Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[philbo]

I see that claiming to know what you can't even if it was true is still on your menu. Hell has entire books written about from people claiming to have been there and even philosophical reasons for existing. Now if you can disprove all those books you may be able to start a discussion you started without even attempting it. Good luck. However even if you get rid of both of these the Biblical Hell still has more evidence than any other.

So the poem Kubla Khan is evidence of Xanadu? Westeros must be a real place as there's not just books, there's whole languages and, well, Winter is coming.

Somebody saying "I went to hell" and writing a book about it may be evidence of their mental state, but you'd need to be as fundamentally deluded as they are to believe it constitutes evidence of a physical hell. When they've been there and come back with the t-shirt (or at least some commemorative brimstone), you might have a point.

Have you ever noticed a quantum field doing it's business? You ever seen a star in the moment of birth? You ever seen a dinosaur turn into a bird? How about a bacteria at a thermal vent? In fact you have witnessed a vanishingly small part of reality. I guess everything you have not personally witnessed does not exist. Great science there. What you like is even more irrelevant which is quite a feat.

This is your prejudice and inability to think at work. Obviously I've never noticed a quantum field- nor has anyone else directly. What makes physicists think these things count as a reasonable working hypothesis for the way the world works (and has convinced me, too, even though I don't understand everything about it) is that using these ideas allows one to predict how things will behave, and what makes them useful is if these predictions work.

As for "seen a dinosaur turn in to a bird" - can you show me anyone who isn't a creationist asserting that a dinosaur has ever turned into a bird? However, looking at progression of fossils over the ages, the best explanation for birds is that they evolved from things very dinosaur-like. And I have looked at a shedload of fossils over the years; no first-hand experience of those of early birds, it's true, but the pictures and estimated dates are not incompatible with what I have experienced first-hand.

I am aware of the almost infinite variety of things I haven't witnessed or experienced; your argument appears to be "because I trust the existence of some things I haven't experienced, therefore I'm not allowed to discount anything if someone else believes it to be true - all I can say is, when you come back from Asgard don't forget to bring an Axe to show you've been there.

 

[1robin]

So the poem Kubla Khan is evidence of Xanadu? Westeros must be a real place as there's not just books, there's whole languages and, well, Winter is coming.

I did not say it was good evidence nor even true evidence. That must be determined but until it is it is evidence. I think Kubla Khan's evidence is probably false but until I know that, it is evidence (even if it is very week evidence). Well over 90% of everything we think we know is from authority, courts use it, universities use it, the historical method uses it, everyone does. We can not personally witness even small fraction of that which we think we know. The Bible may be wrong, it's evidence may be week, but the evidence for a Biblical Hell exceeds every other version of it. Only a non-theist can make a fallacy out of what they use every day all day. The one thing that is known is you do not know if Hell exists or not but seem to claim it does not anyway. So you must prove that or retract that if honor has any place in your debate tactics. I did not make that mistake. I only said the evidence for a Biblical Hell is greater than for any other concept of hell.

Somebody saying "I went to hell" and writing a book about it may be evidence of their mental state, but you'd need to be as fundamentally deluded as they are to believe it constitutes evidence of a physical hell. When they've been there and come back with the t-shirt (or at least some commemorative brimstone), you might have a point.

Could be but until you know there claims are as good evidence as testimony given in any courtroom. Why are things used in every courtroom and every classroom on earth only invalid when it is used for God, when among these only God is a faith based concept? The Bible is said by two of if not the two greatest experts on testimony and evidence to meet every modern standard of law and the historical method.

This is your prejudice and inability to think at work. Obviously I've never noticed a quantum field- nor has anyone else directly. What makes physicists think these things count as a reasonable working hypothesis for the way the world works (and has convinced me, too, even though I don't understand everything about it) is that using these ideas allows one to predict how things will behave, and what makes them useful is if these predictions work.

That is not what you said (or whoever I was responding to said). It was claimed that God has not been seeing doing what he does. Either that was meaningless or what you see is the only basis for existence. Just as Jesus said 2000 years ago you can't see the wind but you can see its effects, just as you can not see the spirit or God but you can see their effects and no one could deny Jesus's effects. He used you own rational 2000 years before you did, yet you are not allowing it to apply to God. Why not?

As for "seen a dinosaur turn in to a bird" - can you show me anyone who isn't a creationist asserting that a dinosaur has ever turned into a bird? However, looking at progression of fossils over the ages, the best explanation for birds is that they evolved from things very dinosaur-like. And I have looked at a shedload of fossils over the years; no first-hand experience of those of early birds, it's true, but the pictures and estimated dates are not incompatible with what I have experienced first-hand.

