Is there a God?

[PolyHedral]

They are objectively reducible, subjectively they're irreducible. They arise spontaneously from matter configurations, there isn't a particle of red or particle of pain. And in a purely objective, physical universe subjectivity should not be able to exist.

If qualia are merely configurations of matter, there is no subjectivity involved. Matter can be objectively tested for.

 

[MD]

If qualia are merely configurations of matter, there is no subjectivity involved. Matter can be objectively tested for.

Qualia are the subjective interpretations of objective things. They are purely subjective, testing only the physical aspect of qualia doesn't really serve to define what they are.

If matter can create qualia then matter in certain configurations should be able to create fairies, ghosts and all sorts of non physical phenomenon alien to a physical universe.

 

[Warren Clark]

Then this debate can't have an answer as each person will answer dependent on their definition of God with no regard for others definitions nor a community or cultural definition. What is the point of debating whether my apple is better or worse than your orange?

Because by definition of God, so long as it is an entity that one recognizes as their "meaning for life", is always refutable.

The point of this thread isn't to show who's God is more real but to show that they are all equal. If they are not, or you think you have more proof that your God is more plausible, then give your proof.
If say someone says "my God exists because of reasons a, b, and c", you would chime in saying why your God is more reasonable to believe exists or why their God couldn't possibly exist. So in response you would pick apart their reasons a, b, and c.

Any one can argue the existence for a God.
But what it comes down to is that all we have is either science to rely on or our imaginative brains.
I am sure that 9 out of 10 people that believe in God will change the way they think their God exists simply by talking to people who have opposing views.
It is how we grow. I became an Atheist/Pantheist when I argued with other theists about their views of God.
I am not saying people will get to my same conclusions, but it will challenge them to think outside the box. =P

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Because by definition of God, so long as it is an entity that one recognizes as their "meaning for life", is always refutable.

The point of this thread isn't to show who's God is more real but to show that they are all equal. If they are not, or you think you have more proof that your God is more plausible, then give your proof.

I believe that all Gods are imperfect perceptions of the same thing so there is no proof to give. But I don't consider the perceptions themselves to be equal, they are as diverse as humanity itself and will therefore be extremely unequal.

If say someone says "my God exists because of reasons a, b, and c", you would chime in saying why your God is more reasonable to believe exists or why their God couldn't possibly exist. So in response you would pick apart their reasons a, b, and c.

Any one can argue the existence for a God.
But what it comes down to is that all we have is either science to rely on or our imaginative brains.
I am sure that 9 out of 10 people that believe in God will change the way they think their God exists simply by talking to people who have opposing views.

So you are so all powerful and persuasive that 9 out of 10 people will alter the way they think after speaking to you. Wow, I'm impressed. I'm also that 1 person in 10 who has in no way what so ever been altered by your comments.

It is how we grow. I became an Atheist/Pantheist when I argued with other theists about their views of God.
I am not saying people will get to my same conclusions, but it will challenge them to think outside the box. =P

The only people who will think outside the box are those who wish to do so. No one will suddenly start doing so because you or someone like you comes along to challenge their world view. Human reaction is more likely to withdraw and maintain a stubborn allegiance to the already accepted belief system rather than embracing the new.

 

[Warren Clark]

Historical claims are different than scientific claims. Historical claims are defined by probability. What is done is to define a reasonable likely hood of occurrence.....

Science is all probability and results based on testing the probability.
With history, its all just archived artifacts with out clear documentation of where they got their claims. Such as strange "alien" artifacts that don't seem to fit the culture it has been found lying with. We can't draw a conclusion to something we have no clue about and call it fact. This goes with saying that the Bible and any ancient text cannot be trusted as fact just because it describes civilizations that truly existed with preposterous claims such as a virgin giving birth.
So the only accuracy the bible holds is the geographical and some biographical truths following the rise and falls of civilizations. The accuracy to which events happened in which it claims are further more just fables. There is no reason to believe that people could give birth as a virgin or a boat could carry two of every animal with the mass killing of humans by a flood. These are fables. Its time to grow up.
Would you rather trust something that is 100% true AND TESTABLE or something only 95% true with the 5% being illogical and untestable?

