Pretend with me for a moment.Let's just say that I stump you all with powerful arguments, using archaeological and scientific evidence. I have even intellectually dwarfed you.
Now all I have to do is convince you that Noah actually built an ark and brought in the animals two by two and lived over 900 years, that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, that Samson killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, that Daniel was really in the lions' den, that Moses really did divide the Red Sea, and that Adam and Eve ran around naked...and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Do you really think I can prove all of that to you?
Look at what Paul said about how he persuaded men about God: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." (1 Corinthians 2:1) Why didn't Paul dazzle his hearers with eloquent speeches and intellectual wisdom? Bible scholars who have studied his letters tell us that he was extremely capable intellectually. First Corinthians 2:5 tells us why he deliberately stayed away from worldly wisdom: "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
If sinners are converted by the intellect (the wisdom of men), they will fall away by the intellect. If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it whenever a respected scholar reports that 'the bones of Jesus" have been found. However if sinners are converted by "the power of God," they will be kept by the power of God. No intellectual argument will cause them to waver because they will know the life-changing reality of their conversion, and their faith will vbe secure in the eternally solid and secure Rock of Ages. (taken from WOTM)
You cannot reason out of Christianity if Jesus Christ is Lord of your reasoning.
tinyurl.com/Manintellect
In short, if you accept it and turn off your brain, nothing will dissuade you.
ReplyDeleteIt is, of course, quite true that those of us who come to conclusions based on evidence must be prepared to alter those conclusions when the evidence changes. But the literal of many of the biblical claims would not be relavant to worship. Actual relevant points are whether a deity exists, whether Jesus was said deity, and whether a being who gives commands like those found in the bible can be regarded as good. This is what you must sustain with evidence.
Pvblivs welcome,
ReplyDeleteIt's just a matter of faith. Look, if we had all the answers we would be like God. Maybe, because of our rebellious nature that stems from Adam, God wants us not to know all things for right now, that he only wants us to go to Him in faith, not knowledge. Knowledge will come later but for now we must simply have faith in Him that He knows what He is doing. He might know something about our nature and knowledge and how boastful we might be with it. So far we built nuclear weapons to destroy everyone on the earth many times over and we are trying to clone humans to use them for fuel (or was that Matrix), wait Hitler tried to breed apes and humans to make a superior race, anyway God know better then us. I trust Him.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou will find that my level of faith is quite low. This expects me to trust a group of people who say they are speaking on behalf of a god. I have serious troubles with hearsay accounts.
So, Dan, following your line of reasoning, all we need is faith, not evidence, to bring us to the truth. What if I tell you that faith has brought me to believe in the divinity of John Frum? Or that I am the only sentient being in the Universe, and that all of you are merely characters in my dream? Seems to be a mighty hit-and-miss way of doing things...
ReplyDeleteAn interesting line of argument. But let's keep it simple. Instead of trying to rationalise ALL those crazy stories try to sort out just ONE of them. Just fix the nonsense of Noah and I'll sit up and take notice. Leave aside Adam & Eve, Jonah, unicorns, talking donkeys, walking talking snakes and the rest. Just sort out the Noah thing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting too to cite Paul's avoidance of the miraculous. Take it further - Paul doesn't ever, ever talk of Jesus' miracles. He's right there within decades of it all happening and not a peep about loaves, fishes, or dead raised.
Paul's writings are the best evidence we have for the non-existance of the man Jesus
Faith. Not evidence.
ReplyDeleteEvidence. Not faith.
Why not a little of both?
Take the Flat Earth Society, for instance. Their position relies on intuitive evidence of the flatness of the earth, which should be readily identifiable to anyone who ventures outside. They also have at their disposal the indisputable evidence of the sun meandering across the sky, clearly revolving around the earth. The moon's behavior, of course, also fits this model quite easily.
The faith a member of the FES requires is in the truth and validity of the Flat Earth Theory, in the face of "evidence" provided by the current nay-saying scientific community. Their doctored pictures of earth from space, the hoax of the Apollo moon landings, etc. -- they merely add more and more lies to hide the truth.
--Oops!--
This isn't so different from the position of a "plain reader" such as yourself. The contrarian evidence is overwhelming and constantly growing. Your feeble position must constantly retreat to a more ambiguous interpretation in order to maintain even the barest semblance of credibility (a false sense of security, that).
Sure, sure, you deny that your True Christianity™ has changed, or that the Correct Interpretations™ have changed, but this is a hollow argument, and even you can recognize that.
You were not here when prevailing Christian thought suggested that geocentrism favored heliocentrism. You were not here when proponents of the Theory of Evolution were against the Big Bang Theory due to its implications of a 'creation event'. You were not here when the world collectively admitted that no, the earth is not flat (FES members notwithstanding).
Had you been present during any of these times, your current behavior belies the fact that you'd staunchly have held to the prevailing "plain reading" interpretation of the day -- one which is today quite different.
Your whole philosophy -- especially your approach to discovering its "truth", is a logical paradox.
You require that a person drop his presuppositions regarding the bible's truth, to the point that he accepts what he hasn't yet read as wholly true, and then read it. You would claim that believing the bible before reading it leads naturally to accepting everything it says as true -- which is of course necessary if we presuppose its "truth" -- but you seem oblivious to the logical nonsense this sort of unskeptical thinking brings.
If we apply your approach to any text, we are logically impotent. Our objectivity is lost, our ability to reason is lost, and our ability to note inconsistency is lost. If we take a specific example and apply it to, say, George Lucas' Star Wars saga, we find ourselves believing a fiction.
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
Nevermind that ample evidence can show that these movies were fictional productions -- we can say that Lucas et al were divinely inspired, and that the movies are historically and spiritually accurate depictions of actual events.
Perhaps a better example is the movie Galaxy Quest, in which an actual alien culture learns of the mythical Commander Jason Nesmith by intercepting television signals. Their naïveté kept them from recognizing the TV show as fiction, so they constructed a working spacecraft modeled exactly on the TV show's version.
These fools, like you, blindly believed a specific fiction (from amongst a whole host of other available fictions), and built a society based on their reconstruction of those fictional events.
The only difference is that your fiction has been bandied about for a few thousand years (in whole or in part), whereas these more recent fictions are necessarily far younger. Given a few thousand years of their own, they could easily, and not too implausibly, develop into full religions in their own rights.
Humans, being the dumb cows they generally are, will believe anything that is even slightly plausible, and are even less skeptical when the proposed "truth" appeals to their emotions.
Don't believe me? Ask someone why they thought Signs was a good movie (it wasn't), and before they reply, offer them the following possible responses:
1) Because an alien race so brilliant as to have the ability to get here was nonetheless so stupid as to prance around naked when they got here
2) Because these same aliens, despite hovering in low orbit (or within the atmosphere), were unable to navigate our complicated planet without the use of "crop circles"
3) Because these same aliens, despite their vastly superior technology, sent scouting parties to the surface without so much as a fucking radio
4) Because these same aliens, despite the apparent ability to jump over ten vertical feet -- from a standing position to a standing position -- were nonetheless unable to escape a farmer's pantry, which door had been locked by a chair wedged under the doorknob
5) Because these same aliens, despite that wonderfully invisible superior technology (how suspenseful, indeed), were unable to determine that a substance able to boil away their flesh is the same substance which permeates our entire atmosphere, and covers 75% of the planet's surface (yet still they traipsed about nude)
Oh yeah -- I hated that stupid movie.
Anyway, the point is that many people were somehow impressed by that awful movie. They were evidently so able to suppress their skepticism that they could ignore all of the above obvious inconsistencies (logical, physical, or other), and enjoy what was billed incorrectly as a suspenseful thriller (it was a comedy).
You are the person who ignores the nonsens in that movie and claims to enjoy it. I am the guy snickering the whole time in the theater, saying, "Really? When we go SCUBA diving, we take a wetsuit, an oxygen tank, and many times a speargun, but these aliens are nude without so much as a radio, when the very atmosphere is caustic to them?"
Thank you, but no. I can suspend disbelief to a point, which may well include a few of the biblical stories, but the continual insertion of unbelievable event after unbelievable event renders the whole thing as ridiculous as the premise for the movie Signs -- which, without the aliens, would have been a very good movie.
--
Stan
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAre you sure this is what you intended to post as a "proof" of something?
All I see is blabbering, but no reasoning anywhere to be seen.
G.E.
"Are you sure this is what you intended to post as a "proof" of something?"
ReplyDeleteQuite the opposite, did you read what I wrote or do you need to get_education? (you saw it coming, just playing around)
Be specific, and I will elaborate if necessary.
My theory [ http://sagargorijala.blogspot.com/ ] proves that God(s) can not exist and therefore God(s) do not exist.
ReplyDeleteSimply trusting God all we need right now.Having faith and have courage.I agree with you.I trust Him too.In every area of my life I let God be in the middle of it.
ReplyDeleteSmiley,
ReplyDeleteWelcome and thanks for the helping me smile today, what a breath of fresh air.
Smiley,
ReplyDeleteI only wish I could of spent more time in your country then the 4-5 days there. I didn't make it far past Subic Bay's vicinity when I was there in the late 80's, though I tried. It was just before the volcanic eruption which in turn closed the base forever. Blessings.
How about converted by the love of God? It worked for me..
ReplyDeleteBecause if you believe that there is no god then you can not be loved by it.
DeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pvblivs. Our beliefs ought to be rationally grounded. This will make our beliefs more likely to be true. And we should want that. As a Christian myself, I wholeheartedly disagree that we need to just "have faith." We need to seek the truth so our "faith" is well grounded in experience and/or rational thought. Demonstrating the power of God is itself a kind of experiential evidence. Note also that Paul did reason with non-believers on Mars Hill. Moreover, Jesus invited people to believe in him on the basis of his miracles. John wrote about signs so that people would believe. I myself came to believe in God on the basis of nuanced cosmological arguments among other evidences. If those arguments are shown to fail, my belief in God will be weakened -- as it should be.
To attract atheists to Christ, we must make a commitment to honest truth-seeking.
Josh,
ReplyDelete>>I myself came to believe in God on the basis of nuanced cosmological arguments among other evidences.
So you decided to place God on trial, by placing yourself in the judges seat, and he was found innocent and trustworthy?
Let me ask you, do you believe someone can convince a nonbeliever to become a Christian?
If belief cannot be taken on faith or reason then what else can it be taken on? I think 'God's power' would have to constitute as evidence or good reasons to convert people (which stands in the category of accepting a belief based on reason/intellect) otherwise 'God's Power' is some sort of lobotomy that switches people into 'belief mode'. Though I could be wrong. Does anyone have nay thoughts?
ReplyDeleteGabe,
ReplyDeleteWell faith is the point. Its not "blind" as some Atheists claim, its trust. As an example, my YEC belief is a consequence of my accepting Biblical authority. Its a healthier understanding.
Today, my blade is a little more sharp and I try to reveal, as evidence of God, is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
"If they are merely argued into the faith, they will just as easily be argued out of it."
ReplyDeleteThis is very true. Sadly, I've seen it time and time again in many denominations, including my own. The scriptures are clear; the only true source of conversion is the testimony of the Spirit, not man's reasoning. Intellect and reason may help faith grow, but it cannot plant the seed.
This post cements the position of atheism. By denying logic, reason, evidence etc, you are putting Christianity outside of reality. If no rules apply, theists can make up new stories and new rules to fit their own personal world views, (as they have and do). At the same time, you mention "God's Power", if it were real and demonstrable, it would be evidence. But it's not real, so it can't be evidence, therefore Christians don't need evidence. The ideas in your post are deeply flawed, but they do accomplish something for Christians; they remove the ability of atheists to argue with you. You've ended the debate, you've declared yourselves unaccountable to reality, so arguments based in reality do not address the roots of your misconceptions.
ReplyDelete/like
DeletePops,
ReplyDelete>> By denying logic, reason, evidence etc, you are putting Christianity outside of reality.
Who is denying logic, reason, and evidence? Its a purdy straw man though. These "rules" or laws cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview. It certainly can in a Christian worldview.
>>At the same time, you mention "God's Power", if it were real and demonstrable, it would be evidence.
Erm, 'evidence' also presupposes ‘logic, knowledge, and truth” care to tell me how you account for them according to YOUR worldview?
Anyway, the claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God. Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God, because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>> But it's not real, so it can't be evidence, therefore Christians don't need evidence.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
You are denying logic and reason.
DeleteLaws can be accounted for in our worldview because we understand basic scientific laws and principles.
We account for logic, truth, and knowledge by looking at the universe around us and realizing everything fits inside of certain principles.
You account for these things by reading a 2000 year old document that has itself been documented as being doctored and censored by the Roman Empire to use as a political tool.
Read your history.
The entire paradox of "the bible is the word of god because god wrote it, and we know god is god because of this word he wrote" is circular reasoning. you cannot base the evidence of something on something that requires the other for evidence of itself. they both become nothing.
"How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?"
Um, better question: How is that a good question at all? How do i know if my reasoning on ANYTHING is valid? Well, for me, being a nihilist, i believe in nothing, so nothing really is valid. But YOUR opinion is valid of course because of your circular reasoning.
To accept the idea of christianity is to force your mind into a endless loop cycle, that flees from rational reasoning that would shatter the thin veil. You must equate everything in this universe to acts of jealous, angry, vengeful god, who will through you into the pit if you dont dress, talk, think, eat, sing, and in general, conform to the endless whims of "pastors" and "priests" whos misunderstanding of scripture and manipulation of the populace through fear and superstition have cause this world horrid suffering and pain.
I cannot conform to this irrational mindset.
I will not, and I oppose religion in any form.
Dominating mindsets like religions and certain philosophies constrain the natural chaotic nature of life, in which, we must constantly strive to change and adapt to new information. Religion forces one to take a back seat, to slow the process of life. I cannot support this.
David,
Delete>>You are denying logic and reason.
Hardly. The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?
>>Laws can be accounted for in our worldview because we understand basic scientific laws and principles.
"As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science." ~Sye/Bahnsen
>>The entire paradox of "the bible is the word of god because god wrote it, and we know god is god because of this word he wrote" is circular reasoning.
Strawman. We say that God revealed to us through Natural and Special revelations that we know He exists. The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation.
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
[to be cont'd]
[cont'd]
Delete>>you cannot base the evidence of something on something that requires the other for evidence of itself. they both become nothing.
Problem is David, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. With that line of thought, no one's reasoning could be invalid. A person with invalid reasoning could easily say the exact same things as you, but since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong. Please try again.
>>Well, for me, being a nihilist, i believe in nothing, so nothing really is valid.
Even everything what you just said. Got it. I can live with that.
>>To accept the idea of christianity is to force your mind into a endless loop cycle, that flees from rational reasoning that would shatter the thin veil.
OF course that is not even valid.
>>You must equate everything in this universe to acts of jealous, angry, vengeful god, who will through you into the pit if you dont dress, talk, think, eat, sing, and in general, conform to the endless whims of "pastors" and "priests" whos misunderstanding of scripture and manipulation of the populace through fear and superstition have cause this world horrid suffering and pain.
Again, all of which is not valid. Nothing really is valid, after all.
>>I cannot conform to this irrational mindset.
Not valid.
>>I will not, and I oppose religion in any form.
Which is a non valid position.
>>Dominating mindsets like religions and certain philosophies constrain the natural chaotic nature of life, in which, we must constantly strive to change and adapt to new information. Religion forces one to take a back seat, to slow the process of life. I cannot support this.
Do you even understand the definition of nihilism? Because it appears you do not. You do understand that your position above has purpose in relaying your views.
What question begging? Of course, we "assume" that the bible is not true, that it is no proof for god. We have no burden of proof, people are born atheists, it's up to the religious to prove that the bible is true and valid and that we should listen to it. Of course, you need evidence. I'm not even going to bother to respond to that. If you can't accept the fact that we need evidence for god, that believing in it just cause of faith is no reason at all, then you are just dumb.
ReplyDeleteRandom dude,
ReplyDelete>>If you can't accept the fact that we need evidence for god, that believing in it just cause of faith is no reason at all, then you are just dumb.
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
I don't expect you to like what I write. Your very ability to reason about evidence is evidence of God. Now, assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis you proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold?
The blog makes a very good point.
ReplyDeleteI remember a guy I worked with years ago every day gave me a hard time about my faith in front of the other workers.
Eventually I said to him "If I give you 100% proofs that the Bible is true and that Jesus and Christianity are 100% correct will you become born again?"
His answer was "Not a chance".
I replied and said "Then I'm not arguing with you any more....you're wasting my time and your own".
anyone who devotes their life to "debunking" other peoples beliefs, has no life...
ReplyDeleteYou may have a point, but:
DeleteThis blog has been created, not with the purpose of debunking Atheists, but proclaiming truth. Atheists have already debunked themselves the very moment they declare their Atheistic Worldview. So with respect, we reveal the Gospel, Biblically. We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith. We seek our eyes dry for these lost. We depend on "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. ... grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer,..." ~Revelation 21:4
great work Dan
ReplyDeleteDan, you are a douche nozzle. What's in the Kool-aid you're drinking...peyote?
ReplyDeletepeyote is not a kool-aid silly. It is part of the cacti family. Learn your digs. :7)
Delete>>Dan, you are a douche nozzle.
Are you absolutely certain about that? If so how are you absolutely certain about this, or anything? :7)
Peyote can be put into a liquid...is that so hard to grasp? Anyways, I see you are still sticking to your oh so clever argument of "how do you know that you know that you know and reason can't validate reason." /yawn. Circular arguments are circular. Seriously, you should find a better arguing strategy because this one is lame an tired. Why are you on a crusade about atheists? Why aren't you a good little christian who keeps his beliefs to himself, worships in his church every Sunday and Wednesday, and leaves well enough alone? You will never convert an atheist, as they will never change your mind. Although you do sound more ridiculous believing in a zombie jesus man deity and all the nonsense of the old testament.
Delete>>Circular arguments are circular.
DeleteYou're bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>Seriously, you should find a better arguing strategy because this one is lame an tired.
You mean the one you refuse to answer? Quite telling. It is not at all my claim that your reasoning is faulty, I simply want to know your basis for assuming that it isn't.
>>Why are you on a crusade about atheists?
Because, I was an Atheist, (bit.ly/wasanAtheist), my entire family are atheists, and I love you too much not to tell you the truth.
>>Why aren't you a good little christian who keeps his beliefs to himself, worships in his church every Sunday and Wednesday, and leaves well enough alone?
I rail against God all the time and all He gives me is His Grace. I want you to have the same. Is that so wrong? If I did what you ask here I would not be following God's instructions. So how can you ask me to be a "good little Christian", and also ask me to disobey God's instructions?
>>You will never convert an atheist, as they will never change your mind.
My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands...and out of yours.
>>Although you do sound more ridiculous believing in a zombie jesus man deity and all the nonsense of the old testament.
It's understandable you're acting this way. (1 Corinthians 1:18-20, 1 Corinthians 2:14, James 1:5-7)
Your conversion story was cute. I was raised in a southern baptist school/church. I followed and believed everything that was spoon fed to me. I believed so hard, and I always heard about these magical feelings christians would get from god or jeebus and I wanted so desperately to experience something divine or miraculous. It never happened. I would pray and pray for things. They never happened. In fact it always seemed that whatever I prayed for the opposite would happen. Needless to say I began thinking outside of the christian box and my blinders fell off. It's too bad your logic an reasoning have been replaced by nonsense.
Delete>> I was raised in a southern baptist school/church. I followed and believed everything that was spoon fed to me.
DeleteSo, who was lord of your reasoning? Was Christ Lord, or you?
>> I would pray and pray for things. They never happened.
So, is it your will be done or God's will be done? You were lord of your reasoning, got it.
>>It's too bad your logic an reasoning have been replaced by nonsense.
Brings us right back to the same question, Are you absolutely certain your reasoning is valid? If so, how do you know your reasoning is valid?
Yes. I am certain my reasoning is valid. How do I know? I take it on faith ;) You see, you cannot prove something that is faith based. You base everything on the assumption that the bible is "the word of god." Why do you assume this? Because of your magic revelation from your invisible father figure. You can't show one hard fact with the bible or jesus. It's a warm fuzzy feeling. It's a leap of faith. Upon those you cannot debate or argue as the burden of proof rests squarely on you. Your argument of how do you know can be existentially debated on philosophical levels. How do we know we're not in a dream of some alien being? I am curious why you've become so arrogant in your debating. Looking at your responses from 2008 you would reply that you simply take things on faith. Now it seems that you're prideful and superior.
ReplyDelete>>Yes. I am certain my reasoning is valid. How do I know? I take it on faith ;)
DeleteYou are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.
>>You base everything on the assumption that the bible is "the word of god." Why do you assume this?
Not assumed, It is known because of the Revelation from God. You deny this? How do you know it?
>>Because of your magic revelation from your invisible father figure. You can't show one hard fact with the bible or jesus. It's a warm fuzzy feeling.
Wrong. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>>Upon those you cannot debate or argue as the burden of proof rests squarely on you.
Do you believe the God of the Bible exists? If "no", then you have made an implicitly positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.
>>It's a leap of faith.
You mean like, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning, which is viciously circular.
>>How do we know we're not in a dream of some alien being?
Yes. If we were all just in a dream of some alien being, then the Bible would be false. If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical.
>>Now it seems that you're prideful and superior.
Really? Maybe in dealing with Atheists for this long, it's rubbing off. :7p Speaking the truth is acting "prideful and superior"? Hardly. It is with love I fight for you. Even if you have given up on you.
Yes, God has revealed Himself. Just understand, repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Oh Dan, I am just trying to wrap my head around you. It must be fun inside your brain. How deep down the rabbit hole did you go? You know, I really don't care about your belief system. You can see your god as a purple unicorn with sparkling eyes who sends you magical telepathic messages or whatever...that's fine. We will never convince the other of the error of their ways, but what I do care about, and what makes me want to move out of this country, is that your belief system, and the, unfortunately, millions of other sheep directly impacts and dictates the lives of others. Our country was founded as Congress making no law regarding religion, the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated that America was in no sense a christian country, and the majority of the founding fathers were deists not even believing in a christian god...yet here we are with christianity ruling the government and politics. My point is I have a huge issue with the lack of marriage equality. Why are you christians so scared of gay marriage? "Well it opens up doors for people to marry dogs or polygamists or " What's funny is the polygamy thing is all over in the bible (which you of course know). Slaves, concubines, multiple wives...those are the biblical definitions of marriage. Adam and Eve had enough incest sex to populate the world and that's cool, somehow it all magically worked out. Then Noah and his crew all had to again have a bunch of incest sex to repopulate the world (after saving millions and millions of animals magically). I don't know, talk to me about gay marriage, convince me why you're "right."
DeleteDan
DeleteYes, God has revealed Himself. Just understand, repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Yeah....don't bother with that...Dan and his holy book have it backwards.
If you don't already believe, what is there to repent to?
>>Our country was founded as Congress making no law regarding religion, the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated that America was in no sense a christian country,
DeleteAs a unified nation speaking to other nations, you may be right. As a country though, I disagree. All 50 State Constitutions make that clear.
Answer this: How many pennies do you need to change a jar of Quarters, to a jar of pennies? 10? 20? All of them? It will never change that our country was founded on Biblical principles, as a Christian nation. We honor secular religions and beliefs BECAUSE we are Christian. You need to understand that point.
>>Why are you [Christians] so scared of gay marriage?
A brother in Christ said it best recently: "I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.'"
>>Slaves, concubines, multiple wives...those are the biblical definitions of marriage. Adam and Eve had enough incest sex to populate the world and that's cool, somehow it all magically worked out.
Is incest wrong? Are you really appealing to a moral law, or standard here? If so, how is it wrong in an atheistic worldview? Same question to your word salad of how intolerant you are to our intolerance.
>>I don't know, talk to me about gay marriage, convince me why you're "right.
Again, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. Also, you already KNOW it is wrong. God revealed that to all of us.
All that being said. The State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry. You want gay unions then erase marriage from the United States vocabulary. That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God.
I don't care what the State calls me and my wife. (Civilly Unioned) In God's eyes we are married and that, to me (and probably the gays), is more important. Genesis 2:24
Something tells me that just will not be "good enough".
"All that being said. The State has no right to call ANYONE married. The US has no right to say who can, or who cannot, marry. You want gay unions then erase marriage from the United States vocabulary. That is where the US went wrong. They stuck their nose into a place where it didn't belong. We should have all been recognized as civil unions and left the term "Marriage" for the Christian religion introduced by God.
DeleteI don't care what the State calls me and my wife. (Civilly Unioned) In God's eyes we are married and that, to me (and probably the gays), is more important."
I actually agree 100% with you on this. WOW! Also, I want to be clear about something...god has never revealed shit to me, even in a time when I was actually open to it. I wanted it, I yearned for it, yet never got it. I disagree completely with your view of everyone being born with knowledge of god and his revelations.
>> I want to be clear about something...god has never revealed shit to me, even in a time when I was actually open to it. I wanted it, I yearned for it, yet never got it.
DeleteHogwash. That reminds me of a cartoon.
No, God HAS revealed Himself to you through Natural and special revelations.
Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)
The thing is, it was not good enough for you. You rail for God to reveal Himself. The verses are right there in front of you! Remember the rich man in Luke 16:19-31:
"And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
You deny God, you deny He revealed Himself to you. It is the evidence of God. Also, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/552421_395395323853141_1167231744_n.jpg
DeleteIS begging the question "wrong"? If so, how is it wrong in an atheistic worldview?
Delete>>Upon those you cannot debate or argue as the burden of proof rests squarely on you.
