INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I love how he just ignored all the stuff where I pointed out that all these numbers have gone down since the 1990's and how that kinda hurts his argument.

What are you talking about? I said specifically that I was assuming your data was right. I even went and dug up even more data (even later than yours I believe) that showed it is still higher than it was when secularism began it's rise. Maybe I have not made myself clear. My claim is that secularism began to dominate the cultural and political landscape around 1960. Even with local drops I gave data that shows the current rate in juvenile crime alone is still 4 times what it was then. In what way is all that (whether ultimately accurate or not) ignoring anything?

 

[1robin]

Meh...I didn't realise you were back. Haven't a chance right now to respond to your earlier posts, so I apologise.
But your sources on Canadian crime stats appear to be biased...

Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2011

Canada's crime rate in 2011 lowest since 1972 - Canada - CBC News

Police report lowest crime rate in forty years, Statistics Canada says | News | National Post

And, speaking fairly generically, 1990 WAS actually a high-water mark for crime, as per the links above.

I agree that the 90's were a peak for many metrics for crime. However even with a drop since then they are still far worse off than they were when secularism began to burrow in like a tick, back in the 60's. For the sake of time can you explain why anyone would want to show Canadian crime worse than it actually is. Also please review the hundreds of stats contained in the links I gave. Even if a few were in error the general trend is simply unavoidable. I have had many hours in stats class and have avoided arguing them because they are very pliable and contenders will ignore the bulk and detour the entire conversation in a rabbit hole concerning technicalities with a very small minority. My claims concern the general trends from the 60's until today and local fluctuations will not be relevant. Don't worry about replying in a hurry, I kind of snuck back in here on you
.

 

[1robin]

OR you alone decided to provide statistics ending in 1990 because you realized that the numbers didn’t continue increasing during the last 23 years as you had expected. So you left them out. Or you couldn’t find anything after 1990.

None of this is true. My position does not require that the number rise steadily throughout the last 50 years. I only need to show they end higher than they begin. It is possible I make mistakes or all manner of screw ups. I simply do not care enough to invent or intentionally select data to prove a point. I was not aware of the dates I chose as they all were within the range. My only criteria (unlike some of yours) was that they were not simply rates but showed change over time and fell within 1960 - 2013.

That sounds more plausible to me.

Whether plausible or not it simply is wrong. I just do not care enough to go through the trouble. I do not win a prize or anything.

I’m not talking to all Christians, I’m talking to you. I don’t know where this claim comes from that all Christians believe anything. I certainly didn’t make it.

Where did I say anything about Christians believing everything.

That’s some major coincidence then. Practically every single statistic you provided ended sometime in the 1990’s.

They all came from one site so it may be some criteria of that site that I am unaware of. I only gave a dozen or two and there were hundreds at those links. I went back and scanned them trying to figure out why my dates were so consistent and found vast numbers that were from the 2000s

Well, yeah. I provided a whole bunch of links showing basically that.
I think the better argument is that crime rates and many other things on your list, go in cycles. Sometimes they’re high, given various factors and circumstances present in society, and sometimes they’re low(er).

If you can demonstrate that then have at it. That is something I have never heard of on a scale that would explain the summation of all the data I have linked to.

Wikipedia must be in on this liberal conspiracy to drag the world into secular chaos!

No, Wikipedia is only as good as it's authors. It's authors are many times laymen like us. I never even hinted at any bias.

Oh wait, they provide links and references at the bottom of the page for anyone to peruse. Whew!

I never knew it had links I guess it is omniscient therefor.

I hate to point it out to you but it must be done: It seems that all these Christian-oriented sites you’re linking to appear to be cherry picking statistics to suit their agenda. Maybe that explains why they all end 23 years ago. And just to let you know, many of your links didn’t even work. And some of the ones that did, appear to cite their source but when you actually go to the cited source, the alleged statistics are nowhere to be found.

I knew the trusty old "bias' was not far off. Even if all the dates on all the sites I gave were chosen specifically to stop at the exact point that would make secularism look bad it would not make current levels lower than when secularism began to change the moral landscape in the 60's. Have you ever had a stats class?

That site doesn’t indicate any such thing.

I did not say it did. My statement was a summation of what I have recently seen concerning the stats in a general way.

“Eighty-Four percent of the increase in prison admissions were for

non-violent offense. Congress has barred inmates from receiving grants for college and correspondence courses.”