It comes down to you claiming there is a God along with millions of others who have no definitive proof and cannot come up with a logical reason for why their God is more likely to exist than another.
So if you want to claim there is a God, I would throw out religious texts and start with logic. Because the Bible is just as fallible as any other religious text; Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.

That is a claim to absolute knowledge and there for must have absolute proof. Once again you are comparing two unequal things.

They equally require the same amount of faith and evidence.
[youtube]5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube]

It is a little ridiculous to suggest that 1/3 of the people on earth and many of the greatest minds in human history faithfully believe in something that has no evidence. It is also a little insulting.
By the way most of what you believe is faith as well... FALSE

For example can you prove that the universe was not made 5 minutes ago... YES
Can you prove that the universe is equally rational at all points in space and time. No one said they could.
So your belief that it wasn't is faith based. No it was reasonably and rationally thought out.

Well if its insulting, then it must be me who is wrong.
I don't care if its insulting.
My sister might think that there are monsters under bed and she might even find it insulting that I don't believe her. But in the end, no matter how she feels, there is no evidence to suggest there are monsters under her bed.
So it doesn't hurt my feelings if she feels insulted.
Its more like 2/3 of human beings believe in a God.
And only about 1% of the 2/3 could be considered "brilliant".
Not sure if you've read up on this, but most people who are Atheist have a higher IQ than that of your average Bible Scholar.
Most (near to all) scientists are either Agnostic or Atheist.
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ (CNN)

Gravity produces tides and gravity has no rational explanation. False Science has not proven a single claim in the Bible incorrect, which is truly remarkable. False The proposition of God if false and the details concerning him are so preposterous if untrue that if they were not true the Bible should have died in the cradle. It is only the fact that the Bible's claims are so remarkably accurate that has led billions to believe in spite of the fact it is such an outrageous claim.

No the Bible would not have died in the cradle, because there are always apologetics.
They claim that the Bible is sent from God and is the answer to everything. But no science can support the Bible. Its why we don't use it in science class.

People believe in the Bible because they are poor, illogically thinking idiots. No offense, its not their fault according to studies.

Highly religious countries (Barber, 2012):

• Are poorer.
• They are less urbanized.
• Have lower levels of education.
• They have less exposure to electronic media that increase intelligence (Barber, 2006).
• Experience a heavier load of infectious diseases that impair brain function.
• Suffer more from low birth weights.
• Have worse child nutrition.
• Do a poor job of controlling environmental pollutants such as lead that reduce IQ.

The fact that you just said the tide and gravity don't have a rational explanation means you don't even know the basics of science. TIDE <--- Read up.

Actually every single event and person in the Bible that has been able to be verified (over 25,000 to date) has been perfectly accurate. FALSE (even with your exception which was like the smallest fallacy out of all of the fallacies of the Bible)

If you will give specific claims instead of generalized complaints with no foundation then they can be debated.
People far more qualified than you and me put together (I will supply quotes if necessary) say that the Bible especially the Gospels have zero indicators of myth or fable.

Be my guest to give references.
I have references that say otherwise. For the mean time, some quick reads while I gather my sources.

1. 10 Reasons Not to Believe the Bible


2. Science and History in the Bible

In fact the ones who wrote it would have known if it was a lie and they suffered their whole lives and many died defending what they would have known was false...

Many who died for the Bible believed in its lie.
Those who created only did so either for power or simply to give people an easy "meaning for life" answer.

If you can check every claim that is verifiable and it is 100% accurate than a great deal of faith can is justified where they can't be. The Bible is too big to discuss in depth I suggest we use the Gospels and the most picked on prophecy in the Bible (Tyre's destruction as I have recently defended it and am familiar with it) and see if it is accurate. There is no way to verify Balaam's talking donkey.

No, we should definitely tear it apart and analyze it bit for bit. I promise you, there would be nothing left to hold it together.
All you have to do is take out the fairy tales and you have a pretty decent history book. But the fact that the fairy tales remain disturbs me.

Actually it was far fewer people than you think for many reasons. You are going to have to settle on an issue or two if you actually want to find out. I have offered my suggestions. There is no value at all in generalized sweeping assertions based in emotion that you can't possibly know the truth concerning.

I am not generalizing in the least. I am picking specific events described in the Bible. None of which can be proven.
Scholars, scientists, and archeologists believe that the plagues described were just a volcanic eruption elaborated into a religious inspirational story about a man rescuing God's people.

