The creator did it.

[Polymath257]

What about quantum theory,

Quantum theory is one of the most accurate scientific thoeries we have ever had. it gives incredibly good descriptions of everything from the photoelectric effect, to the spectra of elements, to solid state physics.

the 5th dimension

I like some of their songs.

and the TOE (Theory Of Everything).

Still to be formulated.

God is the TOE Who is beyond our dimension (transcendent) and controls all His sub atomic particles. Not the same as just "God Did It fallacy", because He is logically the best explanation to what we can know about everything in our universe.

Sorry, not a predictive theory. Unless, that is, you can show how to compute the half-life of a muon from this assumption.

 

[joelr]

I have reasonably responded to those who I have quoted here. If there is a point that I am missing, please ask it in a way that shows you really want to understand and not just do the "straw man or ad hominem" way of not dealing with the information I have posted, including looking at the websites that I referenced for your convenience. History is understood both by the written records from those times as well as the archeological finds from that historical era. The last quote is from my own post to make it easier for the reader to reference what I had posted on page 39 post #765.
From Google...
Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.
Historical method - Wikipedia
Anonymous sources
Historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts.

Below is a link to the book by crime scene detective and former atheist J. Warner Wallace "Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels".
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Ch...3HPB0BXEG1Z&psc=1&refRID=N6RG4S8MQ3HPB0BXEG1Z

and you tube video...

J. Warner Wallace website...
Cold Case Christianity

That video is terrible. It's for Christians who already believe to feel all warm and fuzzy.
He has no cred in historicity, experts already have confirmed there is no extra-biblical evidence and the gospels are not reliable.
He's actually lying in some parts.


This tired old Tacitus reference simply means he knew there were Christians around who followed gospels.

Tacitus, in his Annals (written c. AD 115), book 15, chapter 44,[44] describes Nero's scapegoating of the Christians following the Fire of Rome. He writes that founder of the sect was named Christus (the Christian title for Jesus); that he was executed under Pontius Pilate; and that the movement, initially checked, broke out again in Judea and even in Rome itself.[45] Some scholars question the historical value of the passage on various grounds.[46]


the history field says this:
Historical reliability of the Gospels
Main article: [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels']Historical reliability of the Gospels
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[52][53][54][55][56][/URL]

and archeology can not and never will be able to confirm any supernatural story as true. There are real people in most myths. Does he think we are going to find the Ark of the Covenant and Nazis will melt?

Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

What he's saying isn't true. Evidence does not support any fictional story as real. Even Roswell falls apart when you examine evidence.
Nothing wrong with faith but what he's presenting is a scam.

 

[joelr]

What about quantum theory, the 5th dimension and the TOE (Theory Of Everything). God is the TOE Who is beyond our dimension (transcendent) and controls all His sub atomic particles. Not the same as just "God Did It fallacy", because He is logically the best explanation to what we can know about everything in our universe.

The idea of some cosmic creator who may create universes has nothing to do with any human mythology. Even if there is some god-like being it does not mean Zeus is real. It doesn't raise any mythology to the status of "real".

Archeology does not prove religion
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible

and Christianity is just pagan myths
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

and Pagan myths do not become true because of a TOE or because of some god who clearly doesn't communicate with us.

 

[joelr]

From F.F. Bruce,
T
As F.F. Bruce stated in his book,
"The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?"...
The earliest propagators of Christianity welcomed the fullest examination of the credentials of their message. The events which they proclaimed were, as Paul said to King Agrippa, not done in a corner, and were well able to bear all the light that could be thrown on them. The spirit of these early Christians ought to animate their modern descendants. For by an acquaintance with the relevant evidence they will not only be able to give to everyone who asks them a reason for the hope that is in them, but they themselves, like Theophilus, will thus know more accurately how secure is the basis of the faith which they have been taught.