I never said they did not turn into birds but is anything but a known fact. I was not debating what evolution had done. I was debating your own system of no see, so exist. You believe in al kinds of things that you have never seen, 99% of what you know was acquired from authority. Either stick to that system consistently or let God potentially exist whether you see him or not. I don't care about evolution, I care about double standards.

I am aware of the almost infinite variety of things I haven't witnessed or experienced; your argument appears to be "because I trust the existence of some things I haven't experienced, therefore I'm not allowed to discount anything if someone else believes it to be true - all I can say is, when you come back from Asgard don't forget to bring an Axe to show you've been there.

That is not even close to what I claimed. I said if not seeing God is an argument against him then not seeing the other 99% of what you believe is true would be an argument against it. Consistency is a wonderful and very rare thing among non-theists.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

As an agnostic theist I always notice other theist's attempting to prove God in one way or another. These arguments are never sufficient or conclusive enough to prove God. I recognize that my position is irrational and that there is no evidence for God. If you already have faith in God, what is the need to attempt to prove him?

I exist. I can create an image of myself. The image cannot create itself, unless I create it: This is just the way things are.

The Bible says that before there was a "beginning", before there was a universe, there was a God called "I will be whatever I will be", and also named, "I exist". It also says that this God created me in His image; that I did not create myself.

Let me find proof that I exist. If I can do that, perhaps I will find proof that God exists. There -- I just pinched myself. But did I really feel the pinch? How can I be sure? If I did feel the pinch, then who pinched me? Did I pinch me? How do I know? After all, I'm not sure I exist!

Yes, your position is irrational. God is greater than the whole universe, older than the whole universe, wiser than the whole universe; yet you are saying we should expect "proof" that He exists?

You are an "agnostic" theist? You say that you believe God exists, but you don't "know" God exists? How do you think you know that YOU exist? Because the people in your dream TELL you you exist? Because you imagine that they pinch you and that you feel it?

I exist, because God exists. Nothing creates itself, including our universe. You see the "inside" of God every day -- all His clouds and stars; the expanse of "space" that seems to go on forever, yet you know it does not. His insides are full of beauty and wisdom; so what does that tell you about Him?

Do you want to go OUTSIDE the universe, perchance to see God? You will not. You will still be inside of Him; you will never be outside of Him. At best, you can BECOME Him; but then, you will not see him as an objective observer.

1 Cor 13
[9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
[10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
[11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
[12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
[13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Do you want to see God? Do you want proof? You can find that proof; but it won't be proof that satisfies an unbeliever. They are always seeking, but never finding. :canoe::bonk:

Matt 5
[8] Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Thank you for reading this.

Shalom shalom. :balloons:

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...As for "seen a dinosaur turn in to a bird" - can you show me anyone who isn't a creationist asserting that a dinosaur has ever turned into a bird? However, looking at progression of fossils over the ages, the best explanation for birds is that they evolved from things very dinosaur-like. And I have looked at a shedload of fossils over the years; no first-hand experience of those of early birds, it's true, but the pictures and estimated dates are not incompatible with what I have experienced first-hand...

My 6-year-old granddaughter has that one figured out. She says that some dinosaurs WERE birds, because they had feathers. Others had scales. It's quite simple to her: Things with feathers are birds. Do things with scales turn into things with feathers? She never said anything like that. I'll have to ask her.

Shalom shalom

PS. Yes, it is reasonable that birds and (scaly) dinosaurs are descended from common ancestors. It doesn't take much to convert one species to another, just mutations. Getting life started in the first place is considerably harder, probably impossible. Creating the universe could only have been the work of God -- there is no other reasonable explanation (things cannot create themselves from nothing).

 

[philbo]

Getting life started in the first place is considerably harder, probably impossible. Creating the universe could only have been the work of God -- there is no other reasonable explanation (things cannot create themselves from nothing).

This isn't a "reasonable" explanation, either. I find it far easier to consider that life started pretty much at random than that there just happened to be a being around capable of starting life.

As for creating the universe - there's a whole discussion going on in another thread, I don't see the point in starting that one here..

 

[philbo]

I did not say it was good evidence nor even true evidence. That must be determined but until it is it is evidence. I think Kubla Khan's evidence is probably false but until I know that, it is evidence (even if it is very week evidence).

Kubla Khan was a poem that Coleridge wrote when on some serious opiates. It is purest fantasy and constitutes as much evidence as, say, the Harry Potter books.

Well over 90% of everything we think we know is from authority, courts use it, universities use it, the historical method uses it, everyone does.

