INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Aside from that article, there is not any reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

What non-biblical evidence is there that at the time of Jesus' death, he was controversial enough to warrant Pilate having guards posted at the tomb?

There is not any reliable historical evidence about how the disciples died.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my two most recent posts in the thread on homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

The Apostles burdened themselves with a massive empirical burden they had every reason to avoid if their claims were false. There was no expectation of a bodily rising Christ. Even they (even though they should have) did not expect Christ to actually physically resurrect. The Jews certainly didn't. They could have very easily claimed he spiritually arose from the dead and no one could have possibly proven otherwise. However they against all logic proposed he was not in his sealed and guarded grave any longer. Why? Issues with a theft claim only adds improbability onto improbability. Good luck. I can't event think of a bad explanation.

Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Aside from that article, there is not any reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

What non-biblical evidence is there that at the time of Jesus' death, he was controversial enough to warrant Pilate having guards posted at the tomb?

There is not any reliable historical evidence about how the disciples died.

Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael 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.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates, so you merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

From an entirely scientific perspective, since you are far from being an expert in biology, there is no way that you could know that creationism is true even if it is true. And that is even more of a large percentage of creationist laymen who know very little about biology.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my two most recent posts in the thread on homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Nope. But every football field contains an infinite amount of intervals, just as any distance does.

Neither contain an infinite number of finite distances. Nothing does. You argument was a semantic loophole concerning language and terminology. NO matter how you slice it (no matter how small) everything is composed of a finite number of those divisions.

Why?

Because only that has any relevance.

Lol... Ok.

LOL is one abused pop culture crutch. Are you denying that infinity is an asymptotic condition to most physical models? Look at relativity or any actual real entity for example.

The opposite of what you said is the case. Being aware of the fallacious and often just shameless nature of Craig's arguments against infinite collections is a mark of distinction; that one is familiar enough with the philosophy of religion to be aware of this patent fact. The fact is, Craig is a midget in his field.

He is paid by well respected universities for the opposite qualities.

You don't know what my credentials are or are not, unfortunately.

I am going with the odds. There is little chance an intellectual and philosophical giant so omniscient that they can dismiss Craig in a few sentences is on a forum instead of a several boards at major universities or ruling a universe somewhere.

Whatever this "boundary condition" is supposed to mean...

It means nothing known is infinite.

It's modal logic.
Um, Godel's theorem does NOT suggest any such thing, even though it may well be true all the same.

I would have accepted it does not prove it. It most certainly suggests it. Did you think I was saying the logical axioms you gave suggested this? What part of a perpetually incomplete theory doe snot suggest perpetual incompleteness?

If there is anything more frequently misquoted and misrepresented than Godel's theorems, I'd sure like to know what it is.

IMO An atheist's abuse of fallacy, liberal moral insanity, and a Muslim's use of anything historical. I have seen maybe 6 mentions of Gödel in 6000 plus posts.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael 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.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates, so you merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

From an entirely scientific perspective, since you are far from being an expert in biology, there is no way that you could know that creationism is true even if it is true. And that is even more of a large percentage of creationist laymen who know very little about biology.

I can question anything I wish. I maybe wrong however. I never denied common descent and have not mentioned in recent memory so what are you talking about? No one must be an expert in anything to read what experts claims and decide if it makes sense, especially someone with 190 semester hours and hundreds of hours research. I only claimed there are unresolved issues within evolution but never that it did not occur. You have already tried this at least once and this is getting very very tiresome.

 

[1robin]

Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Aside from that article, there is not any reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

What non-biblical evidence is there that at the time of Jesus' death, he was controversial enough to warrant Pilate having guards posted at the tomb?

There is not any reliable historical evidence about how the disciples died.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my two most recent posts in the thread on homosexuality.

On what basis are you claiming what is reasonable? Is there a Ehrman scale I am unaware of? We have multiply attested claims it did occur that one of (if not the, Simon Greenleaf co-founder of Harvard Law) greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history (among many) claimed was reliable and not a single contemporary claim to the contrary. In what way does that not crush anything Ehrman coughed up. I wish you would stick on this issue for a bit as I would love to resolve it. I am very familiar with this issue.