I am just re-posting this with some new information to help some people here to better understand what we mean when we talk about the historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts...
Author:

Mathew
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180

Mark
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-60
Early Identification: Papias A.D.140, Irenaeus A.D.180

Luke
Date written: Gospel A.D.60-80, Acts A.D.63-70
Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

John
Date written: Gospel A.D.50-85,1John A.D.70-100, 2John A.D.85-95, 3John A.D.85-95, Revelation A.D.69-95

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Paul
Date written: Romans 57 A.D., 1Corinthians A.D.55, 2Corinthians A.D.55, Galatians A.D.48- 53, Ephesians A.D.60, Philippians A.D.61, Colossians A.D.60, 1Thessalonians A.D.51, 2Thessalonians A.D.51-52, 1Timothy A.D.64, 2Timothy A.D.66-67, Titus A.D.63-65, Philemon A.D.60

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

James
Date written: James A.D.50

Peter
Date written: 1Peter A.D.60-64, 2Peter A.D.65-68

Early Identification: Irenaeus A.D.180, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340

Jude
Date written: Jude A.D.65-80

Early Identification: Clement of Rome A.D.96, Clement of Alexandria A.D.150-215, Tertullian A.D.155-222, Origen A.D.185-253, Eusebius A.D.265-340, Athanasius A.D.298-373, Muratorian Cannon A.D.170

Hebrews
Date written: Hebrews A.D.67-70
Early Identification: Tertullian A.D.155-222




(PS I will be adding more information to this and repost it again with additions as I have the time, thank you for your patience in this regards)
Book Sources:
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.1, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Vol.1, The Teachings of the Church Fathers (chap.6) by John Willis (this book is a great resource), The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable by F.F. Bruce, Zondervan NIV Study Bible

Internet Sources for your convenience:
Intro to Luke
The Muratorian Fragment
Sinai Palimpsests Processed Images
ResearchGuides: Biblical Manuscripts: Greek NT Manuscripts
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Manuscript P52 - CSNTM

Besides a few fundamentalist scholars the historicity field has been in consensus for a long time:

Historical reliability of the Gospels
Main article: Historical reliability of the Gospels
The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[52][53][54][55][56]


What can atheists know about Jesus panel

 

[Rapture Era]

We are getting there. Your posts made it clear that you did not understand this.

How so?

Also science has advanced past Darwinian evolution. He got many of the basics correct but had no understanding of how traits were passed on. The Modern Synthesis combines Darwinian evolution with genetics.

Please explain what you said here in detail, all three sentences.

But moving on. Darwin's theory of evolution is a testable theory. It also made predictions on what should be found if his theory is correct. Do you understand this?

I totally understand this, the problem is that the tests of the theory fail miserably. What has been found that validates anything evolving from a common ancestor? What was the common ancestor? How is it possible for life (common ancestor) to come from non-life matter?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I totally understand this, the problem is that the tests of the theory fail miserably.

No they don't. The exact opposite is true.

What has been found that validates anything evolving from a common ancestor?

In the broadest sense: Nested hierarchies. Phylogenetic trees that can be obtained through independent lines of evidence like comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc.

The fact that no fossil in the fossil records shows up at the wrong time.

The amount of independent converging evidence for evolution, is ridiculously huge.

What was the common ancestor?

Of what?
Also, not being able to identify an exact species, is not at all a problem for evolution. Nothing in evolution says that we should be able to exactly pinpoint which species is a common ancestor for which species.

It's not at all required to determine that 2 or more species share common ancestors.
Just like it is not required to be able to identify exactly who your mother was, to be able to conclude that your sister is your actual biological sister. All that is needed for that is a DNA sample of both you as well as your sister.

How is it possible for life (common ancestor) to come from non-life matter?

Evolution theory covers the origins of biological diversity, not the origins of life itself.

As I'm sure has been pointed out to you plenty of times already.

 

[Rapture Era]

Atheism is a response to a single claim. That's it. Other than that, atheists can and do believe and disbelieve all kinds of other things. Not all atheists believe/disbelieve the same things. There is no worldview that all atheists follow. There are no doctrines. Some follow science. Some don't. Some believe in ghosts, some don't. The only thing they all share is a lack of belief in god(s). That's all that's required for a person to be an atheist.