..and, yes, there is a judgment call about what constitutes authority in terms of evidence. You won't get very far in court claiming biblical authority as evidence (at least, not in this country; maybe in some of the more backwards theocracies, however).

The one thing that is known is you do not know if Hell exists or not but seem to claim it does not anyway. So you must prove that or retract that if honor has any place in your debate tactics. I did not make that mistake. I only said the evidence for a Biblical Hell is greater than for any other concept of hell.

The reason I believe that there is no hell is that it is so evidently a human invention: exactly the sort of thing a human comes up with; that the idea has spread is also very easy to understand - it's a very useful one for a priesthood to control a believing population with.

Obviously I don't have proof positive that hell doesn't exist; in exactly the same way, I don't have proof positive that there aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden. I suppose if you were debating with honour, you'd need to make sure that you didn't dismiss garden fairies out of hand, too.

The Bible is said by two of if not the two greatest experts on testimony and evidence to meet every modern standard of law and the historical method.

That is you believing what you want to believe.

He used you own rational 2000 years before you did, yet you are not allowing it to apply to God. Why not?

Because there is no god. There is nothing in life which suggests there is: you have a predisposition to believe, therefore you believe. If you approached it with an open mind, you'd see the world exactly as I do: with nothing coming from anything divine whatsoever.

I never said they did not turn into birds but is anything but a known fact. I was not debating what evolution had done. I was debating your own system of no see, so exist. You believe in al kinds of things that you have never seen, 99% of what you know was acquired from authority. Either stick to that system consistently or let God potentially exist whether you see him or not. I don't care about evolution, I care about double standards.

Like hell you do. In my case (and if you'd been reading what I wrote, rather than what you want to read into it, you'd realize) I do not have any double standards: there are a lot of things I am prepared to accept without perfect knowledge, but this is not the same as "believing in": I'm quite happy to be shown to be wrong in any position I hold, but the "shown to be" requires evidence.. evidence at a far greater standard than somebody believing what somebody else wrote a couple of millennia ago about something that happened a century earlier.

I'm also very happy with "I don't know" as an answer. Well, when I say "happy", obviously I'd be happier if answers were known, but that doesn't make me want to believe something just to make me happier.

That is not even close to what I claimed. I said if not seeing God is an argument against him then not seeing the other 99% of what you believe is true would be an argument against it. Consistency is a wonderful and very rare thing among non-theists.

Whereas consistency, at least consistently being wrong, is fairly common among theists.

It's not simply "not seeing God" - I didn't say "I haven't seen God, therefore I think he doesn't exist". I'm saying that I cannot see any evidence of *anything* of divine origin anywhere in the world, ever. Nothing. Nada. Not a sausage.

There is nothing which requires a god in order to explain it, and not having a god is a far more parsimonious explanation of pretty much everything. That is not the same as "not seeing god". Have you got that now?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

This isn't a "reasonable" explanation, either. I find it far easier to consider that life started pretty much at random than that there just happened to be a being around capable of starting life.

As for creating the universe - there's a whole discussion going on in another thread, I don't see the point in starting that one here..

No, no, no -- you didn't read my post carefully. I said that the existence of God completely explains the existence of the UNIVERSE, not of LIFE; whereas science has no explanation of how the universe came into being out of nothing. I won't even discuss the issue of random generation with you, as long as you are using it as a dodge around the really big question: "How do you get something from nothing?"

By the way, I am a retired chemist with an M.S. I can discourse intelligently about the other thing as well; but as I said, I won't. First, you must explain to me how something (the universe) can be generated from nothing.

I have to run now. Please don't play intellectual games with me. This thread is not about evolution, nor about the origin of life; it's about the existence of God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, no, no -- you didn't read my post carefully. I said that the existence of God completely explains the existence of the UNIVERSE, not of LIFE; whereas science has no explanation of how the universe came into being out of nothing. I won't even discuss the issue of random generation with you, as long as you are using it as a dodge around the really big question: "How do you get something from nothing?"

By the way, I am a retired chemist with an M.S. I can discourse intelligently about the other thing as well; but as I said, I won't. First, you must explain to me how something (the universe) can be generated from nothing.

I have to run now. Please don't play intellectual games with me. This thread is not about evolution, nor about the origin of life; it's about the existence of God.

Science doesn't say it came from nothing though....

 

[philbo]

No, no, no -- you didn't read my post carefully. I said that the existence of God completely explains the existence of the UNIVERSE, not of LIFE; whereas science has no explanation of how the universe came into being out of nothing. I won't even discuss the issue of random generation with you, as long as you are using it as a dodge around the really big question: "How do you get something from nothing?"

