New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay, how about self-evident or evident? Most people I know are conversant with God as a being and a presence in their daily lives.

That doesn't make something evident, much less self-evident. Many children are convinced that Santa Claus brings them presents at Christmas, it doesn't mean he actually does.

The only argument I was making is Hitchens held a confirmation bias. Taken together, his statement was:

“I have no evidence of the love of Jesus Christ although thousands of Jesus-lovers sent me loving, caring notes and not one Jesus-lover sent me a hateful note. I’ve only recently anecdotally experienced the ratio of 2,000:0 loving Christians so I cannot say with certainty or plausibility or possibility that a loving God might exist.”

I cannot find a single source for this quote. Where is it from, because I can't even find anything remotely resembling it online.

Please present your source, otherwise I will accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting and disrespecting a dead man.

 

[Shad]

**

Hi Shad, I try to take you at face value rather than “read between the lines”. Please do the same. Your response was to my statement, which was:

“I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.”



And then you wrote three paragraphs explaining what I think and that I don’t know what I think subconsciously but that is comes out in my written words. My written words, responding to your precise inquiry, were:

“I'm not setting for a "you're in denial!" attack, which is some kind of Christian assault I wouldn't do to you.”

Please take me at my word.

I am not attacking your character. I am pointing out how you write carries presupposition you may not be aware of by including motivation in an "or" comparison. I could have already dismissed various claims about God. Think about it this way. An overwhelming majority of biologists (expertise) accept ToE. Do you lack evidence of experts overwhelming agreeing with ToE over all alternatives (evidence of of what people believe which is the same as your example rather than evidence of the claimed belief itself) or is it because you won't like what you will find (motivation)? There could be alternatives beyond simple evidence of what people belief and motivation. As I have said already X people claiming X is not evidence of X. So I can object that the argument is irrelevant as we are talking about people not evidence of God. I could simply maintain belief in God is not an external evidence based belief but one of faith and internal evidence; something demonstrated to other vs something only demonstrated to me. I could have alternative motivation as well such as I have heard what I believe are the best arguments for God yet was not convinced and/or found objections to each argument.

I am trying my best to be as neutral as possible with no attacks upon you. I hope the above clarifies my points better.

Okay, how about self-evident or evident? Most people I know are conversant with God as a being and a presence in their daily lives.

A problem is if God was self--evident everyone would acknowledge the existence of God. However people do not so it is not self-evident.

I wasn’t using my pitch to get you to be a Christian. But C.S. Lewis moved from atheism > deism > Christian > great apologist. If that’s the path you choose . . . I’m neither able nor wanting to convert you on this forum.

I agree that this is one way an individual may develop a belief. There is also "unknown" to Christian as per children. You can quote anyone you wish.

I never took your comments as a method of religious conversion. Beside I did ask for your arguments so opened myself to arguments of conversion be it supportive of deism, theist, etc. If you think a good argument is found within a specific religious view or apologists feel free to comment upon it. I want to see your best arguments from your point of view without restriction

The only argument I was making is Hitchens held a confirmation bias. Taken together, his statement was:

“I have no evidence of the love of Jesus Christ although thousands of Jesus-lovers sent me loving, caring notes and not one Jesus-lover sent me a hateful note. I’ve only recently anecdotally experienced the ratio of 2,000:0 loving Christians so I cannot say with certainty or plausibility or possibility that a loving God might exist.”

You haven't established a confirmation bias here. He cited nothing but what people believe nor responded to a specific piece of evidence provided outside of what people believe and how people acted. He is stating a conclusion he holds, his opinion. An opinion is not confirmation bias.

What I see is people using a term "Jesus' love" in two different ways thus talking passed each other. Hitchens has denied the "metaphysical" link to a religious lifestyle by only acknowledging the human emotions and actions, the believer's love. While the believers acknowledge the metaphysical link in which Jesus' love as part of their own love manifested.