No doctrines? A doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. Are you not the other group? Of atheists with a set of beliefs that you continue to try and convince others who don't adhere to your disbelief in God that they are wrong? Common Skep, I see you. Who are you trying to hoodwink here

You should get your information about atheists from actual atheists. ICR doesn't know what they're talking about, and we know what their agenda is, because I already provided it.

You mean atheists like you?
What is your agenda?
You have proved nothing! Try again.

 

[Rapture Era]

No they don't. The exact opposite is true.

Is that right? how so?

In the broadest sense: Nested hierarchies. Phylogenetic trees that can be obtained through independent lines of evidence like comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, etc.

Whaaaaaat? You need to be more specific! Take me through your though process here.

The fact that no fossil in the fossil records shows up at the wrong time.

Huh?

The amount of independent converging evidence for evolution, is ridiculously huge.

What are your examples?

 

[Rapture Era]

Of what?
Also, not being able to identify an exact species, is not at all a problem for evolution. Nothing in evolution says that we should be able to exactly pinpoint which species is a common ancestor for which species.

COP-OUT! If you cannot validate in any way shape or form that intelligent life had any part of the origin process, you're dead in the water! Does this not make good common sense to you? To this day there is no answer, scientific or other wise that matches the straight forward creation event of Genesis! Pure speculation abounds! That's it! When are you guys gonna get a clue? You cant prove something that never happened no matter how hard you try! I want to believe you guys are sensible intelligent reasonable people but you keep fighting me on this! Why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is that right? how so?

To name just one: it predicts nested hierarchies.
And we find nested hierarchies at every level of life. At the molecular genetic level as well as at the macroscopic anatomy level. It even matches geographic distribution of species.

Whaaaaaat? You need to be more specific! Take me through your though process here.

You won't find a mammal with feathers.
You won't find a reptile with hair.
You won't find a fish with mammary glands.
You won't find a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
You won't find native populations of kangaroo's or koala bears outside of australia.

Evolution inevitably results in nested hierarchies.
A reptile with hair or a mammal with feathers would violate the nested hierarchy predicted by evolution.

Huh?

There are no rabbits in pre-cambiran rock.

What are your examples?

I already gave them.

Perhaps you should read up on what Phylogenetic Trees are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No doctrines? A doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group. Are you not the other group? Of atheists with a set of beliefs that you continue to try and convince others who don't adhere to your disbelief in God that they are wrong?

Whatever "skep" believes, is seperate from his atheism.
Atheism is about what you do NOT believe.

Nonbelief, is not a belief nore is it a doctrine.

You mean atheists like you?

Yes. I'ld think that he is the authority on what HE HIMSELF believes or doesn't believe.
Contrary to what you seem to think, you don't know better then him what he believes or doesn't believe.....................................

How arrogant must one be, to think one knows better then a 3rd party what that 3rd party believes or doesn't believe?

 

[Rapture Era]

You really need to cite your sources.

Does that matter to you? If so, why? What specifically can you point to that is false in this article? Take it sentence by sentence if you have to but show me that it is false!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

COP-OUT!

Huh?

If you cannot validate in any way shape or form that intelligent life had any part of the origin process, you're dead in the water!

What does this even mean, and how does it relate to the point you are replying to?

Does this not make good common sense to you? To this day there is no answer, scientific or other wise that matches the straight forward creation event of Genesis!

That's because the creation event of genesis never happened.........................................................

Pure speculation abounds! That's it! When are you guys gonna get a clue? You cant prove something that never happened no matter how hard you try! I want to believe you guys are sensible intelligent reasonable people but you keep fighting me on this! Why?

None of this has anything to do with the post you are replying to.
The point was about identifying common ancestors, not about the origins of life.

Perhaps you should try again to actually reply to the point instead.

 

[Rapture Era]

To name just one: it predicts nested hierarchies.
And we find nested hierarchies at every level of life. At the molecular genetic level as well as at the macroscopic anatomy level. It even matches geographic distribution of species.

Perhaps we can start with this, Common ancestry is conspicuous. Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather likenested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. How does this re-count in the real world, please explain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps we can start with this, Common ancestry is conspicuous. Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather likenested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. How does this re-count in the real world, please explain.