What? Are non-violent crimes no longer immoral? I never restricted my claims to less than immorality. You keep pointing out distinctions that make no difference. Let me restate what I claim in even more detail because I still do not think you get them.

1. My claim concerns approx. 1960 until today.
2. I claim that immorality statistics are "in general" worse today than around 1960.
3. By in general I mean if you averaged all immoral statistics together they are higher now than then. There are exceptions. There are local maximums and minimums but the general trend is in the wrong direction.

We have gone down to many rabbit holes and off ramps and are engaged in a hopeless statistic war. If you understand what I am claiming I propose we start fresh and only post a few stats at a time. I have a massive technical problem at work (science???) and that is all I can do justice. Agreed?

 

[1robin]

But an article at What Is Nothing? Physicists Debate | The Existence of Nothing | LiveScience shows that there is not a widely agreed scientific definition for the word "nothing."

Your own sources, Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, and Penrose, have not claimed, as you have claimed, that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. In addition, the majority of leading scientists do not believe in God.
Since the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, reasonable people do not claim that science provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a God exists.
You have said that all of macro evolution has problems, but one study showed that 99.86% of scientists who study the earth and its life forms accept macro evolution, including your own source Michael Behe, who said the following:
"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.
Research has also shown that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.
You have said that some creationists have Ph.D.s, but they are only a relative handful, and you can bet that a good percentage of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Two of the leading creationist organizations in the world. the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG), accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. Since their biblical literalism, and biblical presuppositionalism convinced them to accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, not valid science, it is probable that the same beliefs convinced them to accept creationism, not valid science.
Another way of putting it would be to say that the vast majority of scientists who reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory, also reject creationism.
You have admitted that you do not know a lot about biology, but even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, the vast majority of biologists, including the majority of Christian biologists would disagree with you. In addition, if a creationist with a Ph.D. in biology came to this forum to try to help you with your claim that all of macro evolution has problems, how would that help you since the vast majority of people do not know nearly enough about biology to adequately judge complex arguments about biology? The same goes for discussions about quantum physics. As a Wikipedia article says, what is often counterintuitive about quantum physics is not counter intuitive to physics.
If needed, I could post a number of articles by physicists, including articles by some of your own sources, about the possibility of getting something from nothing, but since quantum physics is very complex, and frequently counterintuitive, why should we laymen waste time dabbling with things that we do not know very much about, and which quantum physicists themselves still have much to learn?
At best, all that you have accomplished in this thread is to make a reasonable case that science has not ruled out the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. That obviously also means that science has not ruled out that naturalism is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, if a moral God exists, that would be great. Who would not want to spend a comfortable eternal life free of disease, hunger, wars, natural disasters, and death if they believed that there was such a life after death?

I am sorry but I have little time at the moment. I will give a very brief summary and if you wish more will do so as soon as I can.

I regard a discussion about what nothing is, a semantic absurdity. It makes no difference in my context however. The quantum does not propose a nothing. It proposes a fluctuating energy field.

I did not use those scientists to make a theological point. I use scientists to make scientific points. At the theoretical point nature did not exist their expertise ends. I use theologians and philosophers to examine issues beyond that point.

I do not think I ever said macro-evolution has not happened. I hope I said it has never been observed, and so is based in some part of faith. I believe it has occurred but there are very problematic issues with it. I also believe evolution alone cannot explain reality as we see it.

I also do not remember endorsing any creationistic scenario that has any stats possible. I actually do not have a firm viewpoint on what Genesis is claiming about creation and so have not adopted any set ideas beyond Life only come from life.
You will have to provide the statement about creationist PhD’s I do not remember it or the context and the way you post excludes the links. I agree that creatonists and especially that Dr Morris guy assume way too much.

I have no firm position on the flood. It may very well be allegorical. My position on the Pentateuch is that it is accurate (based on the rest of the Bible's accuracy) but what it says is not clear to me in every detail. I generally do not use claims made before historical times. That still leaves 90% of the Bible to evaluate. Using that 90% I also believe that the other 10% is just as accurate but still unclear.

I agree with you on not discussing things laymen (or pretty much anyone) truly understands. I just have a much greater amount of things I include in that category. Pretty much all of the science used against the Bible lies in this "fantasy" category. All reliable science is consistent with it.