By the way, I am a retired chemist with an M.S. I can discourse intelligently about the other thing as well; but as I said, I won't. First, you must explain to me how something (the universe) can be generated from nothing.

I have to run now. Please don't play intellectual games with me. This thread is not about evolution, nor about the origin of life; it's about the existence of God.

We don't know, and possibly cannot ever know (if Hawking is right) the conditions at the point of the Big Bang, and hence anything beforehand; so we don't know that there ever was a "nothing" for the universe to have been generated from. It's one huge "we don't know", and filling in with a creator deity doesn't make the problem go away, if anything it makes it more intractable because defining your creator as something which always existed just so that it can make a universe that didn't always exist is every bit as much of a leap as saying the universe did.

I'm disappointed in you: as a retired chemist, you're phrasing your question wrong: first ask why you're so sure there was a "nothing"; then ask yourself why you're so sure a creator has to be involved - I guarantee there will be no science in the answers you come up with if it involves any kind of god. The only "reasonable" position is that we don't know: inventing a god and imbuing it with remarkably human characteristics doesn't answer that question, it raises an almost infinite number of greater questions.

 

[McBell]

I said that the existence of God completely explains the existence of the UNIVERSE, not of LIFE;

two problems here...
One, "god did it" is not an explanation.
Two, life is a part of the universe.

Seems your request "Please don't play intellectual games with me" is a bit hypocritical...

whereas science has no explanation of how the universe came into being out of nothing.

this is because science does not make the claim that the universe came from nothing.

I won't even discuss the issue of random generation with you, as long as you are using it as a dodge around the really big question: "How do you get something from nothing?"

The question "how do you get something from nothing" does not apply to the universe for anyone other than theists who think the question helps promote their belief in god.

By the way, I am a retired chemist with an M.S. I can discourse intelligently about the other thing as well; but as I said, I won't. First, you must explain to me how something (the universe) can be generated from nothing.

Don't dislocate your shoulder...

I have to run now. Please don't play intellectual games with me. This thread is not about evolution, nor about the origin of life; it's about the existence of God.

and thus far you have failed to show the existence of god outside your choir.

 

[1robin]

Kubla Khan was a poem that Coleridge wrote when on some serious opiates. It is purest fantasy and constitutes as much evidence as, say, the Harry Potter books.

So you have done exactly what I said must be done to prove something is not evidence. We know Harry potter books are fictional, you say that you know that poem was fictional, but you do not know the Bible was fictional and in fact we know at least most of it was truthful. So the Bible is unaffected by your mentioning other works known to be fictional.

..and, yes, there is a judgment call about what constitutes authority in terms of evidence. You won't get very far in court claiming biblical authority as evidence (at least, not in this country; maybe in some of the more backwards theocracies, however).

You could have gotten pretty far in 2nd century Israel using it as evidence and the greatest experts in testimony and evidence in human history say it meets every standard of modern historical methods and testimony and could be submitted in court under the ancient document rule. It does not speak to modern historical events and so there is no need to do that but it very likely could be done.

The reason I believe that there is no hell is that it is so evidently a human invention: exactly the sort of thing a human comes up with; that the idea has spread is also very easy to understand - it's a very useful one for a priesthood to control a believing population with.

It would make sense to invent Heaven, it makes no sense to invent a Hell and then condemn ourselves to it as the Bible writers did. Peter is called Satan himself. That is not wish fulfillment and you standard is certainly invalid. The priest hood did not invent the concept of Hell. People who never gained anything worldly from it did. Priests did give it a fire and eternal brimstone aspect for the reasons you mention but they did not invent the concept. Hell is absence from God. The only place that can occur is non-existence. Like the Bible says God destroys the soul in Hell and that is anything but an intuitive concept.

Obviously I don't have proof positive that hell doesn't exist; in exactly the same way, I don't have proof positive that there aren't fairies at the bottom of my garden. I suppose if you were debating with honour, you'd need to make sure that you didn't dismiss garden fairies out of hand, too.

Fairies do not appear in books as accurate as the Bible. Billions do not attest to the accuracy of a fairy book. Very few if anyone claimed to see fairies when they were in a near death state. They are not equally attested concepts. You need to explain why people who were so meticulous and careful they constructed the most accurate book of history in ancient history but for some reason went insane and became cereal liars only when telling of supernatural things. Why would he book that prevails in almost every single archeological dispute in history suddenly lose it on Hell?

That is you believing what you want to believe.