Now that is a claim to absolute knowledge and does require absolute proof.

That was the point of pointing out the fallacies of the Bible.
I can start from beginning to end giving sources and completely dismantling the Bible.
I would have to write a book in order to do so. Many have already. Why not read one?

 

[Warren Clark]

I believe that all Gods are imperfect perceptions of the same thing so there is no proof to give. But I don't consider the perceptions themselves to be equal, they are as diverse as humanity itself and will therefore be extremely unequal.

Well then they are just perceptions. Which I would say I believe the same thing. Only I don't think that there is an actual God. I see God as a feeling people have and they use God to describe it.
Such as, look at all the beauty in the world, that is God.
Or people who are so convicted use God as an excuse.
Such as Muslim men and their power over women.
Christian men were the same way before the feminist movement.

So you are so all powerful and persuasive that 9 out of 10 people will alter the way they think after speaking to you. Wow, I'm impressed. I'm also that 1 person in 10 who has in no way what so ever been altered by your comments.

No. I think there was a misunderstanding.
I don't have the power over anything.
Anyone that talks to another person learns something, whether it be another opinion exists or that his own opinion may be flawed or affirmed.
But 9/10 conversations a single person has effects their opinion of something.
I say 9/10 because someone saying "Hello" with a bit of small talk doesn't really effect anyone's opinion unless its a first impression.

The only people who will think outside the box are those who wish to do so. No one will suddenly start doing so because you or someone like you comes along to challenge their world view. Human reaction is more likely to withdraw and maintain a stubborn allegiance to the already accepted belief system rather than embracing the new.

The only people who are willing to think outside the box are those who go into a forum design for discussion over all theological thoughts, not just a single side, but a broad spectrum.

I can honestly say that I have learned a lot through forums like these. But I find no growth in going to a strictly Atheist forum unless I have something to new to learn about science.

People are made to be comfortable.
Its why we choose a routine to follow.
Why groups in high school sat at the same place every lunch hour.

But there are those of us on this Forum and throughout the world that realize we all have something to learn from each other.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

But there are those of us on this Forum and throughout the world that realize we all have something to learn from each other.

The only issue I have with what you have said is your optimistic view of human intellectual growth. I believe the vast majority of the human race has no desire to grow intellectually and are quite happy to remain blissfully ignorant. You see humans as having no choice but to grow through interaction with one another while I see them not only having a choice in the matter but most often choosing not to grow at all.

 

[Warren Clark]

The only issue I have with what you have said is your optimistic view of human intellectual growth. I believe the vast majority of the human race has no desire to grow intellectually and are quite happy to remain blissfully ignorant. You see humans as having no choice but to grow through interaction with one another while I see them not only having a choice in the matter but most often choosing not to grow at all.

That kind of goes hand in hand with the IQ.
Those with a lower IQ will be more apt to be controlled or stuck in a controlled environment. So if someone is told something they are apt to agree with it.
So if someone says to them 2+1=4 and a teacher tells them the answer is 3, they will experience cognitive dissonance.
Depending on how smart a person is, they will be able to decipher the answer for themselves.
Those with a higher IQ are more apt to do so.

I try to refrain from engaging certain people who have a significantly lower IQ... and you can generally tell by how fast someone can figure out a certain puzzles.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

That kind of goes hand in hand with the IQ.
Those with a lower IQ will be more apt to be controlled or stuck in a controlled environment. So if someone is told something they are apt to agree with it.
So if someone says to them 2+1=4 and a teacher tells them the answer is 3, they will experience cognitive dissonance.
Depending on how smart a person is, they will be able to decipher the answer for themselves.
Those with a higher IQ are more apt to do so.

I try to refrain from engaging certain people who have a significantly lower IQ... and you can generally tell by how fast someone can figure out a certain puzzles.

Wow. So devout religious people must have low IQ's. Let see some evidence. Give us links to the studies that have proven such a statement. I certainly haven't seen any examples of what you are saying in my 46 years of traveling the globe so please point us in the right direction.

Of course if you have no evidence and this is all opinion that's fine too, but please be clear and state it as an opinion rather than fact.

 

[Penumbra]

If people define God as "everything" or "love", then I suppose it exists but I see little reason to call those things god instead of just using those words. We already have those words.

