Life From Dirt?

[Kenny]

Because there is no reason, no evidence, whatsoever to do so.
There's nothing pointing in that direction, so why even consider it as a possibility?

I really think you need to open the case again. Do a cold case investigation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really think you need to open the case again. Do a cold case investigation.

I explained it in the post you are replying to. Unsurprisingly, it's in the part you decided not the quote.

There are no leads to consider it as a suspect.
There is thus nothing there to investigate.

 

[Kenny]

I explained it in the post you are replying to. Unsurprisingly, it's in the part you decided not the quote.

There are no leads to consider it as a suspect.
There is thus nothing there to investigate.

I think there is… the fact that 6 billion people believe in God or gods didn’t come out of thin air.

Now… your viewpoint may be different but others don’t agree.

Atheist actual cold-case investigator J. Warner Wallace became a believer after he investigated it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think there is…

No. You believe there is. And you only do so because it is part of your theology. Your religion requires you to believe it.
It means nothing.

the fact that 6 billion people believe in God or gods didn’t come out of thin air.

Argument ad populum.

Now… your viewpoint may be different but others don’t agree.

My viewpoint is based on evidence. I don't care what people "believe".

Atheist actual cold-case investigator J. Warner Wallace became a believer after he investigated it.

So what? I don't know who that is nor do I care.
Again, it matters not what people believe


Tell me... what is the objective supposed lead that would warrant investigation?
And how would one go about it?

 

[Kenny]

No. You believe there is. And you only do so because it is part of your theology. Your religion requires you to believe it.
It means nothing.



Argument ad populum.



My viewpoint is based on evidence. I don't care what people "believe".


So what? I don't know who that is nor do I care.
Again, it matters not what people believe

This is flat-earth theology

Tell me... what is the objective supposed lead that would warrant investigation?

That fact that you exist

And how would one go about it?

Not be denying the possibility and doing nothing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheist actual cold-case investigator J. Warner Wallace became a believer after he investigated it.

Okay, out of curiosity, I looked him up and read some summaries.
As expected, quite hilarious.

Here's his apologetics in a nutshell: "If I assume the gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts, then I can conclude they are accurate eyewitness accounts and therefor the gospels are accurate".

Great argument, you go there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is flat-earth theology

If by "this", you mean general christian apologetics where one concludes the bible is true when one first assumes the bible is true, then I agree.
If that is not what you mean, then I have no clue what you mean.

That fact that you exist

The fact that I exist is evidence that my parents had sex.
How is the fact that I exist in any way evidence of supernatural / magical intervention in anything?

Not be denying the possibility and doing nothing.

Great methodology you got there.

Either you didn't understand what I asked or your mind works in extremely mysterious ways.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This person is just trolling. There is no point trying to explain it all over and over again.

It is like an annual migration back home.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think there is… the fact that 6 billion people believe in God or gods didn’t come out of thin air.

And they believe in multiple different and contradictory gods, not to mention endless other superstitions. Even if this wasn't an argumentum ad populum fallacy, it only shows that people like their superstitions.

Agent detection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kenny]

Okay, out of curiosity, I looked him up and read some summaries.
As expected, quite hilarious.

Here's his apologetics in a nutshell: "If I assume the gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts, then I can conclude they are accurate eyewitness accounts and therefor the gospels are accurate".

Great argument, you go there.

Yes… just summarize his whole process from atheist to believer by a quote. Yes… you are trying real hard.

 

[Kenny]

Eliminating irrelevant parts...

Great methodology you got there.

Either you didn't understand what I asked or your mind works in extremely mysterious ways.

Maybe you can trying explaining better if I didn’t get it? All I have right now is “This is what I believe and nothing you say will change it”. I’m fine with that but you certainly haven’t debunked what I have postulated

 

[exchemist]

Yes… just summarize his whole process from atheist to believer by a quote. Yes… you are trying real hard.

Do we know this guy was previously an atheist, though? I see he joined one of those flaky Baptist megachurches at 35, after "becoming a Christian". But these people often claim people who've just joined their particular denomination have "become" Christian, on the True Scotsman principle of excluding every other sort of Christian from consideration.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes… just summarize his whole process from atheist to believer by a quote.