I appreciate the summary you made but if you are asserting that faith is a result of convenience then Hell, sin, accountability, judgment, and what it states about humanity is one heck of an inconvenient result. I also must apologize because most of the claims you attribute to me I have no recollection of making recently and so am unclear of their context. Maybe by the time you respond I will have recalled them.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I do not think I ever said macro-evolution has not happened. I hope I said it has never been observed

Well, obviously, since that would require one live many hundreds of thousands of years.

and so is based in some part of faith.

No, that doesn't follow.

I also believe evolution alone cannot explain reality as we see it.

Another "duh!" right here... It cannot explain why, for instance, liquids behave as they do, or how entropy works, or anything else. So far as the domain to which it is applicable, i.e. the diversity of life on earth, it is sufficient.

 

[1robin]

Well, obviously, since that would require one live many hundreds of thousands of years.

I agree. My argument was not that it has not been observed there for it can't be true. It was that it can't be observed so faith has some role in that claim that it is true even if it actually is.

No, that doesn't follow.

It is quite impossible that it does not. In fact virtually everything has an element of faith involved but I am not being this dogmatic here. Even the honest evolutionists admit that it is not a proven fact. Faith is the only category left for a positive claim.

Another "duh!" right here... It cannot explain why, for instance, liquids behave as they do, or how entropy works, or anything else. So far as the domain to which it is applicable, i.e. the diversity of life on earth, it is sufficient.

I thought the obvious context was "observable about life as we know it" entropy and liquids were not even mentioned. I see that even the most obvious context will be contended. However I do not see why? The existence of life its self or even a material universe at all is not explainable by brute natural law. Natural law does not create.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This site shows that the numbers of child abuse deaths per day rose from 3.3 in 1998 to over 5 in 2010. I can't figure out how to copy and paste graphics so here is the link. http://www.childhelp-usa.com/pages/statistics

According to this study: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV137J.pdf
“Sexual abuse started to decline in the early 1990s, after at least 15 years of steady increases. From 1990 through 2004, sexual abuse substantiations were down 49%”
and,
“Various forms of child maltreatment and child victimization declined as much as 40–70% from 1993 until 2004, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault, homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and larceny.”

There are graphs there as well.

This corresponds to the other study I provided earlier.


How does this relate to secularism, by the way?

Is this a claim that less than 1% is ok? My comments are about relative levels versus the rise of secularism. That is a very strange claim.

Um, no. Why would you think it is?

The point is that the number is thankfully, incredibly low. You made it seem as though there was some mass increase in child abuse rates, which is not what I found. The opposite appears to be true. Also, the way we handle child abuse cases seems to have improved over the years.

Wait a minute, aren’t you the one who said that disciplining kids involves hitting them and that teachers should be able to do so?

I was going to give this one to you except I realized your statics are worse than mine (year related). You complain that I only posted a certain range of data then you post an even smaller range.

My point in posting those was to provide the years you had left out. Namely from 1990 up to the present day. It turns out they’ve declined since the 1990’s, as in, they aren’t steadily increasing. In fact, it appears to be cyclical, as I said.

While there has been a shift the rates are still higher than before secularism took hold. They are currently higher than even as recently as 1980.
The overall delinquency caseload was 48% larger in 1997 than it was in 1988, and four times as large as it was in 1960.[10]

According to the FBI overall homicide/manslaughter rates are LOWER than they were in 1960 (5.1 per 100,000 people in 1960 compared with 4.8 per 100,000 people in 2010).
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm

I’m having the hardest time finding good numbers for juveniles. I’ll have to search more when I have more time. It’s pretty apparent that the numbers are on the decline rather than increasing, as your argument would imply.

If you do not see the cost of fragmented families and single parent homes there is no argument that I could make that would help.

You didn’t say that. You said that marriage is in decline, as in, less people are getting married. Why is THAT immoral?

Robbing children of having two parent available at the same time is not only immoral it has resulted in an increase in crimes in and of itself.

Maybe, maybe not. You haven’t shown that.

Again if you are not already convinced of this an argument from me will not help. The Bible said God allows divorce because we are sinful and obviously ruin much of what we do. The point is that divorce occurs because we are faulty and our being faulty is sinful. That is not to say divorce can be justified within that context but that does not mean it is right or good as a concept. I can explain what I mean but if you do not think the dissolution of the family is wrong I can't fix that. It is just this lack of moral clarity that I think secularism causes.