 

[1robin]

Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Aside from that article, there is not any reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

What non-biblical evidence is there that at the time of Jesus' death, he was controversial enough to warrant Pilate having guards posted at the tomb?

There is not any reliable historical evidence about how the disciples died.

Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You are in no position to question common descent based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Most any expert would demolish you in a public debate on common descent. Michael 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.

It is amusing that you, a mere amateur, would presume to lecture Behe, and over 99% of other experts, on common descent. Regarding the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific opinions about other issues are questionable. Biblical literalism is not a rational basis for scientific research.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. In spite of that, you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. However, if those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely try to use that to your advantage in debates, so you merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with you.

From an entirely scientific perspective, since you are far from being an expert in biology, there is no way that you could know that creationism is true even if it is true. And that is even more of a large percentage of creationist laymen who know very little about biology.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my two most recent posts in the thread on homosexuality.

You literally posted a claim and then copied in the very next post. What are you doing? I am ignoring any post that contains duplicates at this point.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735.

You said that only one God is necessary. That would only be true if God is omnipotent. What evidence do you have that God is omnipotent? If God used to be omnipotent, why do you assume that he will always be omnipotent? If you must use theological arguments to discuss these issues, why can't you also use theological issues to discuss the origin of the universe? The vast majority of atheists, and agnostics would not become Christians even if most physicists one day said that it is probable than an unknown God exists, so you are wasting your time discussing the origin of the universe. You would win the argument about the origin of the universe by default if you reasonably proved that the God of the Bible exists, but you could not win the argument about the existence of the God of the Bible by default if you provided reasonable evidence that an unknown God created the universe. You need to learn how to manage your time better. So does William Lane Craig for the same reasons that you should. Surely you must know that the vast majority of people who became Christians did so for reasons other than scientific reasons.

It is important to note that the vast majority of non-Christians already believe in various gods.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

LOL is one abused pop culture crutch.

A "crutch"? For what, actually typing out "that was so funny it made me laugh"?

Are you denying that infinity is an asymptotic condition to most physical models? Look at relativity or any actual real entity for example.

No, I'm asking what this has to do with anything, i.e. why infinity being asymptotic for many models or systems is a problem...

He is paid by well respected universities for the opposite qualities.

Don't remind me; he's getting away with robbery.

I am going with the odds. There is little chance an intellectual and philosophical giant so omniscient that they can dismiss Craig in a few sentences is on a forum instead of a several boards at major universities or ruling a universe somewhere.

Riiiight, because the only way one could criticize Craig is by being on "several boards at major universities or ruling a universe"... I'd imagine for most, a mere familiarity with the relevant subject matter would suffice (such as, for instance, a degree in the philosophy of religion)...

It means nothing known is infinite.

So the natural numbers are not known?

I would have accepted it does not prove it. It most certainly suggests it.

Not sure how that's supposed to work; the gist of Godel's theorems is that in any formal axiomatic system powerful enough to express basic arithmetic, there will be well-formed sentences in that system not decideable/provable by that system (first theorem) and that no such system can prove its own consistency (second theorem)... What about this suggests that "science has only grasped an infinitely small amount of truth"?

IMO An atheist's abuse of fallacy

Care to give an example?

liberal moral insanity

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is clearly insane.
:no:

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1734, and #1735. You said that only one God is necessary. That would only be true if God is omnipotent. What evidence do you have that God is omnipotent? If God used to be omnipotent, why do you assume that he will always be omnipotent?

I do not have to know that God is omnipotent or even that he exists to claim that there is no need beyond my God who claims to be omnipotent if he exists. I did not claim to have actual facts but made a proposition. If the Biblical God exists there is no need for another. I do not have proof that he is omnipotent. I claimed that if he is the cause he is at least sufficiently powerful and possibly omnipotent. I have no reason to think that if he is omnipotent there is even a potential reason he would ever not be. Your confusing burdens of fact claims, faith claims, and propositional claims.

If you must use theological arguments to discuss these issues, why can't you also use theological issues to discuss the origin of the universe?