 

[Polymath257]

You are putting me on here . . . ? EVERY scientist and cosmologist I respect says “the Law of Conservation was NOT in effect prior to the initial expansion of the Big Bang singularity. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

I call BS. Show me a cosmologist that thinks conservation of energy is violated by the Big Bang. I have yet to see one.

What I *have* seen are the following:
1. Those that do not think there *is* a 'prior to the initial expansion'. Since the law of conservation of energy compares the amount of energy at two different times, if there is no time prior to the expansion, there is nothing to compare to.

2. Those who think that the gravitational energy and the mass-energy exactly balance, allowing for the formation of the universe without violating the conservation of energy.

3. Those who think that energy is conserved in a multiverse and not in certain phases of individual universes. This is, by far, the minority view.

 

[Shad]

I call BS. Show me a cosmologist that thinks conservation of energy is violated by the Big Bang. I have yet to see one.

Neither source below is a cosmologist but I believe their credentials are more than enough.

Look up The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allow for violation in the here and now not merely in the past. Pages12-14 and 271-276 cover the develop of the idea of such violation. The actual paper can be found under Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? Nature, vol. 246, p. 396-397, 14 December 1973. CoE has application in a certain scale but not all scales.

 

[Polymath257]

Neither source below is a cosmologist but I believe their credentials are more than enough.

Look up The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle allow for violation in the here and now not merely in the past. Pages12-14 and 271-276 cover the develop of the idea of such violation. The actual paper can be found under Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? Nature, vol. 246, p. 396-397, 14 December 1973. CoE has application in a certain scale but not all scales.

Fair enough. Although quantum fluctuations need to 'resolve' the violation quickly. In essence, these viewpoints are the one I gave in case 2 above.

 

[Shad]

Fair enough. Although quantum fluctuations need to 'resolve' the violation quickly. In essence, these viewpoints are the one I gave in case 2 above.

In a way the source is like #2 but expands upon how energy is defined and how the "system" become balanced shortly after a violation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That would hardly be a representative sample, and I don't see why I should do the work to demonstrate the claim that you made. Obviously you must have some factual basis for your claim, so what is that basis?


So you can't provide me with the interview where he said that "ALL" the letters he received were kind?

I'll wait for you to try again.


You said it was an analogy, but it wasn't. I'm not sure you know how analogies work.

I saw the interview first run, I don't know it is archived online. Let's assume for now you see the interview and it proves I was correct in my memory of it. How would it positively or negatively affect your worldview?

 

[BilliardsBall]

That doesn't make something evident, much less self-evident. Many children are convinced that Santa Claus brings them presents at Christmas, it doesn't mean he actually does.


I cannot find a single source for this quote. Where is it from, because I can't even find anything remotely resembling it online.

Please present your source, otherwise I will accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting and disrespecting a dead man.

Excuse me--I already mentioned I saw the interview first run, I do not know if it archived online, but before you slander me--what percentages of Hitchens's remarks on air are archived online? 2% on YouTube? Don't be silly.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am not attacking your character. I am pointing out how you write carries presupposition you may not be aware of by including motivation in an "or" comparison. I could have already dismissed various claims about God. Think about it this way. An overwhelming majority of biologists (expertise) accept ToE. Do you lack evidence of experts overwhelming agreeing with ToE over all alternatives (evidence of of what people believe which is the same as your example rather than evidence of the claimed belief itself) or is it because you won't like what you will find (motivation)? There could be alternatives beyond simple evidence of what people belief and motivation. As I have said already X people claiming X is not evidence of X. So I can object that the argument is irrelevant as we are talking about people not evidence of God. I could simply maintain belief in God is not an external evidence based belief but one of faith and internal evidence; something demonstrated to other vs something only demonstrated to me. I could have alternative motivation as well such as I have heard what I believe are the best arguments for God yet was not convinced and/or found objections to each argument.

I am trying my best to be as neutral as possible with no attacks upon you. I hope the above clarifies my points better.




A problem is if God was self--evident everyone would acknowledge the existence of God. However people do not so it is not self-evident.