DeleteDo you believe the God of the Bible exists? If "no", then you have made an implicitly positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.
Sorry, Dan, but you are just trying to shift the burden of proof.
I hate to disappoint you, but you can't do that. Not believing in something is not making a positive claim, because I'm saying simply I don't have reason to believe it. It makes no sense what you're saying because it would ONLY be a positive claim if I said "There is no God". Saying "I don't see any plausible reason to why the Bible would be true, thus I don't accept it as a truthful source of information." is NOT a positive claim, so the burden of proof stays with you.
Let me give you a example.
"Evolution is true, because it's written in a book called Origin of Species"
"But I don't believe that, I believe in creationism. I don't see any good reasons to believe in Evolution"
"Then you're making a positive claim you don't believe in Evolution. Prove me that you're statement about evolution being false is true. Oh, you can't?Big surprise!"(This example was not a way to prove Evolution, because it can't be proven by this kind of methods, obviously.)
It's like saying I don't believe in X.
You're not making a claim about X, like saying "X is not real"(if all, that would be a negative claim), you're simply expressing a opinion, that is, because X doesn't have any good evidence backing it up, it probably doesn't exist. You're not denying X, you just find it's existence unlikely, and mostly think that all thought it COULD exist, you don't believe it does, because the evidence, statements and so on are not good enough to assert that as true. It isn't the one who sees no reason for X to exist that has the burden of proof.
It's extremely hard to prove a negative claim, while a positive one is easier, that's why it says that the burden of proof rests on the one making the positive claim.
"I don't believe in God" is neither a negative claim about God's existence, nor a positive claim. It simply is, a opinion about a statement(God is real), where in this case, a individual expresses his or hers opinion on the matter. It isn't affirming God isn't real, it simply is saying, that the affirmation "God is real"(which is a positive claim) has little or no grounds to be true.
Still, where does the burden of proof lie?
On the claim which expresses lack of belief on something or on the positive claim that expresses a fact?
I could keep going but I rather know if you understood or not before wasting more time.
- Eduardo
Wait a minute,
DeleteAre you saying that, in your example, "I don't believe that, I believe in creationism. I don't see any good reasons to believe in Evolution" is a valid argument for not believing in evolution?
If so, great. IF not, then you are in the same boat because, "I don't believe that, I believe in naturalism. I don't see any good reasons to believe in God" is your claim.
Dan, did you read all I wrote?If you did, you would see the topic wasn't evolution. I would like to know if you agree you were mistaken on the sentence you said,
Delete"Do you believe the God of the Bible exists? If "no", then you have made an implicitly positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof is on you",
for that was the point of the whole reply.
I hope you understood what I said, and if you don't agree, tell me why.
Now, about that evolution topic. First, I am not a expert of sciences, (I haven't read The Origin of Species), so I'm not qualified to discuss on that topic, if I don't even comprehend the details of evolution(I only have a general idea of it). The example I showed perhaps was not the best one;you should not take it to seriously. The point of that conversation was to show how your first logic was faulted, when you said just because you don't believe in something, you make a implicitly positive claim about that something.
My example should have been something like "You don't believe in evolution?Then you made a implicitly positive claim, thus the burden of proof rests on you.(which is ridiculous if you think about it)
Now I won't add anything on does God exist argument(even if I talked about it, I probably wouldn't be adding anything new, so). However, since I saw something I consider incorrect, I thought I should correct it.
And in response to your question, yes, I consider that lack of evidence on something is a reason not to believe in that something. And yes, I consider the lack of good reasons to believe in something, a valid argument to why you don't believe in that.
Anyway, let me know if this is closed or if you want to explain to me why you believe your sentence if correct.
>>"You don't believe in evolution?Then you made a implicitly positive claim, thus the burden of proof rests on you.(which is ridiculous if you think about it)
DeleteNo it isn't. As opposed to you blindly trusting some self proclaimed "authority" that it is true? That is called an appeal to authority, a fallacy.
>>And in response to your question, yes, I consider that lack of evidence on something is a reason not to believe in that something.
Appeal to ignorance, a fallacy. Got it.
You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of evolution, or anything. Right? How do you KNOW they are valid? How would you know your reasoning is invalid? You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid.
>>Anyway, let me know if this is closed or if you want to explain to me why you believe your sentence if correct.
Without God you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.
This is exposed by asking you a very simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?
Delete>>Anyway, let me know if this is closed or if you want to explain to me why you believe your sentence if correct.
>Without God you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.
>This is exposed by asking you a very simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?
_____
Please, stop that. I asked why you believe the sentence
"Do you believe the God of the Bible exists? If "no", then you have made an implicitly positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof is on you", is correct. I did not ask you to say what would happen without God, I didn't ask you to respond my question with another question, I simply wanted to know in what grounds you base your decision of trying to shift the burden of proof. Nothing else.
>>"You don't believe in evolution?Then you made a implicitly positive claim, thus the burden of proof rests on you.(which is ridiculous if you think about it)
No it isn't. As opposed to you blindly trusting some self proclaimed "authority" that it is true? That is called an appeal to authority, a fallacy.
____
Ah...am I missing something here?Are you really saying this is correct?
I don't believe in A.
This is a positive claim.
Thus, it's me who must prove A isn't real.
>>You employ your senses and reasoning when you reason about the evidence of evolution, or anything. Right? How do you KNOW they are valid? How would you know your reasoning is invalid? You reason that your reasoning is valid. You're employing your reasoning to validate your reasoning. THAT is viciously circular (fallacious). If I said "God, exists because God exists" would that be a valid argument? You haven't shown me your reasoning is valid.
___
I consider this
Lack of A is reason not to believe in B.
That is, not having A is a reason to believe B is false or doesn't exist.
(which I think differs from
A exists because A exists)
And finally, another thing. The first reason I replied to you was to correct you on that sentence. If you want to switch subjects on to another talk fine, but please try to remain on topic on this page, which is the burden of proof and how it rests on the one making a positive claim. I corrected your sentence saying that "I don't believe that the God of the Bible exists" isn't a positive claim, therefore the person making that claim doesn't have the burden of proof. Now, can you please say to me if you understood and agree with the correction, or if not why do you believe your original statement was true.
>>Lack of A is reason not to believe in B.
DeleteOK great, I will work with this. Is that an arbitrary determination of weight to "A"? Who decides what is adequate "A"? You? IF I say I don't believe in gravity does gravity exist? You appear to be the assigner of evidence adequacy. If that is the case, then define truth.
>> If you want to switch subjects on to another talk fine, but please try to remain on topic on this page, which is the burden of proof and how it rests on the one making a positive claim.
OK Kettle. The title of this post is called "You Haven't Provided Any Evidence" is that the subject you're talking about? Oh, you probably mean YOUR subject, not the post's in a complete hypocritical manner. Just wanted to point our your blinders. :7)
>>I corrected your sentence saying that "I don't believe that the God of the Bible exists" isn't a positive claim,
Are you absolutely certain you're right? THAT is the point. You're "correcting" me without an account for your knowledge. It is merely barely asserted. But to appease you BEFORE you even address my points, I will respond.
Our friend Brian said "[God] claims that everyone knows He exists. He claims that he created the world. He claims that his existence is necessary for knowledge, ethics, aesthetics, etc. In short, he makes a bold claim about everyone’s ability to reason, weigh evidence, draw conclusions, etc. He claims that none of those actions that we all do on a daily basis would be possible unless he existed as described in the Bible." ~The Atheist’s Burden of Proof
You ARE making an implicitly positive claim when you say you do not believe God exists. In Romans 1:18-23 God reveals that you DO know Him. So you're bringing to the table something new.
Brian drove it home with: "They are relying upon all these basic beliefs that the God of the Bible claims *only* make sense if he exists.
To say they don’t believe he exists is to say that it is *possible* to do these things (reason, weigh evidence, etc.) without him existing. But God says it is not possible to do them without him existing. Therefore (by implication) they are saying “This kind of God *does not* exist”."
Now, to show us if your 'positive' claims are accurate or not, answer how do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?
>>Lack of A is reason not to believe in B.
DeleteOK great, I will work with this. Is that an arbitrary determination of weight to "A"? Who decides what is adequate "A"? You? IF I say I don't believe in gravity does gravity exist? You appear to be the assigner of evidence adequacy. If that is the case, then define truth.
___
Dan, did I ever said I was a atheist?Did you ever find any confirmation of that?Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you, they are automatically on the "other side" and don't believe in God?And plus, WHY would the fact that I would be a atheist or a theist of ANY relevance to my argument?If I was defending some position, fine, but I'm just defending where the burden of proof lies.
Well, putting that aside, I admit my example wasn't the best one, but I'll explain it to you.
Having A is a reason to believe in B, as in A is something that sustains B (meaning that if A can't justify B, then I have no reason to believe B is correct).
So, imagine as A or C being the preposition, and B being the conclusion. If A and C sustain B, then it's safe to assume B probably is true. If they don't, then you have no reason to assume B is true. Course you have to first see if you accept the prepositions are true, for A and C could be false yet the argument could still be valid.
Some might consider the fossils find on evolution to be proof, and some might not. You must consider first if A/C is true, and then see if it supports the conclusion, B.
Simple as that. But as I said before, this is not what I want to discuss...the only reason I'm discussing this is because you're bringing that up.
Now, changing subjects, I read the link you sent me. It does, indeed, make a lot of sense in some aspects, but I don't understand this sentence:
"To say they don’t believe he exists is to say that it is *possible* to do these things (reason, weigh evidence, etc.) without him existing. But God says it is not possible to do them without him existing. Therefore (by implication) they are saying “This kind of God *does not* exist”."
Even if I did claim that God doesn't exist...there would still be two sides.
One claims that the God of the Bible exists and that reason, weigh evidence etc are only possible because he exists.
Another one claims He doesn't exist, and that reason, weigh evidence etc can happen without his existence.
So we have two claims here, and you think the one saying He doesn't exist is the one who has the burden of proof. Sorry but that's confusing to me, if you could explain why you think that, it would be great. I mean, the best you could say is both somewhat have the burden to proof something, being the theist to prove God exists, and the atheist have to prove that reason etc could happen without him.*(read the end to see my opinion on that)
Anyway, don't forget "God doesn't exist" is a negative claim, and "God exists" is a positive claim. You didn't answered on this yet, and I would like to know what you think about that.
>>Are you absolutely certain you're right? THAT is the point. You're "correcting" me without an account for your knowledge. It is merely barely asserted. But to appease you BEFORE you even address my points, I will respond.
Without a account for knowledge?
If you want the sources I searched, you can see for yourself...
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
I quote "One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim."
I also double checked the burden of proof to be sure, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim."
(don't go with the wikipedia is false argument please, because I've seen books who say the same, but it's a pain to search them)
(CON'T)
Delete>>Now, to show us if your 'positive' claims are accurate or not, answer how do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?
*I don't...but have you proven reasoning comes from God?I mean...how could I prove that reasoning can exist independent from God if I haven't acknowledged God's existence?If I acknowledge God doesn't exist, and I accept that as true, wouldn't that prove to me reason can exist without God?
I mean, if everyone told me Zeus is the cause of why we are alive and without him there is no logic, but I found out the person who told people about Zeus lied about it's existence, then wouldn't be logic to assume there is another cause to why we are alive?And that reason can exist without him(Zeus)?
You must first prove God exists before you can ask me to prove reason would still exist without God.
>>You ARE making an implicitly positive claim when you say you do not believe God exists. In Romans 1:18-23 God reveals that you DO know Him. So you're bringing to the table something new.
Oh, and quoting the Bible?Really?Your quoting the word of God to prove his existence?
And you talk about viciously circular...
>>Dan, did I ever said I was a atheist? Did you ever find any confirmation of that?Why do you assume that if someone disagrees with you, they are automatically on the "other side" and don't believe in God?
DeleteYou said positively: "I don't believe that the God of the Bible exists" so technically you're an antichrist with a burden of proof that has yet to be revealed. Your worldview is atheistic, at the very least. Out with it, if you feel the need. You are, after all, debating on a blog called "Debunking Atheists" and are not debating for the existence of God in the affirmative, by any stretch of the imagination.
>>I quote "One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim."
That "quote" or position, is completely silly. Of course you can prove a negative. The law of non-contradiction is a negative. It can be proven. Something cannot be true and not true at the same time in the same way. There, proven a negative.
Did you mean that you cannot disprove a negative? That I would agree with, you can't. Data may spring up in the future, after all.
>>I also double checked the burden of proof to be sure, and
[wiki] "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim."
YES, I agree. That is why YOUR implicitly positive claim of not believing in the God of the Bible, has the burden of proof. Have any?
>>If I acknowledge God doesn't exist, and I accept that as true, wouldn't that prove to me reason can exist without God?
Absolutely NOT. God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. We call it self deception. Self deception is very powerful to the mind. Does someone on LSD really see dragons come out of the video game? No, but his self deception certainly tells them they are flying around.
[to be cont'd]
[cont'd]
Delete>>You must first prove God exists before you can ask me to prove reason would still exist without God.
I reject the premise of your statement. It is my position that everyone already believes that God exists.
'We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all. If they have no basis in which to place their faith in logic or exists then they've yet to understand that logic or matter exists because their faith is based in logic and reason itself, yet you can't use either to explain where either originated from (enter circular reasoning). They must assume and accept that both logic and reason originated from a single omnipotent source because without that source, there is no logic or reason, man didn't create logic or reason, we only use them as the tools that were provided to us by God. If we say there is no God, then we put the cart before the horse and look pretty stupid... As for which God (which I believe is where this argument gets hung up) that falls to the legitimacy of the scriptures and the foundation of where the God you serve comes from. I lean on the God of the Bible, not only because he revealed himself to me and I chose to accept and believe on his son, and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true. The God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I say so, but because He does.'
>>Oh, and quoting the Bible?Really?Your quoting the word of God to prove his existence?
And you talk about viciously circular...
Are you absolutely certain that is the word of God? I digress. Anyway, Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
Besides, the revelations are not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible, you are still in the world of natural revelation. It is threefold, there is natural and special revelation, as well as Scripture that you would have to deny for your claims. This is why you're literally making a implicitly positive claim.
>>YES, I agree. That is why YOUR implicitly positive claim of not believing in the God of the Bible, has the burden of proof. Have any?
DeletePlease explain that in detail, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying in here.
You're saying that I should prove that God doesn't exist?
Or you're only saying that in the specific case of the God of the Bible, it's me who most disprove it's existence, because the burden of proof lies on me?
So let me get this straight. In the case of does God exists, it must be the one who makes the positive claim that has the burden of proof. Therefore, it's the theist who has the burden of proof, not atheists.
Atheist reject the belief in God or other deities, having in account the arguments presented by theists on the matter. They don't think deities exist, because there are no real hard evidence about it's existence, and that there is no real reason for them to believe in them.
However, although it's the atheist who doesn't believe in a specific god, it's him who must prove that the god certain theists believe in, is not real. Sorry, but how does that make sense?I stay with the Zeus argument. Your claims would be equally valid if it was some other god, or if some other holy book which preaches the same about the origin of reason and so forward. You have zero evidence the Bible is correct and that it is the one and only true.
If you say all people inside themselves believe that the God of the Bible is real, then I don't know how to carry on. Going down that path is not a good idea.
Oh and by the way, you HAVEN'T proven God exists. You haven't. So how can you reject that premise?In the scientific point of view, God isn't proven. They don't teach him in elementary school or middle school(at least not at a public one, unless it's from a specific religion or has the option to teach that as a extra class). Your standing point on God is no different from Socrates standing point on the gods.
"everyone already knows he exists" is a terrible evidence too...
>>We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at al
Besides, the revelations are not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible, you are still in the world of natural revelation. It is threefold, there is natural and special revelation, as well as Scripture that you would have to deny for your claims. This is why you're literally making a implicitly positive claim.
____
Well, you haven't proven the scriptures are real, so why do you believe them?Why do you believe the Bible is real too?I mean, what makes different YOUR God, from the hundreds that appeared before him?I don't see any evidence supporting your conclusion. I simply don't.
If you have evidence other than "we all believe, some are just denying it", then I'm happy to hear it.
>>You're saying that I should prove that God doesn't exist?
DeleteIf it is your claim that God is not the necessary precondition to knowledge, reason, logic, etc. to which God claims IS necessary then yes the burden of proof of that extraordinary claim is now on you.
The laws of logic are universal, how can an atheist know anything to be universally true? The laws of logic are invariant, how do unchanging entities make sense in a constantly changing universe? The laws of logic are not made of matter, how do things which are not made of matter make sense in ANY atheistic worldview?
The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
(Alright, this is where you say AHA, so there is no evidence that God is the necessary precondition for evidence - I win!)(And then I become even more amazed at how blind you really are).
The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary.
>>If you say all people inside themselves believe that the God of the Bible is real, then I don't know how to carry on.
Yes! That is the claim, only it is not my claim but God's (Romans 1:18-23)
>>Oh and by the way, you HAVEN'T proven God exists.
Besides asking if you are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?
I will say that, proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?
>>They don't teach him in elementary school or middle school(at least not at a public one, unless it's from a specific religion or has the option to teach that as a extra class).
You wonder why? An American Humanist named John Dunphy said in 1983:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
>>Well, you haven't proven the scriptures are real, so why do you believe them?
The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth to us directly, such that we can be certain of it.
>>I mean, what makes different YOUR God, from the hundreds that appeared before him?I don't see any evidence supporting your conclusion. I simply don't.
Are you certain of that? (I linked to the location for you) You deny I did, but I did. This is not a shocker for me.
>>If it is your claim that God is not the necessary precondition to knowledge, reason, logic, etc. to which God claims IS necessary then yes the burden of proof of that extraordinary claim is now on you.
DeleteBut what if I would deny the belief on your God?I mean, you are jumping steps here. Why would what your God say have the least relevance if you haven't proven He's real? I could say the same from another god. What evidence do you have your God is the one and only true one? Before you can go and say what your God says, you must first prove him. Otherwise, it doesn't make the least sense, because your assuming God is real, and that His claims should be taken into consideration. I ask again, why?If you haven't proven the source is true?
Don't forget, your sentence that logic comes from God only makes sense to you because God said so. So you have here a appeal to authority(which isn't a wrong thing), but you can only do that if both persons in the discussion agree that the authority is correct or at least worthy of mention(otherwise it's pointless to even mention the authority), and if the authority is proven. Although God could be considered as being a legitimate expert on the subject, you still haven't proven He exists. So again, why mention Him?
That's where I think your argument crumbles. You mention that I affirm that reason, logic etc can exist without God, when in fact you haven't proven reason comes from God, or if God should even be taken into consideration, since He was never proved.
>>The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth to us directly, such that we can be certain of it.
The Bible is true? Could you please explain more of that?I'm curious on what grounds you make that affirmation. If you could point out any evidence, articles, etc which prove the veracity of that statement, than I would love to read them.
EDU,
DeleteDan asked you some questions above about logic, truth, universality, invariance, etc. If you're interested in reading a rational, comprehensive four-part series in response to such presuppositionalist questions, here is a link to Dawson Bethrick's blog entry, "Answering Dustin Segers’ Presuppositionalism"
The link is to Part IVb, but has the links for Parts I - IVa.
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/05/answering-dustin-segers_19.html
Ydemoc
>>What evidence do you have your God is the one and only true one?
DeleteRevelation from that one true God.
>>Before you can go and say what your God says, you must first prove him.
Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? IF so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?
"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~bit.ly/stillevidence
>>The Bible is true? Could you please explain more of that?I'm curious on what grounds you make that affirmation.
Revelation from the ONE that know everything. You? How do you know anything? Could you be wrong about everything that you claim to know? If not, why not?
>>If you could point out any evidence, articles, etc which prove the veracity of that statement, than I would love to read them.
"If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture" (Michael Butler, "A truly Reformed epistemology," in Penpoint Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 [Southern California Center for Christian Studies, May 1997], p. 3).
The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary.
Dan, quoting someone else:
DeleteThe Bible is true? Could you please explain more of that?I'm curious on what grounds you make that affirmation.
Revelation from the ONE that know everything.
Everything that is, except that the orchid seed is smaller than the mustard seed.
In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture"
Too bad that scripture makes testable claims about the physical world, eh Dan?
Whoops. Back to the drawing board, eh Dan?
The God of Scripture is the only God that exists, by the impossibility of the contrary.
DeleteHypothesis; There exists a watchmaker God, that established the laws of logic, and the material universe, and has since taken no action whatsoever.
Believers in any other God are deluded.
Explain why this is impossible -- since that is contrary to the assertion above.
I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
DeleteYou've asked me this before. And I've said yes. However, the possibility of such happening is not evidence for the fact of it occurring.
DeleteWill you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we are certain of them, and they are wrong? And if not, how does this not violate the definition of omnipotence?
You still haven't addressed why the Watchmaker God who is not the Christian God is "impossible", as your statement requires.
>>You've asked me this before. And I've said yes. However, the possibility of such happening is not evidence for the fact of it occurring.
DeleteThe possibility is VERY relevant, and since all you have is opinion, could not CERTAINLY deny it.
>>Will you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we are certain of them, and they are wrong? And if not, how does this not violate the definition of omnipotence?
You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.
God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).
It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.
As for omnibenevolence, ‘good’ is that which comports with the absolute character and nature of God. Since God is the very standard of ‘good’, He cannot do evil, as this would require Him to contradict His character, which, again, is not possible.
>>You still haven't addressed why the Watchmaker God who is not the Christian God is "impossible", as your statement requires.
Sure I have. It is not because I say so, but because God already said so in His revelations. God says He is the source of logic.
The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that God is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
>>You've asked me this before. And I've said yes. However, the possibility of such happening is not evidence for the fact of it occurring.
DeleteThe possibility is VERY relevant, and since all you have is opinion, could not CERTAINLY deny it.
It's possible. It's also theoretically possible that someone could win the lottery three times in a row; however, I wouldn't recommend betting your life on it.
I have more than opinion -- I have evidence that suggests that your alleged "evidence" is no such thing. All you have is the claim that something is "possible."
Possibility does not mean certainty, as I'm sure you understand.
You and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.
That's the definition I'm using. I agree that it is possible for an omnipotent being to inject certainty into someone's head. I propose that it is also possible for an omnipotent being to inject a *false* certainty into someone's head. I presume you are claiming that's not possible because to be "certain" means to have possession of truth; in which case I will alter it:
Is it possible for an omnipotent being to inject a sense of certainty about a false statement into someone's head, such that they cannot distinguish it from a truly "certain" statement?
If so, how is a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity supposed to tell the difference between the two?
And if not, why not?
As for omnibenevolence,
Omnibenevolence hasn't entered into this discussion so far -- and there's no reason for it to. "grounding logic and truth" doesn't require omnibenevolence, as my challenge demonstrates.
Sure I have. It is not because I say so, but because God already said so in His revelations. God says He is the source of logic.
A text claiming to be divinely inspired says that the supposed inspiration of that text claims that it is the source of logic. This is not a significant response to my Watchmaker God challenge. In what way does the Watchmaker God not fit the requirements for a "necessary precondition for the laws of logic"?
Remember, you made the claim that the *Christian* God was proved by the "impossibility of the contrary". I have presented a contrary. Prove it's impossible, or admit your claim is invalid.
The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that God is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.
And what is lacking in the "material universe" as the precondition for the concept of evidence?
>> I have evidence that suggests that your alleged "evidence" is no such thing.
DeleteO'rly?
>> All you have is the claim that something is "possible."
Said the person who asserted they have evidence without providing said evidence.
>>Possibility does not mean certainty, as I'm sure you understand.
I agree. Revelation from God does indeed mean certainty. But the possibility is very relevant to the discussion. How are you so certain He hasn't reveled to you? Denial of said revelation, because you deny God exists, is begging the question.
>>I propose that it is also possible for an omnipotent being to inject a *false* certainty into someone's head.
Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible. But, again, taxi-cab fallacy. It ALSO has been revealed that God is omnibenevolent. You're cherry picking here.
>>If so, how is a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent entity supposed to tell the difference between the two?
From the revelation of God. On their own, they cannot. That is why the Atheists worldview is reduced to absurd. It appears you agree.
>>Omnibenevolence hasn't entered into this discussion so far -- and there's no reason for it to.
Sure it has. We are discussing God after all. Oh wait, you wish I address fallacies, but "there's no reason" to.
>> In what way does the Watchmaker God not fit the requirements for a "necessary precondition for the laws of logic"?
I might have overstepped in saying God said He is the source of logic, so I wish to rephrase. Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is absolute, the absolute laws of logic have always existed.
I feel more comfortable to continue from that point.
>>And what is lacking in the "material universe" as the precondition for the concept of evidence?
I read this a few times but I cannot figure what you're asking. Sorry.
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." ~Albert Einstein
Delete. >> I have evidence that suggests that your alleged "evidence" is no such thing.
DeleteO'rly?
http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/bible-errors-and-contradictions/ -- 30 seconds with Google. If the Bible is self-contradictory and contains errors of fact, then your citations of Bible quotes and use of descriptions from the Bible is not valid evidence.
> All you have is the claim that something is "possible." Said the person who asserted they have evidence without providing said evidence.
See above. And again, all youv'e asserted is that it is "possible" that such a thing could happen -- which is not evidence at all that it did.
>>Possibility does not mean certainty, as I'm sure you understand. I agree. Revelation from God does indeed mean certainty.
Of course, there's no way you've given me to tell a true revelation from God from a false sense of certainty. So, that "certainty" is an illusion.