I have been in massive quantity.

The vast majority of atheists, and agnostics would not become Christians even if most physicists one day said that it is probable than an unknown God exists, so you are wasting your time discussing the origin of the universe.

I deny your capacity to know what is a waste of my time unless your God. Your not are you?

You would win the argument about the origin of the universe by default if you reasonably proved that the God of the Bible exists, but you could not win the argument about the existence of the God of the Bible by default if you provided reasonable evidence that an unknown God created the universe.

No I wouldn't. The Jews disbelieved when God led them in a pillar of fire, the Apostles disbelieved when Jesus raised the dead, and an most atheists would disbelieve if God was sitting at my keyboard or if he printed a textbook on God cosmology. I have given vastly more evidence than is needed to convince either the co-founder of Harvard law, the famous writer of the history of Rome, even people who set out to prove the Bible wrong. What no evidence could ever do is convince beyond strong desire to be unconvinced.

would You need to learn how to manage your time better. So does William Lane Craig for the same reasons that you should. Surely you must know that the vast majority of people who became Christians did so for reasons other than scientific reasons.

I am not here evangelizing. I am here killing time, providing new Christians with information to clear up less known issues raised by atheists, and learning. Manage my time better? You respond to a poster as prolific and redundant as you are plus a dozen more and manage a avionics lab.

It is important to note that the vast majority of non-Christians already believe in various gods.

It must be important. This must be the 5th time you have posted that statement. What must be less important is one fact illustrating just what the heck your talking about. What Christians and what God's?

 

[1robin]

A "crutch"? For what, actually typing out "that was so funny it made me laugh"?

Yes, and actually showing something was worthy of laughter.

No, I'm asking what this has to do with anything, i.e. why infinity being asymptotic for many models or systems is a problem...

Infinity works as a abstract idea. It starts falling apart when used to evaluate actual things. That is king of important when discussing ridiculous notions like time, matter, or space being eternal.

Don't remind me; he's getting away with robbery.

Oh come on. Who would be more resistant to being robbed than who's money is being taken?

Riiiight, because the only way one could criticize Craig is by being on "several boards at major universities or ruling a universe"... I'd imagine for most, a mere familiarity with the relevant subject matter would suffice (such as, for instance, a degree in the philosophy of religion)...

No, you may criticize as you please and that is what you are doing. However you can't think I am going to just take your word over a guy with about 4 degrees do you. Especially on subjects that are not resolvable by brute force.

So the natural numbers are not known?

List them. No matter where you get to in counting them it is a finite number.

Not sure how that's supposed to work; the gist of Godel's theorems is that in any formal axiomatic system powerful enough to express basic arithmetic, there will be well-formed sentences in that system not decideable/provable by that system (first theorem) and that no such system can prove its own consistency (second theorem)... What about this suggests that "science has only grasped an infinitely small amount of truth"?

This is getting little far afield. Gödel was a footnote in my post.

Care to give an example?

True Scotsman used to dismiss the fact that there is a set of standards for true Christian. Probably the most abused is the argument from authority (the same argument tactic used in classrooms and courtroom around the world everyday) is only a fallacy when a Christian uses it for quality of evidence claims for God. In short every common fallacy is an abused item for arguments against God, add in massive double standards (like God must be proven beyond all doubt even though it is a faith claim but multiverses, life from non-life, and what specifically happened at any point before recorded history need little or no evidence even if they are claims to reliable fact or plausible alternative).

Right, because anyone who disagrees with you is clearly insane.
:no:

What does the massive mountain of statistics showing moral decline corresponding with the secular revolution in the 60's and agreement with me have to do with each other? Where in the world do you get this stuff? Secularism is insane because it does not even agree with its self. What lunacy denies the right to execute a convicted murderer but insists on the sacred right to kill an innocent human life in the womb? I skimped on Gödel so I could privilege (or subject you) to the most accurate commentary on the modern secular society I have ever heard. It is satirical but hauntingly accurate. If I have already inflicted it on you I apologize. I will use any excuse to post it, let the insanity roll!!