I agree that this is one way an individual may develop a belief. There is also "unknown" to Christian as per children. You can quote anyone you wish.

I never took your comments as a method of religious conversion. Beside I did ask for your arguments so opened myself to arguments of conversion be it supportive of deism, theist, etc. If you think a good argument is found within a specific religious view or apologists feel free to comment upon it. I want to see your best arguments from your point of view without restriction



You haven't established a confirmation bias here. He cited nothing but what people believe nor responded to a specific piece of evidence provided outside of what people believe and how people acted. He is stating a conclusion he holds, his opinion. An opinion is not confirmation bias.

What I see is people using a term "Jesus' love" in two different ways thus talking passed each other. Hitchens has denied the "metaphysical" link to a religious lifestyle by only acknowledging the human emotions and actions, the believer's love. While the believers acknowledge the metaphysical link in which Jesus' love as part of their own love manifested.

I understand, but the stereotype was exploded, wasn't it? Thousands of letters to none? I see "no" evidence of Jesus's love is how Hitchens put it!

 

[BilliardsBall]

I call BS. Show me a cosmologist that thinks conservation of energy is violated by the Big Bang. I have yet to see one.

What I *have* seen are the following:
1. Those that do not think there *is* a 'prior to the initial expansion'. Since the law of conservation of energy compares the amount of energy at two different times, if there is no time prior to the expansion, there is nothing to compare to.

2. Those who think that the gravitational energy and the mass-energy exactly balance, allowing for the formation of the universe without violating the conservation of energy.

3. Those who think that energy is conserved in a multiverse and not in certain phases of individual universes. This is, by far, the minority view.

Are you being serious? Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed had to not be in force before the singularity began to expand.

There is no linear time prior to the expansion, yes, with linear time being based on light. Sure.

The gravitational energy and mass-energy balance had to have been unbalanced for the expansion. Use a gedanken and tell me if it was an internal or external catalyst that caused the expansion.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you being serious? Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed had to not be in force before the singularity began to expand.

Why? Remember that gravitational energy is negative and exactly cancels the mass energy. So the total energy is zero.

There is no linear time prior to the expansion, yes, with linear time being based on light. Sure.

Depends on which model you use. In some models, time does extend back past the Big Bang. In others, it does not. How 'linear time' relates to light seems to be confused here.

The gravitational energy and mass-energy balance had to have been unbalanced for the expansion. Use a gedanken and tell me if it was an internal or external catalyst that caused the expansion.

Internal, of course. No catalyst, though. It was either 1) a quantum fluctuation producing the matter which caused the expansion or 2) a previous universe that 'bounced' or 3) there was no before the expansion at all.

 

[Sapiens]

And let's not forget about the newly discovered negative mass.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I saw the interview first run, I don't know it is archived online. Let's assume for now you see the interview and it proves I was correct in my memory of it. How would it positively or negatively affect your worldview?

Well, it would be extremely surprising considering the number of contrary messages Hitchens read from Christians (or self-professed Christians, at least), but wouldn't indicate much more than that the Christians who took the time to write to Hitchens personally were at least considerate.

Not that it matters. I've watched about three interviews with Hitchens close to his death on YouTube and not one of them mentions that ALL the messages he received were positive - and in two of them he explicitly mentions malicious messages he had received.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Excuse me--I already mentioned I saw the interview first run, I do not know if it archived online, but before you slander me--what percentages of Hitchens's remarks on air are archived online? 2% on YouTube? Don't be silly.

You said you saw it, and that you can at least remember the jist of what was said in it, yet you cannot recall the exact source of the interview and whenever I search for the statement I cannot find any interview or article in which he says or even implies any such thing. Given this, I simply cannot take what you are saying at face value, and I believe you are either mis-remembering something or being outright dishonest.

So, yes, call it slander if you want, but you are the one spreading information you cannot demonstrate to be true about a dead man.