How are you so certain He hasn't reveled to you? Denial of said revelation, because you deny God exists, is begging the question.
Presumably, if I'd had such a revelation, and had such certainty, I'd know it. But I don't, therefore I did not receive such a revelation.
>>I propose that it is also possible for an omnipotent being to inject a *false* certainty into someone's head. Omnipotence does not include the ability to do the logically impossible.
Since you insist on using "certain" in a very narrow way, I'll rewrite this to accomodate you. It is possible for an omnipotent being to inject a false feeling of certainty, indistinguishable by the individual from true certainty, into someone's head.
There. No "logical impossibility". So, explain why that's not true.
But, again, taxi-cab fallacy.
Not at all; you are asserting that it is possible that an omnipotent, omniscient God coudl tell us something such that we know it for certain. I am asserting that the same being could tell us something such that we believe we know it for certain, and are wrong -- and we have no way of telling the difference between the two. Therefore, your "evidence" by revelation is valueless.
It ALSO has been revealed that God is omnibenevolent.
But that omnibenevolence is dependent upon the revelation you claim to have had, and which my example above demonstrates could be a false one.
On their own, they cannot. That is why the Atheists worldview is reduced to absurd. It appears you agree.
In other words, you can't tell. You have to hope that the God you believe revealed something to you, and was telling the truth.
An atheist doesn't need to tell the difference between the two, because they believe that neither one of them has evidential value.
>>Omnibenevolence hasn't entered into this discussion so far -- and there's no reason for it to. Sure it has. We are discussing God after all. Oh wait, you wish I address fallacies, but "there's no reason" to.
You originally started with "omnipotent and omniscient" and now you're starting to add claims in the middle. Again -- there is no reason for me to assume omnibenevolence.
Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is absolute, the absolute laws of logic have always existed.
This is not a response to "what does a Watchmaker God fail to fulfill your requirements for a "precondition of logic" -- try answering the question asked.
As it is, I again have no reason to believe your bald assertion.
I read this a few times but I cannot figure what you're asking. Sorry.
You keep talking about "the precondition of evidence" -- and I'm asking why the material universe is not a sufficient "precondition of evidence".
Get it?
>>-- 30 seconds with Google. If the Bible is self-contradictory and contains errors of fact, then your citations of Bible quotes and use of descriptions from the Bible is not valid evidence.
Delete*sigh. Here we go again. You spend 30 seconds on Google and accept the found link as AUTHORITY over the God of the universe. Your own autonomous reasoning tells you that there are contradictions because it bolsters your worldview. BUT, are you absolutely certain there are contradictions? If so, once again, how are you certain?
I have posted a link so many years ago and have not had to update it at all, the explanations have stood the sands of time. That is because all the atheists conclude the same things, men are fallible so there must be mistakes and contradictions, but they are merely gripes and complaints. You're using as an excuse. Have you ACTUALLY studded these presumed contradictions? If so, you would be a part of a rare few Atheists that have brought up that excuse, yes excuse.
>>Of course, there's no way you've given me to tell a true revelation from God from a false sense of certainty. So, that "certainty" is an illusion.
How do you KNOW that? You sure seem to have made up your mind about it, but I believe Scripture said something about you.
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2
Now an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolence being said He revealed Himself to you, remember he cannot lie, and YOU claim that He has not done this. Does God or man lie? NUMBERS 23:19
So tell me subjective "I know by my own standards." Where is THAT extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim that God has lied? Where is your knowledge? Any?
>>Presumably, if I'd had such a revelation, and had such certainty, I'd know it. But I don't, therefore I did not receive such a revelation.
In all seriousness, THAT is the most frightening part of this entire conversation with you. That you have gone so far as to not have His will be done, God being so good, will have your will be done.
Hell's gates will be locked from the inside, indeed. My heart aches for you. In a few days I will have my first grandchild. Life is precious, especially yours. I would be so frightened to know that God gave me over to my own desires because my name was not written in the book of life. That, I would worry about my entire life. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-13
>> Again -- there is no reason for me to assume omnibenevolence.
You don't have to. It has been revealed. God is THAT standard of good you gauging God against. You are sitting in the judges chair as a criminal. That is blasphemy.
I am sure you know what repentant is. It is approaching God, the Judge, with a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:17) and throw yourself to the mercy of His court. Your refusal to do so is the reason why you have no knowledge of Him.
You will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
>>As it is, I again have no reason to believe your bald assertion.
After all what I have said to you, the thousands of words, you call what I have explained to you mere bald assertions? Just wow.
Thankfully Scripture has answers for people like you to: ”Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Titus 3:10 (I’ll let you read verse 11 on your own.)
Titus 3:10-11
*sigh. Here we go again. You spend 30 seconds on Google and accept the found link as AUTHORITY over the God of the universe.
DeleteNompe. I looked at the link, verified it matched the biblical texts I had to hand, and accepted it as evidence that people relying on the inerrancy of the Bible had a major problem.
If someone proclaimed "The Ultimate Ruler of the Universe has spoken, and snakes have legs!" -- would you believe their Ultimate Ruler existed, given that its first comment was something wrong?
That's what I meant when I said I had evidence against your position.
You're using as an excuse. Have you ACTUALLY studded these presumed contradictions?
I have, yes. And they can be explained away with enough scholarship and fudging, accepting things in some cases as "metaphor" and in some cases as "literary structures" -- but at that point, one can no longer point to the text as possessing a clear and singular interpretation, and there is no reason to specifically believe it, barring significant outside evidence that cannot be explained by other means.
How do you KNOW that? You sure seem to have made up your mind about it, but I believe Scripture said something about you.
Because no one has given me a method to determine it; no one has even offered a useful one.
Here's the big difference: If someone makes a scientific claim I find incredible, I can (or someone suitably trained can) ask for their methods, then repeat their experiments, and verify or falsify their results -- as was done for quantum mechanics & relativity (verified) and cold fusion (falsified).
If someone claims 'I have a revelation from God!" all I can do is either accept them, or dismiss them, based on no real evidence. And, given that there are, for example, known medical conditions that produce states akin to the classic religious/mystical experience (see: temporal lobe epilepsy), I have reason to dismiss them.
Now an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolence being said He revealed Himself to you, remember he cannot lie, and YOU claim that He has not done this.
As far as I know, *you* say such a being did that. I have no reason to believe you are right. Indeed, given what I believe is true about your other positions (you're a YEC, aren't you?), I have good reason to doubt you.
In all seriousness, THAT is the most frightening part of this entire conversation with you. That you have gone so far as to not have His will be done, God being so good, will have your will be done.
This makes no sense.
I would be so frightened to know that God gave me over to my own desires because my name was not written in the book of life.
There's no fear if you don't believe that God exists.
You don't have to. It has been revealed. God is THAT standard of good you gauging God against. You are sitting in the judges chair as a criminal. That is blasphemy.
If God is so good, then even a criminal in the judges' chair should find them innocent.
Your refusal to do so is the reason why you have no knowledge of Him.
And you're the one who talks about "viciously circular". I can imagine few things more vicious than "You must accept your sinful nature and accept that you are broken, and unworthy of me, before I will let you know I exist." That's not the action of a good being, that's the action of a thug.
After all what I have said to you, the thousands of words, you call what I have explained to you mere bald assertions? Just wow.
There's an old statement: "He doesn't have 20 years of experience, he has 1 year of experience 20 times." You've made a whole bunch of bald assertions, and the only evidences you provide are logical fallacies, appeal to authorities that have been challenged, or repetitions of previous statements.
>>Here's the big difference: If someone makes a scientific claim I find incredible, I can (or someone suitably trained can) ask for their methods, then repeat their experiments, and verify or falsify their results -- as was done for quantum mechanics & relativity (verified) and cold fusion (falsified).
DeleteHow are you so certain they're reasoning is valid?
No, here is the big difference: You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING.
I justify my senses and reasoning by the truth of God and his word. The use of one's senses and reasoning is categorically distinct from justifying their use. You, on the other hand, reason that your reasoning is valid, which is viciously circular.
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~http://bit.ly/3gUcsN
The process is flawed in many ways. It is like you're
ignoring what scientists themselves have said are the problems of the peer review process.
So again, how do you know your reasoning about even peer reviews are valid?
>>As far as I know, *you* say such a being did that.
Wrong, it is not I but He who said that.
In all seriousness, THAT is the most frightening part of this entire conversation with you. That you have gone so far as to not have His will be done, God being so good, will have your will be done.
>>This makes no sense.
Because you have railed against God your entire life and not have God's will be done, i.e. repent and placing your entire trust in Jesus Christ for your Salvation with your heart, mind, and soul, then God will have your will be done and that is separation from Him. We call it despair.
I know you will not listen to all 7 parts, but you might want to check out 4:30 of part 7. (Just go to part 7, hit pause and then hit #6, and play)
>>There's no fear if you don't believe that God exists.
I'm sure that if an "atheist" wanted to, they could surrender to God, confess and repent of their sins, put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and receive a full pardon by God. They just don't want to. Takes us right back to Proverbs 1:7, Proverbs 14:2, doesn't it.
>>If God is so good, then even a criminal in the judges' chair should find them innocent.
Now, this makes no sense.
>>That's not the action of a good being, that's the action of a thug.
With a standard that does not comport with your worldview. You have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
>>You've made a whole bunch of bald assertions, and the only evidences you provide are logical fallacies, appeal to authorities that have been challenged, or repetitions of previous statements.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
How are you so certain they're reasoning is valid?
ReplyDeleteRepeatability is a far better test of validity of reasoning than an unverifiable, self-contradictory "revelation".
How can you tell anything is valid? Either you have to make some basic assumptions, e.g. axioms in an axiomatic system, the existence of the material universe, etc. or you have to assert that validity is a matter of coherence -- and in that case, repeatable experiments are a marvelous way to ensure you have a coherent worldview.
You are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING
Nonsense. Logic could just as easily spring from human minds; after all, things that were considered "certain truths of logic" once upon a time have now been proven not to be so, and the logic we rely on now for some sorts of conclusion does have to be either protected from paradox (consider the Russell paradox) or one has to accept a dialethic view.
You are the one who requires "absolute certainty" and are willing to risk being deluded in your quest for it.
You, on the other hand, reason that your reasoning is valid, which is viciously circular.
And you reason that your reasoning regarding God is valid, which is just as circular. Sorry; no escape for you there. You claim a revelation, but in order to do so, you have to validate it, and how do you validate it? Your reason.
Your going on about peer review is irrelevant to the point -- if people wish to repeat the experiment, they can; and if they fail to achieve the same results, there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Sure; if we spent enough money and time we could repeat every experiment, and that would be better than the peer review process that journals use; but no one is willing to spend that much money on science. Indeed, if we stopped spending money on churches, perhaps we could.
Wrong, it is not I but He who said that.
All I can see is you saying it. You assert there's some other being who said it too, but apparently it only evidences itself if you already believe in it -- hardly useful.
Because you have railed against God your entire life and not have God's will be done, i.e. repent and placing your entire trust in Jesus Christ for your Salvation with your heart, mind, and soul, then God will have your will be done and that is separation from Him. We call it despair.
In other words, because I have not believed something on no evidence. I'm not despairing, not at all. I'm hopeful about what humanity has accomplished so far, and what it will continue to do so. It's part of why I argue against people who argue against science in favor of unsupported superstition.
I know many Christians who take a view of the world that does not pit them against science; I do not argue with them.
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that if an "atheist" wanted to, they could surrender to God, confess and repent of their sins, put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and receive a full pardon by God.
But why should they? They don't believe they've sinned, no one has given them a reason to put their faith in someone who may or may not have lived, and no reason to need a pardon from a potentially non-existent being.
If an atheist wanted to, they could believe what they chose. They could, if they wished, embrace any one of a number of delusions.
Now, this makes no sense.
Perhaps not to you.
You have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.
Actually, I can look at what thugs do -- use their power to bully others into doing things they have no reason to do other than the threat of power being used against them -- and say "Hm. Thugs act this way, so acting like that is acting like a thug." Not a moral law -- an analogy.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute.
Within an axiomatic system, there can be a logical fallacy. If you wish me to state "Within the common rules of logic we appear to have agreed to, that is a fallacious argument", I can do that -- it will just make my posts longer, and not change a single thing.
Dan, Don't waste time refuting every point they bring up. That's seriously pointless. Like, honestly, that is the most pointless thing you can ever do. Instead, focus on pointing out how their entire position they're coming from is flawed. That right there does more than refuting point by point will ever do.
ReplyDeleteWhat that all means is simple, you cannot win over an atheist by debating proofs as they already have a complete belief structure which has answered all the questions in a way that is coherent with their atheistic view; I will be so bold as to say even the most basic questions of the sort like "Why am I here" "Is there purpose" and so on. Your argument for God will be defeated by a fence of protective beliefs, you will not be able to get at the core of their atheistic belief.
imnotandrei, remember, you are an atheist, you are more busy trying to debunk Dan, rather than support you claim to knowledge that you "know God does not exist" which is a positive statement by the way. We all know you cannot prove a negative, you can't prove God does not exist. But now you make another claim to knowledge. You say you "know" he does not exist. Well PROVE IT.
I will use your argumentation against you as if I was an anti-athiest. W:
The burden of proof is now on you. You can't wiggle yourself out of this. Convince me of how you know God don't exist. If you can't convince me, than God exists. We will start from here.
imnotandrei, remember, you are an atheist
DeleteActually, my religious beliefs are my own private matter; what I am is someone who objects to the misuse of logic in making religious or anti-religious claims. I also debate people who claim *dis*proofs of God. ;)
You say you "know" he does not exist. Well PROVE IT.
I made no such claim. I have claimed only that D.A.N's "evidence" and "proof" are worthless, because they beg their question, and present nothing for anyone else to judge them by.
Convince me of how you know God don't exist. If you can't convince me, than God exists. We will start from here.
Sorry, Jake, but if you look at some of the other threads on here, I don't believe that's a provable point. I feel that one's relationship to God, gods, or lack thereof is a personal matter, and a private one.
However, if someone is going to try and claim that their God exists and I am just denying it, I will argue with them. If someone tries to claim that we should arrange our laws to suit the particular morality of their God, and provides no evidence that they exist, I will argue with them.
You are free to believe in your own God, gods, or lack thereof, so long as you do not attempt to dictate to me what my beliefs on the subject should be; especially if you try to do it with lousy logic.
To sum up your response, you are confused as to what you believe and therefore don't have an answer to any claim against God's existence. You feel that since God is a myth, you are trying to convince Christians to look at their seemingly fallacious arguments to defend this God. You FEEL or ASSERT that since God is myth, you can't see him, etc. there is no point in trying to defend any claim that he exists. This is a presupposition and a false one.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I say you are confused is because you keep making claims that "God does not exist" but when someone asks you convince me, you say God is "a personal matter, and a private one" and sidestep your responsibility to counter-our claims. This is a two way conversation. All you have done (and admitted) is to correct one or two of Dan's arguments. No one Christian can answer all your questions, nor can someone explain something without making a faulty argument on accident. You are basically claiming that if an argument is fallacious, that means the persons belief is fallacious. Well, someone here is expressing their personal matter and its you. You have made a positive assertion that you know God does not exist. This is an assertion made with no evidence, therefore we (Christians) dismiss atheist's claims with our evidence. Also, making any claim against this evidence without evidence will not count as refuting this evidence. There is no room for logic in this matter, it is now fact based. You cannot rest on the claim "No evidence for God" anymore. You now must take a logical position of agnosticism or risk being labeled as a brainwashed orthodox atheist who ignores evidence that does not support his atheistic position that is already curricular in its reasoning.
Remember, this is a thread about discussing atheists that refuse to accept evidence.
If God exists, God becomes objective because it affects everything from why we are here, what caused all this, what does our creator want from us, etc. If God exists, then hell exists, and lost people like atheists are going there if we (Christians who are saved) do not warn you. It is true that a belief should be personal and private, but this is not a belief, this is reality. God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believe in him will not parish, but will have everlasting life (John 3:16). The devil wants to prevent this from happening by deceiving as many people as possible before God comes back to end the world as we know it and bring all believers to heaven. God cannot make you choose him, he wished non to parish (2 Peter 3:9) and people like me and Dan have a need to reach out to the lost, we can't stay silent about this.
There is historical, archeological, scientific and testimonial evidence for God (even from hardened atheists who became christian). I call this cumulative relevance (you can imply something to be relevant after accumulating all evidence and evaluating it to all agree) For example, fingerprints on a weapon found at the scene would be relevant to a murder case, and therefore, admissible as evidence. We have more than just one thing to prove God exists. If you read evidence and consider it, you can no longer claim there is no evidence. You would have to now deny the truth rather than claim ignorance. Denying truth does not invalidate truth, neither can truth contradict truth.
The reason why I say you are confused is because you keep making claims that "God does not exist" but when someone asks you convince me, you say God is "a personal matter, and a private one" and sidestep your responsibility to counter-our claims.
DeleteI have no responsibility to argue "God does not exist" -- I am arguing, and have argued, that "Your arguments for the existence of God fail", which is a different point. Saying "You haven't proven A" is not the same as claiming "I can prove not-A."
No one Christian can answer all your questions, nor can someone explain something without making a faulty argument on accident.
And someone who wants to argue honestly should be able to admit "I don't know" or "Thank you for pointing that out" when their error is demonstrated.
You are basically claiming that if an argument is fallacious, that means the persons belief is fallacious.
Please point out where I have said any such thing. I have argued, and believe, that a person relying upon their own internal perception can be deceived; that's not the same as arguing that they *are*, merely that I have no reason to believe what they tell me about something they can't provide better evidence for.
You have made a positive assertion that you know God does not exist.
Citation, please.
There is no room for logic in this matter, it is now fact based.
Yet the very person whose blog you're posting on believes that evidence-based arguments for the existence of God are inferior to logic-based ones. Go look.
If God exists, God becomes objective because it affects everything from why we are here, what caused all this, what does our creator want from us, etc. If God exists, then hell exists, and lost people like atheists are going there if we (Christians who are saved) do not warn you.
I find it amusing that you go directly from "God" existing to "Our particular version and vision of God is correct." This is something I notice often from apologists.
people like me and Dan have a need to reach out to the lost, we can't stay silent about this.
Then perhaps you should learn to do so by means other than logical fallacies and blatant assertions that people are deceiving themselves, based only on the evidence in your own head.
There is historical, archeological, scientific and testimonial evidence for God (even from hardened atheists who became christian).
There is also plenty of historical, archeological, scientific, and testimonial evidence *against* the existence of the Christian God; most specifically, against the veracity in many parts (and usefulness in many others) of the Bible, which is the single thint that establishes the framework for the Christian God.
We have more than just one thing to prove God exists.
Then cite some of it -- remember, if it comes with a clear alternate non-God interpretation, it's not useful evidence for your side.
If you read evidence and consider it, you can no longer claim there is no evidence.
I have read much claimed evidence; and it is at best insufficient, at worst irrelevant.
However, as I pointed out in my original reply to this post: I am not claiming I can prove God does not exist. I am claiming that the proofs D.A.N. claims for the existence of God are invalid.
We know, for example, that there are true statements in mathematical logic that cannot be proven. God may exist, but D.A.N.'s "proofs" don't show it.
Yours: I have no responsibility to argue "God does not exist" -- I am arguing, and have argued, that "Your arguments for the existence of God fail", which is a different point. Saying "You haven't proven A" is not the same as claiming "I can prove not-A."
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Understood. I see where you are coming from. However, what we as Christians are trying to say is that when we provide evidence (sometimes strong evidence from our prospective) and then you say "thats not valid", it frustrates us. This then leads to a question "what would be valid evidence?" because when we present, lets say, proof of intelligent design, you will say that this is invalid. Why? Because it does not fit the naturalistic view that nothing intelligent can make complexity like DNA, etc? To us, its pretty clear that intelligence created all this complexity, without looking at the Bible to support this. If science truly contradicted the Bible, we (or at least I) would not follow it. Therefore, when you state, there is no God because there is no evidence, this puzzles us because we make sure there's evidence. Remember, Christians who become atheists don't fall away because of lack of evidence, rather because the relationship with God has broken down.
Yours: And someone who wants to argue honestly should be able to admit "I don't know" or "Thank you for pointing that out" when their error is demonstrated.
Answer: You are correct. Dan did mess up when he said you were making a positive statement about "no God." That was also bad that he refused to admit that. You were trying to help him see that it was wrong but, like I do sometimes, I get proud and refuse to admit. So yes, he was wrong and you were right. However, he was very close to being right. It is still true that making the statement "god does not exist" is a claim to knowledge... (Keep reading the next answer for more)
Yours:Please point out where I have said any such thing. I have argued, and believe, that a person relying upon their own internal perception can be deceived; that's not the same as arguing that they *are*, merely that I have no reason to believe what they tell me about something they can't provide better evidence for.
Answer: That's somewhat true. However, making a claim "there is no God" is a claim to knowledge because it is an absolute statement. You did not say, "it is unlikely there is no God", you said "there IS no God". Now the common response Christians often say is "well how do you know that?" or "You can't know all things to say that" which is argument from ignorance because they are indirectly saying "I don't know how to respond to this". I'm sure you agree. That doesn't work for me. So the only logical response would be to say "prove your assertion that you know God does not exist, since this is a claim to knowledge". I hope this is more logical than what Dan provided.
Yours: [You made a positive assertion that you know God does not exist] Citation, please.
Answer: The above answer has answered this question.
>>Dan did mess up when he said you were making a positive statement about "no God."
DeleteWait...what? I made a mistake? NEveR!!!
Look, I am fully willing to admit being wrong. I am trying to read back when exactly I was. Please point to it so I can review it.
BTW, how is "prove your assertion that you know God does not exist, since this is a claim to knowledge" is any different from "how do you know that?"
Now, in other threads, we already talked about his implicitly positive claims and the burden of proof, so you may think "how do you know that?" is all that is there was in the conversations Jake. But you would be wrong. But again, you claim they're different?
Yours: Yet the very person whose blog you're posting on believes that evidence-based arguments for the existence of God are inferior to logic-based ones. Go look.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: I can't speak for Dan, but logic based arguments to me are usually a waist of time. I debated an atheist for 3 months strait, 20 emails equalling 100 pages talking about mythology, logic, evolution, big bang, pascals wager, Bible validity, and more. Even though I shut down most of his arguments, it led to him just being mad at me. It was only a back and forth battle because we were just playing the game "name that fallacy" against each other.
Yours: I find it amusing that you go directly from "God" existing to "Our particular version and vision of God is correct." This is something I notice often from apologists.
Answer: I see where you are coming from. Since it would take much longer than a page to explain why, we just jump to the fact that he exists and then explain our position. However, Christians don't realize that you are saying "wait a minute, I hope you know there are 100's of other God's to choose from. How do I know which one is valid. Because I already believe they are all invalid or at least offer basically the same stuff". Realize, that Christians are atheists to all other religions and we use the same research, logic, reason and historical significance to come to our conclusion.
Yours: Then perhaps you should learn to do so by means other than logical fallacies and blatant assertions that people are deceiving themselves, based only on the evidence in your own head.
Answer: Once again, the evidence is not in my head, its verifiable by testimonies, science, archeology, logic, etc. Its not mystical, its no ideology, its not any of that. Why can't you see this? That is why I make an assumption that you are somehow purposely ignoring valid evidence for whatever reason that may be. I will provide some evidence in a future post and see how you react. I truly want to figure out why it is NOT evidence and what you base this evaluation on.
Yours: There is also plenty of historical, archeological, scientific, and testimonial evidence *against* the existence of the Christian God; most specifically, against the veracity in many parts (and usefulness in many others) of the Bible, which is the single thint that establishes the framework for the Christian God.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: I and most christians are aware of many of these, like "The God delusion by Richard Dawkins, The god who wasn't there (documentary), the case for atheism (documentary), the case against christ (documentary), various evolutionary claims, Christians who became atheists testimonies, philosophical arguments like the problem of evil, etc.) If this were all true, trust me, I would become an atheist right now. The atheist evidence is not true, half true, faulty research, or true but ignores the explanation to it. The point is that this SEEMS to be evidence against the existence of God but this is research that is either pushed by angry atheists, parroted by atheists who don't know what they are saying, biased research that doesn't go deep enough, or an observation of a predicted result of a hard heart (stubbornness or impatience) already addressed in the Bible as a fact of life. I will address this topic in a future post.
Yours: Then cite some of it -- remember, if it comes with a clear alternate non-God interpretation, it's not useful evidence for your side
Answer: Understood.
Yours: I have read much claimed evidence; and it is at best insufficient, at worst irrelevant.
Answer: I don't know what evidence you are talking about, but people like Lee Strobel who use to be an atheist was convinced by the OVERWHELMING evidence in science which brought him to God. I agree there is a lot of weak evidence that Christians parrot as proof, but trust me, there is CONVINCING evidence out there.
Yours: We know, for example, that there are true statements in mathematical logic that cannot be proven. God may exist, but D.A.N.'s "proofs" don't show it.
Answer: Sorry, but I have to agree with you. I was looking for the knock out blow to your argument with some kind of reference to disprove you but it never showed up. You have the right to call that fault out when you see it. But I have an explanation as to why Christians are not prepared for defending what they believe, while atheist often are. Atheists can't prove a negative, and they realize that. So they must point to logic, etc to make a claim. Atheism is (in theory) a logic heavy belief system. On the other hand, Christianity is a faith based belief system that does not rely on evidence to believe. It is assumed to be true (unless a paster chooses to enlighten their congregation with scientific facts that add credence to what they already believe is true. But it doesn't matter because we focus on studying its wisdom). So that's why Christians often assume knowledge, while atheists often assert knowledge. More on this topic later.