We have to ask ourselves though, are kids better off living in families where the parents aren’t in love, don’t get along, and/or fight all the time, or are they better off spending time individually and separately with each parent in a more positive environment? That’s the more important aspect of this one, if you ask me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Does the concept change or become "better" by changing the label?

Well yeah. It’s kind of an insulting term in 2013.

I never used either of those words.

That’s what “illegitimate” means.

It is very hard to have a moral discussion with a secularist because morality is an ambiguous uncertain thing with them.

Not really. You just think it is because of your whole obedience to divine authority thing.

I have stated many times that the lack of moral clarity the dismissal of God causes is in large part the cause of immorality. I think as secularism caused problems so undeniable over the years that the reclassification of what is even wrong is now the only defense. If you can't agree that having only one parent available is detrimental in general then on what ground could it even be discussed.

Whoa, whoa. We’re not necessarily talking about kids with one parent when we’re discussing “illegitimate” children. As far as I know, that term simply means only that the parents are unwed. That doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t together.

I wouldn’t say that in all cases having one parent available is detrimental, if say, one of the parents were an alcoholic or something. It depends on the circumstances. Maybe these kids have one parent available along with 4 grandparents, or an aunt or uncle, etc.

This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts about secularists and liberals.

1. I never mentioned any one specifically.
2. I never said anything what so ever about whether a child from a single parent home was any less sweet.
3. I certainly never said they were any less human.
4. Appeals to sympathy are what are used instead of arguments when a person is emotionally (not rationally) driven.

Labeling them “illegitimate” implies there is something wrong with them, in my opinion. Why even bother using the term at all? Why do you even care if a child’s parents are officially married or not?

By the way, everyone is emotionally-driven, to some extent. None of us are making any decisions without some emotional factor involved. That’s how humans operate.

This is cheap theatrics and a very underhanded technique used to place anyone who disagrees with you on lower moral ground and is a common tactic from your side.

Ohhhh, I see. You mean like when you talk about the health problems of homosexuals or being in a foxhole with a gay person and imagining what they do in the bedroom. You mean like that? Or how about referring to someone as “illegitimate?” That must be what you mean. You must have become a secularist/liberal when I wasn’t looking.

It is like the argument that we should spend trillions we do not have on a health care plan that was illegally passed and sold as going to save us money and anyone who is monetarily responsible does not want people to be healthy. It is a garbage argument and offensive. My mother died when I was a teenager so I obviously have no axe to grind. Single parent homes are in general deficient to a complete family unit. If you disagree then do so without insinuating I claimed they are less than human. That is an obvious sign of an argument that could not be made on rational grounds. I need a break after that one.

Well I think referring to a human being as “illegitimate” is offensive. As is your portrayal of gay people.
I guess we’re even. Come off it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am sorry but I have little time at the moment. I will give a very brief summary and if you wish more will do so as soon as I can.

I regard a discussion about what nothing is, a semantic absurdity. It makes no difference in my context however. The quantum does not propose a nothing. It proposes a fluctuating energy field.

I did not use those scientists to make a theological point. I use scientists to make scientific points. At the theoretical point nature did not exist their expertise ends. I use theologians and philosophers to examine issues beyond that point.

I do not think I ever said macro-evolution has not happened. I hope I said it has never been observed, and so is based in some part of faith. I believe it has occurred but there are very problematic issues with it. I also believe evolution alone cannot explain reality as we see it.

I also do not remember endorsing any creationistic scenario that has any stats possible. I actually do not have a firm viewpoint on what Genesis is claiming about creation and so have not adopted any set ideas beyond Life only come from life.
You will have to provide the statement about creationist PhD’s I do not remember it or the context and the way you post excludes the links. I agree that creatonists and especially that Dr Morris guy assume way too much.

I have no firm position on the flood. It may very well be allegorical. My position on the Pentateuch is that it is accurate (based on the rest of the Bible's accuracy) but what it says is not clear to me in every detail. I generally do not use claims made before historical times. That still leaves 90% of the Bible to evaluate. Using that 90% I also believe that the other 10% is just as accurate but still unclear.

I agree with you on not discussing things laymen (or pretty much anyone) truly understands. I just have a much greater amount of things I include in that category. Pretty much all of the science used against the Bible lies in this "fantasy" category. All reliable science is consistent with it.

