the story of Adam and Eve, and macro evolution, cannot both be true. Therefore, Miller's article is very important, and is relevant by implication to the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[Agnostic75]

First I want to see how much you know since you are so critical. What is the absolute flaw in this particular claim as I have posted it? Behe says that basically a flagellum is so complex that it would never accumulate sequentially because it has no subset functionality. Miller or al least the argument present against this is that a syringe like organ or system which is subset functionality of the flagellum is proof that the concept of irreducible complexity is invalid. Where is the abject failure of that argument? I will illustrate it if you do not but wanted to see how much you actually know.

First of all, Behe accepts macro evolution. He only disagrees with Charles Darwin about the mechanisms of macro evolution.

Second, no one should pay any attention to what you said since you have admitted that you know very little about biology.

Third, since I know that I know very little about biology, I am not able to discuss Miller's article, but neither are you are far as having intelligent discussions with some experts is concerned, which you have conveniently refused to do.

You are just bluffing, and hoping to show that I know very little about biology, but I have already admitted that I know very little about biology. Why don't you admit that most of, or all of your objections to macro evolution are based upon theology, not upon your own personal understanding of biology? You know very well that you are not nearly qualified to debate Miller's article, and yet here you are debating it.

You don't accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory because you know that a lot of scientific evidence reasonably disproves those claims, and that the vast majority of experts reject those claims. Well, the vast majority of experts also rejects creationism, probably mostly the same experts who reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. So, why did you say that all of macro evolution has problems? How did you come to that conclusion?

As far as me being critical is concerned, you are one of the most critical Christians that I have ever come across in spending years at the Internet at various websites. Your frequent use of hyperbole detracts from the already poor quality of your arguments. You frequently belittle your opponents' arguments, which only invites the same from your opponents. You are an expert in nothing as far as Bible apologetics is concerned, and you have refused to debate experts. On the other hand, I will be happy to debate homosexuality with any experts who you can bring to this forum.

 

[Agnostic75]

Do you have reasonable proof that any Old Testament supernatural events happened?

I will illustrate this another way. Keep in mind reasonable faith is the criteria in theology, NOT SCIENCE.

Actually, many Christian support Christian apologetics, including your highly touted Ravi Zacharias. Consider the following from his website:

"The primary mission of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries is to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of a culture with the credibility of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Distinctive in its strong evangelistic and apologetic foundation, the ministry of RZIM is intended to touch both the heart and the intellect of the thinkers and influencers of society through the support of the visionary leadership of Ravi Zacharias."

Consider the following:

Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology which aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defending the faith against objections. Christian apologetics has taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul the Apostle in the early church and Patristic writers such as Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, then continuing with writers such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury during Scholasticism, Blaise Pascal before and during the Age of Enlightenment, in the modern period through the efforts of many authors such as G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis, and in contemporary times through the work of figures such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines. Christian polemic is a branch of apologetics aimed at criticizing or attacking other belief systems, e. g. the Disputation of Barcelona at the royal palace of King James I of Aragon (July 20–24, 1263).

Please note:

"Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and arguments from other disciplines."

If you are not interested in Christian apologetics, just say so. If you are interested in it, then please provide historical, philosophical, and scientific arguments that supernatural events happened in the Old Testament.

Two of the greatest if not the greatest scholars on testimony and evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst) both concluded that the Gospels meet every modern test in modern law and the historical method. I can literally add pages and pages of reasons I believe in the supernatural. One being that I have personally experienced it myself. However meeting you on the common ground of scholarship if those two names are not enough to justify faith no 1000 page tomb would be. If there was ever a greater scholar than these two on evidence and testimony I know not who. I think this would apply to any example you ask about as it is specifically applies to the most important and extraordinary supernatural events in the Bible. After all one supernatural event is just as improbable or likely as any other.

None of that will do you any good since even if supernatural events happen, that does not show "which" supernatural events have happened. In addition, even if supernatural events happen, that does not mean that, for example, God inspired, and preserved biblical writings about specific things, such as homosexuality, and divorce. Even many conservative Christian Bible scholars have admitted that the Bible contains a number of interpolations, and those are only the ones that are obvious to many Bible scholars.

You might claim that it would not make any sense for God to inspire writings that he did not intend to preserve, but many things that God supposedly does do not make any sense, such as telling Christians to tell people about the Gospel message, but refusing to tell people about it himself, and telling Christians to give food to hungry people, but refusing to give food to hungry people himself.

If a God did not inspire the Bible, that easily explains why human effort is the only way that people hear the Gospel message, and get enough food to eat.