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44
A Puritan's Mind » Turner’s Creed – by Steve Turner

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not have to know that God is omnipotent or even that he exists to claim that there is no need beyond my God who claims to be omnipotent if he exists. I did not claim to have actual facts but made a proposition. If the Biblical God exists there is no need for another. I do not have proof that he is omnipotent. I claimed that if he is the cause he is at least sufficiently powerful and possibly omnipotent. I have no reason to think that if he is omnipotent there is even a potential reason he would ever not be. Your confusing burdens of fact claims, faith claims, and propositional claims.

But it doesn't matter unless you can adequately refute my posts #1734, and #1735.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my most recent reply to you in the thread on homosexuality. I have showed that you have easily lost that debate. No rational person would ever claim that a low risk group (lesbians) was more at fault than higher risk groups (heterosexual men, and heterosexual women) are.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Aside from that article, there is not any reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

There is reasonable evidence. Unless you can provide explanations for his post-mortem appearances, then you have no argument against the Ressurection.

What non-biblical evidence is there that at the time of Jesus' death, he was controversial enough to warrant Pilate having guards posted at the tomb?

That is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Jesus was born, died, and was Resurrected and was seen by many people post mortem.

There is not any reliable historical evidence about how the disciples died.

But there is evidence that Paul and James, both who not followers of Jesus, saw Jesus post-mortem.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't matter unless you can adequately refute my posts #1734, and #1735.

What I said was true even if I never see those posts. There exists no evidence, theory, or logic to even counter what I said. The concept of God in Christianity has no need of anything else.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my most recent reply to you in the thread on homosexuality. I have showed that you have easily lost that debate.

I doubt you even posted anything that was even a bad challenge to my primary claims concerning homosexuality. At best you have posted equivocations concerning terminology or compartmentalization of secondary issue but will look soon.

No rational person would ever claim that a low risk group (lesbians) was more at fault than higher risk groups (heterosexual men, and heterosexual women) are.

Which is probably why I never did. I have never equated risk or damage between your subgroups.

 

[Agnostic75]

Only if the sole basis for loving him was that he could have lied and didn't.

No, I have provided lots of evidence, even from William Lane Craig, and from Thomas Aquinas, and from the Bible itself, that God cannot lie.

You said that God can will to lie even if he cannot lie, but that does not help you at all even if it is true because God is not able to actually lie. According to what I quoted from William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, and Thomas Aquinas, God cannot even consider lying, let alone want to lie.

What I said was true even if I never see those posts. There exists no evidence, theory, or logic to even counter what I said.

What did you say?

The concept of God in Christianity has no need of anything else.

But God does not have free will. Therefore, you do not have a rational basis to love him since he has no choice except to tell the truth. I even used comments by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, who is a prominent Christian scholar, and a close friend of William Lane Craig, and Thomas Aquinas to support my arguments, as well as the Bible.

An article at Reading The Summa: Question 4 - God's Perfection says:

"Aquinas argues.......that since God is the first efficient cause of created things, and since causes contain their effects, therefore God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible."

Aquinas' "God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie. J. P. Moreland said it the best when he said in a Youtube video that God cannot improve.

Even if a God inspired the originals, and preserved all of them free of any errors, my arguments would still be valid.

I believe [God] lying will fall under logical impossibilities like square circles.

You have refuted some of your previous comments, which were:

He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth itself.

William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and J. P. Moreland would certainly disagree with that.

 

[1robin]

What did you say?

You can't insist that I go back and deal with posts that are over six hundred posts in the past if you can't remember or check what I wrote a day or two ago. You also can't have refuted what you can't remember as you claimed to in this case then could you?

But God does not have free will.

You can't assume things into existence. I gave many many reasons to claim God has freewill and it is immune to assumptions.

Therefore, you do not have a rational basis to love him since he has no choice except to tell the truth.

Only if the sole basis for loving him was that he could have lied and didn't. My love for God stems from his never giving up on me even when I hated him and literally relieving me of years of guilt, depression, and bad habits. I can add a thousand more personal reasons but even if God could not help but tell the truth he had a choice in those areas I mention but chose to act on my behalf without any necessity and those alone are more than enough. It is kind of like an orphan telling a person with parents loving them is invalid.