If a god is defined as a self-originating intelligence with a purpose for the universe, then I've not seen evidence to believe that one exists.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

If people define God as "everything" or "love", then I suppose it exists but I see little reason to call those things god instead of just using those words. We already have those words.

Oh come now. Humanity loves nothing more dearly than making language and communication as muddy an affair as is possible. We have languages where its not even the word that conveys the meaning but the intonation. Telling people to stop using one word for something in favor of a more logical word is silly. It goes against all human nature.

If a god is defined as a self-originating intelligence with a purpose for the universe, then I've not seen evidence to believe that one exists.

To be honest this is where I find God discussions to be the most interesting. Most religion to me is human decorations to something far beyond our comprehension. Making God out to be some kind of human like intelligence, self originating or not, is just ego on our part. Nor do I see a God like being having a purpose for the universe. However, the universe may have a purpose for a God.

I've often wondered if God and Satan were perceptions of positive and negative energy that exists in the universe. So the big question is are these energies sentient or merely energy that we can barely perceive. These are the kinds of discussions I like having among a group of nimble minds.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh come now. Humanity loves nothing more dearly than making language and communication as muddy an affair as is possible. We have languages where its not even the word that conveys the meaning but the intonation. Telling people to stop using one word for something in favor of a more logical word is silly. It goes against all human nature.

I didn't tell anyone to stop using anything.

To be honest this is where I find God discussions to be the most interesting. Most religion to me is human decorations to something far beyond our comprehension. Making God out to be some kind of human like intelligence, self originating or not, is just ego on our part. Nor do I see a God like being having a purpose for the universe. However, the universe may have a purpose for a God.

I've often wondered if God and Satan were perceptions of positive and negative energy that exists in the universe. So the big question is are these energies sentient or merely energy that we can barely perceive. These are the kinds of discussions I like having among a group of nimble minds.

I didn't say human like.

These details are important and I chose my words carefully.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I didn't tell anyone to stop using anything.

When you said "We have those words already" it implied that people shouldn't use God for what you perceive as Love. When you said "I see little reason" it belittles those who do, at least that was the tone I got from your statement. Maybe I was missreading your intent.

I didn't say human like.

These details are important and I chose my words carefully.

No you didn't, and yes the details are important. However I wasn't challenging what you said as much as adding my own view to it and if it came across as a challenge I'm very sorry. I agree with what you said and was merely expanding on it with my own views on the subject.

 

[Willamena]

If a god is defined as a self-originating intelligence with a purpose for the universe, then I've not seen evidence to believe that one exists.

Some human beings are that.

 

[Penumbra]

When you said "We have those words already" it implied that people shouldn't use God for what you perceive as Love. When you said "I see little reason" it belittles those who do, at least that was the tone I got from your statement. Maybe I was missreading your intent.

Those are reasons why I don't use that term for those things, or see any good reason to use the term for those things.

But not seeing a good reason to do something, and not seeing it as particularly logical to do so, does not imply that I tell other people what to do, especially with regards to something that doesn't affect other people.

No you didn't, and yes the details are important. However I wasn't challenging what you said as much as adding my own view to it and if it came across as a challenge I'm very sorry. I agree with what you said and was merely expanding on it with my own views on the subject.

Generally the more human-like a deity is described by believers, the simpler and less accurate I view it to be of anything I'd consider truth.

However for me to apply the term 'God' to something it seems that sapience needs to be an aspect of it. Otherwise I likely have a term with less baggage that I could apply instead.

 

[Penumbra]

Some human beings are that.

Humans are not self-originating, unless you're using the term differently than I intended in my post.

'Aseity' is the more accurate term.

 

[1robin]

Science is all probability and results based on testing the probability.
With history, its all just archived artifacts with out clear documentation of where they got their claims.

You are asserting that every document in history even the ones who authors put their names in the texts have no verifiable source. I would say over 90% have verified origins claimed by the expets in their fields.

As far as science goes probability is not supposed to have much of anything to do with it. Here is the actual scientific method.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I would have far more faith in what is contained in a battle report from General Lee or even a OT text from 3ooo yers ago than any fantasy that does not meet the scientific method concerning what crawled out of the mud 2 billion years ago. Yet people like you agree with the second and reject the first. That is what the Bible calls swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat. I would say 80% plus of science does meet that standard above.