 

[viole]

1. Are you saying most Muslims do not say God exists? I just returned from a Muslim nation--you are not capturing the scene accurately. Are you saying most Hindus don't adhere to one or more gods? Really?!

2. I do think if you seek God in Iran, Alabama, in the scriptures, etc. you can find Him. You aren't more or less special than me--you're a person to whom an invitation is extended.

3. Did Christian missionaries to Australia and the Americas find atheist tribes or peoples interested deeply in spirituality and god(s)? Explaining--as in the NT--to deeply religious persons that Jesus brings truth and light is different than wandering the world to find that atheist societies are nonexistent.

You are goalpost shifting with all three of your questions. I'm asking why you lack motivation to pursue the evidence before you, not which pieces of evidence differ in Islam, Alabama or Australia.

Let me ssk you this.

If three renowned and highly respected scientists told you

1) the first animal was a mammouth
2) the first animal was mickey mouse
3) the first animal was a truck

What would you think of the theory of common descent?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why? Remember that gravitational energy is negative and exactly cancels the mass energy. So the total energy is zero.


Depends on which model you use. In some models, time does extend back past the Big Bang. In others, it does not. How 'linear time' relates to light seems to be confused here.



Internal, of course. No catalyst, though. It was either 1) a quantum fluctuation producing the matter which caused the expansion or 2) a previous universe that 'bounced' or 3) there was no before the expansion at all.

Yes, the total mass energy is estimated to be at zero or near zero. Do we know if the universe is an open or closed system?

Would you go to a conference and say, "Stop arguing, cosmologists! We all know it was a quantum fluctuation, a prior universe bounce or an eternally prior non-expanded universe!" I don't think you would and I know I would not, either. I'm trying to be open-minded, I recognize my biases regarding God's scripture, and I'm still accused of dogmatism. Your remarks are pretty closed-minded, looks like. So let's just make the peace!

The isotropic and homogeneous universe does not preclude Genesis being true:

First, if our locality is in a gravity well (consider the Pioneer Problem, for example) then time dilation could make faraway light indeed be billions of years old while the Solar System was created more recently.

Second, the Big Bang and modern cosmology still has a time/light issue – the Horizon Problem.

Put another way, we can see that both Genesis and Big Bang/modern cosmology have some points of agreement but also time/light issues that may prompt alternative understanding.

Can you make peace with me here? There is no denial of the issues, above.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, it would be extremely surprising considering the number of contrary messages Hitchens read from Christians (or self-professed Christians, at least), but wouldn't indicate much more than that the Christians who took the time to write to Hitchens personally were at least considerate.

Not that it matters. I've watched about three interviews with Hitchens close to his death on YouTube and not one of them mentions that ALL the messages he received were positive - and in two of them he explicitly mentions malicious messages he had received.

Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know that.

When you seek proof of God from you or from others, what is it specifically that you seek? Christians say God is relational, I've never asked my wife or kids to submit to the peer review process to affirm our relationship. Does that make sense?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't know that.

What? You were unaware that he had received malicious messages from people claiming to be Christians? Why did you make the claim that he had received nothing but positive messages, then?

When you seek proof of God from you or from others, what is it specifically that you seek? Christians say God is relational, I've never asked my wife or kids to submit to the peer review process to affirm our relationship. Does that make sense?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? Are you responding to the wrong post?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let me ssk you this.

If three renowned and highly respected scientists told you

1) the first animal was a mammouth
2) the first animal was mickey mouse
3) the first animal was a truck

What would you think of the theory of common descent?

Ciao

- viole

I would think 1) it is a pretty decent theory when pursuing mechanistic beliefs since we can see lots of similarities between creatures and 2) that the three scientists were really losing it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What? You were unaware that he had received malicious messages from people claiming to be Christians? Why did you make the claim that he had received nothing but positive messages, then?


What does this have to do with what I wrote? Are you responding to the wrong post?

I was totally unaware. I saw the interview where he said none. Looks like some ticked off people were watching that interview!