What the heck was that? Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst are probably the two greatest experts in human history and wrote text books and references I have personally seen in Federal courtrooms. If you believe what you find convenient even when the experts draw the opposite conclusion then it is you who are doing what you accuse me of. What a weird statement you made.

Because there is no god. There is nothing in life which suggests there is: you have a predisposition to believe, therefore you believe. If you approached it with an open mind, you'd see the world exactly as I do: with nothing coming from anything divine whatsoever.

You re batting a thousand on being wrong about me and God. I hated Christianity and the God I did not think existed. The truth drug me kicking and screaming to fait. You would not know what you first claimed even if it was true, the second things is not true, and the third was completely wrong. That is not the way to justify discussing things further. Let me give you time. Do not claim to know what you can't and especially when it concerns someone who does know the truth of the matter. That suggests very strongly intellectual dishonesty and no desire whatever to make meaningful statements. If you claim ten things and 5 of them are unknown and you are wrong about the other 5 then I and everyone else would assume you were probably wrong about most of the other 5. Your shooting yourself in the foot.

Like hell you do. In my case (and if you'd been reading what I wrote, rather than what you want to read into it, you'd realize) I do not have any double standards: there are a lot of things I am prepared to accept without perfect knowledge, but this is not the same as "believing in": I'm quite happy to be shown to be wrong in any position I hold, but the "shown to be" requires evidence.. evidence at a far greater standard than somebody believing what somebody else wrote a couple of millennia ago about something that happened a century earlier.

I do not even know what that meant exactly.

Whereas consistency, at least consistently being wrong, is fairly common among theists.

Is that why they have won every single debate at Oxford, Cambridge, etc.... where a vote has been taken that I have seen and there are dozens of them. That probably explains why it is still growing not shrinking. These personal commentaries are based on nothing. Many (and I mean many) of the greatest minds in history have been Christians and the modern crop of adders on scientists stand on their shoulders more than any other group.

It's not simply "not seeing God" - I didn't say "I haven't seen God, therefore I think he doesn't exist". I'm saying that I cannot see any evidence of *anything* of divine origin anywhere in the world, ever. Nothing. Nada. Not a sausage.

If you can make a statement this wrong then facts or logic have little chance of resolving it. I am getting the distinct impression your argumentation is primarily founded in emotion and there is no weapon ever forged that can combat what a person wants to believe.

There is nothing which requires a god in order to explain it, and not having a god is a far more parsimonious explanation of pretty much everything. That is not the same as "not seeing god". Have you got that now?

There are countless things that if a God is not posited have no explanation even theoretically possible. Your making arguments about proof and claiming they apply to evidence. I am loosing interest here. Claims about I know very well are wrong or that you can't possibly know leave me only capable of concluding that evidence has little role in what you think.

 

[philbo]

I heard one of the Law Lords (can't remember which one) talking about the use of the gospel tales of the resurrection as forensic evidence, and his reply was "if you take the accounts as eye-witness testimony, they would probably convince a jury"

..except that they're not eye-witness testimony. They weren't written at the time, and the odds are extremely high they weren't written by anybody who was anywhere near at the time. At best they're hearsay, and that's not admittable in a court of law.

There are countless things that if a God is not posited have no explanation even theoretically possible.

Seeing as you're getting bored - the above statement is to me the most preposterous ******** of anything you've said so far, but should be the easiest one to back up. Let's have one, then, if there's countless.

(but I can't go without picking you up on one more inconsistency: you can't be an atheist who hates god. You're not being as honest with yourself as you think you are)

 

[BlandOatmeal]

We don't know, and possibly cannot ever know (if Hawking is right) the conditions at the point of the Big Bang, and hence anything beforehand; so we don't know that there ever was a "nothing" for the universe to have been generated from. It's one huge "we don't know", and filling in with a creator deity doesn't make the problem go away, if anything it makes it more intractable because defining your creator...

MY creator? You seem to be mistaken -- I don't own any Creators. Perhaps you are referring to the God of the Bible, to which, of course, I refer by using a capital "G". Fair enough -- I will grant that there is much misunderstanding in the world about His nature. From a purely scientific point of view, let's just define the hypotheical "Creator" (capitalized, to indicate that he is the primary creator of everything) as:

1. an intelligent being (necessary, for there to be "laws" of physics)
2. an eternally existent being ("eternal", meaning transcending time and space), and
3. omnipotent

Those three qualities are essential, for a being capable of creating our universe.

as something which always existed...