I'll just copy and paste since I already gave examples of this:

You won't find a mammal with feathers.
You won't find a reptile with hair.
You won't find a fish with mammary glands.
You won't find a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
You won't find native populations of kangaroo's or koala bears outside of australia.


A chimp shares more genetic markers and traits with humans then a gorilla.

A gorilla shares more genetic markers and traits with humans then a cat.
A cat shares more genetic markers and traits with humans then a frog.
A frog shares more genetic markers and traits with humans then a banana.
A banana shares more genetic markers and traits with humans then a microbe.​

In the exact same way:

Your brother shares more genetic markers and traits with you then your cousin.

Your cousing shares more genetic markers and traits with you then your more distant cousin.
Your more distant cousin shares more genetic markers and traits with you then your even more distant cousin.
etc.


Here's a phylogenetic tree that was generated based on automated analysis of a whole bunch of fully sequenced genomes:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg​

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Atheism is a worldview in which there is no God. Adherents believe that life sprang from natural forces, not an intelligence, and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organized itself out of raw materials that were just there. "New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief. Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.1 As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."2

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence." Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3 This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.4

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting, which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.5 One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative." This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale. Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here! Any reasonable moderator can see this! Your hypocrisy is over the top! I'd really be interested in how you address the above to try and save any integrity you think you might have left!

There is an awful lot to unpack here. Lets start with Atheism. As rightly stated by "Tagliatellimonster", the "a" in atheism does not stand for "against" or "anti" God or Theism. It stands for "without", or "the absence of" God or Theism. "Antitheism" would mean against a belief in God. You try to appeal to the emotions(pathos) of others, by asserting half-truths and inferences. You fail to point out why Atheists choose a position of non-belief in any God or supernatural entity. You fail to point out that Atheism is predicated by the simplest of logic. That is, all knowledge claims should be based on the facts in evidence, not on belief. And, that those making truth claims about facts not in evidence, must exercise their burden of proof. Atheism is a position, a choice, a view, about one aspect of a collective social/cultural consciousness. Without providing any objective evidence from this world, you can't scientifically justify the existence of another world. Let alone try to justify an entity that is ALL things to ALL worlds. Since you can't provide any evidence, it is easier to deflect with "they are just against God". Typical.

I won't return to the days of the atrocities committed by self-righteous religious zealots. History clearly shows us this. The modern theist argument is that Atheists are simply rebelling against God, like naughty children. After all, how could a multi-omni entity allow His creations to develop any justifiable doubts(problem of evil)? This would also mean that the majority's belief would become silly, without any evidentiary basis at all. The consensus belief is always right, right? Maybe this is why the "Tree of Knowledge" was so well guarded in the middle of the garden. Now you are trying to misrepresent and mischaracterize the so-called "New Atheists".

Before the sixties, there were many that chose not to simply follow any religious social rituals, just because everyone else did. Many would stop to objectively question the basis of their beliefs and actions. They were met with, ostracism, ridicule, threats, intimidation, segregation, religious bigotry, separatism, expulsion, religious intolerance, criminal action, torture and death, and forced indoctrination of their children. These action might seem impossible to believe by many, but all of these actions were committed, and all prompted anti-religious rulings by the Supreme Court. So, rather than subject themselves and their families to the true nature of religious intolerance and elitism, most Atheists and non-believers stayed in the closet(or called themselves Agnostics). They generally gave up expressing their non-religious position, and just wanted to be left alone.

Unfortunately Theists were not satisfied with proselytizing their religious dogma, in camps, retreats, churches, colleges, schools, academies, and private homes. They needed to continue their insidious encroachment into our Government, our courts, our public schools, and even into our science classrooms. This was now becoming a strain on our guaranteed right FROM religions, but also demonstrated the insecure, arrogant, and incredulous nature of religion. Atheist could no longer stay in the closet. Maybe they didn't want their children learning that magic is real science. Maybe they didn't want their children learning that reality is directly proportional to belief. Maybe they didn't want their children to confuse critical and rational thinking, with abstract and conceptual thinking. In either case, many educators, academics, and "New Atheist" came out of the closet. They were trying to slow the "dumbing down" of America. They wanted to inspired skepticism, and the ability to self-evaluate the validity of indoctrinated religious dogma. These "New Atheists" do not admonish, criticise, or chastise anyone's beliefs based on faith. They only challenge the knowledge claims based on clever sophistry, convoluted logic, and contrived facts, that many try to use to support those beliefs. These "New Atheist" were not affected by any of the useless labels and 'isms added to a philosophical word salad list(solipsism, metaphysical, materialism, presuppositionalism, empiricism, naturalism, etc.).