I appreciate the summary you made but if you are asserting that faith is a result of convenience then Hell, sin, accountability, judgment, and what it states about humanity is one heck of an inconvenient result. I also must apologize because most of the claims you attribute to me I have no recollection of making recently and so am unclear of their context. Maybe by the time you respond I will have recalled them.

What are the problems, as you perceive them, with macroevolution?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is quite impossible that it does not.

Um... Ok? That something is not directly observable does not entail that it cannot be nevertheless be justifiably inferred without faith (in any robust sense). This is a false dichotomy.

In fact virtually everything has an element of faith involved but I am not being this dogmatic here.

Only if we assign "faith" such a broad meaning as to essentially render the term useless...

Even the honest evolutionists admit that it is not a proven fact.

Really? Like who? Or are you maybe confusing this, with the demonstrable fact that you cannot strictly "prove" anything in science, because proof pertains to the deductive method of mathematics and logic, not the inductive method of science.

I thought the obvious context was "observable about life as we know it" entropy and liquids were not even mentioned. I see that even the most obvious context will be contended.

Well, but that's the point- scientific theories exist to explain a specific domain of phenomena. They do not purport to explain anything outside of that, and if they are insufficient for even their own domain, then they ought to be discarded.

However, I'm aware of no such insufficiency with respect to evolutionary theory.

The existence of life its self or even a material universe at all is not explainable by brute natural law. Natural law does not create.

Well, but now we've moved beyond the realm of scientific explanations of natural phenomena into the realm of metaphysics. But nevertheless, the hidden premise here is that the "material universe" as such requires some ultimate explanation- which is far from self-evident, and reeks of a compositional fallacy anyways.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

The point is that the number is thankfully, incredibly low. You made it seem as though there was some mass increase in child abuse rates, which is not what I found. The opposite appears to be true. Also, the way we handle child abuse cases seems to have improved over the years.

I want to use the time I know I have to address a few things and then when I can I will go back and hit the rest. You are welcome to remind me if I don't. I believe what I posted was that child abuse rates increased by 50%. Is that not significant? On what basis is 1 a day low, much less 5.5?

Wait a minute, aren’t you the one who said that disciplining kids involves hitting them and that teachers should be able to do so?

I agree with that somewhat but I don't remember saying so. Actually I do not care if how it's done just as long as kids are disciplined appropriately. The method does not matter as long as it works and is just. The greatest injustice committed by parents is to not teach their children restraint and moral courage.

You didn’t say that. You said that marriage is in decline, as in, less people are getting married. Why is THAT immoral?

If that was what that statistic indicated then I withdraw it. I regard it as bad but it would be hard to label it as immoral.

We have to ask ourselves though, are kids better off living in families where the parents aren’t in love, don’t get along, and/or fight all the time, or are they better off spending time individually and separately with each parent in a more positive environment? That’s the more important aspect of this one, if you ask me.

I was not arguing about these issues specifically. My point was an increase in families busting up is the wrong direction in general, but there are always exceptions. I said the Bible says we are faulty and have basically screwed up most of what we touch (every government we seem to create dies miserably) so he allows divorce but does not like it. Apparently our screwing up is getting worse because divorce is.

Well I think referring to a human being as “illegitimate” is offensive. As is your portrayal of gay people.
I guess we’re even. Come off it.

I borrowed this from the latter post.

I absolutely refuse to be bound by the ever changing winds of what term we are allowed to use this week is. That term is how it is been professional labeled for years and years and I find it less potentially offensive than any other I can think of. Just out of curiosity what is the current permissible word and why?

As for my portrayal of gay people you went way off the rails here.

1. I have made no claim about any specific person. I actually really like every gay person I have ever met except one and she would have been a basket case no matter what her orientation.

2. Every claim I can remember making are simple obvious and conceded issues that can't be separated from the practice. a) It costs all of us billions. b) It causes diseases to be spread at a greater rate without any justifying gain. c) I and thousands of professional US officers (who actually presented a petition, they not me) claim it causes a lessening of cohesion in the military. Only the last one is even debatable and it is not offensive even if false.

3. Those claims have no equality with the claims you made that I complained of on any level and make nothing even (not that that was the point anyway). You suggested I made some personal judgment about your niece which I did not, would not, and resent the tactic. I literally the hate the common liberal tactic of condemning anyone who does not agree with their terrible ideas with irrationally derived moral dysfunction. It is a despicable tactic. I however consider this an exception in your case and never make any official complaints no matter how absurd personal remarks get and you can consider the issue closed unless you will not allow it to be.