Jake,
Delete>>Sorry, but I have to agree with you. I was looking for the knock out blow to your argument with some kind of reference to disprove you but it never showed up.
Wait, you believe we can convince people? If that were the case there would be no Atheists. No, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands. You disagree?
Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. My post, bit.ly/stillevidence, can attest to that point.
First off: Thank you; this is a far more challenging and interesting discussion than the ones I've been having here.
ReplyDeleteAnswer: Understood. I see where you are coming from. However, what we as Christians are trying to say is that when we provide evidence (sometimes strong evidence from our prospective) and then you say "thats not valid", it frustrates us.
I can understand that -- the frustration is mutual, as someone who's spent a lot of time in the evolution vs. intelligent design wars can attest.
his then leads to a question "what would be valid evidence?" because when we present, lets say, proof of intelligent design, you will say that this is invalid.
Well, I've never seen anything approaching "proof" of intelligent design; and that I could quantify; evidence of biological conditions that could not have evolved. However, I've not seen that.
Valid evidence for the existence of God? That's harder, for the same reason that I quibble with absolute certainty -- how do you tell a sufficiently advanced technology from magic? ;) Certainly, a manifestation like the Rapture would be evidence of something sufficiently advanced as to be a God by our definition. Similarly, if we had an ancient text that contained a clear and indisputable description of things the authors could not have known -- like an explanation of the diffraction experiments that collapsed the wave/particle duality -- that would be significant evidence. But they're not there.
Because it does not fit the naturalistic view that nothing intelligent can make complexity like DNA, etc?
I am confused; that's not a "naturalistic" view at all. Humans can make things as complicated as DNA -- the scientific view is simply that it is not *required* to have intelligence to do so, that natural processes can produce massively complex results.
Therefore, when you state, there is no God because there is no evidence, this puzzles us because we make sure there's evidence.
What evidence is there? I can see nothing in, for example, the biological record that cannot be explained with a materialistic cause, and nothing in the geological record.
(con't.d)
It is still true that making the statement "god does not exist" is a claim to knowledge... (Keep reading the next answer for more)
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't dispute that. It's one of the reasons I don't say that. ;)
"prove your assertion that you know God does not exist, since this is a claim to knowledge". I hope this is more logical than what Dan provided.
It makes significantly more sense. Again, it's why I stick to "Your statement is not proof of God" and the like. I do not claim to know that God does not exist. I do, however, claim to know that I do not know that God exists -- a subtle, but not insignificant distinction. Saying "I know I am not certain" is a response to people who, in effect, call me a liar.
It was only a back and forth battle because we were just playing the game "name that fallacy" against each other.
That sounds very familiar. ;) I once spent a solid week of lunches arguing that the traditional three-omni'd god was logically supportable, but that most people tried to include a fourth hidden premise that, once removed, was taken care of. Now, to support that three-omni's god, I had to dismiss the notion of Hell, but it was an interesting exercise.
Christians don't realize that you are saying "wait a minute, I hope you know there are 100's of other God's to choose from. How do I know which one is valid.
How can I say this, then to make it clearer -- perhaps I shall try that formulation.
the evidence is not in my head, its verifiable by testimonies, science, archeology, logic, etc. Its not mystical, its no ideology, its not any of that. Why can't you see this?
Because I have never seen a presentation in science or archaeology that was not a twisting of the facts or a straining for a pre-determined conclusion, and the logical arguments, we've already addressed. Testimonies are by far and away the weakest sort of evidence you've described, especially since, as you point out above, they're counterbalanced by testimonies for so many other things. Testimonies are -- how shall we put this? Necessary but by no means sufficient; a god without testimonies most people would agree does not exist, so it's practically a baseline definition.
I agree there is a lot of weak evidence that Christians parrot as proof, but trust me, there is CONVINCING evidence out there.
ReplyDeleteThen please point me in its direction. Similarly, citations for the following:
"The atheist evidence is not true, half true, faulty research, or true but ignores the explanation to it. " would be nice.
But I have an explanation as to why Christians are not prepared for defending what they believe, while atheist often are. Atheists can't prove a negative, and they realize that. So they must point to logic, etc to make a claim. Atheism is (in theory) a logic heavy belief system. On the other hand, Christianity is a faith based belief system that does not rely on evidence to believe.
This is an interesting, and reasonable, hypothesis. The problem, as always, comes in the demonstration of faith, if one wishes to proselytize.
So that's why Christians often assume knowledge, while atheists often assert knowledge. More on this topic later.
I look forward to it.
YOUR COMMENT: The problem, as always, comes in the demonstration of faith, if one wishes to proselytize.
ReplyDeleteMY RESPONSE: I will first address the confusion atheists have with faith. Faith is not blind acceptance without reason. Faith is suspension of disbelief with expatiation of future evidence. You can be a Christian without evidence, but you can't help others believe on your own belief alone. Same with atheism. You can't be an atheist unless you believe God does not exist. Since it is assumed because you don't have experience with God, you logically become atheist. The concept of faith causes many to fall away because they refuse to search for God. They want God to come to them. However, God wants us to search for him. Since most won't, or will be "too busy" to take time to find God, God predicted that many will fall away (1 Timothy 4:1). God wishes none to parish (2 Peter 3:9) but he cannot force anyone to come to him either.
God even said to be sly as a fox but gentle as a lamb (Matthew 10:16), be ready to defend the faith (2 Peter 2), and shut down all things that come against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). Christians must be prepared with answers to tough questions. Unfortunately, most are not, the questions are very complex (like the problem of evil, why heaven and hell, etc) which most don't adequately know how to answer. This does not mean there is no answer, it just means that the answer is not well thought out. Many people use this as an excuse to not believe in all this because they feel there is no answer to these questions. This is not proof against God, but rather, the fact you need to search for it harder (Jeremiah 29:13). Now when it comes to hard evidence from science, etc, this gets more complicated. Atheism is based on ignorance of the Bible and facts that exist. Many stop at the atheist arguments and listen to them. They already had doubts about the common things, but now they are looking for answers, any answers. Atheists feed on this doubt and build their belief against God from this doubt. They answer the questions with science, history, philosophy and personal testimonies.
Since it is understood and stated by God/Bible that there will be many that fall away for 3 reasons (doubt and discouragement, ignorance, and busyness) (The Parable Of The Sower And The Seed (Matthew 13:1-23). This means it is expected that most will not be Christians and understand its facts regardless of what we do, or will eventually become atheists because of disappointment or worldliness. This includes atheists who claim that there is no God. Some of these atheists are angry ex-christians. The others who are ignorant of facts agree with atheist evidence and parrot it. The other is a person who is smart and looks only at the atheist evidence as their primary source of truth and then filter all truth through the atheistic world view.
This is the reason why there are atheists. They research as if he doesn't exist or exclude the possibility a priori in science, or suppress science that agrees with the counter-evidence to evolution. The few that believe in God by faith will find him little by little by searching as if he existed. This is what true faith is, suspension of disbelief with expectation of future evidence.
I wish there was a "like" button in blogging...This is a great candidate for "Like!"
DeleteJake_Russel
DeleteThe concept of faith causes many to fall away because they refuse to search for God. They want God to come to them. However, God wants us to search for him. Since most won't, or will be "too busy" to take time to find God, God predicted that many will fall away (1 Timothy 4:1). God wishes none to parish (2 Peter 3:9) but he cannot force anyone to come to him either.
Uh, if he didn't want anyone to go to hell, then would you care to explain just why he never sent angels to tell people in the new world about christ when he was first born? Instead they had to wait for centuries for xians to come to them.
By the way, what is all the threats of hell then if not an attempt at coercion, or "forcing"?
Now when it comes to hard evidence from science, etc, this gets more complicated. Atheism is based on ignorance of the Bible and facts that exist. Many stop at the atheist arguments and listen to them.
You need to read up on the stories of Farrel Till and Dan Barker then.
This is the reason why there are atheists. They research as if he doesn't exist or exclude the possibility a priori in science, or suppress science that agrees with the counter-evidence to evolution.
Any evidence to that claim at all? Because I can find lots of evidence that shoots down creo claims.
For that matter, when it comes to suppressing things, you may want to read the statement of faith that ICR, AIG, and other creo groups have. You know...that part about where they say that they will outright reject any evidence that goes against their belief in a young earth and a literal genesis.
imnotandrei, I am moving on to addressing evidence for God. Belief in and of itself is subjective, because everyone must work out their faith (Philippians 2:12) and choose what they ultimately want to believe, so I will skip to evidence.
ReplyDeleteSince evidence is what you need, I will try to enlighten you with what evidence I have discovered in my search for God. Here is an overview of the evidence Christians have that support the existence of God (specifically the Biblical God, since Christians are atheists toward all other gods for very similar reasons atheists are).
This is only a simplified list and does not represent all evidence there is, rather just the strongest evidence:
1: Laws of science prove the existence of God (Of the many beliefs about the ultimate questions of life, only one has been proven).
2: Historical and archeological evidence validates whats in the Bible and there is no evidence (honest evidence) that invalidates whats in it
3: The Bible is the only source in history that has a record of 100% accuracy in foretelling the future.
4: All modern, scientifically proven supernatural occurrences are tide to Christianity.
5: Science taken to the Nth degree (to an exhaustive level with consideration of all available evidence and counter-evidence) it ends with God exists and the Bible is true
6: Logic taken to the Nth degree ends with God exists and the Bible is true (The science of logic says that there is ONLY ONE reality.)
I will try to address these one by one rather than all at once. Give me time to gather my info and condense it so it won't be too long. I really want your comments or refutes so I can improve my argumentation and make my facts as strong as they can be. My efforts are to win souls rather than win arguments.
Jake, are you presenting evidence for the Atheist to judge God's existence?
Delete"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5
"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." ~Matthew 7:6
Eve did the same thing. She listened to what God said, listened to what Satan said, and by using her autonomous reasoning weighed the sides, and decided that God would not kill her, as Satan said.
You see, Atheists are placing themselves in the judges chair, as criminals. They question God, they want to be seated in the Judges chair, like Eve did. That is the problem in itself. God is the Authority, not us. If we are evaluating God to see if He is worthy of our following, then we placing our authority over God’s. Van Til said it this way “If God’s authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God.”
You see they have created a god to suite themselves (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of their god is “self”. They are placing God in the defendant chair and placing themselves in the judges chair. What they don’t realize is that we are the criminals, and God is the Judge. Once they realize that in light of God’s revelations, then we begin to understand Him.
"If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture" (Michael Butler, "A truly Reformed epistemology," in Penpoint Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 [Southern California Center for Christian Studies, May 1997], p. 3).
I know for certain that imnotandrei knows God exists. How? Romans 1:18-23 is how. To say otherwise is calling God a liar. To give any other supposed "evidence" is unbiblical.
OK: Shall I wait until you have assembled more of your data, or shall I start addressing them now?
DeleteOh man, this is nuts.
DeleteOk:
Jake
3: The Bible is the only source in history that has a record of 100% accuracy in foretelling the future.
How to put it delicately? Wrong.
For an examination of the failures of messianic prophecies, have a look around the Resource section of the Jews for Judaism site.
For an atheist instead of Jewish view, you may want to read this.
Jake
4: All modern, scientifically proven supernatural occurrences are tied to Christianity.
Citation needed. The bible after all, can't even properly describe the physical world around us.
ex) the mustard seed/orchid seed problem
Dan
Also, If the Bible were "mistaken", you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical about God in the first place.
More stupidity from Dan. The only thing that is the "precondition for intelligibility" is working brains and curiosity about how things work. Think for a bit: How is it that a provably-wrong work like the bible is the handiwork of a being who is somehow necessary for us to even think in the first place?
This is just a dodge. As is:
I know for certain that imnotandrei knows God exists. How? Romans 1:18-23 is how.
Dan is relying on a book that has provable mistakes about the real world in order to make judgements about what someone else "knows".
As if Dan has known the guy for years, yet the xian can use that single verse to judge anyone who doesn't worship their god even if they've never met that person in their lives. Talk about arrogance.
To say otherwise is calling God a liar.
No. To say otherwise is to say that we don't believe that your god exists in the first place, and that we figure it was just people, not "god" who wrote the bible.
To give any other supposed "evidence" is unbiblical.
And here is the dodge.
I know for certain that imnotandrei knows God exists. How? Romans 1:18-23 is how. To say otherwise is calling God a liar.
ReplyDeleteNo; to say otherwise is to say that the text of the Bible is mistaken. That's not the same thing, by a long shot.
Insert the Michael Butler quote deux
DeleteAlso, If the Bible were "mistaken", you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical about God in the first place.
Insert the Michael Butler quote deux
DeleteAnd if you do not accept Scripture as authority, D.A.N., you've got *nothing*. Which is where I think your arguments are.
And we've been around already about your so-called "preconditions for intelligibility", which are no such thing.
You keep acting as if your particular scripture were somehow privileged over all the other ones; this simply isn't true.
>>You keep acting as if your particular scripture were somehow privileged over all the other ones; this simply isn't true.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely certain of that? If so, how? If not, you have no argument, just opinion.
No; I don't need to be "absolutely certain" to make a statement about how you appear to be acting. If that's not what you mean to convey, then stop acting that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as a side note, your "certainty" does not provide your statements with the nature of fact; even your alleged "absolute certainty." All you have is an opinion on God, not any demonstrable facts.
DAN: Jake, are you presenting evidence for the Atheist to judge God's existence?
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: No, rather, I am giving them an opportunity to not claim ignorance of the evidence. If I claim there is convincing evidence, and the atheists ask "okay, I would like to see it" why shouldn't I try? If he rejects this truth, then I have done my job. Anyone who welcomes evidence I will give to them. Just as Jesus sat and ate with sinners because they asked him to and his followers scorned him for doing it. (Matthew 9:10)
DAN: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5
RESPONSE: Notice the second part says "answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own eyes". A fool is not necessarily someone who is stupid or evil. It can be someone who is misguided or ignorant of facts. Once you present a well rounded argument for your case, if they then return to their foolishness, then you must leave them alone. This atheist is not a fool. He is just asking questions. DAN: "Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you." ~Matthew 7:6
RESPONSE: Evidence is not Holy. This verse refers to giving holy things (like blessing from scripture, anointing oil, and communion) to those who do not want it. DAN: Eve did the same thing. She listened to what God said, listened to what Satan said, and by using her autonomous reasoning weighed the sides, and decided that God would not kill her, as Satan said.
RESPONSE: Adam and Eve were ignorant of the consequences of their decision. Since God said they would "die" if they eat of the tree, death was not an understandable fact to them. I am not saying they didn't have an excuse or didn't know, all I am saying is that if someone has a misconception, they will be swayed to believe it if no one tries to clarify it. This atheist's belief system is based on what he has heard others say. He appears to be open to clarification so there is nothing to be afraid of. DAN: You see, Atheists are placing themselves in the judges chair, as criminals….
RESPONSE: Before we were Christians, we had to evaluate all the info about God and slowly get rid of judgmental thoughts. We made wrong assumptions until truth was slowly gained through prayer and study. No one is perfect. You sound more like a judge of this atheist and what I am trying to accomplish. Who has never doubted the existence of God at least once in their life for valid reasons? Remember, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" (John 8:7)
(continued)
DAN: You see they have created a god to suite themselves (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of their god is “self”.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: Actually, atheists make science their God and judge God's validity based on science. This science does lead to "self" as God since the materialistic view of life is self as the only true intelligence in existence. But once again, what I will prove later on is that ignorance plays a role in doubt. Once someone has a clear view of the truth, then reject it, then they are "wise in their own eyes" and not fit for argumentation of truth.
DAN: "If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority.
RESPONSE: Notice scripture is the "final" authority not the "only" authority. All truth must agree with truth. Truth will never contradict truth. Therefore, any evidence that is called "truth" will agree with and support scripture. You cannot know if the scripture is true unless you test it (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Even Jesus said he knows that if he testifies of himself from himself, that his would be invalid (John 5:31-32) and two or more witnesses is needed to validate anything (John 8:13-18). Evidence through science, logic, reason, archeology, etc. + scripture = conclusive truth.
DAN: I know for certain that imnotandrei knows God exists. How? Romans 1:18-23 is how. To say otherwise is calling God a liar. To give any other supposed "evidence" is unbiblical.
RESPONSE: Evidence is not unbiblical. Anything that brings you to God that agrees with scripture is good. imnotandrei never said he didn't thing God exists, he just wants to be sure like the doubting Thomas of the Bible. If Thomas needed evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, imnotandrei needs evidence that God exists. Thomas saw Jesus and doubted, how much more imnotandrei who cannot see God.
>>Actually, atheists make science their God and judge God's validity based on science.
DeleteWell, they claim it is science, but it's their autonomous reasoning that gets them there so you're off a tad bit. They reason their reasoning is valid about science, Scripture, Christ etc.
>>Therefore, any evidence that is called "truth" will agree with and support scripture.
I completely agree. Amen.
>>You cannot know if the scripture is true unless you test it (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
You can know, because God has revealed it that it is. What you claim supports your position is not what that verse was saying. In context read 1 Thessalonians 5:20
"Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good."
It was a slight quote mine. Scripture was pointing to the prophecies and Deuteronomy 18:20-22
"But the prophet who dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet must die.’ You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a message the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the Lord’s name, and the message does not come true or is not fulfilled, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." ~Deuteronomy 18:20-22
You're wrong to think otherwise. You can test Scripture with Scripture, but not some outside source or your autonomous reasoning, like the quote I provided proclaims. Sola Scriptura
>>Even Jesus said he knows that if he testifies of himself from himself, that his would be invalid
You certain about that claim of being "invalid"?
"I am the One who testifies about Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies about Me" ~John 8:13-18
[to be cont'd]
[cont'd]
DeleteI really don't wish to get into Bible Study but this warrants a focus as to how you read things.
>> and two or more witnesses is needed to validate anything
Like God's nonexistence from many Atheists? Hardly.
Again, not looking to get into a Bible study but here is what we're talking about, in context.
31 “If I testify about Myself, My testimony is not valid. 32 There is Another who testifies about Me, and I know that the testimony He gives about Me is valid. 33 You have sent messengers to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 I don’t receive man’s testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 John was a burning and shining lamp, and for a time you were willing to enjoy his light.
36 “But I have a greater testimony than John’s because of the works that the Father has given Me to accomplish. These very works I am doing testify about Me that the Father has sent Me. 37 The Father who sent Me has Himself testified about Me. You have not heard His voice at any time, and you haven’t seen His form. 38 You don’t have His word living in you, because you don’t believe the One He sent. 39 You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me. 40 And you are not willing to come to Me so that you may have life.
Verse 31-32 you believe that it speaks of people? No, Jesus is talking about God. Verse 33-35 speaks of John, as they knew John speaks truth and was trustworthy. Verse 36-37 speaks of God again. Now, in verse 38-40 speaks of Scripture as they pour over Scripture, the source of truth, to find clues of this "Messiah" when said Messiah is standing right in front of them. They doubted Christ, obviously. You too?
God verifies the testimony of Christ. No need for anything else. You need more?
Evidence through science + logic + reason + archeology, etc.= Scripture = conclusive truth. [FIXED]
>>Evidence is not unbiblical.
Indeed, I do not decry evidence. In fact the presuppositionalist is more of an evidentialist than the evidentialist. We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
I love the fact that people study paper fragments so that I can learn about the history of the Bible, but using paper fragments to give evidence to those who have put God on trial is not the way to go.
>>If Thomas needed evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, imnotandrei needs evidence that God exists.
That is an equivocation fail! You should know that. Thomas didn't doubt Christ or God's existence. He was not an antichrist. (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3)
>>Thomas saw Jesus and doubted, how much more imnotandrei who cannot see God.
Do you believe we can convince people of God?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReynold: For an examination of the failures of messianic prophecies, have a look around the Resource section of the Jews for Judaism site.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: This is a site based on Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah and overlook all the evidence for it (sounds familiar, like what atheists do). There rejection of Jesus is based more on tradition than facts and all Christians know this. If this is the best evidence against the prophecies of the Bible you could find, this is not only invalid but not even proof at all. FAIL!!
Reynold: For an atheist instead of Jewish view, you may want to read this.
RESPONSE: FAIL!! This site is biased toward atheism and parrots old and outdated info. Your source is an appeal to irrelevant authority. I bet you didn't even read this site, you just copied and pasted URL in and expected this to somehow stump me. You can literally type in anything in the internet and it will give you what you want. Type in "proof of pink unicorns" and you will find a site trying to prove it. Guess what, the evidence it holds for its existence is based on the same reasoning your "atheist sites" hold against Christian proofs. (The pink unicorn analogy is a faulty analogy by the way, and represents your faulty reasoning against Christian claims)
For example the author of the article you site references Psalm 22:6-8 "But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. All who see me mock me…."
He then says "Jesus calling himself a worm is the first red flag this throws up…". Wow, this is how you determine if something is wrong by using reasoning like this? This is clearly a figure of speech used in that day since it is followed by a feeling of scorn and being despised. Using figures of speech or illustrative word imagery in some passages, does not discredit the statements intended to be taken as direct or supporting statements of truth. Context and intent is still the key. Hold the entirety of today's scientist's to the skeptic's impossible standard of having never used any figurative language and there would be no one left. (I could talk till I'm "blue in the face," or until the "cows come home," or just keep on being "a pain," but "my money's on them" not finding someone who hasn't "dropped" a few phrases or "salted" their speech with a "pinch" of non-literal expressions. Go figure!)
(Continued)
Reynold: The bible after all, can't even properly describe the physical world around us. ex) the mustard seed/orchid seed problem.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: FAIL!! First of all you don't reference what what passage of Scriptures they are referring to, which means you probably copied this from an atheist web site and didn't do your own research. But I will refute your comment anyway.
Since context becomes exceedingly important, let's examine Matthew 13:31-32 again, still in King James English (KJV), re-supplying (and noting) the statements ommitted by Morris.
A) Matthew 13:31a Another parable put he forth unto them, saying,
B) Matthew 13:31b The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed,
C) Matthew 13:31c which a man took, and sowed in his field:
D) Matthew 13:32a Which indeed is the least of all seeds:
E) Matthew 13:32b but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs,
F) Matthew 13:32c and becometh a tree,
G) Matthew 13:32d so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
A quick listing of facts established within the full context and passage include...
This teaching was a parable. (A)
The seed referenced was cultivated (C) mustard seed (B) known to, and used by, people of the region as a gardening seed (C).
This was the least, or smallest, of the seeds meeting the criteria of point 2. (D)
It grows to become the greatest of the herbs meeting the criteria of point 2. (E)
It is a tree in contrast to all the other herbs (points 2 and 4)
It grows large enough that birds can come and rest on its branches.
Because this teaching was a parable, it is important to understand what a Scriptural parable is.
Parable: A metaphor or simile, usually as a short allegorical narrative, utilizing popular sayings or commonly known circumstances to illustrate a spiritual truth through the use of comparison. Extra-biblical sources, close to the period, also confirm that "small as a mustard seed" was a common saying of the era, again showing that the statement was intended to be understood by the immediate hearers, in context, not to be used as a world-wide all encompassing and absolute statement. It certainly was the the smallest garden seed, or seed that yielded a crop, in that region.
Therefore, Apart from context, virtually any statement can be misconstrued or misused in a fashion unintended by a writer. For example, if you had a transcript of your own words on pretty much any given day, drawing a single arbitrary paragraph out of the pages could be used to have you assenting to, or disagreeing with, something you had no intention of doing. (this is a common tactic by atheists on Christian arguments by the way)
(Continued)
Reylond: No. To say otherwise is to say that we don't believe that your god exists in the first place, and that we figure it was just people, not "god" who wrote the bible.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: FAIL!!! This is wishful thinking by atheists. If men were to invent a God, it is doubtful that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. Man would create a more permissive god, much like the gods of the pagan religions. Also, the bible is the most unique book ever written in history and couldn't possibly from anyone but God:
-The Bible is comprised of 66 separate books, and it was written over a period of at least 1.500 years by more than 40 authors who came from different social and occupational backgrounds and wrote in completely different geographic environments and under different circumstances and composed on three different continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) and in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) but still stays true to its message as if written from one mind.
-It is the most-translated and most-spread book in the world (in 2002, the Bible had been translated into 2287 languages: the complete Bible into 392 languages, the New Testament into 1012 languages and single books of the Bible into 883 languages), with a still increasing tendency.
-Although the Bible was written on perishable material and therefore had to be copied by hand for many centuries until the art of printing had been invented, neither its accuracy nor its existence has suffered.
-An army of rationalists arose who thought up the wildest and most intense attacks against the Bible. But nevertheless, the Bible has been distributed more, read more than any other book.
The Bible has withstood the most malicious onslaughts of its enemies like no other book. For centuries people have tried to burn, ban, and outlaw the Bible.
A long literary stream of books inspired by the Bible testifies to the influence of the Bible on the world literature.
-The whole book is about one central figure – Jesus Christ. Basically, the complete Old Testament points to this Person, be it through metaphors or be it through direct prophecies. The New Testament shows us the fulfillment of these prophecies and the meaning and the consequences of the coming of Christ.
-The Bible is a book that has been relevant in every epoch of world history – whether in times of war or peace, in the Dark Ages or in our modern technological age.
-The Bible not only the most-sold, most-spread, most-translated and most-read, but also the most-hated book in the world.
-The Bible itself tells us how it was written: “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Men “moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). The Greek word for inspired, theopneustos, means “God-breathed.”