I even used comments by William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, who is a prominent Christian scholar, and a close friend of William Lane Craig, and Thomas Aquinas to support my arguments, as well as the Bible.

An article at Reading The Summa: Question 4 - God's Perfection says:

None of that had any effect on what I said above and the issue you presented was reasons to love God. I have them no matter what you used or said.

"Aquinas argues.......that since God is the first efficient cause of created things, and since causes contain their effects, therefore God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible."

Aquinas' "God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie. J. P. Moreland said it the best when he said in a Youtube video that God cannot improve.

A capacity to will something is not removed by the fact he would not want to actualize it. I disagree with the claim that God (in general) must tell the truth no matter who claims it, but even if true it is not binding on will. However even if it was not having the capacity to will what a being nature makes an impossibility is not binding on general freewill. The most generous conclusion possible is that certain things God could not will but everything else he could. That might be a irrelevant philosophical truth but not restrictive on any merit that deserved love. God could have killed me anytime during my rebellious period and would have been justified. He chose to save me instead. In fact he could have done that with al of humanity and never suffered and died as he did.

Even if a God inspired the originals, and preserved all of them free of any errors, my arguments would still be valid.

What argument? and What originals? I have no idea what this means.

You have refuted some of your previous comments, which were:

Did I say that he may not do any of those things. I think your confusing what I said about any God that might exist and what I said concerning God as specifically described by the Bible. In this case the confusion is understandable as I do not distinguish between the two clearly at all times.

William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and J. P. Moreland would certainly disagree with that.

Maybe they would but I doubt very seriously if you know that or looked to see. You can't use names as an argument. You may use their arguments as one if your wish however.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry to just butt in here (and feel free not to respond if you're not interested) but there are a number of things in this post I felt I had to respond to.

You make it seem as if it is a given that "minds are emergent of brains". But based on those that believe in mind/body dualism, this is not quite so evident.

All the existing evidence indicates that minds are emergent of brains. Without a brain, you have no mind. Alter the brain and you alter the mind. To assert that minds are independent of brains, you've got a lot of work ahead of you and a lot of evidence to provide.

Well, judging by the fact that this link Human brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia starts off with (in the "evolution section")

"In the course of evolution of the Homininae, the human brain has grown in volume from about 600 cm3 in Homo habilis to about 1500 cm3 in Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Subsequently, there has been a shrinking over the past 28,000 years."

So it is telling me the fact that the brain has grown, but it isn't telling me where the brain came from and where mental states came from.

Try this:

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html

Granted, but still, there hasn't been a scientific breakthrough in neither. We don't know how life could come from non-life and we don't know how/why the universe came into existence from nothing. These are two seperate subjects but you can't have macro/micro evolution if the universe itself (which is contingent) wasn't fine tuned for human life. Evolutionists would like to just bypass the chemical, organic, cosmic, and stelluar evolution and just jump right in to th macro and micro evolution, when you cant even begin to get to macro and micro evolution without explaining the other types of evolution.
Yup, we are still waiting for science to explain to us how life could come from non-life, and how could a mindless and blind process be able to do something that intelligent human beings aren't able to do, and that is create life from nonlife.

Scientists have the foundations for a decent understanding of how life could come from non-life. Miller-Urey is not the be-all and end-all of this discussion, by any means. There’s been a ton of work done on the subject, including a re-visit of the Miller-Urey experiment which produced promising results.

Why can’t you have evolution if the universe is fine-tuned? And furthermore, what makes you think the universe is fine-tuned for life at all? The only life we even know of is the life that exists here on earth. The areas of the universe we have explored are not hospitable to life at all, quite the opposite, in fact. Not to mention that many parts of the only known planet that is able to sustain life are completely uninhabitable, especially to human life.

I don’t know these other types of evolution that you speak of, but it seems you’ve cribbed those from Ken Hovind, who I’m sorry to say, doesn’t know the first thing about evolution, or science, for that matter.