We should applaud these great men, who had the courage to question the unquestionable. These great men were able to say that the king was not wearing any clothes. I'll address the rest later. So please no more word games with the term Atheism(equivocation fallacy). No more trying to demonize "New Atheist's" message as a religious belief, and an attack on our freedom of religion. This alarmist and arrogant rhetoric, is okay for Donald Trump, but is certainly not consistent with a belief in love and tolerance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so?

Please explain what you said here in detail, all three sentences.

I totally understand this, the problem is that the tests of the theory fail miserably. What has been found that validates anything evolving from a common ancestor? What was the common ancestor? How is it possible for life (common ancestor) to come from non-life matter?

Let's try to avoid excessive breaking up of posts. Almost every post that you write here tells us that you have a very poor understanding .of the sciences. That is why I wanted to start with the basics. Which I am sure that for all of your agreeing with me you still clearly do not understand. You ask questions that are pointless and won't listen to answers.

You are clearly not ready for answers to all of your questions. So some rules. One question per post. If you do need sources that is not a problem. And remember, you cannot refute that which you do not understand.

So where were we? We had gone over the idea of the scientific method and how perhaps the most important step was the forming of a testable hypothesis. For evidence we saw That scientific evidence is any observation that supported or opposes a scientific, which means testable hypothesis. You agreed to all of that as being reasonable. And this was not my definition but that of the people that work in the sciences themselves.

Do you have a question before we move on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does that matter to you? If so, why? What specifically can you point to that is false in this article? Take it sentence by sentence if you have to but show me that it is false!

Yes, in a debate one must always be ready to support ones claims with valid sources. If a person gets his claims from a known idiot or liar it hurts his argument. If a person is afraid to cite his resources he indicates that they are less than reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

COP-OUT! If you cannot validate in any way shape or form that intelligent life had any part of the origin process, you're dead in the water! Does this not make good common sense to you? To this day there is no answer, scientific or other wise that matches the straight forward creation event of Genesis! Pure speculation abounds! That's it! When are you guys gonna get a clue? You cant prove something that never happened no matter how hard you try! I want to believe you guys are sensible intelligent reasonable people but you keep fighting me on this! Why?

Wow!! You clearly have not learned the lesson that we have been going over yet.


The burden of proof always lies upon the person making a positive claim. We do not have to prove that God did not do it. If you want to claim a creator exists the burden of proof is upon you. In effect anyone's claim in a debate that he cannot support is refuted by that person's inaction of he cannot or will not support that claim. We can and have shown that there is massive evidence for evolution. You have as of yet to show any evidence against the concept. If you want to claim "God did it" but do not provide any scientific evidence for that claim you in effect refute your own claim.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Atheism is a worldview in which there is no God. Adherents believe that life sprang from natural forces, not an intelligence, and that the cosmos made itself--or at least organized itself out of raw materials that were just there. "New atheists" include Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything; and Sam Harris, with The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. Their bestselling books are characterized by vitriolic disdain for those who believe in God.

The new atheists do not restrict themselves to passive disbelief. Rather, they actively admonish others to not believe in God, and take strong steps to rid the world of its "contemptible" acknowledgement of any deity, and especially of theism.1 As Dawkins said, "I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself."2

An ironic feature of new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. Before they attack it, new atheists first redefine faith to mean "belief without evidence." Then they limit evidence to that which can be tested through empirical science.3 This is absurd, like requiring an experiment to prove a father's love for his children. Just as we use our senses, logic, and circumstantial evidence to deduce the truth of a father's love, we can discover God through non-empirical means.