-Many indicators for the accuracy of the Bible can be found in the fields of science, such as astronomy, physics, medicine, or biology. You will find many examples to support this statement if you follow this link: Scientific Evidence for the Accuracy of the Bible http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Science_in_the_Bible.htm
-No historic fact in the Bible ever has been shown to be in error. For more information on this claim, please visit the following link: Historical Evidence for the Accuracy of the Bible http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Historical_Evidence.htm
-One of the strongest objective evidences of biblical inspiration is the phenomenon of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible is essentially unique among the religious books of mankind in this respect. – Prophetical Evidence for the Accuracy of the Bible http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Bible_Prophecies.htm
No other book in the world or in history can claim even half of these traits, therefore this is a strong indication that the creator of the universe has made sure this Bible is known throughout the world and history regardless of who does or does not believe it.
Jake
DeleteTo deal with your points in no particular order:
FAIL!! First of all you don't reference what what passage of Scriptures they are referring to, which means you probably copied this from an atheist web site and didn't do your own research. But I will refute your comment anyway.
So then: Since you referred to a xian site, may I say the same of you: That you did not do your own research? Think about it.
It's an old well known story.
-About the dodge of the mustard seed story being a "parable": So what? If the details are still wrong, they are still wrong. "Small as a mustard seed" is NOT the same as the BIBLE verse you QUOTED calling it "the LEAST of ALL seeds". Think about it.
-Although the Bible was written on perishable material and therefore had to be copied by hand for many centuries until the art of printing had been invented, neither its accuracy nor its existence has suffered.
Uh huh. And I assume that the ACTUAL ORIGINAL documents were around for comparison? Think about it.
RESPONSE: FAIL!!! This is wishful thinking by atheists. If men were to invent a God, it is doubtful that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. Man would create a more permissive god, much like the gods of the pagan religions. Also, the bible is the most unique book ever written in history and couldn't possibly from anyone but God:
Oh yeah...like say, the Muslim god??? The "FAIL" is yours.
-The whole book is about one central figure – Jesus Christ. Basically, the complete Old Testament points to this Person, be it through metaphors or be it through direct prophecies. The New Testament shows us the fulfillment of these prophecies and the meaning and the consequences of the coming of Christ.
Uh huh. And the very people who WROTE the OT in the first place are all "rejecting" this christ of yours. Here's a clue: Ad-homs mean nothing. SHOW why they are wrong in their examinations of the so-called "messianic prophecies".
continued
DeleteJake
-The Bible is comprised of 66 separate books, and it was written over a period of at least 1.500 years by more than 40 authors who came from different social and occupational backgrounds and wrote in completely different geographic environments and under different circumstances and composed on three different continents (Asia, Africa and Europe) and in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) but still stays true to its message as if written from one mind.
Ok, what xian site are you getting all these talking points from? Not that it really matters, since it's bull anyway:
No other book in the world or in history can claim even half of these traits, therefore this is a strong indication that the creator of the universe has made sure this Bible is known throughout the world and history regardless of who does or does not believe it.
Oh, so the native north and south americans, plus the australian aborigines also had knowledge of the bible? Remember: You said "throughout the world AND history".
Might want to backtrack a bit.
Well, let's look at some of what you linked to:
Your guy talks about:
-Isaiah 40:22, so does this site which is not an atheist site by the way.
-they both talk about Psalm 19:5-6, Job 26:7, Leviticus 17:11, etc.
Then there's the Vitamin K argument dealing with blood clotting where your guy says among other things:
The only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood-clotting element prothrombin is above 100% is day eight. Therefore, the best day for circumcision is the eighth day! Did Moses have access to modern-day scientific knowledge, or did God tell him to write this?
Actually, god did not "tell" them anything it seems.
continued again
DeleteMay as well have a look at the flood, shall we?
There's a lot of reading there, so see you later. By the way, the guy who wrote that site used to be a young earth creationist until the evidence out in the field forced him to change his mind. He is still a xian however, and not an atheist, just in case you fell like using ad-homs against atheists again:
I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity. During this period I switched sub-disciplines within geophysics and began to interpret seismic data. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems.
By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. Eventually my doubts about the reliability grew so large that I was driven to the edge of becoming an atheist. In this crisis of faith, the views presented in this book were formed. It is the my hope that the views presented in the here on the web page and in my books will help others avoid the type of intellectual and spiritual crisis that I went through.
Morton also has other stories of people whose YECism was shot down by reality.
Think about it: If yecism was so well attested to by the facts of nature around us, why does the ICR, AIG, CMI, etc all have in their "statements of faith" an oath where they promise to never allow any evidence to override what the bible teaches?
This is all old stuff you've shown me. Henry Morris, Grant Jeffry and others have been making the same "points" about the bible and science well before your guy did, Jake.
Easily looked up and easily refuted. I'm not even going to bother with the prophecy stuff, at least not today.
I'm only going to bother with one detail of prophecy: The one in Ezekiel 26 talking about the fall of Tyre.
DeleteIt and the xian rationalizations to justify it are dealt with here.
Starting at the beginning:
Deletecomposed on three different continents (Asia, Africa and Europe)
I will point out that rhetorically speaking, this makes it sound like they were widespread, while, in fact, they occupied a small corner at the intersection of all three continents. While this statement is true, it is exaggerating.
but still stays true to its message as if written from one mind.
There are multiple contradictions and confusions within the Gospel stories alone; this hardly seems like it came from one mind, unless that mind were very confused.
-It is the most-translated and most-spread book in the world
Argument by popularity -- irrelevant.
neither its accuracy nor its existence has suffered.
This is also true of many other texts, which did not have the support of a major religion to keep them copied and distributed. We have other texts from that time.
For centuries people have tried to burn, ban, and outlaw the Bible.
The same has been true of the Torah, Talmud, and many other holy books; again, this is not an argument that distinguishes the Bible.
The whole book is about one central figure – Jesus Christ.
To a major world religion, the bits about Christ are a heretical appendix.
The Bible is a book that has been relevant in every epoch of world history
Quite simply untrue; we have evidence of world history in pre-biblical times; therefore, the Bible was not relevant then.
The Bible itself tells us how it was written:
This is not evidence for its veracity. Any book can claim any inspiration.
Many indicators for the accuracy of the Bible can be found in the fields of science, such as astronomy, physics, medicine, or biology.
There are many examples of errors, as well -- see here for a few:http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible#Biological
It is worth noting that the "indicators" tend to be metaphorical interpretations into which modern science can be made to fit, while the "errors" are concrete and factual. I leave it to the reader to decide which serve better the role of evidence.
A minor note:
http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/html/Christian_Evidence/Bible_Prophecies.htm
The prophecies "fulfilled" by Christ here have only the internal evidence of the text, written by people who were well aware of the prophecies in question. This rather diminishes their value; it's rather akin to drawing bulls-eyes around the shots after they were fired.
As an example of the sort of hermeneutic that I think is causing this division:
DeleteThe website you linked to quotes a bit from Isaiah as proof that the author of the book knew that the world was round; yet "corners of the earth" is to be treated as metaphor.
When you have a text that has multiple different interpretations, it is easy both to dismiss the ones that have proven to be untrue as metaphor, while keeping the ones that might be made to fit what has been discovered through other means as "prophecy" or "knowledge that could not have come save through divine inspiration." The evidential value of such a wide range of "prophecy" is, in effect, zero; if the earth had turned out to be flat and square, the section of Isaiah would have been the metaphor, and the "corners of the earth" the accurate prediction.
It is related to the old Discordian notion of the Law of Fives. It's amazing, when you start looking into it, how many fivefold patterns there are in the world. Then you realize that once you start looking for five-fold patterns, you'll find them. The Law of Fives, properly stated, is this:
"When viewed from the right angle, any phenomenon can be shown to be related to the number 5."
Similarly, with a book so large and, in many places, vague as the Bible (especially when you throw in the vagaries of Biblical Hebrew translation), seek, and ye shall find, when it comes to evidence for or against.
imnotandrei: OK: Shall I wait until you have assembled more of your data, or shall I start addressing them now?
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: Sure, you can if you want. It may take me another day to get it together. I'm taking time from my busy schedule to join in this conversation. At first you will laugh at my claims to evidence and I expect nothing less. However, I will try to present this as best I can with the expectation of extreme criticism from you. But as long as you agree that this is a discussion rather than an argument, I am open to whatever counter-claims you have and I will not take it personally like someone else on this post we know :)
Reynold, I will address these as a courtesy; however, do not forget that you are the one that claims to “want evidence that God exists”. Therefore, it is your responsibility to EDUCATE yourself on the facts of the Bible, history, etc, not mine to defend it.
ReplyDeleteREYNOLD: It's an old well known story. -About the dodge of the mustard seed story being a "parable": So what? If the details are still wrong, they are still wrong. "Small as a mustard seed" is NOT the same as the BIBLE verse you QUOTED calling it "the LEAST of ALL seeds". Think about it.
RESPONSE: Mustard seed was Least of all seeds in the region where jesus was teaching. You are really grasping at straws, focusing on this so much.
Besides you are appealing to irrelevant authority and circular reasoning. You base your refute from your own opinion of what this verse SHOULD have said and assert that its wrong because it doesn't satisfy YOUR criteria. You dismiss an obvious parable based on opinion and bias. Since this verse is very minor, it does not have any effect on disproving my claims about the Bible anyway. If this is the type of stuff you base your atheism on, I feel sorry for you.
REYNOLD: Uh huh. And I assume that the ACTUAL ORIGINAL documents were around for comparison? Think about it.
RESPONSE: The dead sea scrolls prove that the bible we have is accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls comprise a vast collection of Jewish documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and encompassing many subjects and literary styles. They include manuscripts or fragments of every book in the Hebrew Bible except the Book of Esther, all of them created nearly one thousand years earlier than any previously known biblical manuscripts. The scrolls also contain the earliest existing biblical commentary, on the Book of Habakkuk, and many other writings, among them religious works pertaining to Jewish sects of the time. The vast majority of the Dead Sea Scrolls were simply copies of books of the Old Testament from 250-150 B.C. A copy or portion of nearly every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were extra-biblical and apocryphal books found as well, but again, the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls were such an amazing discovery in that the scrolls were in excellent condition and had remained hidden for so long (over 2000 years). The Dead Sea Scrolls can also give us confidence in the reliability of the Old Testament manuscripts since there were minimal differences between the manuscripts that had previously been discovered and those that were found in Qumran. Clearly this is a testament to the way God has preserved His Word down through the centuries, protecting it from extinction and guarding it against significant error.
DeleteI have...that's why I don't believe it. You are the one making the claim of biblical infallibility, which you've backtracked on when you mention . You are therefore the one who has to give evidence.
If you can't do that, tough.
Let's look. In regards to the mustard seed problem you say:
Besides you are appealing to irrelevant authority and circular reasoning. You base your refute from your own opinion of what this verse SHOULD have said and assert that its wrong because it doesn't satisfy YOUR criteria
No circular reasoning. No "irrelevant authority". What are you even yakking about? Plus, I refuted the verse on what it actually SAID, not what it "should have said". The only criteria I used is what the verse actually CLAIMED. That the mustard seed was the least of all seeds.
Deal with it.
RESPONSE: You obviously do no research but on atheist conjecture web sites that don't bother to get the full story. Atheists always ALWAYS jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha". You don't know jewish history so its understandable you are ignorant of the answer to your question.
The only one whose ignorant here is you. I used jewish and even some non-atheist sites (the site that dealt with the supposed scientific accuracy of the bible was NOT an atheist site). Sure, some sites were atheist, but you don't seem to have done enough "research" to see that.
You obviously seem to think that an atheist who uses athiest sites is not doing research, but a xian (like yourself) who uses xian sites IS doing research then?
Screw it.
You've got nothing.
REYNOLD: And the very people who WROTE the OT in the first place are all "rejecting" this christ of yours.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: You obviously do no research but on atheist conjecture web sites that don't bother to get the full story. Atheists always ALWAYS jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha". You don't know jewish history so its understandable you are ignorant of the answer to your question.
Countless Jews have believed in and followed Jesus, both in his own day and throughout history. Thousands of "Yeshua-believing" Jews are living in Israel today and throughout the earth. However, some Jews comb the body of rabbinic tradition for reasons (or justifications) why Jews can't believe in Jesus. As expected, they find what they're looking for. A person always does.
But those who feel comfortably fortified with reasons-for-rejection don't realize that the rabbis—who lived and taught centuries after Jesus—were ignorant of the real story and merely passed on second-hand polemical comments about him and his disciples. Another influence on rabbinic views about Jesus is that the Christianity the medieval rabbis were rejecting was Roman Catholicism, not the Judaic faith of the New Testament.
REYNOLD: [Bible writers from different backgrounds etc.] Ok, what xian site are you getting all these talking points from? Not that it really matters, since it's bull anyway:
RESPONSE: Since you resort to ridicule with this response, there is no need to try. You have expressed a closed mind and your response will likewise be "bull".
REYNOLD: Oh, so the native north and south americans, plus the australian aborigines also had knowledge of the bible? Remember: You said "throughout the world AND history".
RESPONSE: I realize you don't READ anything before trying to refute it to see what it actually said. Read the Bible. Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel" Mark 16:15
Your response is a Genetic fallacy. Since you don't look at anything but atheist web sites and conjecture (and half read them), you are unaware of how evangelized these countries are. The Bible is written in hundreds of languages, missionaries are in all parts of the world, the few reached in the remote parts of the world have been converted and have passed that info to others. Jesus says that the world (every nation, tribe and tongue) must hear the Gospel and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14 The world has heard the Gospel at this point in time, it is only a matter of time until the end comes.
REYNOLD: Might want to backtrack a bit. Well, let's look at some of what you linked to:
RESPONSE: Strawman. I don't necessarily agree with all of his evidence, nor does this represent the strongest argument for what I believe. (Its like me linking to an atheist site and saying "see your atheist site made all these mistakes". Oops, you did do that by linking to www.godlesshaven.com, which I could easily refute all his claims to "debunk")
I WILL REPSOND TO YOUR NEWEST CLAIMS TOMORROW
Jake quoting me:
DeleteREYNOLD: [Bible writers from different backgrounds etc.] Ok, what xian site are you getting all these talking points from? Not that it really matters, since it's bull anyway:
RESPONSE: Since you resort to ridicule with this response, there is no need to try. You have expressed a closed mind and your response will likewise be "bull".
No. It's just that your little speech sounded a lot like what various xian apologetic sites have said. Of course, you like to pretend that I only look at atheist sites (which, besides not even being true for some reason doesn't count as research) while you used a xian site (which I imagine somehow DOES count as "research").
If you need help getting the point: If you dismiss what I say just because I have some atheist sites (did you even read any of what I posted, even Glen Morton's site?) among my sources, I will do the same to you when as a xian, you use only xian sites for your sources.
Then of course since you feel free to toss around allegations of "genetic fallacy", what do you do?
You say shit like this:
RESPONSE: You obviously do no research but on atheist conjecture web sites that don't bother to get the full story. Atheists always ALWAYS jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha". You don't know jewish history so its understandable you are ignorant of the answer to your question.
Nice broad brushing there, mac. Too bad it's wrong. Why? Did you not read about the two people I mentioned before (Farrell Till and Dan Barker), both of whom where preachers before they realized that they couldn't go with religious belief anymore. They did NOT "jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha"" In fact they tried to preserve their faith, but it didn't hold out.
Here's a clue alright? If you're going to make an overgeneralized statement about any group of people you should:
--have the basic intelligence to realize that making such broad statements are wrong headed in the first place
--make sure that examples to the contrary of your statement have not already been posted.
Otherwise, you just look like an idiot. Especially when you keep accusing ME of not doing research while it's you who are apparently not really bothering to really read the sources I give.
Ah. One last thing:
DeleteYNOLD: Oh, so the native north and south americans, plus the australian aborigines also had knowledge of the bible? Remember: You said "throughout the world AND history".
RESPONSE: I realize you don't READ anything before trying to refute it to see what it actually said. Read the Bible. Jesus said "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel" Mark 16:15
I'll just let you ponder the meaning of your own words: "throughout the world AND history".
As a hint: Waiting until Europeans came to North america and other such places to preach is not "throughout history"! Throughout history would have meant that the so-called "good news" of "christ" would have been preached right when it happened.
Impossible for humans of course, but remember: God allegedly sent angels to tell some sheep herders about the birth of christ, why not those in far-away lands?
Remember: You and the bible claim that god didn't want anyone to be lost, correct?
Think: How many people in those lands were "lost" until the missionaries came?
And no: No atheist web site for that, it's just bloody common sense based on your own arguments.
Countless Jews have believed in and followed Jesus, both in his own day and throughout history.
DeleteAnd there's a word for those "Jews" -- heretics and believers in a false Messiah, according to Jewish tradition and judgment.
However, some Jews comb the body of rabbinic tradition for reasons (or justifications) why Jews can't believe in Jesus.
I think you've got your numbers wrong; *most* Jews, by a long shot, believe that Jesus was a false messiah; it's part of what it means to be a practicing Jew. Indeed, one doesn't need to "comb Rabbinic tradition" to find reasons not to believe; it's right out front.
You are familiar with the saying "Between Moishe and Moishe, there was none like Moishe"? ;)
(More responses coming, as I have time; this one leapt out at me.)
I have chosen not to comment on these small and insignificant arguments based on your ignorance you have no intention to correct. If you really want the answer, come up with a question and research both the atheist answer and the Christian answer. I can't hold your hand, neither can I be your personal theology 101 teacher. Since it is assumed the atheist answer is true, why don't you research for an argument that debunks that atheist answer with convincing truth. If you don't you have proven to be a closed minded individual that bases their belief (or non-belief) system on NOT researching for truth. If I even give an inch to you or any atheist by addressing any one of the 1000's of misconceptions you hold, I will be going down a rabbit trail of refutes and rebuttals that will truly never end!
ReplyDeleteAtheists have misconceptions at every level, from science, to logic and just being ignorant of what evidence is out there. Most atheists don't even know enough to form logical arguments against Christians. This is why they often resort to:
Arguing from ignorance ("I lack belief in God, therefore he doesn't exist"),
Begging the question ("Evidence proves existence, No evidence for God, therefore no God")
Appeal to consequences ("If God existed you wouldn’t be able to have as must fun")
Appeal to irrelevant authority ("Stephen Hawking (or another famous intellectual) says that God does not exist, therefore God must not exist") (Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physics, not a philosopher)
Ad hominem ("You may argue that X is wrong but you are a Christian so you have to say that")
Circular reasoning ("There are no immaterial beings in existence because we cannot detect them, therefore there are no immaterial beings") (That is the whole concept of them being immaterial)
Appeal to emotion ("If God exists, why is there suffering and hungry children in africa")
Fallacy of Composition ("Even though X bible quote says Y incorrectly, therefore all of X is incorrect")
Appeal to tradition ("God almost certainly does not exist because science can explain the natural world" ).
Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient condition ("Since the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless, it could not have been designed.
Appeal to common opinion ("Some atheists are non-practicing Christians, who had perhaps some bad experiences at their Church, therefore God doesn't exist.)
Contrary to fact Hypothesis ("Since evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false")
Loaded question ("Why would God create this earth with all of the evidence of Evolution if it is not true?")
Special pleading Fallacy ("Evolutionists are brave enough to say "I don't know", while Christians try to put God in the gaps of science")
(CONTINUED)
I'm sorry, Jake, but what you're saying here is stupid as hell. Nothing but STRAWMEN of atheist views! Let's look over this.
DeleteAtheists have misconceptions at every level, from science, to logic and just being ignorant of what evidence is out there. Most atheists don't even know enough to form logical arguments against Christians. This is why they often resort to:
Arguing from ignorance ("I lack belief in God, therefore he doesn't exist")
Wrong. It's lack of evidence therefore I lack belief in god.
Appeal to consequences ("If God existed you wouldn’t be able to have as must fun")
Citation needed. It's still "lack of evidence" that is the reason.
Appeal to common opinion ("Some atheists are non-practicing Christians, who had perhaps some bad experiences at their Church, therefore God doesn't exist.)
Uh. no. Remember Dan Barker, Farrell Till and what almost happened to Glen Morton? It was evidence (or rather the lack of it) that made them have their crises of faith.
Ad hominem ("You may argue that X is wrong but you are a Christian so you have to say that")
That's what you keep using against atheists in your posts. Remember when you said: Atheists always ALWAYS jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha"?
And that's not the only time you've done that.
And you say that it's atheists who have misconceptions?
I'm starting to think that you are a waste of time. Imnotandrei seems to be doing a good job of putting you in your place so I'll leave you to him for now.
Do you really think any atheist will be satisfied when I defuse any of their arguments? No! They will rationalize away the fact that there argument was even debunked with statements of "its a religious agenda anyway", or most recently "its bull anyway". Dan and other Christians out there, Beware of this slight of hand as they are no longer representing themselves or even properly representing the pseudo worldviews that they attempt to collide into you! They are very comfortably out of the battle, in a safe place, no dog in this fight, but they certainly can play constant critic now from their non-existent position! So don’t go chasing rabbit trails (I'm talking to you Dan)! You need to call them out, right up front! Start with the strongest arguments. When you it the foundation, the building will fall. And atheism is built on a shaky foundation (which I will prove in the next post). And don't say that evolution/atheism is based on FACTS. It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves, they are always interpreted according to a framework. Its not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased.
ReplyDeleteI commend Dan for taking the chance to start a threat about the fact that atheist ignore or deny any evidence that does not support their atheistic position. He has only failed because he has not taken the initiative and fulfilled the burden of proof that logic requires. Saying the bible is true because it says it is, is true but no one will be convinced of this on its own word. It requires evidence to support any claim to knowledge. In the next post I will attempt to do this. Once you present a well rounded proof, the burden of disproof is on the atheist. If they don't take the initiative, or if they fail to disprove your proof (either by ignoring it, ridiculing it, or using faulty arguments against it), they are proof to themselves they are a "fool", deceived, or too incredulous to see proof, and therefore not worth your time.
PROOF #1 WILL BE POSTED LATER ON TODAY, STAY TUNED
I don't know if this is addressed to me, or to Reynold, but there are bits I am going to reply to.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want the answer, come up with a question and research both the atheist answer and the Christian answer.
I've done this; that's how I drew the conclusions regarding the hermeneutic I cited.
Since it is assumed the atheist answer is true, why don't you research for an argument that debunks that atheist answer with convincing truth.
This seems to be rather doing your work for you, doesn't it? If I'd found such an answer, I would be a convinced theist, no?
(Continued; the next section is long.)
Most atheists don't even know enough to form logical arguments against Christians. This is why they often resort to:
DeleteIt's true that many atheists don't. However, for most of your arguments, there is a matching Christian error (which has been my point for many years.) For example:
Arguing from ignorance ("I lack belief in God, therefore he doesn't exist"),
"I don't see how (evolution/abiogenesis/star formation/this complex world) is possible without God, therefore he exists."
Begging the question ("Evidence proves existence, No evidence for God, therefore no God")
"The proof of the existence of God is that without God, you can't prove anything."
Appeal to consequences ("If God existed you wouldn’t be able to have as must fun")
"Without God, there is no objective morality.
Appeal to irrelevant authority ("Stephen Hawking (or another famous intellectual) says that God does not exist, therefore God must not exist") (Stephen Hawking is a theoretical physics, not a philosopher)
"This testimony from (an athlete/a person who made it through a crisis/some celebrity) is evidence that God exists."
Ad hominem ("You may argue that X is wrong but you are a Christian so you have to say that")
Your definition of ad hominem is different than mine. ;) I regularly see "Bad person X was an atheist, therefore atheism is invalid."
Circular reasoning ("There are no immaterial beings in existence because we cannot detect them, therefore there are no immaterial beings") (That is the whole concept of them being immaterial)
See above under "Begging the question."
Appeal to emotion ("If God exists, why is there suffering and hungry children in africa")
"Without God, the world is meaningless, and you find meaning in the world, yes?"
Fallacy of Composition ("Even though X bible quote says Y incorrectly, therefore all of X is incorrect")
Actually, this one doesn't have counterpart, though the number of Christians I've seen who try and treat the Origin of Species as the "Darwinist Holy Book" is impressive. However, the above argument, slightly altered, is *correct*: "Bible quote X says Y incorrectly; therefore the Bible is not inerrant, since it contains error Y." Note that's not the same as saying "All of X is incorrect."
Appeal to tradition ("God almost certainly does not exist because science can explain the natural world"
OK. This one, given religion's major role in suppressing science over the years, is just funny. ;)
). Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient condition ("Since the overwhelming majority of the universe is lifeless, it could not have been designed
Here we get the reverse, usually: "Since God is a sufficient condition for anything, therefore God." without demonstrating the necessity of that condition.
. Appeal to common opinion ("Some atheists are non-practicing Christians, who had perhaps some bad experiences at their Church, therefore God doesn't exist.)
"The Bible is the most popular book in the world, translated in to many languages, and relevant throughout history."
(Continued; boy, this got long.)
DeleteContrary to fact Hypothesis ("Since evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false")
This one I don't have an equivalency for, and would, indeed,argue against if presented to me.
Loaded question ("Why would God create this earth with all of the evidence of Evolution if it is not true?"
How is this question loaded? There's lots of evidence, and it's a valid question to ask.
Special pleading Fallacy ("Evolutionists are brave enough to say "I don't know", while Christians try to put God in the gaps of science")
Again, I fail to see why this is a fallacy; hyperbole ("brave enough" indeed.), but not a fallacy.
All you have shown here is that both sides of this debate are capable of bad reasoning. That's certainly true. It's one of the reasons I argue with both sides.