This goes with saying that the Bible and any ancient text cannot be trusted as fact just because it describes civilizations that truly existed with preposterous claims such as a virgin giving birth.

We can use the same standards by which modern testimony is weighted on Bibliocal texts to infer the reliability of what can't be verified. That has been a part of the historical method, law, and textual criticism for hundreds of years. Why are you demanding for the Bible what even most of science can't produce. There is no proof of what happened to the dinosaurs yet every show trotts out their theory and calls it fact. You have a serious double standard problem.

So the only accuracy the bible holds is the geographical and some biographical truths following the rise and falls of civilizations. These are fables. Its time to grow up.
Would you rather trust something that is 100% true AND TESTABLE or something only 95% true with the 5% being illogical and untestable?

What percentage is it that a random collection of atoms overcame the law of abiogenisis and thermodynamics to form a cell that has the complexity of a modern factory. Maybe .0001% yet it is claimed to be fact even though it has never been successfully tested, even scientists in labs can't do it.

When the greatest experts on testimony in human history say that the gospels meet every standrd of modern law and teh historical method do you actually thinkk what you said here matters?
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him"I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

There are countless more here for you to ignore:

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

It comes down to you claiming there is a God along with millions of others who have no definitive proof and cannot come up with a logical reason for why their God is more likely to exist than another.
Because the Bible is just as fallible as any other religious text; Christian, Muslim, or otherwise.

You do not have much experienec with theological textual criticism do you? First there are very good reasons to adopt the God of the Bible which is why so many including many of the world's most intelligent have. There are good reasons to reject Islam, that is why force is necessary to maintain and in many places spread it. There are no laws in Christianity that condemn a person to death who want sout. There are no state run Christian governments that impose Christian law. There was no Christian Uthman who made a quran he liked and burned every single other one that existed. I can go on forever but I am not debating reason and scholarship I'm debating against your emotional bias. Apparently mere unjustified assertions are enough to satasfy you.

They equally require the same amount of faith and evidence.
[youtube]5wV_REEdvxo[/youtube]

I can't watch videos on my DOD server. I also do not do my research on utube.

Well if its insulting, then it must be me who is wrong.
I don't care if its insulting.

Of course you don't, emotion is what is driving everything you say. I think you mean to be insulting.

My sister might think that there are monsters under bed and she might even find it insulting that I don't believe her. But in the end, no matter how she feels, there is no evidence to suggest there are monsters under her bed.
So it doesn't hurt my feelings if she feels insulted.
Its more like 2/3 of human beings believe in a God.
And only about 1% of the 2/3 could be considered "brilliant".
Not sure if you've read up on this, but most people who are Atheist have a higher IQ than that of your average Bible Scholar.

This is truly pathetic and deserves no response.

Most (near to all) scientists are either Agnostic or Atheist.

Then why were most fields of science began by theists?

No the Bible would not have died in the cradle, because there are always apologetics.

There were very few apologetics in 1st century Israel. However there were 12 of the most influential men in history that proposed the most profound truth in history.

They claim that the Bible is sent from God and is the answer to everything. But no science can support the Bible. Its why we don't use it in science class.

I do not care what Lord science says. It is very far from being the arbiter of all truth. Your and others religous devotion to a field of acedemics is truly disturbing. Maybe you can put up an alter at MIT and make pilgrimages there and read from the sacred Opticks.

People believe in the Bible because they are poor, illogically thinking idiots. No offense, its not their fault according to studies.

I think it is very clear who is the idiot here and I will no longer debate the issue with you after this post as your incompetant emotional rants are not challenging and have run their course. By the way that would make Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Pasteure, Kelvin, Mendel, Boyle, Descarte, Bacon, and about 500 other of histories greatest scientists stupid. As well as making the richest nation by size in human history (Vatican city) poor. I think we can see which side is intellectually impotent.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs

Highly religious countries (Barber, 2012):

• Are poorer.
  [*]They are less urbanized.
  [*]Have lower levels of education.

You truly stink at this. I am not defending every religion on earth and statistics that include Muslims who destroy whatever they touch and Hindu's that live in the most over crowded country on Earth have nothing to do with Christ or Christianty. IN fact the most populous Christian country on Earth is also the richest by far, the most technical by far, and highest standard of living in human history. I can't do this any further. I do not debate emotionally based rhetorical nonsense.