Even the Bible implies that it is possible to change the texts. The last page of the book of Revelation warns against adding or subtracting from the texts. If adding or subtracting from the texts was not possible, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

If a God inspired the Bible, he withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him. Spending eternity in hell without parole would be immoral for anyone, but especially people who would have accepted God if he had provided them with additional evidence. Such people would not have rejected God at all. They would only have rejected limited evidence. Today, most people know that eating lots of greasy food is unhealthy, but centuries ago, many people did not know that, and suffered a lot, and died premature deaths. Some of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the risks. That group of people could not fairly be blamed for rejecting evidence that they would have accepted if they had been aware of it.

It would be completely impossible for any Bible scholar to reasonably prove that Paul wrote all of First Corinthians, including the famous passage First Corinthians 15: 3-8. I know that many if not the majority of skeptic Bible scholars believe that Paul wrote all of First Corinthians, but you can bet that they know that they are just guessing. Surely no one living today can know which of all of the original texts have been changed.

You could easily spend years just debating the authors of the Gospels, and the dates of composition, and get nowhere. You could try to provide historical evidence of the empty tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, but there is not any such evidence other than in the Bible. Christianity was much too small, and much too uninfluential in about 35 A.D. to warrant posting guards at the tomb, if Jesus was even buried in a tomb. Well-known conservative Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright says that in the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians around "to start a riot in a small village." In the best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity," sociologist Rodney Stark, who has written over 50 books, says that the Christian presence in the first century A.D. was very small, as indicated by archaeological, and papyrological evidence.

It is well-known that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark, that most Gospel accounts are not claimed eyewitness testimonies, and that John was written much too late to be of much value to Christian apologetics.

So, let's get down to discussing lots of specific evidence for supernatural events in the Old Testament that you have expertise debating.

You really do need to pay a visit to the Biblical Criticism and History Forum at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards). Most members of that forum have forgotten more about biblical textual criticism than you will ever know. You would not even be able to have basic conversations there, let alone win a debate. Perhaps within a few years you will realize how little you know at this time compared with what you think you know.

I recently replied to your most recent post in the thread on homosexuality. You are still making ridiculous arguments about that subject, and no major medical organization agrees with many of your arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: If you had been transported at birth back in time to the 1600's, it is reasonably possible that you would not have become a Christian, and that many of your opinions about morality would have been different, such as regarding colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. Therefore, a reasonable case can be made that the even if a person is honestly seeking the truth, that motive alone does not guarantee that he will find it. So, what does finding the truth depend on? Don't at least some deists, and Buddhists want to know the truth, but die without accepting Christianity? It is very sad that Christian unknowingly believe many bad things about many good non-Christians who are honestly searching for the truth.

Ravi Zacharias made a big blunder in one of his books when he claimed that the biggest failing of atheists is that they do not believe that they need God in their lives. How can atheists reject a being who they do not believe exists?

Surely most atheists believe in human oversight regarding a legal system, and parental oversight, and oversight in the military. Without oversight, and authority, there would be anarchy in society. If a moral God exists, that would be great, but if that is true, apparently deism, or some form of deism, is the most logical choice for a world view.

If powerful aliens came to earth, and set up a benevolent form of government, and provided food, and good medical care for everyone, and did away with natural disasters, few atheists would object to that.

A good deal of evidence shows that predominantly Christian democracies that are prosperous tend to be liberal regarding many issues, including acceptance of homosexuals.

 

[camanintx]

I at one time used statistics like this as an argument for Christianity. The proportion of scientists that made major contributions that were men of faith, the fact that the largest empire in history and the most powerful and benevolent nation in history were Christian nations, that the conservative Christian demographic is the most generous group, and a million others but I soon saw many flaws with the methods.

I only present these statistics to disprove your claim of "absolute fact that secularism has compromised general morality". Secular morality is no less valid than religious morality.

 

[camanintx]

Pi is a brute fact and not something that needs deriving. That's like saying derive cold. Not Pi necessarily but there are many natural constant in the universe that have no natural explanation even theoretically possible and are finely tuned to not simply allow us but to allow even a structured universe at all.

If there are no theoretical explanations for these constants, then how can you say they could have been any other than what they are? Before you can claim they are "finely tuned" you first have to show how they could have been different in the first place. Just as Pi can't be anything other than 3.14159..., isn't it reasonable to assume the other natural constants are in fact constant?

 

[PolyHedral]

If there are no theoretical explanations for these constants, then how can you say they could have been any other than what they are? Before you can claim they are "finely tuned" you first have to show how they could have been different in the first place. Just as Pi can't be anything other than 3.14159..., isn't it reasonable to assume the other natural constants are in fact constant?

The example you want is e, not pi.