And atheism is built on a shaky foundation (which I will prove in the next post).
I look forward to reading it.
And don't say that evolution/atheism is based on FACTS. It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves, they are always interpreted according to a framework. Its not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased.
I would tend to lean towards the one that better fits the facts into a coherent whole.
One of the things that I find interesting, though I know this is just my take on it, and not Reynold's, is that I really don't care what other people believe -- so long as they do not expect me to take actions based on their religious beliefs, or expect other people who do not share that religion to do so. It's one of the reasons I argue against Dan; (BTW: does he prefer Dan or D.A.N.?) I believe he has real-world "This is what to do" beliefs that he wants people to follow, based on his "logically proven" religion. I am willing to be convinced one way or another regarding religious structures; but the level of proof that I've been presented are nowhere near high enough to validate prescriptivism.
>>BTW: does he prefer Dan or D.A.N.?
DeleteNo, my first name ain't baby, it's Dan. Mr. Marvin if you're nasty. :7)
My daughter thought up the Debunking Atheists Nation acronym.
>> I believe he has real-world "This is what to do" beliefs that he wants people to follow, based on his "logically proven" religion.
Proof presupposes the absoluteness of truth.
ReplyDeleteDAN: "Don’t despise prophecies, but test all things. Hold on to what is good."
RESPONSE: I agree with you. But prophecies are part of the Bible. In order to know if they are true, you have to test them.
DAN: You're wrong to think otherwise. You can test Scripture with Scripture, but not some outside source or your autonomous reasoning, like the quote I provided proclaims. Sola Scriptura
RESPONSE: I agree that scripture can be used to test scripture because the individual books are separate and written in different times, making it NOT a fallacy to use scripture to interpret scripture. But skeptics are not going to buy that. Besides, outside sources don't make the Bible true but affirm its claim of truth. But you can't know if its true unless its tested with outside sources. If an outside source proved, for example, that Jesus married Mary, or that Biblical figures like King David didn't exist, or that the Bible copied Myths, I would be an atheist and burn my Bible. But since I have done extensive research in these areas and more, I conclude that the Bible is true and all other questions will be answered when searched deeply. I commend you for your raw faith, but I need a little evidence like Thomas, for my faith. DAN: "Even Jesus said he knows that if he testifies of himself from himself, that his would be invalid". DAN: You certain about that claim of being "invalid"? I am very curtain because Jesus said it. Even Jesus recognized an obvious circular reasoning fallacy. BUT he pulls out another premise to make his conclusion of being God valid by saying his father (GOD) is his witness. So the miracles he did, God and John the Baptist (through prophecy) conforming his testimony and Jesus just being so cool (the way he teaches and how he refuted the skeptics, among other things), is conformation of himself saying he is God.
DAN: "and two or more witnesses is needed to validate anything" Like God's nonexistence from many Atheists? Hardly.
RESPONSE: You take what scripture says with tunnel vision. There are some things that must be done differently to get the right result. God will not necessarily appear to them (it has happened by the way, read My decent into death, by howard Storm, a former 30 year atheist who saw God), but the "two witnesses" I see as two valid premises for an argument for his existence. Proof is one premise, and logical (non-fallacious) claims are another.
(CONTINUED)
DAN: God verifies the testimony of Christ. No need for anything else. You need more? Evidence through science + logic + reason + archeology, etc.= Scripture = conclusive truth. [FIXED]
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: Dan I agree with you, its just that when you deal with skeptics, this reasoning won't work at all. This is why you struggled to get your point across with imnotandrei. You are assuming a foundation that God exists and imnotandrei doesn't assume that foundation. So when you start building arguments for God, the atheist will say "wait a minute, I don't believe God exists. Any argument with God in the equation will be ignored". This is when evidence is needed to at least suspend disbelief and use the God foundation to understand the arguments you try to explain. If they believe God is, for example, negligent (a belief of Deism), you can't say "God loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you". You will be hitting a brick wall. Try to give them what they want (to a degree), and try to point them to other resources, testimonies and examples that support this. If they don't listen or remain unconvinced, then you have done your job. Move on to the next atheist and try again.
DAN: We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. I love the fact that people study paper fragments so that I can learn about the history of the Bible, but using paper fragments to give evidence to those who have put God on trial is not the way to go.
RESPONSE: Again, you have to give them what they want. Christians are not afraid to go to an outside source to prove our point. If God is true, God will provide the evidence. But even God will allow some to believe in their delusions because he knows they will never believe (1 Timothy 4:1). We are trying to find those who are open to the possibility of God. Christians are human and may often times offend people with rudeness or faulty reasoning, but its not our job to "win them to Christ" but the holy spirit. It may be when they speak to us or when they encounter conformation of what we were saying years from now. Its up to God and not our arguments for God.
DAN: Thomas didn't doubt Christ or God's existence. He was not an antichrist. (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3) Do you believe we can convince people of God? RESPONSE: Thomas saw Jesus and doubted, how much more imnotandrei who cannot see God. Remember, Jesus showed Thomas his scars and scolded him for having little faith. That was with Jesus standing right in front of him, that he disbelieved in him. Peter and the others lost faith at one point. How much more when we don't have jesus standing in front of us? I had doubts about God several times in my life. I thought that if he existed, he would reveal himself to me in a more tangible way than Just the Bible. But since I WANTED God to exist so badly, I did everything to try to confirm his existence in another way. Testimonies of people seeing jesus (the more intellectual explanations rather than a "Jesus toast" kind of thing) kept my faith at a level where I was just above considering atheism. After researching facts about God from scientists (especially several atheist scientists who changed to Christianity based on their scientific and archeological discoveries) I decided to suspend my disbelief fully and make a strong assumption that God exists. I have yet to this day experienced anything special, and can't admit to "knowing" God "personality" like you may be able to. But I KNOW God exists and any objection that tries to prove otherwise, I will research and debunk it with facts. So that is why I say "evidence + scripture = truth". Truth cannot contradict truth, so if scripture is true, therefore it must be true, otherwise if scripture is a lie, the truth will contradict it. I hope you can now agree with that, Dan.
>>how much more imnotandrei who cannot see God.
DeleteMore then you can imagine. I don't know about you Jake, I really don't and I am not being flip, but it is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.
>>I thought that if he existed, he would reveal himself to me in a more tangible way than Just the Bible.
You wanted God to submit to you, on your terms. Got it.
>>I decided to suspend my disbelief fully and make a strong assumption that God exists. I have yet to this day experienced anything special, and can't admit to "knowing" God "personality" like you may be able to.
God lied, or you rebelled? Romans 1:18-23
Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
>> Truth cannot contradict truth, so if scripture is true, therefore it must be true, otherwise if scripture is a lie, the truth will contradict it.
But to an Atheist, that is impossible.
"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~bit.ly/stillevidence
Let me ask again, because it is important, do you believe we can convince people of God?
imnotandrei: I don't know if this is addressed to me, or to Reynold, but there are bits I am going to reply to. "If you really want the answer, come up with a question and research both the atheist answer and the Christian answer."
ReplyDeleteimnotandrei: I've done this; that's how I drew the conclusions regarding the hermeneutic I cited.
RESPONSE: WELL, HOW IS THAT SO? I SEE THESE ERRORS YOU MENTION FROM RESEARCHING ATHEISTS WEB SITES AND THEY ARE INDEED ERRORS IF YOU TAKE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND ISOLATE THEM (LIKE I MENTIONED IN AN EARLIER POST). DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF ANY TEXT LIKE THIS WILL GIVE YOU WRONG INTERPRETATIONS OF A MESSAGE. A LOT OF THESE ERRORS THEY FIND ARE SIMPLE FIGURES OF SPEECH. HERE ARE WEB SITES THAT HAS ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED KNOWN "ERRORS" FOUND BY SKEPTICS.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX
http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skeptic_contradictions.html
http://usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/merrit01.html
imnotandrei: Since it is assumed the atheist answer is true, why don't you research for an argument that debunks that atheist answer with convincing truth. This seems to be rather doing your work for you, doesn't it? If I'd found such an answer, I would be a convinced theist, no?
RESPONSE: No, if you found an answer that debunked your original idea, it would mean you're not closed minded. Since the burden of proof is on christians WE are doing YOUR homework for you because you are too credulous to your own belief. There are plenty of atheists who know that atheism has its major flaws but choose to be atheists for other personal (emotional) reasons. I would be lying if I said there are no questions the atheists bring up that I cannot answer or have trouble answering. If I based my belief in God on having the PERFECT answer RIGHT NOW, I would be an atheist, no? Faith is to wait patiently in belief until you get the answer. (Similar to what evolutionists do when they run into a flaw in evolution). The better response you should have given me was "well, why don't you do the same and see the atheists arguments against christian claims," but I actually do research what atheists say, believe it or not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I MUCH PREFER DEBATING WITH YOU SINCE YOU TAKE A MUCH MORE CONVERSATIONAL APPROACH RATHER THAN AN ARGUMENTATIVE ONE LIKE REYNOLD. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT ATHEISTS ARE ATHEISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNAWARE OF THE FACTS. I WOULD BE ONE IF WHAT YOU BELIEVED WERE TRUE. ANYONE WILL FIND FACTS THAT FIT THEIR WORLDVIEW IF THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. I SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM HOWEVER. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD AND THE BIBLE AND FOUND NO PLAUSIBLE ASNWER UNTIL YEARS LATER. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER DOES NOT MEAN THEIR ARE NONE. TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR COUNTER-FALLACIES YOU ENCOUNTERED, ONE OR TWO ARE TRUE AND SOME ARE MODIFIED FROM A REAL CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT TO SEEM FALLACIOUS AND SOME YOU ACTUALLY DON'T REALIZE ARE NOT FALLACIES AT ALL. I WILL CLARIFY THEM BELOW.
(MY RESPONSES IN BOLD)
Arguing from ignorance "I don't see how (evolution/abiogenesis/star formation/this complex world) is possible without God, therefore he exists."
SORRY, THIS IS NOT A REAL ARGUMENT (MAYBE FROM A WEAK CHRISTIAN). CHRISTIANS ASSERT THAT (evolution/abiogenesis/star formation/this complex world) IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT CONTAINS IRREFUTABLE AND SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE TRAITS OF DESIGN AND SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS (THIS WILL BE PRESENTED IN FULL IN MY PROOF #1 POST)
Begging the question "The proof of the existence of God is that without God, you can't prove anything."
I NEVER HEARD A CHRISTIAN USE THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE. OOPS, I THINK DAN USED THIS ARGUMENT :)
Replying in bits and pieces, as I go through:
DeleteTHEY ARE INDEED ERRORS IF YOU TAKE THEM OUT OF CONTEXT AND ISOLATE THEM (LIKE I MENTIONED IN AN EARLIER POST)
The problem is that people have different ways of explaining away 'errors' -- or, indeed, defining what are errors; there is no solid way to distinguish between these different approaches. This means that arguing on the basis of Biblical consistency is based on sand, since there are so many different ways of being "consistent", which are inconsistent with each other.
No, if you found an answer that debunked your original idea, it would mean you're not closed minded.
Ah; I'd misunderstood, and thought you were talking about debunking the whole concept, rather than one idea as part of it.
This I understand, as I'd once accepted the view that a 3-omni god was logically impossible; then I figured out a workaround. ;)
Faith is to wait patiently in belief until you get the answer. (Similar to what evolutionists do when they run into a flaw in evolution).
Well, actually, there's a key difference here; faith is waiting patiently, while scientists go out and try to find ways to fix the flaw, or uncover more data to see what it does to the hypothesis. It's a significant difference.
MY MAIN POINT IS THAT ATHEISTS ARE ATHEISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNAWARE OF THE FACTS.
I remain curious to see your facts, then.
I MUCH PREFER DEBATING WITH YOU SINCE YOU TAKE A MUCH MORE CONVERSATIONAL APPROACH RATHER THAN AN ARGUMENTATIVE ONE LIKE REYNOLD.
Perhaps he and I are good cop and bad cop. ;)
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T FOUND A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER DOES NOT MEAN THEIR ARE NONE.
Indeed; but in the presence of a plausible answer for the other side, it makes one side much harder to maintain.
I look forward t your irrefutable traits of design, as I've been arguing that one for many years.
Appeal to consequences "Without God, there is no objective morality.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS NOT A FALLACY UNLESS YOU PROVE THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY AGAINST CHRISTIANS CLAIMS. THE OBJECTIVE MORALITY PREMISE IS AN INFERENCE THAT COMES FROM A WELL ROUNDED CONCEPT OF MORALITY THAT IS UNIVERSAL. ATHEISM HAS NO SYSTEM OF MORALITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TRUE MORALITY IS, THEREFORE IT CAN'T JUDGE WHAT IS OR IS NOT OBJECTIVE. THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY PERFECT PSYCHOLOGY DOCUMENT. ALSO WHEN GROUPS OF PEOPLE SUBMIT TO THE BIBLICAL STANDARDS, THEIR STATISTICS IMPROVE. (CAN'T EXPLAIN HERE, MAYBE IN ANOTHER POST)
Appeal to irrelevant authority "This testimony from (an athlete/a person who made it through a crisis/some celebrity) is evidence that God exists."
THIS I HAVE SEEN THIS A LOT. ITS A WEAK ATTEMPT TO MAKE CHRISTIANITY APPEAL TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU (ATHEISTS) BUT THIS IS THE STRONGEST CONVERSION TECHNIQUE (MINUS THE ATHLETE) THAT IMPACTS PEOPLES DECISION TO BECOME CHRISTIANS. WITHOUT TESTIMONIES, MOST PEOPLE WOULD NEVER INITIALLY COME TO THE FAITH.
Ad hominem Your definition of ad hominem is different than mine. ;) I regularly see "Bad person X was an atheist, therefore atheism is invalid."
I AGREE THAT IS A COMMON FALLACY CHRISTIANS USE, IT CAN BE TURNED AROUND TO SAY "BAD PERSON CLAIMING HE IS A CHRISTIAN KILLED PEOPLE, THEREFORE CHRISTIANITY IS VIOLENT". CRAZY PEOPLE ARE IN ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE VALUES OF THE ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM (SOUNDS LIKE A DISCLAIMER). BUT AN AD HOMINEM ISN'T LIMITED TO INSULTS. IT IS IGNORING EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF A PERSONAL REASON, LIKE RACE, STEREOTYPE, RELIGION OR ECONOMIC STATUS, ETC OF THE ARGUER.
Circular reasoning See above under "Begging the question."
IT SEEMS WHEN I CALL OUT AN ATHEIST ARGUMENT BEING CIRCULAR, THEY CAN NEVER DENY IT. Appeal to emotion "Without God, the world is meaningless, and you find meaning in the world, yes?"
I THINK DAN USED THIS ARGUMENT A LOT. I THINK I AM GUILTY OF USING THIS ONE SOMETIMES. I STILL BELIEVE ITS TRUE THOUGH :)
Fallacy of Composition "Bible quote X says Y incorrectly; therefore the Bible is not inerrant, since it contains error Y." Note that's not the same as saying "All of X is incorrect."
STILL A FALLACY. YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY "CHRISTIANS CLAIM BIBLE IS INERRANT, BIBLE QUOTE X IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN ERROR, ONE ERROR DISQUALIFIES FOR INERRANT STATUS, THEREFORE BIBLE IS ERRANT". BUT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT IN ITS MESSAGE (ORIGINAL MESSAGE STAYED IN TACT THROUGH ALL THESE YEARS OF PASSING DOWN) BUT THERE ARE MINOR ERRORS IN ITS DESCRIPTION BUT NO CONTRADICTIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE TEXTUAL ERRORS HAVE NO EFFECT ON ITS SCIENTIFIC, LOGICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE. (MORE ON THIS LATER)
Appeal to tradition ("God almost certainly does not exist because science can explain the natural world" OK. This one, given religion's major role in suppressing science over the years, is just funny. ;)
THE ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS IN BIOLOGY WERE DISCOVERED BY CREATIONISTS. FOR EXAMPLE LOUIS PASTEUR DISCOVERED DISEASES WERE CAUSED BY GERMS AND SHOWED LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE (BIOGENESIS) LOOK AT THE MOVIE "EXPELLED" BY BEN STEIN, WHO SHOWS EXAMPLES OF HOW ATHEISTS ARE CURRENTLY SUPPRESSING ALL EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DEISGN, AND FIRING ANY SCIENTISTS WHO AGREES WITH IT (EVEN EVOLUTIONISTS WHO DISCOVERER ID IS ACTUALLY PLAUSIBLE) (MORE ON THIS LATER)
THIS IS NOT A FALLACY UNLESS YOU PROVE THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY AGAINST CHRISTIANS CLAIMS
DeleteIncorrect; arguing "God must exist, or there is no objective morality" is an argument from consequences, regardless of the truth or falsity of the consequence.
ATHEISM HAS NO SYSTEM OF MORALITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TRUE MORALITY IS
As an aside, while there are some issues with his presentation, Sam Harris has moved in this direction; as, in a different way, did Immanuel Kant. ;)
ALSO WHEN GROUPS OF PEOPLE SUBMIT TO THE BIBLICAL STANDARDS, THEIR STATISTICS IMPROVE.
You're going to need quite a bit of data here, as almost all the data I've seen has shown the reverse.
We're in agreement on the arguments from authority and ad hominem -- both sides are capable of generating really *stupid* arguments. ;)
Circular reasoning See above under "Begging the question." IT SEEMS WHEN I CALL OUT AN ATHEIST ARGUMENT BEING CIRCULAR, THEY CAN NEVER DENY IT.
Oh, I can deny it, and have; most of the time, the accusation is regarding grounding of reason from a presuppositionalist viewpoint. I was giving the flip side of the argument.
BUT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT IN ITS MESSAGE (ORIGINAL MESSAGE STAYED IN TACT THROUGH ALL THESE YEARS OF PASSING DOWN)
On the contrary -- a large portion of its message was hijacked by a small group of people around 20 C.E., causing them to throw out large portions of the law and start following a messiah who failed to bring hte people of Israel back to the land of Israel.
Or is that not quite what you meant? ;)
THE TEXTUAL ERRORS HAVE NO EFFECT ON ITS SCIENTIFIC, LOGICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
On the contrary -- if you say that bats are birds, your ability to claim later that metaphors represent advanced knowledge of science are badly undercut.
THE ESSENTIAL CONCEPTS IN BIOLOGY WERE DISCOVERED BY CREATIONISTS.
Like DNA? This is a selection error you have here -- for the longest time, non-creationism was actively persecuted, so of *course* any work done in biology done for a long time was done by people who professed belief.
OOK AT THE MOVIE "EXPELLED" BY BEN STEIN, WHO SHOWS EXAMPLES OF HOW ATHEISTS ARE CURRENTLY SUPPRESSING ALL EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DEISGN, AND FIRING ANY SCIENTISTS WHO AGREES WITH IT
I've watched it. It was created by deceptive methods, filled with logical flaws and downright lies, and isn't worth the celluloid it's printed on. I refer you here: http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Confusion of a Necessary with a Sufficient condition "Since God is a sufficient condition for anything, therefore God." without demonstrating the necessity of that condition.
ReplyDeleteNOT A FALLACY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY PROVES THIS IS TRUE. GARY E. SCHWARTZ PH.D, AN ATHEIST WHO CAME UP WITH EXPERIMENTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS IS NOW AN AGNOSTIC AND SAYS GOD MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INHERENT DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE (MORE ON THIS LATER)
Appeal to common opinion "The Bible is the most popular book in the world, translated in to many languages, and relevant throughout history."
YOU ARE RIGHT, THIS IS A FALLACY. BUT IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE HAS TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE ON THIS WORLD. LIKE THE SAYING GOES, EITHER JESUS WAS THE GREATEST CON ARTIST IN HISTORY OR HE IS WHO HE SAID HE WAS. JESUS HAS NOT BEEN CONCLUDED AS A CON ARTIST SO HE MUST BE TRUE (OOPS, A FALLACY, BUT STILL TRUE)
Contrary to fact Hypothesis ("Since evolution can explain why people have religious beliefs, those religious beliefs must be false") This one I don't have an equivalency for, and would, indeed, argue against if presented to me.
HERE'S ONE. "SINCE CHRISTIANITY EXPLAINS WHY PEOPLE HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, THOSE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE FALSE." REMEMBER, CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS TOWARD OTHER RELIGIONS TOO.
Loaded question ("Why would God create this earth with all of the evidence of Evolution if it is not true?" How is this question loaded? There's lots of evidence, and it's a valid question to ask.
AN ATHEIST USED THIS AGAINST ME A YEAR AGO. WELL, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SCIENTIFIC PARTS, ITS LOADED BECAUSE IT ASSUMES GOD MADE EVOLUTION, AND THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE. SINCE THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT OF CREATIONISM IS TO PROOVE EVOLUTION FALSE (LOGICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY), A CHRISTIAN CAN'T ANSWER IT BECAUSE THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PREMISE IS NOT TRUE THEREFORE THE QUESTION CAN'T BE ANSWERED. (MORE ON THIS LATER)
Special pleading Fallacy ("Evolutionists are brave enough to say "I don't know", while Christians try to put God in the gaps of science") Again, I fail to see why this is a fallacy; hyperbole ("brave enough" indeed.), but not a fallacy.
I WAS WAITING TO SEE WHAT YOU WOULD SAY TO THIS. GUESS WHAT? ITS A FALLACY BECAUSE SAYING THAT YOU WILL LEAVE "HOLES" IN YOUR THEORY RATHER THAN EXPLAIN THEM IS A "SCIENCE OF THE GAPS" FALLACY. ITS SPECIAL PLEADING BECAUSE YOU SAY ITS "OKAY" FOR EVOLUTIONISTS TO HAVE NO EXPLANATION BUT ITS WRONG FOR A CREATIONIST IF THEY TRY TO EXPLAIN IT. THAT'S DOUBLE STANDARDS.
I WILL POST THE LONG PROOF #1 SHORTLY UNLESS SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING I FEEL I NEED TO RESPOND TO. OTHERWISE, ALL TRIVIAL OBJECTIONS (THE SMALL ARGUMENTS FULFILL THIS FALLACY) WILL BE IGNORED.
GARY E. SCHWARTZ PH.D, AN ATHEIST WHO CAME UP WITH EXPERIMENTS TO FIND OUT ABOUT THIS IS NOW AN AGNOSTIC AND SAYS GOD MUST EXIST IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INHERENT DESIGN IN THE UNIVERSE (MORE ON THIS LATER)
DeleteI will have to look at his work, before I can venture an opinion.
We agree on the fallacious nature of the appeal to opinion.
With respect to the loaded question: It's not loaded; there *is* an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, and it does have to be explained why it was created that way if, instead, there was a creation. It doesn't require the presumption that evolution is true, only that the evidence exists. (It's akin to the fascinating, but useless, Omphalos hypothesis.)
ITS SPECIAL PLEADING BECAUSE YOU SAY ITS "OKAY" FOR EVOLUTIONISTS TO HAVE NO EXPLANATION BUT ITS WRONG FOR A CREATIONIST IF THEY TRY TO EXPLAIN IT. THAT'S DOUBLE STANDARDS.
See above: the difference is that science is constantly working to fill those holes, rather than writing them off as "something happened we cannot explain except by pointing to God." For one side, holes are an opportunity; for the other, a threat.
DAN: Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: Yes, I am attempting to pass on this knowledge to our atheists friends here. You seem to not want me to do this. Why? I think we are on the same page with the same goal. You are taking the literal "bible thumper" approach to apologetics, applying literal commands of scripture in all arguments, which will work on some but not atheists. It runs them away because you seem closed minded to the fact that convincing info (whether true or not) exists against God, and this info is leading people to atheism with success. You must be as sly as a fox (atheist arguments are very sly and Christian apologetics must barrow from them often) but gentle as a lamb (be convincing and relatable, rather than being "preachy").
DAN: "Truth cannot contradict truth, so if scripture is true, therefore it must be true, otherwise if scripture is a lie, the truth will contradict it."
But to an Atheist, that is impossible. Let me ask again, because it is important, do you believe we can convince people of God?
RESPONSE: Yes and no. First of all, they must be willing to be convinced. Skepticism is normal, incredulity is not. Even Jesus had to do miracles to convince people to listen to him. Even then, after that many fell away for similar reasons the atheists doubt. Unfortunately, I believed God designed it this way in order for only those who truly want to believe will have to believe by faith first, then they will be revealed the truth later. (This is why atheists have a hard time grasping why someone would believe in the Bible despite all the hits against it with skepticism from all religions and belief systems). But back to the original statement: If you are dealing with an incredulous person, no argument will work (this includes Christians who may have a slightly skewed understanding of scripture), however, skeptical people are open to proof but on a limited timeframe.
OKAY I AM LISTING THE FIRST SET OF EVIDENCE. IT WILL BE RATHER LONG BUT PLEASE READ IT. ITS CONDENSED IN A WAY WHERE IT CAN BE RESPONDED TO BY NUMBERS.
>> Unfortunately, I believed God designed it this way in order for only those who truly want to believe will have to believe by faith first, then they will be revealed the truth later.
DeleteYes I agree. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
>>Unfortunately, I believed God designed it this way in order for only those who truly want to believe will have to believe by faith first, then they will be revealed the truth later.
You mean fortunately! God's plan is far and better then yours and mine. You're still battling Scripture: “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2: 14)
To address the question though, no. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, defend it, and expose falsehoods. 'Convincing' is out of my hands.