I feel the same way regarding those that reject evidence for common designer. In fact, I feel the EXACT same way.

What kind of evidence is there for a common designer that is even half as robust as the evidence for evolution?

I am quite familiar with the topic. I am also familiar with the fact that throughout the history of mankind, dogs have always produced dogs, cats have always produced cats, fish have always produced fish. There is absolutley no reason to think that long ago, when no one was around to see it, animals began producing different kinds of animals. If you believe this, then you are believing in the un-seen, which makes your belief system just as religious as mines. I admit that my belief is a religion, but you call your belief science, when the theory has not been proven using the scientific method.

Ok, so lets define what we mean. By "common descent", you mean that every living creature share a common ancestor with a species of animal from the past? Now, if that is the case, then I reject that, because this is not what the observational evidence show. According to the scientific method, observation plays a key role, and we've NEVER observed an animal producing a different kind of animal (such as dogs producing non-dogs, etc).

I’m sorry, but I find it kind of odd when someone states that they are quite familiar with the topic and then goes on to say something that is a total misrepresentation of it.

The theory of evolution does not dictate that animals of a particular species give birth to an animal of another species. Similarly, no Latin-speaking mother ever gave birth to a Spanish-speaking child and yet we have a great diversity of language among human cultures. Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. In allopatric speciation, an animal gives birth to an animal of the same species as itself. When and if, two populations of the same species become separated geographically, small changes will continue to occur in the two populations and over time they become more and more different from each other. Eventually, these differences accumulate enough so that if the two populations were reunited, they wouldn’t be able to interbreed.

Check out ring species, it’s pretty fascinating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

So as you can see, you don’t have to believe in things unseen to accept the theory of evolution.

Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

My belief is every "kind" of animal does share a common ancestor/descent. For example, all dogs that are alive today came from the first "dog" that was created. God created an original "specimen" from which all other specimens of that same kind were produced. That is why we have different variations of dogs....big dogs...little dogs...hairy dogs..tall dogs...short dogs....but they are all DOGS. My belief does not contradict the observational evidence, and that is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears. That is the way it is now, and there is no reason to think that things were any different millions of years ago.

Dogs came from the domestication of the grey wolf, thousands of years ago (thanks to evolution). Since then, via artificial selection, human beings have produced the variety of dog breeds we see today. Artificial selection would not work if evolution were not a factual reality. That is the observable and verifiable evidence.

And once again, evolution does not say that animals should produce anything other than an animal of its own species. That is a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

The same mechanism that is stopping humans from being able to mate with bears and create "bearmans".

First of all, how does that relate to micro/macroevolution? (Which are really one in the same thing. A lot of micro = macro.)

And secondly, given a proper understanding of evolution, we should not expect humans and bears to be able to mate. So I don’t see what your point is.

So a theory can be true or it can be false, right?

Scientific theories are explanations that best fit the evidence and the facts. They can be falsified with evidence that contradicts the theory. After over 150 years, the theory of evolution has yet to be falsified with evidence that doesn’t fit.

Ok but the reasons why I think evolution is false is independent of how the word "theory" is defined.

It might if you were under the impression that a scientific theory is nothing more than random guesswork.

If you went to bed at night and woke up the next morning and found yourself in the body of your dog, and through the body of your dog you can see your body still lying in the bed. If you retain your human thoughts and self awareness....who are you? Are you the dog, or are you the human lying in the bed?

Has such a thing ever been known to happen? Is there any evidence whatsoever to indicate this ever could happen? If not, what’s the point of the hypothetical?

If you woke up, and you looked in the mirror, and you saw that you were in your sisters body, but you retained your own self awareness and your own memories...who are you? Are you your sister, or are you yourself? This is similiar to the dog analogy above, but I would like for you to answer both and we can get in to depth afterwards.

There is a correlation between hot dogs and baseball games. But hot dogs aren't "part" of the game. They are not the same thing. One is not needed for the other to exist. They may share a relationship, but they both exists independently of each other.

I certainly hope this hypothetical isn’t your compelling evidence for a mind-without-a-brain proposition because it doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is reasonable evidence. Unless you can provide explanations for his post-mortem appearances, then you have no argument against the Ressurection.