I also wanted to attempt to circumvent the statistics wars that are never resolvable with a simple claim if that is possible.

1) Do you agree that popular television programs are a good indicator of cultural taste?
2) If so (If not why in the Sam Hill not?) then can you name a single moral category where current programming is more moral than 40’s and 50’s television programming was?

I thought of this last night and can’t conceive of why this would not settle the issue even as silly as it is.

 

[Agnostic75]

Natural law does not create from nothing.

I would only claim God as the leading and most sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and thus disagree with what you said. If you want sources, please read post #1, and #13 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...what-do-leading-scientists-believe-about.html.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, so they obviously do not claim that God is the leading and most sufficient theory.

 

[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 Christians 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."

Please note "the heart and the intellect," not just faith.

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.

Are you interested in Christian apologetics, which the article says is a field of Christian theology? If so, please provide historical, and scientific arguments that specific supernatural events occurred during Old Testament times, such as a global flood, or a regional flood, and the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Then we can discuss historical, and scientific evidence for supernatural events in the New Testament.

And, we could at spend at least a few months discussing philosophical arguments, such as why God wants everyone to hear the Gospel message, but refuses to verbally tell anyone about it himself, and why God wants people to have enough food to eat, but refused to prevent millions of people from starving to death, including many Christians. What sense does it make for God to tell Christians to give food to hungry people, but refuse to give food to hungry people himself?

Regarding your comments about macro evolution, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of, according to one study, 99.86% of experts who accept it. Of the relative handful of experts who accept creationism, a good percentage of them also accept the global flood theory, and or the young earth theory, such as the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis), who accept both of those theories. It is reasonable to conclude that their (the ICR, AIG, and all other creationists who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory) religious predispositionalism has prevented them from conducting objective scientific research. Perhaps only a few dozen creationist biologists in the U.S. who have a Ph.D. in biology do not accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory, maybe less than that, and yet you believe that it is plausible that creationism is true. Why is that? Are some of your reasons scientific, or just theological? I think that the very large consensus of experts who accept macro evolution shows that creationism is not plausible. By "plausible," I mean "reasonably possible."

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

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

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

It is quite obvious that laymen should not pay any attention to scientists such as Morris, Jones, Yarhouse, and all other conservative Christian experts who only use science as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with their religious beliefs. At least Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse publically admitted their religious bias.

It is reasonable for people to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, or an allegory.

In another thread, you said that many U.S. Christians supported the abolition of slavery, but before Christ, the Stoics in Greece strongly criticized slavery, so those Christians were over 2,000 years too late.

You were also complaining about secularism, but what is the best solution to secularism? Do you wish to legislate the Bible?

 

[1robin]

Please define the world "nature."

In the context I have been using it means events and objects that can be described by natural law.

Are you implying that nature did not exist until the big bang happened?

I am implying that no evidence exist that it did. The currently most accepted model in cosmology posits that nothing existed until the big bang occurred. The Velankin theorem I have posted a few times is the best current model and was designed to be a very robust theory. Of course these circumstances are so consistent with God that it appears to have demanded every form of fantasy and fiction be appealed to including oscillating universes and multiverses None of which arise to the level or even a faint rival to the model I gave and are not really even science based (but that is another issue)

Would a fluctuating energy field be a part of nature? If not, why not?

Yes but even it did not exist eternally in the model I gave.

Could a fluctuating energy field plausibly have caused the big bang?

No one can say with certainty what is possible or not concerning these issues. I can only say that many argument within and in addition to that theorem make an eternal natural anything very unlikely. I can elaborate as you wish (at least to a point). There are some very good reasons to believe eternal and infinite natural concepts are impossible in addition to being unlikely.

Since the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and what is counterintuitive to laymen is often not counterintuitive to physicists, why are we still discussing quantum physics? Are you trying to make a case that science shows that it is probable that a God exists, or are you trying to make a case that science shows that it is plausible that a God exists? If the latter, then is it not also plausible that naturalism is true from an entirely scientific perspective?