If we could convince people, like some salesman, then there would be no Atheists, ever. We would put our best salesman on the job. You're wrong to think that you can at all. But, by all means try to do it here. Learn. BUT, if you believe you convinced one, it will not be because of you. Solo Christo
DAN: To address the question though, no. My argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, defend it, and expose falsehoods. 'Convincing' is out of my hands.
DeleteRESPONSE: I agreed with everything you said except this comment. "Convincing" is subjective but it can also be objective if you use what the skeptic sees as convening. As long as he is not asking something unrealistic, you can attempt to convince him with what he feels would be convincing. But remember what Paul said (1 Corinthians 9:22) "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."
You have to adjust to win SOME. Our objective is to win SOME not all. If paul recognized that skilled evangelism will win SOME, then we need to think outside of the "bible thumper" box and be a little more creative without compromising what we believe. Using the Bible to refute facts doesn't work if the other person thinks that same bible is false. Even though the bible is true, you can't argue as if it is, if they don't think so. That's arguing from your own authority. (We Christians believe the Bible is authority, but not atheist, so don't act like it is when you talk to atheists). There are different ways to say the same thing. But Like I said before, if we are true, than truth will confirm this, if we are false, well, you know what that means.
Jake,
DeleteIn a court room who do you give evidence to? The Judge and Jury, right? But you want to give evidence to the criminal, the unbeliever, to judge God. That is unbiblical. God said everyone already know who He is. Is that wrong? What is the purpose of Christ if YOU can do things to get people to Heaven? Evidence presupposes the God of Scripture, you cannot make sense of evidence unless you start with God.
Do you consider yourself Arminian?
Let me ask you this: If Jesus was in the boat and you were drowning. Jesus throws you a life ring. Technically, who saves you? Jesus right. Now, you and a stranger are in the water and Jesus throws two life rings and you place one around the stranger and one around yourself. Who saved the stranger technically? You?
Here is the reality, it is a trick question, you both are dead on the bottom of the lake and the miracle of Christ saves you, not you or your ability to grasp said life ring.
"Salvation is not for a sick man who needs a doctor, but a dead man who needs a miracle." ~Brian Murray.
The HOLY spirit must call the person. You completely contradict Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:3) You can’t convince people to enter into that relationship. That is God’s responsibility.
Your role is to keep pointing people to God, it is God’s role to call them to himself. If God is not calling them, then nothing you do will convince them otherwise. God needs to actually work in the life of the people for them to become Christians. He did it in you, and everyone else who becomes a Christian, and He uses people like you to foster the relationship on His behalf. You're claiming there is no purpose for the Holy Spirit. That it is up to you to "win hearts". That is blasphemy. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)
Now you claim through science, evidence, and reason you can convince people to Christ. But that is completely unbiblical.
What we are to do is best explained in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
As you can see here, we're merely commanded to speak the truth, defend it, and expose falsehoods.
DAN: In a court room who do you give evidence to? The Judge and Jury, right? But you want to give evidence to the criminal, the unbeliever, to judge God.
DeleteRESPONSE: No, in a court room, you present evidence AGAINST the defendant's claims. Atheists are taking Christians to court with evidence against their claims. Would you use the argument that "the evidence is obvious for God, therefore I don't need to provide evidence" in court? You would loose even though you are right. You don't win an argument by presupposing, you win by proving. After that, if they don't believe, they are doubting for personal and dishonest reasons that no one can help them on.
DAN: Evidence presupposes the God of Scripture, you cannot make sense of evidence unless you start with God.
RESPONSE: Evidence does not presuppose God. Otherwise deception, doubt, and misinformation would be impossible. If ALL evidence leads to God, why have atheists found an alternative? To quote Louis Pasteur "A little bit of science averts people from God, a lot of it takes us back to him."
DAN: Let me ask you this: If Jesus was in the boat and you were drowning. Jesus throws you a life ring. Technically, who saves you? Jesus right. Now, you and a stranger are in the water and Jesus throws two life rings and you place one around the stranger and one around yourself. Who saved the stranger technically? You? Here is the reality, it is a trick question, you both are dead on the bottom of the lake and the miracle of Christ saves you, not you or your ability to grasp said life ring. "Salvation is not for a sick man who needs a doctor, but a dead man who needs a miracle." ~Brian Murray.
RESPONSE: Well, look at it this way, if Jesus ware in a boat and throws a life ring, and you are BLIND, you can't see the life ring. Now lets say a friend is next to you in the water, floating with the life ring. He knows that the life ring is in front of the drowning person. It is OUR responsibility to tell them to reach out and grab it. Since they are BLIND, they can't see it. Or our you saying they are wrong when they say they can't SEE the evidence? If so, prove why they SEE evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying what they see is right, all I'm saying is they cannot see unless someone leads them to the truth. Those who are blind must be lead to Jesus. Jesus uses anything, including science to lead people to himself. It all depends if they want to see or not.
(CONTINUED)
DAN: The HOLY spirit must call the person. You completely contradict Scripture (1 Corinthians 12:3) You can’t convince people to enter into that relationship. That is God’s responsibility.
DeleteRESPONSE: The holy spirit comes after a conviction and a profession of faith. Without convincing (either it be science, a testimony, a miracle, or an epiphany) it gives the holy spirit little to work with. Remember the parable of the sower? Seed fell on stony ground which shriveled up from the sun. So will the belief of a person who has not been "grounded" in truth and has answers to the hard questions. (A person quickly falls away when an atheists gets to them and says something like "the bible is full of errors and science has proven life came by chance so God doesn't exist). How do you think a new believer who knows nothing about intelligent design, the flaws of evolution and the big bang, and is presented the other evidence and then told that Christians have a religious agenda to support their claims and should not be trusted? They become atheists like some of these people on this post, locked into a worldview that presupposes "no God" making any intellectual arguments FOR God very difficult because they filled themselves with everything that this wrong worldview has taught them. Remember, it is easier to learn truth than to unlearn error.
I ask you this question: Why did you start a threat about atheists claiming no evidence for God, but refuse to show evidence? You are helping them refute you. You are also proving to be closed-minded (even though you are closed-minded on something true). Remember, if we are true, there is nothing to worry about.
DAN: Your role is to keep pointing people to God, it is God’s role to call them to himself. If God is not calling them, then nothing you do will convince them otherwise. God needs to actually work in the life of the people for them to become Christians. He did it in you, and everyone else who becomes a Christian, and He uses people like you to foster the relationship on His behalf. You're claiming there is no purpose for the Holy Spirit. That it is up to you to "win hearts". That is blasphemy. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)
RESPONSE: I am pointing them to God, through science. By saying "if god is not calling them…" you are speaking for God. Did God say, "I am not calling him, don't talk to him"? I am presenting the reasons why I believe. Its a testimony. I'm sure you aren't against expressing a testimony to why I believe? The holy spirit works AFTER conviction. You can lead someone to God, but the holy spirit keeps them there. You remind me when Peter stopped someone from doing miracles because they were not with him and Jesus. Jesus had to tell peter, ""Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, or whoever is not against us is for us." Mark 9:39-40
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDAN: Now you claim through science, evidence, and reason you can convince people to Christ. But that is completely unbiblical. What we are to do is best explained in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 "The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." As you can see here, we're merely commanded to speak the truth, defend it, and expose falsehoods.
DeleteRESPONSE: How do you think we "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God"? It certainly can't be from scripture alone. You can't say to an atheist "The Bible is true and you are wrong because the Bible said so." If you believe this, you need to give up apologetics against atheists. You probably need to evangelize to people who already believe but need a bible study.
Dan, you mean well, but you refute yourself when you say atheists can't find evidence, yet you don't provide it. You should be supporting me rather than fighting me. All atheists support each other with the facts they have, its sad that Christians often tear down each other and can't agree enough to challenge atheists stronger. I am essentially on my own with this. I was hoping you would either be silent or back me up. Its quite embarrassing. I am on another forum discussing the weaknesses of atheist arguments and they have a better understanding than you on how important it is to challenge atheists head on with logic and science. I hope you reconsider your approach in dealing with atheists.
(imnotandrei, I will present the strong evidence against your arguments either this afternoon or tomorrow. I have to make sure its backed up with unbiased references to make it irrefutable. Stay Tuned)
Jake,
Delete>>Dan, you mean well, but you refute yourself when you say atheists can't find evidence, yet you don't provide it.
It has been rightfully said that an Atheist cannot find God the same way a criminal cannot find a police officer. "I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."
It is not you, it is ALL Him. Now you may believe we're arguing but I feel we are finally communicating. We both understand you follow Arminianism even though you may not reveal that here, as I see you didn't directly answer that question. That is fine. Truth is revealed, I am satisfied. I do not wish to ever stop you, even if you claim I am trying. Same with the Atheists. God gave us free will after all. I will not allow things to continue unwarned and unprayed for. That much I can promise. I am an advocate of your freedoms. Freedoms God gave you to even blaspheme Him.
I tell you what, convince one of these Atheists, since you claim you can, and I will change my views on this subject. You say evidence is needed after all. So produce said evidence here. I may even start a new post just for you. You game? We have hundreds of Atheists proclaiming they want the evidence, you ready to provide and convince them? Let me know when you're ready Jake the Arminian, and I will start a new thread just for you. You produce one Christian out of that experiment I will take it as a message from God that I am wrong. I will repent. It goes both ways though. If what you say does not come to fruition I would hope you repent also. Just let me know when you're ready.
DAN: It has been rightfully said that an Atheist cannot find God the same way a criminal cannot find a police officer.
DeleteRESPONSE: I have used this before and got torn up by an atheist. This is not a good analogy. A criminal can steal something and a policeman will FIND him quickly. God on the other hand will not come to you in the same way. I am not saying that God does not come, but its in a different, more spiritual and subtle way. If God comes like a policeman on a criminal, has God come to you this way?
DAN: Now you may believe we're arguing but I feel we are finally communicating.
RESPONSE: You sure sound like you're arguing to me. Like I said before, you are not on my side. We have nothing in common except we worship the same God (I think) and agree that the bible is true. We part ways from there.
You seem to engage in a rhetoric of hate. At least, that’s how many on the outside view it. “Yes, God is love,” they might want to agree, “but then you Christians don’t appear very godlike.” Why do so many think that Christians preach hate? Is it that we shout so loudly and incessantly about what’s wrong with the world that we drown out the still, small voice that tells how Christ has made the world right with God? Jesus said that people will know we are his disciples when they see our love for one another (cf. John 13:35). Why do you think atheists are increasing more and more in society? Its because of people like you who judge, bible thump their way through everything, call doubt and skepticism "evil", and try to force people to conform to laws. You are a legalist in every sense of the word.
DAN: We both understand you follow Arminianism even though you may not reveal that here, as I see you didn't directly answer that question.
RESPONSE: Making accusations against someone you don't know is quite rude. I am a Christ follower not a denomination. Shouldn't that be all that's important? Christians wonder why atheists think they are stupid because of people like you who make Christianity unpleasant. If you say you are a Christian, I don't see anything "Christ-like" about you.
(CONTINUED)
DAN: I will not allow things to continue unwarned and unprayed for. That much I can promise. I am an advocate of your freedoms. Freedoms God gave you to even blaspheme Him.
DeleteRESPONSE: Wow, you are so very closed minded, more so than I thought before you responded with all this nonsense. Now I know why people become atheists, its because of people like you. I don't even know why I am responding to you.
DAN: You produce one Christian out of that experiment I will take it as a message from God that I am wrong. I will repent. It goes both ways though. If what you say does not come to fruition I would hope you repent also. Just let me know when you're ready.
RESPONSE: Now you are putting God to the test. I never claimed I was making a Christian out of this atheist. I am only fulfilling my burden of proof. Its a conversation, not a battle or a conversion war. This atheist has no intentions of converting me, and I have never stated I wanted him to be a Christian after this. I am just presenting facts of why I believe what I believe. If he doesn't agree after we finish all this, we part ways on neutral terms. No obligations or expectations. He can do whatever he wants with the info I present. At least I will gain more insight as to why an atheist is an atheist rather than make wrong assumptions like you that they are somehow evil, possessed or "Christian haters".
DAN: How are you certain that science is right about what you claim? Could they be wrong? If not, why not? Now, I am not here to counter all of your points here Jake, but I wish to get you to merely think of what you're doing. I wanted to take your very first "proof", proof that presupposes the absoluteness of truth BTW, and show where you may be getting things wrong. Out of love, not hate.
RESPONSE: Are you refuting me as if I am an atheist now? I'm not even going to respond to this. For now on, if you don't either support my cause or say something at least half-intelligent, I will ignore your comments for now on.
I hope you know the Devil can use other misguided Christians to destroy another Christian's works. You need to check yourself.
Jake,
Delete>>Now you are putting God to the test.
Ouch, you're right. I retract that one. Touché I was open to being wrong, I just do not understand how you got to where you are, in light of Scripture. My concern is for you, that is all.
>>He can do whatever he wants with the info I present.
That is not what you claimed though. You claimed you can convert people and THAT I do have a problem with, as it is unbiblical and I rebuked you for it. You're now changing your position, for that I am grateful...to God of course.
>>At least I will gain more insight as to why an atheist is an atheist rather than make wrong assumptions like you that they are somehow evil, possessed or "Christian haters".
They are evil, we all are if we're without Christ. Are you claiming you even as "good"? (Romans 3:4,10) If you are, it is certainly an alien righteousness, and not your own.
Well, also they're antichrists. (1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3) You can only deny that truth if you wish. I never said they all hated Christians though. So, that would be a strawman, although I understood your point.
>>I'm not even going to respond to this. For now on, if you don't either support my cause or say something at least half-intelligent, I will ignore your comments for now on.
I love you, but love is not coddling. Perfect love is a constant confronter because it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation as you are trying to do with your "I will ignore your comments for now on" business.
Why ignore? If I am wrong, a false convert, or even an non-believer, why stop?
2 Timothy 4:2 makes things abundantly clear, unless you're confused as to what rebuke means.
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" ~Matthew 22:39
But what does this truly mean? Does that mean we are to love them no matter what they do, because we are sinners also? Do we coddle them in their sins and misdirections of Scripture, tell them God loves them no matter what? Nope, Jesus was clear when he said this. He was telling us what the standard was. He was pointing to the OT. The way to show your love to your neighbor is to warn them, even Christians who are sinning and/or misinterpreting Scripture.
"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." ~Leviticus 19:17-18 (emphasis added)
You're confusing hate/animosity with love here, and that is quite disturbing. I have no clue if you have children but we correct out of love, not hate. We guide. Hebrews 12 makes that point clear.
I find it completely ironic that you say I do it wrong, and correct me and I welcome and inquire more about that rebuke, and when I comment back to you, I am to be ignored and the Devil is using me as a "misguided Christian." No need to "check yourself" because it is quite blatant.
Look, I fully understand that truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth, and yes that includes me. This is a very serious and real subject for me. If I didn't love you enough to tell you the truth, then I wouldn't. Truth hurts, I understand.
You can stay silent if you wish, but that too is unbiblical. You want those verses too? :7)
PROOF #1: SCIENCE: Laws of science as to how the physical universe operates combined with direct observations as to how nature operates prove that the physical universe had to have a beginning that was caused by a creator/designer who is a nonphysical, powerful, intelligent, eternal being.
ReplyDelete1. THERMODYNAMICS PROVES A CREATOR: The law of thermodynamics says "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." That is, within a "closed system", no new energy can be added. And the universe as a whole can be considered to be a closed system because energy haas never been observed to enter it or leave it only to be transformed within it.
Now we live in a universe that has constant physical motion going on in it…. from the largest stars (explosions and drifts) down to how the atomic level is perceived (constant whirring of electrons at extremely high speeds). And just like it takes gas to run a car, and food to run bodies and electricity to run machines, it takes energy to keep up all visible and invisible motion in the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that once the energy has been used, it, like gasoline with cars, is no longer available to be used as energy. Logic then tells us that if there is only a finite supply of energy in a closed system, and there is no cosmic equivalent of a gas station, at some point it will all be used up. This means that the physical universe can't have a past that stretches back to infinity. Because no matter how slow the rate of energy used, over the stretch of infinity, a finite amount of energy would have been used up by now, because no new energy is being added in.
If the physical universe couldn't have been created by something physical, then the conclusion is obvious: the physical universe had to be started by something nonphysical. Therefore, any scientific inquiry into the origin of the universe must only look for a nonphysical answer and abandon all attempts to determine the origin using physical explanations. The first law of thermodynamics says that physicality can't create itself.
(Continued 1 of 5)
This is an old one. The Big Bang singularity can, and did, produce enough energy to keep the Universe going -- there's a reason the two end-state models for the universe are a gravitational collapse -- producing the energy for the next iteration -- or the heat death of the universe, which is exactly what the model predicts.
DeleteWe run into the same issue with a Creator as we do with either a repeating or ex nihilo universe -- "But where did that come from?" The answers are increasingly sophisticated on both sides, but one of them provides testable hypotheses -- that we should be able to detect background radiation at a certain level, for example -- while the other does not. And the testable hypotheses? Have tested positive, as far as I know.
Jake,
Delete>>PROOF #1: SCIENCE: Laws of science as to how the physical universe operates combined with direct observations as to how nature operates prove that the physical universe had to have a beginning that was caused by a creator/designer who is a nonphysical, powerful, intelligent, eternal being.
Science get's many things wrong, almost religiously, though. I am floored that you go to science as PROOF #1 instead of God's revelation. Are you so certain you know what you're doing?
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." ~bit.ly/3gUcsN
The process is flawed in many ways. It is like you're ignoring what scientists themselves have said are the problems of the peer review process.
How are you certain that science is right about what you claim? Could they be wrong? If not, why not?
Now, I am not here to counter all of your points here Jake, but I wish to get you to merely think of what you're doing. I wanted to take your very first "proof", proof that presupposes the absoluteness of truth BTW, and show where you may be getting things wrong. Out of love, not hate.
You could be wrong, right? If not, why not?
2. INTELLIGENT CAUSER (7 PROOFS):
ReplyDelete1. Proof: How do unattached, unintelligent things in nature become coordinated and interdependent, either within a species or between different species? In many symbiotic relationships in nature, why wasn't independence preferred? Since unintelligent things don't have the ability to create or design relationships with other unintelligent things nor can they create a compelling for them to participate, there must be an outside intelligence to design to bring into existence these interdependent relationships and the specific compatibility between the things involved. This intelligence had to know the designs of both parties in a symbiotic relationship and what would be attractive and beneficial to each other.
2. Proof: The fossil record says that the basic forms (phyla) of physical beings came into existence all within a relatively short time span (in the cambrian explosion) and that there are no transitional forms of one kind of animal to another in the fossil record. Also, it is illogical to think evolution happened when the "evolved" forms and the inferior forms co-existed in the same time periods while no transitional forms did. That isn't science since logic would say to abandon this theory until some proof comes along. While there have been variations in this kinds (micro evolution) there have been no changes from one kind to another (macro evolution).
3. Proof: Microbiology machines, many new parts had to come into being at the same time and coordinate themselves into very complex, unified machines in order for the machines to even function at all and survive. Random processes could not have caused these things to come into existence, especially on such a massive uniform scale and with such intricate, coordinated activity. (More on this later if chosen to debate on it).
4. Proof: There is so much programming of information behind the running of things in nature that couldn't have come into being on its own. For example, how do amino acids perfectly line up in such a very specific and complex long chain to make proteins, which odds say couldn't just happen randomly and continuously? Where does the design come from and where does the motive force that propels this "running" come from? Back to proof 1, how can unattached, unintelligent things in nature arrive at the point of working in such a coordinated way if those things don't have the intelligence to design and bring about that coordinated functioning, or the intelligence to envision a plan that would create mutual benefit, even for their survival, for unconnected things? (I can give examples of symbiotic relationships as proof if chosen to debate on it).
(Continued 2 of 5)
2.1: This is in effect, an argument from ignorance. There have been many explanations for how symbiotic mechanisms can work -- and massive amounts of time for them to develop. Barber fish don't need to create a symbiotic need for their services; they have it right there in front of them; they grew into a niche.
Delete2.2: and that there are no transitional forms of one kind of animal to another in the fossil record.
I am going to presume you are referring to Cambrian forms, since in more recent biological history, this statement is simply nonsense. I can refer you to the classics: the descent of the horse, for example. The smooth development we see of the carnosaurs. Tiktaalik. Every time a new transitional form is discovered, the definition is narrowed, to exclude the forms already found.
2.3: Again, this is a long-disproven observation; computer simulations have shown that remarkably complex forms can evolve stunningly quickly, and we have Lenski's work at MSU to show just one small example: (E. Coli developing the ability to metabolize a new food source) in a minsicule sample in a timespan so short, on an evolutionary scale, that an eyeblink would be an aeon. ;)
2.4 I refer you to the Miller-Urey experiments, at which the building blocks of our current biology were developed in a single jar in a laboratory over a short period of time; things don't need to be intelligent to form amino acids, and things don't need to be intelligent to evolve to metabolize citrate. There does not need to be a design, or a motive force beyond "survive and reproduce."
We can go into more detail if you'd like, but I believe we'd end up just throwing web links at one another.
5. Proof: The cell has so much programming of information that goes into even just a single cell that it has be calculated by a well known scientist, "that there is enough info capacity to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it three or four times over," Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watch maker. If an encyclopedia logically can't come by chance and without intelligence of Some kind, why would you believe life could have come without some kind of specified complexity from intelligence, design, and intent. (The theory, all code comes from a mind, can be used to further reiterate this fact if chosen to debate on it)
ReplyDelete6. Proof: Life fits the design criterion using specified complexity. specified complexity means high information content. Even the leading evolutionary origin-of-life researcher, Leslie Orgel, confirmed this. "Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity: mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. (From "origins of life" by L. Orgel). The difference between a crystal and DNA is like the difference between a book containing nothing but ABCD repeated and the book of shakespeare. This doesn't stop many evolutionists (ignorant of Orgel's distinction) claiming that crystals prove that specified complexity can arise naturally, they merely prove that order can arise naturally, which no creationists contests.
7. Proof: The origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an insolvable problem for evolution, and thus evidence of a creator. The chemical hurdles that non-living matter must overcome to form life are insurmountable. (More on this later if chosen to debate on it).
(Continued 3 of 5)
6. I refer you to Orgel's second rule. ;) More specifically, no one is arguing that design produces specified complexity. However, that is not the same as asserting that only design can produce specified complexity.
Delete(It is also worth noting that Dembski's use of "specified complexity" is not the same as Orgel's -- so citing Orgel to support Dembski is inaccurate.)
Crystals don't prove that SC can arise naturally -- Miller & Urey's experiments, among others, prove that the building blocks of it certainly can.
2.7 This is an argument from ignorance and by popularity. Many scientists may believe it; many do not. There is also the question of "insoluble" as in "we can't show how it happened in our case" vs. "insoluble" as in "We don't see how it could happen." I refer you back to Orgel's Second Rule. ;)
8. Proof: Order in the universe seems to be the rule and not the exception. Some of the orders have been termed by Tyler Volk, Ph.D., "metapatterns", these replicate themselves at every level in the universe. they are universal. One of the most ubiquitous metapatterns in nature, a pattern that follows the "Golden ratio" called phi, is the universal spiral shape that appears in the trails made by subatomic particles, in the double helix molecules, DNA, in seashells , in the movement pattern of the heart, in tornados, in galaxies. The balance of forces necessary to sustain the universe and the ultimately sustain biological life is too precarious and precise to have come into existence simply by chance alone. The evidence and the reasoning for this position are provided in a number of recent books, such as the "Anthropic principle".
ReplyDelete7. Proof: The existence of creating chance does not exist in the universe. Never, and I emphasize the word NEVER. The prerequisite for random sampling is independent of events. If events are not independent, random distribution of events are never observed. Again NEVER. Organization can create organization, however, randomization does not in and of itself create organization. So-called artificial life programs require intelligence to program them and intelligent operating system to carry out the instructions. Interconnection, like order, is the rule and not the exception, in nature. When we accept this fact, there is no longer a justifiable reason to expect that given enough time, chance alone could create something as "simple" as one single cell. In fact, the combination of evidence and logic leads to the paradigm-shift conclusion that there is no such thing as pure randomness in the universe. (More on this later if chosen to debate on it)
(Continued 4 of 5)
8. One would expect natural law working out over many different scales to produce similar results, wouldn't one? This is not evidence for design, but evidence for consistency.
DeleteYou must also realize that the probability of natural law creating a universe such that we could exist in it, when we do exist, is equal to 1. We have no idea what else might have happened -- but there is no way a universe that was inhospitable to life could have generated any. This is the flip side of the anthropic principle.
7. randomization does not in and of itself create organization. I refer you once again to Miller & Urey. One lab, one short time period.
Randomness and natural law together can produce astounding results; most people don't realize the scales at which the two forces can work. No one is talking about the wind blowing through a junkyard and creating a 747; that's not how this works. But the slow and relentless ratcheting of gains, over billions of years? That's a different matter altogether.
Never, and I emphasize the word NEVER.
To borrow a phrase from one of Dan's heroes: "How do you know?" We exist in one solar system out of perhaps a hundred million in this galaxy alone, and we as people who can write down our observations for 10,000 years out of hundreds of millions in the history of the earth. To say "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't exist" is an error of enormous scale. Random initial conditions, combined with natural law, have been shown in simulation to be able to create solar systems; random initial conditions, combined with natural law, have been shown to be able to create proteins.
It's not just dice being thrown, independently, over and over and over again; there are mechanisms to preserve results, and *that* is what makes the explanation of evolution so powerful.