Of course -- "always" meaning "transcending time and space". Our universe, as currently defined by the Big Bang Theory (our latest effort), is obviously finite. It is bounded in both time and space by a "beginning". That "beginning" is all-too-aptly named a "singularity", since there is nothing else like it in our sensory experience to compare it to. The idea of an ABSOLUTE beginning of time-space is a concept, therefore, that cannot be replicated. It is therefore philosophical, not scientific. The idea of continuity, however, is well founded. That is why, after all, scientists until recently held to the "steady state" theory. By postulating a transcendent Creator, our perceived universe extends indefinitely in all directions. This is sound science, based on experiential knowledge, not philosophy like theories about the singularity.

just so that it can make a universe that didn't always exist...

For the sake of the present argument, yes -- that is the only reason one need postulate a Creator. From the Biblical point of view, God neither needs nor presents a "reason" for His existence: He simply "is", forever.

is every bit as much of a leap as saying the universe did...

...did what? had no beginning? You're wrong there. In order for the universe, as we currently understand it, to be eternal, it would have to have some cyclical nature, such as Big Bang, followed by Big Collapse, followed by Big Bang... It does not and cannot have such a nature, since the expansion of the universe has been shown to be accelerating: It will NOT collapse, but will continue to expand until it is as the Bible describes the beginning: "without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep."

I'm disappointed in you: as a retired chemist, you're phrasing your question wrong:

My chemistry credentials come into play, in understanding that you can't create life from random interactions. In fact, I know from innumerable experiences that it is difficult to make even far simpler things with carefully controlled, intelligently designed procedures. This, as I said, is another matter, unrelated to the "big question" at hand.

first ask why you're so sure there was a "nothing"

Why should I do that? I told you, I have no intention of playing intellectual games.

then ask yourself why you're so sure a creator has to be involved - I guarantee there will be no science in the answers you come up with if it involves any kind of god.

Oh? You are a priori ruling out a creator, without any scientific basis. "Creators" are observed in everyday experience; but "something from nothing" has never been encountered. Which view, then, is scientific?

The only "reasonable" position is that we don't know:

Reasonable for you, perhaps. You are the agnostic, not I.

inventing a god and imbuing it with remarkably human characteristics doesn't answer that question, it raises an almost infinite number of greater questions.

I do not propose to "invent" any god. For your sake, I have postulated and defined one -- with remarkably simple terms. Occam's razor demands that you seriously consider these things.

Good day.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

two problems here...
One, "god did it" is not an explanation... choir.

Hi, Mestemia

You haven't brought up any arguments here that have not already been broached by Philbo. Please see my response to him, above.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Cephus]

Getting life started in the first place is considerably harder, probably impossible. Creating the universe could only have been the work of God -- there is no other reasonable explanation (things cannot create themselves from nothing).

But all of that is just the argument from ignorance. You don't understand or can't imagine how those things happen, thus you declare them impossible. That doesn't mean they're impossible, and the experts certainly think they are not only possible, but actually happened, it just means you have neither the education, nor the imagination, to see possibilities that you don't personally like.

 

[1robin]

I heard one of the Law Lords (can't remember which one) talking about the use of the gospel tales of the resurrection as forensic evidence, and his reply was "if you take the accounts as eye-witness testimony, they would probably convince a jury"

..except that they're not eye-witness testimony. They weren't written at the time, and the odds are extremely high they weren't written by anybody who was anywhere near at the time. At best they're hearsay, and that's not admittable in a court of law.

Two are eyewitness testimony and two are from interviews with eyewitnesses. All accounts are written after the fact and that makes no difference if written by those that were there or from interviews with those that were. Plus Paul was an eyewitness to the risen Lord. Let me give you a link that covers all of the facets involved and is probably the most legendary account from anyone who has specialized in law. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf
I can give you more quotes from lawyers of imminent standing claiming emphatically that the Gospels meet every demand of modern law if you wish them.

Seeing as you're getting bored - the above statement is to me the most preposterous ******** of anything you've said so far, but should be the easiest one to back up. Let's have one, then, if there's countless.

Countless is a figure of speech.
However every atoms in the primal universe would be pretty close, then the fine tuning, then life, then many of he things like divergent consistency just to get started. Tell you what get a universe and life with what is known to be true of natural law and that is a start.

(but I can't go without picking you up on one more inconsistency: you can't be an atheist who hates god. You're not being as honest with yourself as you think you are)

You should not be able to do that but I and every Christian I know of was one. For some reason you presuppose that atheistic rationales are governed by logic and there is no justification for assuming that.

 

[idea]

I posted this on another thread, and I will post it again here...

Anyone who asks for proof of anything (be it religious, political, scientific, or liberal beliefs) are dualists... Might I suggest to all of the dualists out there, that there are higher thinking patterns to pursue? ...