To start with, I even doubt he was ever a really an atheist.
When one says things like "I used to be a devout atheist..." like he does, it immediately raises all kinds of red flags as such a statement makes zero sense whatsoever if one actually understands what atheism is and gave it 2 seconds of honest thought.

And the fact that his entire collection of books can indeed be summarized in that simple statement, goes to show how little substance it has.
But it's like that with all apologetics though.

It always can pretty much be summarized with nothing more or less then "I believe the bible, therefor... the bible".

Yes… you are trying real hard.

Here's the thing... I don't even need to try hard. For people who have no confirmation bias from a priori beliefs, it is painfully obvious what guys like him are all about.



Meanwhile, you still haven't properly answered any of my questions and you've also moved the goalposts.

 

[Kenny]

To start with, I even doubt he was ever a really an atheist.
When one says things like "I used to be a devout atheist..." like he does, it immediately raises all kinds of red flags as such a statement makes zero sense whatsoever if one actually understands what atheism is and gave it 2 seconds of honest thought.

And the fact that his entire collection of books can indeed be summarized in that simple statement, goes to show how little substance it has.
But it's like that with all apologetics though.

It always can pretty much be summarized with nothing more or less then "I believe the bible, therefor... the bible".

I read the book…. I disagree with your assessment

Here's the thing... I don't even need to try hard. For people who have no confirmation bias from a priori beliefs, it is painfully obvious what guys like him are all about.



Meanwhile, you still haven't properly answered any of my questions and you've also moved the goalposts.

Then let’s go back… and give me the question that I didn’t answer. There has been so much fluff, I have missed the real stuff.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Eliminating irrelevant parts...

"irrelevant"?
How is what I said about "the fact that I exist" irrelevant?
YOU made the claim that the "fact that I exist" is somehow a lead that turns the "supernatural" into a valid suspect.

I asked you how. You don't think it's relevant for you to actualy explain and demonstrate your claims?
I guess you don't. Well... that's that, then.

Maybe you can trying explaining better if I didn’t get it?

You claimed that my existence is a lead to makes the supernatural suspect.
Ignoring for a moment that this is nothing but a wild claim that doesn't follow at all...
Where do we go from there? How do you then go about investigating if "the supernatural" has anything to do with my existence?
What tests do you do? What testable predictions does this (non-)hypothesis make? How do we verify it?
How do we go from "suspect" to "guilty as charged"?

I’m fine with that but you certainly haven’t debunked what I have postulated

You haven't given me anything to debunk.
You just made a rather silly assertion with no evidence.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

At this point, your claim that the supernatural is somehow suspect for my existence, is in terms of evidence on par with claiming that undetectable unicorns are suspect for the missing cookies in my kitchen.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you saying that the evidence for Jesus and Christianity is not better than the evidence for Buddha and Buddhism, or is this just a random attack on Christianity based on the skeptic belief that the gospels were written by people who did not know much about Jesus?
But imo the actual evidence suggests that the gospels were written by the people the church claims wrote them.

Good question. I'd like to see the answer to that also.

 

[YoursTrue]

What people "believe" doesn't actually matter.



Your beliefs don't matter.
It has no explanatory value, because it's not an explanation. It's just an assertion.
"god dun it" explains absolutely nothing.

An explanation is supposed to make something intelligable, understandable. It has to give one deeper insight into what is happening and why. That in turn gives predictive capability. An explanation concerning aerodynamics for example, gives one the ability to understand how to build better airplanes.
Merely saying "god regulates aerodynamics" will not give one the ability to build airplanes, let alone better airplanes.

My beliefs matter to me. Obviously you do not share my beliefs. My belief is that in the long and short-er run, God will decide, determine, and make the right decision.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do we know this guy was previously an atheist, though? I see he joined one of those flaky Baptist megachurches at 35, after "becoming a Christian". But these people often claim people who've just joined their particular denomination have "become" Christian, on the True Scotsman principle of excluding every other sort of Christian from consideration.