How about dreams or hallucinations, OR somebody just made it up.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sorry to just butt in here (and feel free not to respond if you're not interested) but there are a number of things in this post I felt I had to respond to.

Come one, come all :yes:

All the existing evidence indicates that minds are emergent of brains. Without a brain, you have no mind.

No, all existing evidence indicates that the mind and brain correlate. Correlation does not entail "originated from".

Alter the brain and you alter the mind.

Altering a automobile and you may very well alter your means of transportation via the car. It does not follow that you cannot travel by other means beyond the car.

To assert that minds are independent of brains, you've got a lot of work ahead of you and a lot of evidence to provide.

And how do you know whether or not your mind won't exist after death? Have you ever been dead to give a full report? So your assertion isn't any more valid than mines. Now with that being said, I do have evidence. Logical evidence. I would like to ask a question; if you and your best friend switched mines...your mind went into his brain and his mind went into your brain, and therefore, you are no longer in your own body and vice versa...but both of you retained your own personal thoughts and desires...who are you? Are you yourself, or are you your best friend?

Scientists have the foundations for a decent understanding of how life could come from non-life. Miller-Urey is not the be-all and end-all of this discussion, by any means. There’s been a ton of work done on the subject, including a re-visit of the Miller-Urey experiment which produced promising results.

So basically you are saying that we, intelligent human beings, are being stumped by a mindless and blind process. That process, being blind and mindless, was able to do something that intelligent beings wasn't able to do. :thud:

Why can’t you have evolution if the universe is fine-tuned?

Because mindless and blind occurences won't get you specified complexity. The fine tuning of our universe itself would seem to suggest Intelligent Design. So you would have to have intelligent design before you even begin to discuss evolution.

And furthermore, what makes you think the universe is fine-tuned for life at all?

Based on the constants and values of the universe, each which are so precise that if either one was off by the tiniest percentage, no life would be permissable. You don't get that kind of precision from mindless and blind processes.

The only life we even know of is the life that exists here on earth. The areas of the universe we have explored are not hospitable to life at all, quite the opposite, in fact. Not to mention that many parts of the only known planet that is able to sustain life are completely uninhabitable, especially to human life.

Other life is irrelevant my friend. All that matters is at least THIS universe is fine tuned. That itself cries out for explanation.

I don’t know these other types of evolution that you speak of, but it seems you’ve cribbed those from Ken Hovind, who I’m sorry to say, doesn’t know the first thing about evolution, or science, for that matter.

He knows enough to challenge any scientists and evolutionists in public debates regarding evolutionists, and even debated 3 evolutionists at one time. You may think he doesn't know anything, but he holds his own against everyone I've seen him against.

What kind of evidence is there for a common designer that is even half as robust as the evidence for evolution?

I accept common design based on my broader belief in God. I have other arguments that lead me to the conclusion that God exists, and if God exists, he wouldn't need the trial and error of evolution to accomplish his will of filling the world with different species.

I'm sorry, but I find it kind of odd when someone states that they are quite familiar with the topic and then goes on to say something that is a total misrepresentation of it.

I said that evolution is the belief that long ago, when NO ONE was around to see it, animals were producing different kind of animals. Now what is being misrepresented here, the "no one was around to see it" part, or the "producing different kind of animals" part?

The theory of evolution does not dictate that animals of a particular species give birth to an animal of another species. Similarly, no Latin-speaking mother ever gave birth to a Spanish-speaking child and yet we have a great diversity of language among human cultures. Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. In allopatric speciation, an animal gives birth to an animal of the same species as itself. When and if, two populations of the same species become separated geographically, small changes will continue to occur in the two populations and over time they become more and more different from each other. Eventually, these differences accumulate enough so that if the two populations were reunited, they wouldn’t be able to interbreed.

You believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, and the first bat came from a non-bat. What do you call this, after you just told me that "evoluton does not dictate that animals of a particular species give birth to an animal of another species"?

So as you can see, you don’t have to believe in things unseen to accept the theory of evolution.

Cont'd ...

See me answer above...