 

[PolyHedral]

You are asserting that every document in history even the ones who authors put their names in the texts have no verifiable source. I would say over 90% have verified origins claimed by the expets in their fields.

As far as science goes probability is not supposed to have much of anything to do with it. Here is the actual scientific method.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I would have far more faith in what is contained in a battle report from General Lee or even a OT text from 3ooo yers ago than any fantasy that does not meet the scientific method concerning what crawled out of the mud 2 billion years ago. Yet people like you agree with the second and reject the first. That is what the Bible calls swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat. I would say 80% plus of science does meet that standard above.

The conclusion will never be exactly accurate.

However, you are claiming that people with an understanding of biology akin to that of a modern 4 year old are somehow in a better position to understand the origins of life than people who have spent their entire lives studying the building blocks and fundamental processes of that biology, and have literally thousands of years of experiment to justify their knowledge. (And not only do they have thousands of years of experiment, they also have fantastically reliable tools and methods - inconceivable to said ancient philosophers - with which to test their ideas.)

I hope you understand that I find this a little hard to believe.

 

[1robin]

The conclusion will never be exactly accurate.

However, you are claiming that people with an understanding of biology akin to that of a modern 4 year old are somehow in a better position to understand the origins of life than people who have spent their entire lives studying the building blocks and fundamental processes of that biology, and have literally thousands of years of experiment to justify their knowledge. (And not only do they have thousands of years of experiment, they also have fantastically reliable tools and methods - inconceivable to said ancient philosophers - with which to test their ideas.)

I hope you understand that I find this a little hard to believe.

My comment was not purposed to comment on which or what groups are more reliable concerning biological processes 2 billion years ago. It was a response to a strange claim concerning the merits of scientific evidence verses textual evidence with some strange completely false hyperbole thrown in for effect.


This is what I believe concerning scientific biological claims.

1. Scientists can't make life even when optimal circumstances are generated in a lab.
2. Spontaneous developement of life violates their own law of abiogenesis.
3. 95% of evolutionary claims violate their own scientific method.
4. Anything older than somewhere around 10,000 years is reasoned/evidenced based guessing and after maybe a few million turns into pure fantasy with some biological principles thrown in for effect.
5. My problems with spontaneous life formation and evolution as the sole force in biology that produces change is scientific not theologic.
6. I do not mind all the theories in the world but do not call them facts nor rigorus science.
7. I do not think the fossil record allows for evolution alone.
8. All major biological family or species groups appear suddenly (most at relatively the same time) and without developement.
9. The oldest eye known was also teh most complex.
10. There is no way around thermodynamics until a system exists of such extreme complexity that it can turn energy into complexity.
11. "And not only do they have thousands of years of experiment" Nope.

Who is it that I mentioned that have a four year old understanding of biology. Christians make up a great portion of the men who began the fields of science themselves. Even Francis Collins for Pete's sake. I don't know how you got an argument about biology from my comments. By the way have I responded to all your posts, I thought I lost you in the shuffle at some point?

 

[Warren Clark]

You are asserting that every document in history even the ones who authors put their names in the texts have no verifiable source. I would say over 90% have verified origins claimed by the expets in their fields.

As far as science goes probability is not supposed to have much of anything to do with it. Here is the actual scientific method.
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

I would have far more faith in what is contained in a battle report from General Lee or even a OT text from 3ooo yers ago than any fantasy that does not meet the scientific method concerning what crawled out of the mud 2 billion years ago. Yet people like you agree with the second and reject the first. That is what the Bible calls swallowing a camel and choking on a gnat. I would say 80% plus of science does meet that standard above.

We can use the same standards by which modern testimony is weighted on Bibliocal texts to infer the reliability of what can't be verified. That has been a part of the historical method, law, and textual criticism for hundreds of years. Why are you demanding for the Bible what even most of science can't produce. There is no proof of what happened to the dinosaurs yet every show trotts out their theory and calls it fact. You have a serious double standard problem.



What percentage is it that a random collection of atoms overcame the law of abiogenisis and thermodynamics to form a cell that has the complexity of a modern factory. Maybe .0001% yet it is claimed to be fact even though it has never been successfully tested, even scientists in labs can't do it.