Also, let's not forget the con-man aspect of it.

Soon after turning to apologetics writings, his net worth exploded and, like so many other "church" people with ministries and apologetic books, became a millionaire.
I'm always rather skeptical of motives from people like that.

Especially in cases like this, when their professional background shows they should know a LOT better then the crappy logic they present in their books that made them rich.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I read the book…. I disagree with your assessment

Off course you do. There's that confirmation bias I was talking about.
You swallow it whole because it says exactly what you want to hear.

Meanwhile, science papers that have a thousand-fold the evidence (which is objectively and independently verifiable unlike any of the nonsense you'll find in any of his books), you reject out of hand. Why? Because it contradicts your a priori beliefs.

Then let’s go back… and give me the question that I didn’t answer. There has been so much fluff, I have missed the real stuff.

What is it about the fact that I exist that makes the supernatural in any way "suspect"?
And when you give a proper answer to that, where do we go from there to move from "suspect" to "guilty as charged"?
What tests do we do? What verifiable predictions does the hypothesis make (assuming you can turn the hollow bare claim into a proper hypothesis, that is)?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

since I've been examining the prospect of evolution I find it is not well substantiated.

It seems that you agree that if a claim is not well substantiated, it shouldn't be believed. I agree, which is why I am an atheist. Contrariwise, I believe that when a claim is well substantiated like evolution, then it should be accepted provisionally as correct.

@It Ain't Necessarily So doesn't like me saying that skeptics believe in anything, and says he will correct me when I do that.

You are terrible at paraphrasing. I'm a skeptic and have many beliefs. Where I said that I would correct you was when you transformed words from their original meaning to something else as I am doing now.

It doesn’t seem congruent to say “I don’t rule out supernaturalism” and then say “I am an agnostic atheist”.

Then you don't understand what agnosticism is. That's odd given your line of work.

Let me illustrate. I've known Bob for years and find him dependable and trustworthy. I've also known John for years and discovered the opposite about him. He lies, steals, and betrays. I just met Jack and know nothing at all about him. I don't know if he's trustworthy like Bob or untrustworthy like John. I'm agnostic about the matter. I neither believe he can be trusted nor the opposite. I just don't know.

Does it also seem incongruent to you for me to say "I don't rule out Jack being trustworthy" and also say, "I'm agnostic about Jack's trustworthiness"? If you ask me whether I trust Jack, my answer is no. Do you understand that to mean that I've decided that he would cheat or betray me given the chance? If so, you've made that transformation again between what was written into what you changed it to.

I've already explained this to you once, and there was no evidence in your responses that you understood the words or even looked at them, so I'm assuming that the same will be the case again now. You don't know what the words I just wrote mean and nothing in your reply will indicate otherwise.

I really think you need to open the case again.

But you give no argument for why you recommend that.

Besides, I've already learned too much to ever join you. For me to do that would require that my most developed and last added levels of thought decay away, as was the case with Antony Flew, an atheist philosopher who became something of a deist in his dotage.

I assure you that if in a few years, I begin posting about my acceptance of supernaturalism, others familiar with my previous thinking will know that more has happened to me than just that I've changed my opinion. They would understand that something is deteriorating in me. So would you, but you would see it as a good thing.

And believers lie in wait for that day, exhorting me to do things like to keep "investigating" supernaturalism, which means think about it in a way that will admit the idea absent sufficient empirical justification. If that idea ever gets past my present defenses, you will know that I am now defenseless against indoctrination.

How's your "investigation" into vampires going? I really think you need to open the case again (just kidding; I believe the opposite; it would be a waste of your time, which you already know).

Then let’s go back… and give me the question that I didn’t answer. There has been so much fluff, I have missed the real stuff.

Why should he do that? Why would it be any different a second time? There are probably a dozen apologists on this site who do exactly what you've done. You fail to acknowledge most of what is written to you then ask it to be repeated. When it is, it still has no apparent impact. The comments aren't merely disagreed with, they aren't acknowledged at all. There is no evidence in the reply that the words were even read much less understood. There's no getting past that impediment.