William G. Perry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

does anyone know what it means to use relativist epistemologies? If you do not yet know, you need to learn

When you come to realize that everything is uncertain, heuristics often provide a more efficient way to make decisions...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722019
read the above if you want to know why people ignore some of the things you "prove" to them.

 

[philbo]

Two are eyewitness testimony and two are from interviews with eyewitnesses. All accounts are written after the fact and that makes no difference if written by those that were there or from interviews with those that were. Plus Paul was an eyewitness to the risen Lord. Let me give you a link that covers all of the facets involved and is probably the most legendary account from anyone who has specialized in law. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf[

They were written as eyewitness testimony some point well after the fact, and the link you point to explicitly says:
"..and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown."
..in other words, it is starting with precisely the assumption I dispute. As such it is not valid argument against what I am saying.

However every atoms in the primal universe would be pretty close, then the fine tuning, then life, then many of he things like divergent consistency just to get started. Tell you what get a universe and life with what is known to be true of natural law and that is a start.

Yawn. Nothing, in other words, that is proof of a creator.

You should not be able to do that but I and every Christian I know of was one. For some reason you presuppose that atheistic rationales are governed by logic and there is no justification for assuming that.

From the definition of the word "atheist", someone who hates god cannot be an atheist. You're simply trying to claim that word so you can demean it.

 

[philbo]

MY creator? You seem to be mistaken -- I don't own any Creators.

Now who's playing word games? If you really desire that level of precision: take "your creator" as an amalgam of two things: the creator you believe exists, and whatever you belive created you.

Perhaps you are referring to the God of the Bible, to which, of course, I refer by using a capital "G". Fair enough -- I will grant that there is much misunderstanding in the world about His nature.

Hypothetically, if such a creator did exist and had some kind of interest in this world and the people on it, why is there any misunderstanding about his nature? Why has he let this ambiguity permeate his entire creation?

From a purely scientific point of view, let's just define the hypotheical "Creator" (capitalized, to indicate that he is the primary creator of everything) as:

1. an intelligent being (necessary, for there to be "laws" of physics)
2. an eternally existent being ("eternal", meaning transcending time and space), and
3. omnipotent

Those three qualities are essential, for a being capable of creating our universe.

From a purely scientific point of view, let's suppose that there might be any number of creators, each having intelligence, existence and potency commensurate with which ever bit of universe-building they were assigned to. You know what.. there's just as much evidence for them, too.

This is sound science,

er, no. It sounds like science, but that's not the same thing at all.

For the sake of the present argument, yes -- that is the only reason one need postulate a Creator. From the Biblical point of view, God neither needs nor presents a "reason" for His existence: He simply "is", forever.

You've just lost all respect from as a scientist: you've gone from generic postulates which in order to be scientific require testing, ideally against predictions of what such a creator would result in happening in our measurable little part of the universe.. and instead referenced the Bible which has no scientific credibility whatsoever.

...did what? had no beginning? You're wrong there.

That's not what I said - I said "why are you so sure it did have a beginning" - not the same question. Because we don't know. All the science in the world cannot say for sure what conditions were and what was happening at the point of the big bang, and does not let us make predictions about what was there beforehand.

An honest scientist therefore says "we don't know", not "this means there must be a creator" (and definitely not "this means there must be a creator that desires a specific sort of interaction with humankind")

In order for the universe, as we currently understand it, to be eternal, it would have to have some cyclical nature, such as Big Bang, followed by Big Collapse, followed by Big Bang... It does not and cannot have such a nature, since the expansion of the universe has been shown to be accelerating: It will NOT collapse, but will continue to expand until it is as the Bible describes the beginning: "without form, and void; and darkness upon the face of the deep."

So, you're asserting that because the universe as we can see at the moment is expanding at increasing speed, therefore there could not have been anything before the big bang? As good as any other guess, I suppose, and it might not collapse - but then, what? Having reached that point, over countless more aeons, what will happen then?

My chemistry credentials come into play, in understanding that you can't create life from random interactions. In fact, I know from innumerable experiences that it is difficult to make even far simpler things with carefully controlled, intelligently designed procedures. This, as I said, is another matter, unrelated to the "big question" at hand.

As a biochemist, it has always seemed to me that the origins of life are fantastically unlikely, and very, very improbable. But we're talking hundreds of millions, billions of years in an innumerable number of locations and variety of conditions across a whole universe - saying "you can't create life from random interactions" when you haven't sampled even the most infinitesimal section of the range of time or conditions.. that's the most unbelievably limited thinking. And that start only has to happen once. The rest is history.