Any kind of official stance on theology is outside the bounds of what science can deal with and lay claim to. A neutral stance is appropriate but not very meaningful. I have no idea why we are discussing Quantum Physics. I hate the subject and struggled with three semesters of regular physics. Beyond my one claim about what it presupposes I nor anyone else known that much about it IMO. I am making no case beyond this. The reliable claims of science are consistent with the Bible. Those areas which are used to attack the Bible lie in a realm of science that borders on fantasy and require a lot of faith. These questions are far more professional than your previous ones. Did you write these from scratch? Do you mean naturalism the world view or naturalism of science?

How have you sufficiently used theologians and philosophers to reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible?

These are good questions but let me change the terminology a bit here. Things are proven or not, they are not reasonably proven or unreasonably proven. The burden of faith is to show that the evidence justifies belief or that faith is intellectually permissible but I got your point. The argument to demonstrate the quality of the evidence for Biblical testimony comes from many sources. If you will go to this link you will find the explanation of what constitutes evidence and testimony reliability from one of histories greatest experts in those fields. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

On the contrary, no science reasonably confirms any of the supernatural events in the Bible.

On the contrary to what? I never claimed science proves the Bible. I don't think science proves large segments of science. Saying science can't verify the supernatural is like saying a thermometer can't be used to measure mileage. The definition of supernatural is boyond the natural. However you see if science is consistent with some supernatural claims. For example The Bible poists a universe (time space and matter) beginning to exist a finite tima ago. That is exactly what the best cosmological model claims. Do you get what I am driving at here? Another example is that the Bible claims life can't or did not arrise on it's own. Science even has a precept or law that states life only comes from life (abiogenesis). Before we get get into whether the science I claim is right I want to make sure you uderstand sciences role in theological argumentation. It is only a small piece of a enormous puzzle.

Actually, many Christians 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."
Please note "the heart and the intellect," not just faith.

What was this a reply to? I have no disagreement with what you posted.

Consider the following:
Are you interested in Christian apologetics, which the article says is a field of Christian theology? If so, please provide historical, and scientific arguments that specific supernatural events occurred during Old Testament times, such as a global, or a regional flood, and the Ten Plagues in Egypt. Then we can discuss supernatural events in the New Testament.

If I was not so old and had not already wasted 190 sem hours in math and physics I would go to school for it and hope to do it for a living and Ravi is among the top 6 I have ever heard. I think the logic backwards in your order. Would it not make sense to discuss the most recent and best historically documented events before we slide down the scale to pre-history? It is also not valid to demand the specific ways in which a thing may be proven. If it can be demonstrated a claim is reasonable the method would be irrelevant. That is how life in general is approached.

Regarding your comments about macro evolution, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of, according to one study, 99.86% of experts who accept it. Of the relative handful of experts who accept creationism, a good percentage of them also accept the global flood theory, and or the young earth theory, such as the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis), who accept both of those theories. It is reasonable to conclude that their (the ICR, AIG, and all other creationists who accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory) religious predispositionalism has prevented them from conducting objective scientific research. Perhaps only a few dozen creationist biologists in the U.S. who have a Ph.D. in biology do not accept the global flood theory, or the young earth theory, maybe less than that, and yet you believe that it is plausible that creationism is true. Why is that? Are your reasons scientific, or just theological? I think that the very large consensus of experts who accept macro evolution shows that creationism is not plausible. By "plausible," I mean "reasonably possible."

I think you are still misunderstanding what I claim. I claim macro evolution more than likely occurred many times. However I think there are aspects of evolution that are very problematic but there is sufficient evidence to believe it is true even though problematic, but I have no idea to what extent. However even if I simply conceded that macro evolution was a fact it would not make God less probable. Continued:

 

[1robin]

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

I have little regard for Morris. He over reaches in the manner you claim. However every once in a while he comes up with a very interesting claim. I thought I had already established plausible deniability concerning Morris.

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

How in the heck did you manage to work in a paragraph on homosexuality in this discussion that I have seen at least once and probably twice? I am even pretty sure I commented on it sufficiently. Before I decide on whether I am willing to open this Pandora’s box again I want to know something. What is it that is driving you to desire to debate this so voraciously? Even if you were a a homosexual that would not be enough IMO to describe your desire. Why do you wish to convince me in particular to such an extent? I did not think your argument convincing but I know mine was not so spectacular that you consider me some kind of authoritative adversary. Your drive IMO is worthy of a better subject. You would make on heck of a Christian apologist given time.

