Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Subduction Zone]

Like tire the american car part

I always pronounce the city more as "Tier". The name comes from "Sur". But it seems that Brits do pronounce it the same as "Tire" after all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where is the beat-dead-horse icon?

Strangely enough I could not find it by going to his page and looking at his earlier posts today. Though those only show the first line or so of the posts.

But you are right, that the city is still there today, in the same location tells us that the prophecy failed. And of course it was a twofer, Zeke also predicted that Nebby would defeat Egypt and turn it into a wasteland. Neither Nebby nor anyone since accomplished that. To defend that prophecy one has to make all Biblical prophecies worthless.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like tire the american car part

That's what I thought. Thanks.

 

[ArtieE]

Fulfilled prophecy? Life changes? No.

You must be living in a parallell universe very different from ours. Or maybe the world where all the prophecies are fulfilled only exist in your head?

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki
Failed Prophecies
https://www.amazon.com/Failure-Bible-Prophecy-Skeptics-Evidence/dp/142692383X

 

[ArtieE]

A great post you shared, with such wisdom, like this statement: "It is highly unlikely Jesus was conceived as the result of a youthful romance."

That's the best you could come up with as a rebuttal? Perhaps you could write an article of equal length and quality rebutting her reasoning? I will be happy to read it...

 

[ArtieE]

Respectfully, rape is always wrong among humans, and not just to me.

Why? Because your old book says so? And if your old book had said "rape is right" what then? Is rape wrong independent of what your old book says?

 

[Woberts]

The likelihood that God did not participate in the creation of the universe is negligible (and likely zero). Why be an Atheist?

Well, think for yourself, no matter how many garbage there is in the landfill, the rhinoceros will not be born there. From lifeless only lifeless comes - scientifically proved by Dr. Pasteur.

To say that the probability of the godless origin of life is 100 percent (because we are alive) is not scientific. This is the so-called "conditional" probability. Unconditional probability is negligible.

Nice evidence. If Dr. Pasteur proved this, then why hasn't the scientific community thrown away their lab coats, donned a collective loincloth, and danced wild rituals to summon Cthulhu?

 

[ArtieE]

I've posted rebuttals re: Ezekiel elsewhere today.

An example of an objective truth in the Bible: It is always wrong to disobey God. This is not sometimes wrong or wrong if you feel it's so, it's always so.

It is an objective truth that the Bible says it's wrong to disobey God. You can't say that it is wrong to disobey God. You can only say that the Bible says it's wrong to disobey God.

 

[Phantasman]

Are you actually talking to me? I'm not a Catholic nor am I Eastern Orthodox. I love the scriptures, and much of the NT was written to refute and discount the gnosticism you advocate.

Anyone who see's the Bible as the undeniable and only word of God is catholic. I'm not saying Roman Catholic, but catholic. Any person who see's one god (being both murderer and savior) is catholic. Gnosis just means knowledge. I am not held to Jewish scriptures, Greek scriptures, Latin translations, etc. Aramaic and Coptic writings can contain truth as well. When you ask the Spirit to lead you, it doesn't make you always grab a Bible and read. Sometimes, it even shows the parts of the Bible that are not of her words.

Spirit is much more reliable than men.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An example of an objective truth in the Bible: It is always wrong to disobey God. This is not sometimes wrong or wrong if you feel it's so, it's always so.

But one would not be disobeying anybody but ancient people speaking through the voice of just one of a multitude of god humans have claimed have spoken. Why would I think any of them know the truth? Because they made the claim that they did?

Skeptics think differently than those willing to believe by faith. The skeptic needs a reason to believe more than just the will to do so. The believer offers the skeptic insufficient reason to follow along with him.

 

[Audie]

Nice evidence. If Dr. Pasteur proved this, then why hasn't the scientific community thrown away their lab coats, donned a collective loincloth, and danced wild rituals to summon Cthulhu?

The often- demonstrated inability of our creationists to understand what Pasteur did, or did not do,
plus the larger picture of how science wotks relative to proof, all makes me very dubious of their
ability to understand their bible, which is far more demanding than thses simple concepts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

First demonstrate that your God exists, and then we can go from there in determining whether or not "his" values are objective in nature. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I'm not taking orders from ancient holy books.

And once again, following dictates from above doesn't really constitute a system of morality. If your Objective Dictator of Morality decides that rape is right or good, you would then have to believe that rape is good or right.

So you agree! Especially since all I wrote was:

Respectfully, rape is always wrong among humans, and not just to me.

Unfortunately, skeptics will not open the door to moral absolutes, with their implication for a god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How do we know this is objectively true?

How do we know any given thing is objectively true. What are your criterion?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Still on this subject. Pick another example please.

Sure. Disobeying God is always wrong and always stupid (if a God exists who lays down rules).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why? Because your old book says so? And if your old book had said "rape is right" what then? Is rape wrong independent of what your old book says?

Independent of the Bible, rape is always wrong. If you disagree, explain under which circumstances you might rape someone, feeling you're doing a right action.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Anyone who see's the Bible as the undeniable and only word of God is catholic. I'm not saying Roman Catholic, but catholic. Any person who see's one god (being both murderer and savior) is catholic. Gnosis just means knowledge. I am not held to Jewish scriptures, Greek scriptures, Latin translations, etc. Aramaic and Coptic writings can contain truth as well. When you ask the Spirit to lead you, it doesn't make you always grab a Bible and read. Sometimes, it even shows the parts of the Bible that are not of her words.

Spirit is much more reliable than men.

My doctrines come from the scriptures.

The Spirit is God is the Spirit of Jesus Christ and not "she".

 

[BilliardsBall]

But one would not be disobeying anybody but ancient people speaking through the voice of just one of a multitude of god humans have claimed have spoken. Why would I think any of them know the truth? Because they made the claim that they did?

Skeptics think differently than those willing to believe by faith. The skeptic needs a reason to believe more than just the will to do so. The believer offers the skeptic insufficient reason to follow along with him.

Let us add then, "If God exists," only foolish people would disobey God.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you agree! Especially since all I wrote was:

Respectfully, rape is always wrong among humans, and not just to me.

Unfortunately, skeptics will not open the door to moral absolutes, with their implication for a god.

Agree with what?

So it's up to God's opinion. Which means your morality is just as subjective as you claim anyone else's is. In other words, inserting your God into the equation doesn't solve the subjectivity problem. If God says rape is good, then rape is good. If God says slavery is okay, then slavery is okay. That's rather arbitrary, don't you think? And again, not really a system of morality at all. You are not acting in the capacity of a moral agent when you follow orders, so you are not actually exercising morality at all. At least my system of morality is grounded in something other than blindly following orders.

Now, if you could please demonstrate that your God exists and that his moral opinions are objective in nature.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do we know any given thing is objectively true. What are your criterion?

You don't get to deflect back to me. You are claiming objective truth comes from God. I'm still waiting for a demonstration of that.

I provided my explanation for a superior system of morality several times now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. Disobeying God is always wrong and always stupid (if a God exists who lays down rules).

Why is disobeying God wrong? And that was not the topic anyway. The topic was morals. What if your God is evil, are you to obey him then? Would that not make you evil too? You appear to have a rather hazy understanding of morals.