..and it sure seems to me infinitely more probable than there just happening to be something intelligent, eternal and omnipotent hanging around to do the creating for us.

Oh? You are a priori ruling out a creator, without any scientific basis. "Creators" are observed in everyday experience; but "something from nothing" has never been encountered. Which view, then, is scientific?

There are an almost infinite number of different possible creators, I'm not ruling out all of them, because I don't know; I am quite comfortable ruling out the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god because he is accorded properties in the bible which would make his presence inarguable were it to be accurate.

I do not propose to "invent" any god. For your sake, I have postulated and defined one -- with remarkably simple terms. Occam's razor demands that you seriously consider these things.

You did not invent the god, mankind had already done that for you. You have taken the already-invented god and come up with some simple yet untestable postulates to describe what you already believed existed.

Occam's razor is a major reason why I don't believe in such a god: such a being would have to be infinitely complicated and defining it as "outside time and therefore always present" is a level of complexity that makes it infinitely more unlikely than, say, random formation of a replicating cell once in a billion years.

 

[1robin]

They were written as eyewitness testimony some point well after the fact, and the link you point to explicitly says:

If you know exactly how long eyewitness testimony keeps your the only one. The Gospels also record two additional facts that are interesting. It says that many other writing had been circulating since Christ died. The Gospels were only a final compilation not the first time the events were recorded. It also say the Holy Spirit appeared to them for the specific purpose of reminding them of those vents in detail. I do not mention that much because I do not want to hear the thing I know exists can not be used as evidence but neither is there any reason to suggest he does not exist.

"..and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the contrary is shown."
..in other words, it is starting with precisely the assumption I dispute. As such it is not valid argument against what I am saying.

Nope, though I do commend you for at least the portion of that link that you felt gave you ammo. That paper is long but has only a narrow purpose. He went through many corollary things to either say it would not be contended in that paper or what the state of scholarship was at the time, or what he was basing something on but not proving in that paper. He was concerned with things like the Authors ability to know what they claimed, their sincerity, the historicity of their claims. In court you must take testimony as it is given and then examine it. He and others had done much research that had long ago established the reliability of what we have and his paper was an examination of that. You say you are contending what he just stated but he did not state it as partially as you suggest: He spends much time explaining why he claims we have what they said. Since that is the area you wish to contend and that paper was on a slightly different aspect let me give the bare facts concerning why we think we have what was originally contained in the Gospels. This is what you need to be able to establish that. Some of these are not mandatory but do contribute to reliability.

1. You need eyewitness accounts and any derived from eyewitnesses.
2. Multiple attestation.
3. Early copying.
4. Prolific copying.
5. Independent lines of transmission.
6. Parallel lines of transmission.
7. The intent to preserve accurately what texts record from the earliest years the texts exist and the methods that would provide this capacity.
8. Very early texts that went missing early on and were only found centuries later.

The Bible has all of these and much more. The Bible is the most attested text of ancient history by a massive margin. If you were to deny the Bible's historical claims then you would have even far more reason to deny every other works historical claims in ancient history and much of modern histories records. Yet they are taught in schools everyday as facts in many cases and the Bible treated like the plague by universities without a single scholastic reason. That only leaves spiritual or preference reasons. Not that I care if it is taught in schools it does just fine even being rejected by most secular institutions.

That is the general framework or reasoning. Tell me what you wish to challenge and we can get into it. Greenleaf was writing on the quality of testimony and correctly granted that it was accurate testimony. The reasons above are why all the at most 5% scribal errors are virtually all known and indicated in major Bible's. What more could you possibly ask?

Yawn. Nothing, in other words, that is proof of a creator.

Natural law cannot bring anything into existence. We have things that do exist. We have the natural and the supernatural to choose between and the natural choice does not exist as a rational answer. I never said I had proof but that is all but proof. I give evidence because that is how everything else is decided. If you require proof then the best you can get is that we think and exist. The end.

From the definition of the word "atheist", someone who hates god cannot be an atheist. You're simply trying to claim that word so you can demean it.

Know I was that word, and I have counseled hundreds that were that word and only Christians were formally atheist in this context and only they have the perspective to know what the motives were for their atheism. This issue has many spiritual components and therefore those that deny a large part of reality cannot except them and so is probably not resolvable. I claim it but doubt it can be resolved outside of those who used to be atheists. If you read any of the great atheist anthems like God is not great, etc.... you will find nothing but contempt for what they claim does not exist. Heck just look around this forum. I claim it is true not that it is rational.