New atheists believe that empirical science is the true path to understanding. However, since the very concept of "empiricism"--that science is the only way to "know" something--is not itself a product of any scientific experiment, it distills to a faith after all. Faith is not "belief without evidence," but rather a decision to reckon as true (actual or real) something that is not visible. Empiricism is an idea. Ideas are not visible. New atheists therefore have strong faith, though not in God.4

Many popular philosophies are self-refuting, which means that they do not meet their own standards and thus self-destruct.5 One example of a self-refuting claim is the common statement "all truth is relative." This cannot be. If all truth is relative, then the supposed truth that "all truth is relative" would itself be relative, and therefore not true. Consider the assertion "we cannot ultimately grasp meaning in an absolute way." If that were true, then one would not be able to grasp the meaning of that very statement.

A good way to deal with self-refuting truth claims is to ask honest questions about them. For example, a response to the assertion "all truth is relative" could be to ask, "So, is that relatively true?" Likewise, one who denies that truth is knowable could be questioned with, "How can we then know for sure that truth cannot be surely known?"

Empiricism is also self-refuting, and therefore should not be believed. Its essence could be stated as "experimental science is the only way to know something for sure." We might then ask, "What was the scientific experiment that demonstrated that experimental science is the only way to know something for sure?"

In contrast to the self-refuting doctrines that atheism must hold to, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent and necessary Being; not, as new atheists claim, with a fairy tale. Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here! Any reasonable moderator can see this! Your hypocrisy is over the top! I'd really be interested in how you address the above to try and save any integrity you think you might have left!

You must first understand that relativism requires that science and religion be placed in two domains. In each of the domains we make different judgements. If we want to acquire an empirical understanding(knowledge), of a material phenomena, then we must use the methods used in empirical science. There is no empirical method applicable in religion. It is in a different domain. Empirical science uses empirical evidence, facts and data, to support its judgements and explanations. Religions use belief, faith, and philosophy to support its judgements and explanations. Thus objective understanding and knowledge, can't be faith or belief based. Also, a fathers affinity for his children can easily be explained by empirical science(I. e., Endocrine and Hormone systems).

Biblical theism begins with the sensible concept, assumed in Genesis, of an infinite Creator who formed a finite creation. Knowledge of our holy God is generally available through our observation of the natural world. This is enough to reveal man’s sin-induced separation from Him.6 However, only the Bible reveals that He has performed the necessary work to reconcile us back to Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, and for His glory.7 So based on the evidence of what He has made and done, we can believe in and know Him. -Brian Thomas
I agree with him! What is your intellectual rebuttal? You see, you guys are also proselytizing your anti-theist beliefs to try and convert others to your belief system! So stop your "preach it brother, preach" proselytizing! You are blatantly abusing the rules here!

In bold certainly sounds like blatant proselytizing to me. Fortunately, I don't feel threatened by this. It is just hypocritical for you to accuse another that was clearly NOT preaching, to draw attention away from you, who was blatantly preaching. Or, are you just going to say that the words are someone else's, even though you agree with him? Maybe the moderated is also seeing how over the top and ironic your comments really are, and IS being reasonable. Is Brian Thomas a God? Can he demonstrate how he knows anything that he asserts? What is the mechanism that allows him to know God, that does not seem available to me.

I have listened to many Presuppositional Apologetics argument, so I'm not sure what you mean by, "Empiricism is also self-refuting". Maybe you can provide a scientific law, postulate, axiom, Theory, or hypothesis, that is clearly self-refuting? Maybe you are talking about the silly logical gymnastics, that involve playing games with absolutes(absolute truth, absolute knowledge, absolute morality, Universal truth, etc.), that all eventually lead to the "Denying the Antecedent", or "Shifting the Grounds" fallacies. These are the bed and butter arguments by Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Kirk Cameron. The simply avoid providing their own evidence, by keeping you jumping through imaginary hoops, by always adding "but could you be wrong about that", at infinitum. Is this what you mean by self-refuting empiricism? Maybe you can point to a NON-PHILISOPHICAL doctrine that is also self-refuting?