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

Apparently we are in the rabbit hole to stay. I will think on whether a breach of a subject this troublesome merits reexamining but I promise nothing. Hope that does not appear rude. There are some issues I want to tackle in the latter half of that paragraph but it will have to be done separately as it will take a while. Please remind me if I forget as I am interested in some things you said there.

It is quite obvious that laymen should not pay any attention to scientists such as Morris, Jones, Yarhouse, and all other conservative Christian experts who only use science merely as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with their religious beliefs. At least Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse publically admitted their religious bias.

I have already denied Morris as an authority and I have no recollection of the other two beyond your posts. They are certainly not people I have learned to have any confidence in. I will defend William Craig, Prof J Lennox, S Greenleaf, Sandage, A. E. Wilder, Lyndhurst, or any scholar of their caliber. Credentials don't get much higher for that group and they are legendary secular scholars as well as apologists.

It is reasonable for people to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, or an allegory.

I agree with it possibly being an allegory. I shy away from the first five books, not because they are wrong but because it is hard to make firm decisions about their literalness. That is only true in general, many of their claims a specific and clear. I have no idea how you got only what you said in one post.

 

[1robin]

What are the problems, as you perceive them, with macroevolution?

Why is everyone I debate inexhaustible? There is no way I can keep up with the volume you and the others generate. I will give a few but most would apply to all of evolution and remember these are only problems that I have not heard a sufficient explanation for not a basis for claiming evolution does not happen.

1. The universe could have been anything as far as we know. The range of values that produce a universe that can even support the possibility for evolution is necessarily a vanishingly small range of an unquantifiable whole. How can you even even give nothing becoming everything a likely hood without some God like force?
2. Given we got that universe to start with I believe I have already given about 10,000 words concerning the layer after layer of contingent improbabilities that all have to occur to allow life to even begin. I am not currently interested in doing this over again. I also regard this as an absolute bulletproof impediment to evolution but I still believe it does occur. However I do not believe life occurred by natural means alone.
3. There seems to be a natural barrier between species (fertility barrier) which is inconsistent with evolutionary models Whether that be (bush, tree, or forest model). The theory evolves faster than life.
4. Here is one another guy says better than I can but I am familiar with.
(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change
in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things
are the most complex functioning systems in the universe. Science has now
quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an
animal's genome is relentlessly fatal. The genetic difference between human and
his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a
gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random
changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 )
5. The (geologically) virtually instantaneous appearance of all major body types without any of the development that evolution says should be there in the Cambrian period.
6. Here is a site that I have been reading I think gives many good arguments. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
7. I have a few questions for you. Do you think an insect species that is claimed to have evolved a resistance to a chemical is an example of evolution? At which micro evolutionary change is anything a new species? If we can breed dogs into every conceivable shape and form why have we not made a non-dog (or cow, horse, or even any new insect species) by now?
8. A creature with no eye structure at all branching out into many different lines of evolution that all produced eyes by seperate paths is inconsistent with evolution.

I remind you of my two claims. I believe evolution occurs. I believe it has problems that no current knowledge can resolve.

 

[1robin]

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and thus disagree with what you said. If you want sources, please read post #1, and #13 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/147818-what-do-leading-scientists-believe-about.html.

You make some bizarre arguments some times. How does this even taken on face value argue against anything I said. Christians once dominated science and literally created many of the actual fields themselves but I was not discussing that.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, so they obviously do not claim that God is the leading and most sufficient theory.

Already addressed this.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you will go to this link you will find the explanation of what constitutes evidence and testimony reliability from one of histories greatest experts in those fields. [URL]http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html[/URL]

I already started a thread weeks ago about that at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/148389-simon-greenleaf.html, and I used the same link that you did. You are welcome to make a post in that thread if you wish. Greenleaf was a lawyer, and a jurist, not a professional theologian, or a professional Bible scholar. At any rate, let's discuss him in the thread that I mentioned. In that thread, please state some examples of what you like in the article. Much of the article is nonsense.

What about the reliability of the Old Testament ? Greenleaf was just referring to the New Testament.

 

[Agnostic75]

Christians once dominated science and literally created many of the actual fields themselves but I was not discussing that.

But the ancient Greeks were easily the greatest scientists in history by far, not to mention their significant contributions to art, philosophy, and literature. That is true especially considering how long ago they lived.

You have said that God is the leading explanation for the existence of the universe. Which leading physicists agree with you?