When the greatest experts on testimony in human history say that the gospels meet every standrd of modern law and teh historical method do you actually thinkk what you said here matters?
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him"I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet."

There are countless more here for you to ignore:

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

You do not have much experienec with theological textual criticism do you? First there are very good reasons to adopt the God of the Bible which is why so many including many of the world's most intelligent have. There are good reasons to reject Islam, that is why force is necessary to maintain and in many places spread it. There are no laws in Christianity that condemn a person to death who want sout. There are no state run Christian governments that impose Christian law. There was no Christian Uthman who made a quran he liked and burned every single other one that existed. I can go on forever but I am not debating reason and scholarship I'm debating against your emotional bias. Apparently mere unjustified assertions are enough to satasfy you.

I can't watch videos on my DOD server. I also do not do my research on utube.


Of course you don't, emotion is what is driving everything you say. I think you mean to be insulting.

This is truly pathetic and deserves no response.


Then why were most fields of science began by theists?




There were very few apologetics in 1st century Israel. However there were 12 of the most influential men in history that proposed the most profound truth in history.

I do not care what Lord science says. It is very far from being the arbiter of all truth. Your and others religous devotion to a field of acedemics is truly disturbing. Maybe you can put up an alter at MIT and make pilgrimages there and read from the sacred Opticks.

I think it is very clear who is the idiot here and I will no longer debate the issue with you after this post as your incompetant emotional rants are not challenging and have run their course. By the way that would make Newton, Faraday, Pascal, Pasteure, Kelvin, Mendel, Boyle, Descarte, Bacon, and about 500 other of histories greatest scientists stupid. As well as making the richest nation by size in human history (Vatican city) poor. I think we can see which side is intellectually impotent.





You truly stink at this. I am not defending every religion on earth and statistics that include Muslims who destroy whatever they touch and Hindu's that live in the most over crowded country on Earth have nothing to do with Christ or Christianty. IN fact the most populous Christian country on Earth is also the richest by far, the most technical by far, and highest standard of living in human history. I can't do this any further. I do not debate emotionally based rhetorical nonsense.

1. I know what the scientific method is. However if you test your hypothesis 100 times and only 20 of the outcomes provided positive results, you must change your hypothesis. If I throw a ball in the air on earth, there is a 99.9% chance that it will fall back down. If I throw a ball in a place where there is 0% percent chance that the ball will fall back down. That is probability.
If you have something signed by someone and you can match the Signature to the person of interest its more likely to be authentic. I believe most of our findings are accurately documented as authentic artifacts of history. I wouldn't doubt if artifacts were found to be dated back when by a scholar. But I wouldn't trust what a text has to say just because it says it. A tomb may truthfully hold said person's body, but no one actually believes the curses in the mummy's tombs were real (Except for your elect few fools). So why should we believe that the Bible is any more accurate?

2. Sorry your not able to watch videos on your DOD. But just because it was found on youtube doesn't mean its not a viable source. A decent video usually has its sources listed somewhere findable, be it at the end of the video or the info box.

3. Alot of scientists have started out as theists and lost the binding of their religion. Scientific discovery does that. And its mislead that all scientists that start their fields as theists. I'd like to know where you got that information, because it is false.

4. I was just referencing the one article on the IQ/Religiousness. There are many other studies done that aren't as politically correct as that one... So I was just being nice... The Vatican is like you said filled with rich people. I find it funny how Jesus was upset that the church became not of God but greed and glamour and thats exactly what became of The Vatican...
It only proves that there are rich idiots. Afterall being poor is just one of the reasons, a person doesnt have to be poor to be religious...
And I am not saying every religious person is just outright stupid, just that they aren't as intellectually bright as our leading scientists.
Its been proven that Atheists are generally more logical than your average Evangelical.

5. Of course, because my calling religious people "stupid" (relative to your brightest minds) you are offended. In your mind you think you are taking the high road by just not responding. But just think about it.
Creationists had this thing where they tried to show how many Christian scientists there were that didn't believe in evolution.
There was a tongue-n-cheek project done called the Steve Project. The goal was to compare how many Christian scientists there were compared to the number of scientists named Steve (which make up only 1% of all the scientists). Turns out there are only a few hundred Christian scientists compared to a couple thousand named Steve.
So if more than 99% of the well trained scientists agree on something why shouldn't be accepted as valuable theory?