3. ARGUING FROM BEST EXPLANATION FOR REALITY:
ReplyDeleteLack of explanation from an atheistic view of life:
The problem with a worldview can be that you can't see THE truth if you have to view it through the lens of a worldview that is carrying untruths. A person like an atheist attaches to a worldview because it is easer to just accept a pre-existing worldview rather than it is to have critically analyze and investigate each truth. But another motivation from latching onto a worldview is to avoid disagreement with those who a person is around. Why do you think atheism fights the evidence that Christians present so strongly if they felt it was not important or was "false". (More on this later). For example, Biogenesis is the basic axiom of biology. Biogenesis means that life only arises from life. It does not come from non-living matter. The evolutionists response to this is, "Well, you must assume by faith that, contrary to proven laws of biology, somehow it still occurred." This sounds more of a religion than Christianity, because Christians do have faith which does not require evidence, but our faith is confirmed by actual evidence rather than BLIND faith. Therefore, Christians have the best explanation for reality. (More on this later)
Therefore, the universe presents design at all levels. Any science that objects to this has yet to validly confirm that life is not designed or did not come from non-life. If it does, it would have to abandon a materialistic explanation in order to do so. It simply cannot, because it violates all laws of nature, logic, science, and mathematics.
SO the arguments for an intelligent designer goes:
Since the laws of thermodynamics proves that energy must be added from outside its system to "jumpstart" the universe,
If the physical universe had to start from something non-physical,
therefore something very powerful started the universe.
If something very powerful started the universe caused complexity,
and complexity is in everything,
therefore the cause of the universe is very complex.
If the cause of the universe is complex,
and all things complex come from a mind,
therefore the universe was designed by a mind.
If a mind designed the universe,
and there must be intelligence involved in all of creation,
therefore, there most be an intelligent designer.
THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLE IS TRUE
Why do you think atheism fights the evidence that Christians present so strongly if they felt it was not important or was "false".
DeleteBecause that evidence and faulty reasoning can lead to beliefs that often produce harmful effects?
Biogenesis is the basic axiom of biology.
Tell that to life-origin researchers. For that matter, tell it to virologists, who often engage in an enthusiastic debate about whether their subjects are actually "alive".
contrary to proven laws of biology
Citation, please, for these "laws of biology."
Therefore, Christians have the best explanation for reality.
I'm not even going to get into the "which religion has the best explanation", because that is not an argument I am entirely qualified for. I will leave it at "I have yet to see any reason why the Christian explanation is any better than the Jewish one."
Therefore, the universe presents design at all levels.
As you will see above, I disagree strenuously with this claim.
It simply cannot, because it violates all laws of nature, logic, science, and mathematics.
And this is simply nonsense. There are several different abiogenetic hypotheses out there -- it is a matter of which *one* is correct that is in heated dispute. No one can point to the exact mechanism with certainty; but this is not for a lack of possible mechanisms. ;)
Since the laws of thermodynamics proves that energy must be added from outside its system to "jumpstart" the universe,
If the physical universe had to start from something non-physical,
therefore something very powerful started the universe.
False premise, false premise, no reason to reach conclusion.
If something very powerful started the universe caused complexity,
and complexity is in everything,
therefore the cause of the universe is very complex.
Unproven premise, false premise, conclusion that does not follow -- indeed, many theologians would quibble with your notion, arguing that God's nature is not complex at all, since that smacks of polytheism. ;)
If the cause of the universe is complex,
and all things complex come from a mind,
therefore the universe was designed by a mind.
This syllogism begs the question of "All things complex come from a mind -- therefore where did this complex mind come from?" as noted above. Another one we've been around on many, many times.
If a mind designed the universe,
and there must be intelligence involved in all of creation,
therefore, there most be an intelligent designer.
If the premises were true, I'd grant the conclusion, but I don't think the premises are.
THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLE IS TRUE
And *this* is an enormous leap utterly unsupported by any of the evidence you've presented. Nothing you've said here disclaims either, say, the "pocket universe" hypothesis, in which our universe is a science project in some vastly powerful hyperintelligent alien science fair ;), or that we had a Watchmaker God who set up initial conditions favorable to life, and let it run.
imnotandrei, I read your comments and I thank you for responding in a professional and non-agrressive way that I used to experience. Due to the complexity of scientific debates, I will have to research your references and also compile my own. I will limit my references to a few and try to keep it concise like you did. I saw many misconceptions you presented that, if true, would be fatal to the ID theory. Some of what you presented was also outdated. (The billions of years to make life theory is evolution's biggest flaw next to the non-explaintion of the first cause) Your info has been recently refuted in full by a former evolutionist who was one of the top 5 geneticists in the world. Also Gary E. Schwartz Ph.D is still an agnostic but also has compelling scientific discoveries of an intelligent designer that will contribute to the ID theory.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I presented these topics was to take them and re-affirm them with current info. That is why I said you would probably laugh at this as proof, but work with me. If I were not confident in my ability to prove these, I would not attempt to do this. But I may not be able to respond today, probably tomorrow with a refute of your responses. Thanks again for commenting.
Here is the refute of your previous claims. Sorry for being so long, but I wanted to get as much as I could into the argument since you obviously didn't know that evidence against your claims existed, or that some of your claims were outdated and refuted by the people who made the original claim. I had to leave out a lot more info just to keep it short. But I hope you take this as passing info to you, rather than a personal attack on your beliefs. With that said, lets get started.
ReplyDelete>>>>>1. THERMODYNAMICS PROVES A CREATOR: This is an old one. The Big Bang singularity can, and did, produce enough energy to keep the Universe going -- there's a reason the two end-state models for the universe are a gravitational collapse -- producing the energy for the next iteration -- or the heat death of the universe, which is exactly what the model predicts. We run into the same issue with a Creator as we do with either a repeating or ex nihilo universe -- "But where did that come from?" The answers are increasingly sophisticated on both sides, but one of them provides testable hypotheses -- that we should be able to detect background radiation at a certain level, for example -- while the other does not. And the testable hypotheses? Have tested positive, as far as I know.
-------------------------------------------
First question I would ask then is "where did the big bang singularity come from?" This theory still does not answer the ultimate question but is just putting a half backed theory in that hole of the atheist argument for why we exist. You can come up with ten theories of what happened after the first cause, it gets you no closer to the answer of where it came from, how was it caused, what designed the cause, and why did it start. The theories answer none of these questions and leaves more assumptions than the "creator" theory does. Occam's razor suggests the solution with the least assumptions is often the best solution, so saying that somehow the christian argument is weaker than the atheist argument (in this part of science) and therefore the atheist argument is "more logical" is false.
There are many flaws in the Big Bang theory including the singularity. If existence itself was created by the burst of this singularity, then, did or did not the singularity itself, whatever it was, exist, too? If we answer that it did exist, it could not have created the universe, or all of existence. If we answer that it did not exist, then it also could not have created anything, because to create, it is necessary to first have that which creates, i.e., some entity that exists.
OK. Starting from the top:
DeleteOccam's razor suggests the solution with the least assumptions is often the best solution, so saying that somehow the christian argument is weaker than the atheist argument (in this part of science) and therefore the atheist argument is "more logical" is false.
One requires a symmetry-breakage; the other requires a very specific deity with many very specific characteristics. Which is simpler?
Similarly, as I said, there are clear signs of the Big Bang event -- while there are no testable, useful hypotheses about a Creation.
it is necessary to first have that which creates, i.e., some entity that exists.
I hope you are not aiming for the existence of a Creator as an entity that creates; for example, a hypothesized collapsing universe could produce exactly the sort of singular point that we speak of when we speak of the Big Bang, while clearly not a "Creator" in any sense.
(more to follow in next point.)
(Thermo continued)
ReplyDeleteAssuming that a singularity was a single entity, which exploded to result in the Big Bang, what caused the explosion? Explosion, like generic creation, is an action, and an action is a relationship of multiple entities that results in the alteration of said entities' qualities. If only a single entity acts, this is so because this entity is composed of other, smaller, entities that relate amongst each other. If I had a tank of oxygen attached, I could conceivably breathe and move about in a full vacuum, but the only way this could take place is through interaction among the entities composing me: my arms, lungs, nerve tissues, brain, and their multiple levels of sub-components, among many others. My isolated actions are thus still relationships between multiple entities. If the singularity were the only entity that existed, and had no component parts that could interact amongst each other, it could not have exploded, nor could it act in any way whatsoever! A thing is what it is, and cannot, especially if it lacks volition, spontaneously decide to become something else and assume a different totality of qualities. If such a component-less entity as a singularity were left entirely unto itself, nothing could have influenced a change in its quality of non-explosivity, and it could not have exploded. Without any mechanism to induce an alteration in its qualities, it would have remained just what it was, a singularity.
All foremost scientists agree that the law of entropy will remain the principle paradigm for the foreseeable future. Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
A team of researchers from Penn State University has used a newly developed mathematical model to glimpse time and motion before the Big Bang happened, report Space.Com and other science news sources. While it is accepted as "factual" by the vast majority of astronomers and cosmologists, and thus intelligent laymen, the Big Bang theory (and theory is what it is) of the origins of our universe is actually riddled with cracks and fissures. One of these cracks and fissures comprises the absurdity of an infinitesimal moment in spacetime when there was zero volume and yet infinite energy and infinite density, which results within the context of Einstein's General Relativity. (Martin Bojowald, assistant professor of physics at Penn State).
(Thermo end)
Assuming that a singularity was a single entity, which exploded to result in the Big Bang, what caused the explosion? Explosion, like generic creation, is an action, and an action is a relationship of multiple entities that results in the alteration of said entities' qualities.
DeleteAny instant of symmetry-breaking could cause the explosion. Remember, down at the quantum foam level, we are talking (and have observational evidence) of the random creation and destruction of matter from the stuff of the universe -- particle-antiparticle pairs.
Speaking of "parts" of the quantum foam is, to a large extent, bringing in macroscopic assumptions into quantum realms, which is at best a hazardous, at worst a wildly misleading thing to do.
f the singularity were the only entity that existed, and had no component parts that could interact amongst each other, it could not have exploded, nor could it act in any way whatsoever!
Again, you are presuming Newtonian mechanics operating at something that doesn't follow Newton's laws; this is an error.
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law.
This is, again, an old canard, which I did not expect you to drag out given that you seemed to understand it in one of your earlier posts. Given a closed environment, it will not move in general towards greater order.
The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
The Earth is not a closed environment, nor does the Second Law of Thermodynamics rule out the possibiity of localized increases in order. The massive amounts of energy the sun puts out dwarf the increase in order on the Earth. Again, this is a matter of scale, which you appear to have problems understanding.
On a slightly more frivolous note, having worked with both biologists and physicists in my career, trust me; if the physics made the biology impossible, the physicists would have made it very clear many times over, for sheer gloating rights. ;) But it's not, when properly understood.
A team of researchers from Penn State University has used a newly developed mathematical model to glimpse time and motion before the Big Bang happened, report Space.Com and other science news sources.
I have not looked at Bojowald's work, but will do so; however, citing it as evidence *against* the big bang points out a fundamental misunderstanding of how science operates. When theories have problems, that does not mean they are doomed -- it means research continues as to their correctness. Were we to feel otherwise, we would have thrown out Newtonian mechanics, rather than relegated it to its appropriate place in the sciences -- namely, that it works above a certain scale and within certain contexts.
(It is also worth noting that if it is a newly developed model, we can't be sure of its accuracy or relevance; again, this is part of how science works.)
"Absurdity" often yields new understanding -- consider the absurdity of diffracting a single particle. ;)
>>>>>2. INTELLIGENT CAUSER (7 PROOFS):
ReplyDelete2.1: This is in effect, an argument from ignorance. There have been many explanations for how symbiotic mechanisms can work -- and massive amounts of time for them to develop. Barber fish don't need to create a symbiotic need for their services; they have it right there in front of them; they grew into a niche.
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Cleaning symbiosis (like the barber fish) is a well-known example of mutualism, an intimate relationship of benefit to both kinds of species involved, in this case, the cleaned and the cleaner. Obviously, cleaning symbiosis has survival value for both kinds of species involved. But does survival value explain the origin of this special relationship? Of course not. It makes sense to talk about survival value, or Darwinian "fitness," only after a trait or relationship is already in existence. Darwin himself recognized the "hindsight" limitations of natural selection.
Another example, Like all complex symbiotic relationships manifested in nature, the mutual support that AMF and vascular plants provide for one another poses a profound challenge to evolutionary models for life. The AMF cannot thrive without vascular plants, nor can the vascular plants thrive without AMF.
The challenge for evolutionary models is how to explain by natural means the simultaneous appearance of both vascular plants and AMF. An even greater challenge is (1) how to explain the plants "evolving" structures in their root systems to house the AMF and to channel carbohydrate resources to feed them; and (2) how to explain the AMF evolving the means to harvest phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon, transform them into forms suitable for vascular plants, and provide transportation systems to channel these resources into the plants' root systems. Furthermore, evolutionary models must explain by natural means the bringing together of the AMF and vascular plant root systems so they could form and efficiently sustain their symbiotic relationship.
It seems nothing less than a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator can explain all the intricate designs required in advance of launching symbiotic relationships.
(next 2.2)
But does survival value explain the origin of this special relationship? Of course not. It makes sense to talk about survival value, or Darwinian "fitness," only after a trait or relationship is already in existence.
DeleteHow shall we put this: cleaner wrasses eat parasites. Larger fish have parasites. The origin of the relationship could have come about through chance -- at which point, survival value can operate upon it.
The AMF cannot thrive without vascular plants, nor can the vascular plants thrive without AMF.
It is worth noting that that is where we are *now*, after 460 million years of evolution. They have probably changed since they first got together, wouldn't you think?
Indeed, many people suggest that, rather than something requiring existence of a Creator, symbiotic relationships were critical to the formation of multicellular life. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/symbiosis2.htm)
It is not uncommon to see the error of "How did this complicated thing evolve" by looking at its final state, rather than any of the many possible earlier ones. I recommend Dawkins' _Climbing Mount Improbable_ as an excellent layman's book on the subject, since it discusses the fig wasp.
>>>>>2.2: and that there are no transitional forms of one kind of animal to another in the fossil record. I am going to presume you are referring to Cambrian forms, since in more recent biological history, this statement is simply nonsense. I can refer you to the classics: the descent of the horse, for example. The smooth development we see of the carnosaurs. Tiktaalik. Every time a new transitional form is discovered, the definition is narrowed, to exclude the forms already found.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system evens begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists.
Tiktaalik : The fossils were thought to be roughly contemporary with the transition onto land. However, recently tracks of a four-footed animal were discovered in marine sediments firmly dated at 397 million years old (Niedzwiedzki et al, 2010). If that animal was a genuine tetrapod, then creatures like Tiktaalik may have been "late-surviving relics" exhibiting transitional features that actually evolved somewhat earlier. In short, these are not the actual ancestors of modern land animals; but they are related to the actual ancestors, and so they do show us the sort of creature that evolved during the great move onto land.
Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould is famous for declaring that transition fossils are lacking, so evolution must have occurred in rapid spurts (by mysterious genetic mechanisms) separated by long periods of stasis. He called this concept "punctuated equilibrium." This was his attempt to cope with the absence of transitions above the level of created kinds:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. (Gould) Within scientific circles Gould drove home the point that transition fossils are lacking. Yet in speeches to the public in the last few years he has directly contradicted himself, boldly claiming that transition fossils are one of the three best arguments for evolution! His prize example? Whale evolution. Yet scholars such
as Ashby Camp and Dr. Duane Gish have documented that the "transition fossils" Gould mentions in his whale evolution model are recognized to be specialized side branches, unique creatures distinct from whales and one another. (Gish, Camp) Nor do they appear in the proper order in the geologic strata. Evolutionary lineages do not flow from the fossil evidence, rather Darwinian beliefs must be imposed on (selectively cited) fossil evidence, with many assumptions, to "see" a Darwinian transformation. Gould’s prize example involved fudging to create "transition forms," which begs the question – why are the trunk and main branches of the evolutionary tree perpetually missing from the fossil record? The best answer is that they never existed.
(next 2.3)
It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers.
DeleteHere's the problem, using a metaphor:
What we had in Darwin's time:
A K U Z
What we have now:
A C FG K M O QR U WXYZ.
What is now being asked for as a "transitional fossil"
"Give me B, and what comes between F and G."
It's a constantly moving goalpost, by people who have a strong vested interest in the absence of a "transitional fossil."
For example: "d in marine sediments firmly dated at 397 million years old (Niedzwiedzki et al, 2010). If that animal was a genuine tetrapod, then creatures like Tiktaalik may have been "late-surviving relics" exhibiting transitional features that actually evolved somewhat earlier. In short, these are not the actual ancestors of modern land animals; but they are related to the actual ancestors, and so they do show us the sort of creature that evolved during the great move onto land."
This presumes a) that evolution took place at the same rate in all places and all times -- this is a subtler version of the "If X evolved from Y, why are there still Y?" And, given the fragmentariness of the record, there is never going to be a smooth gradation; some people will argue "That's not an intermediary species between A and C that's a female of species C, that's why it's smaller." (I am reminded of, I believe, Bud Grant's comment, upon being told his teams never won the big one, "I wish someone would tell me it wa the big one before we played it.")
Yet scholars such
as Ashby Camp and Dr. Duane Gish have documented that the "transition fossils" Gould mentions in his whale evolution model are recognized to be specialized side branches, unique creatures distinct from whales and one another.
Duane Gish is notorious for his outlandish interpretations of biological evidence in order to preserve his notions and his timeline. This is, after all, the man who declared with little or no evidence that Hadrosaurs could have been fire-breathing dragons.
Evolutionary lineages do not flow from the fossil evidence, rather Darwinian beliefs must be imposed on (selectively cited) fossil evidence, with many assumptions, to "see" a Darwinian transformation.
How much more so must a creationist model be imposed, to see anything other than change and development? If someone did "create" the fossils, they did it with a remarkable air towards generating an evolutionary conclusion.
(Oh, and I refer you here to commentaries on using Gould to support creationist views: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html)
This is a case where I don't think we can have a useful discussion, frankly, because you are determined to find ways to make "special cases" out of every example brought up -- until you are left with nothing, as you put it, but "special cases" and no trunk, where a less devout effort to dismiss each case would make the data fit a clear theory.
(This is, I think, a case of what you spoke about in the beginning: the data is incomplete, and can be made to fit two different viewpoints. However, given that the reasoning to make them fit one viewpoint is varied and seems a priori depending on circumstance, while the other follows in logical progression, again, I know which I'd choose, referring back to that Razor you cited before.)
>>>>>2.3: Again, this is a long-disproven observation; computer simulations have shown that remarkably complex forms can evolve stunningly quickly, and we have Lenski's work at MSU to show just one small example: (E. Coli developing the ability to metabolize a new food source) in a minsicule sample in a timespan so short, on an evolutionary scale, that an eyeblink would be an aeon. ;)
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE:
According to geneticists Lane Lester and Ray Bohlin:
The study of bacteria has been profoundly at the center of studies of mutations. This is because they reproduce rapidly, producing large populations and large numbers of mutants. They are also easily maintained and their environments are easily manipulated in the laboratory. Despite all their advantages, never has there arisen in a colony of bacteria a bacterium with a primitive nucleus. Never has a bacterium in a colony of bacteria been observed to make a simple multicellular formation. Although hundreds of strains and varieties of Escherichia coli have been formed, it is still Escherichia coli and easily identifiable as such. (Lester and Bohlin, 88.)
There is yet to be an observable example of evolution ever discovered.
Richard Lenski’s work further demolishes evolutionary ideas that complex traits can arise by random mutations. Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing “adaptive evolution.” However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems. Instead, these bacteria are likely experiencing a loss of information and functional systems as has been observed in other mutant bacteria in Lenski’s lab. While these changes are beneficial in the lab environment, they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction. (Similar to Miller's experiments which are fully refuted at Proof 2.4). It is interesting that in spite of the clear evidence for the adaptation of E. coli, Lenski refers to his findings as evidence for bacteria developing a “key innovation” and a “new function” and a “fascinating case of evolution in action.” Obviously, presuppositions play a major role in interpreting the evidence.
Many people wrongly suppose that there are no credible scientists, prominent in their fields, who have serious doubts as to the explanatory power and veracity of Neo-Darwinism. On the contrary, there are at present more than 700 scientists who either hold a Ph.D. in their discipline, or are an M.D. serving as a professor of medicine, who have been willing to sign a public statement declaring their scientific skepticism as to whether Neo-Darwinism seems adequate to explain the high amount of complex bio-information found in natural life. To read their summary statement of "Dissent from Darwinism," as well as some of the justification for signing it, go to: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
(next 2.4)
First note: Lester and Bohlin, 1984, were writing before Lenski's experiment. They can now be considered to be refuted by the facts in at least one portion of their claim.
DeleteThere is yet to be an observable example of evolution ever discovered.
That you can make this statement indicates a profound misunderstanding of evolution, which I will discuss later.
Many evolutionists state that the bacteria are experiencing “adaptive evolution.” However, this is not evolution but rather adaptation. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in information and functional systems.
they do not lead to a net gain that moves bacteria in an upward evolutionary direction.
Evolution is the change in biological organisms. Evolution is not a ladder upward; it is the adaptation (yes!) of biological entities to environmental niches. If a cave fish finds it an advantage to lose its sight, we would not think of this as "upward" -- but it might be an improvement for the cave fish, as it no longer has to waste nutrients and energy on useless eyes.
So, by talking about an "upward direction", and making that a requirement for "observable evolution", you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution means. It's not the Great Chain of Being in escalator form; it's a way of explaining how life changes in response to the environmental changes around it, and its own mutations and alterations.
So, Lenski's bacteria evolved to exist better in a Cit+ environment, which is where they found themselves. That, sir, is an example of evolution.
On the contrary, there are at present more than 700 scientists who either hold a Ph.D. in their discipline, or are an M.D. serving as a professor of medicine, who have been willing to sign a public statement declaring their scientific skepticism as to whether Neo-Darwinism seems adequate to explain the high amount of complex bio-information found in natural life.
Remember that argument from authority you decried before? Here's an example. An M.D. is no guarantee of expertise in the subject of evolutionary biology; would you consider a psychologist specializing in criminals as an expert on the subject of theodicy?
>>>>>2.4 I refer you to the Miller-Urey experiments, at which the building blocks of our current biology were developed in a single jar in a laboratory over a short period of time; things don't need to be intelligent to form amino acids, and things don't need to be intelligent to evolve to metabolize citrate. There does not need to be a design, or a motive force beyond "survive and reproduce." We can go into more detail if you'd like, but I believe we'd end up just throwing web links at one another.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Sorry, Miller's experiments have been proven flawed. Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas: (Sorry for the length, but maybe you didn't know this experiment is outdated and abandoned)
1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules. Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source." And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.
2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia. So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine: Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology), no. 189, p. 7.
3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old. ("New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 63, November 1982, pp. 1328-1330.) There are other findings showing that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at that time was much higher than originally claimed by evolutionists. Studies also show that the amount of ultraviolet radiation to which the earth was then exposed was 10,000 times more than evolutionists' estimates.
4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable. Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms.
(Continued)
1) I refer you here:
Deletehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016141411.htm
The "cold trap" was not a pure isolation mechanism; something similar could easily have existed in the primordial times.
2) 2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.
I refer you here: http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-1-miller-urey-experiment; indeed, I shall simply refer to this as "NCSE", because I will be citing it again. You will see citations there that the experiment was rerun with different conditions, producing amino acids.
3 - Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere at the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old
See NCSE link, above.
Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms.
I have never seen any claim that right-handed chirality prevents living organisms; indeed, the conventional model is one of a symmetry break; we could have been right- or left-handed in molecular chirality, but a prevalence of one, even a small one, could have a snowball effect; a familiar phenomenon in science, and hardly a refutation of the theory.
To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained. In fact, by his experiment, Miller destroyed evolution's claim that "life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences." That is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention. Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. Even Miller himself has accepted that his experiment does not lead to an explanation of the origin of life. made the following confession on this subject:
ReplyDelete"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did." (W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 325.)
>>>>>6. I refer you to Orgel's second rule. ;) More specifically, no one is arguing that design produces specified complexity. However, that is not the same as asserting that only design can produce specified complexity. (It is also worth noting that Dembski's use of "specified complexity" is not the same as Orgel's -- so citing Orgel to support Dembski is inaccurate.) Crystals don't prove that SC can arise naturally -- Miller & Urey's experiments, among others, prove that the building blocks of it certainly can.
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Well, by the time you get to this point, you will have already read that Miller's experiment is debunked even by himself. Even Leslie Orgel notes, “And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” (Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, October 1994, p. 78.)
High information content cannot come from non-intelligent sources nor by chance. NEVER. It would violate the laws of physics, laws of mathematics, and laws of logic. Any experiment that "claims" to do so is doing it on dishonest and very credulous terms, making it seem or appear as if it is, but is only making a poor assumption that that is the way it occured. (I will reinforce this below)
(next 2.7)
(I must admit a familial bias, for the sake of honesty; Harold C. Urey taught both of my parents organic chemistry. ;))
DeleteThat is because, if the experiment proves anything, it is that amino acids can only be produced in a controlled laboratory environment where all the conditions are specifically designed by conscious intervention.
This is, again, nonsense; it indicates that a wide range of experimental conditions (as the basic experiment has been repeated with different mixtures over the years) can produce the results of basic molecular building-block creation, using no "design", in a very small space in a very, very small time.
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists.
NCSE.
For the Harold C. Urey quote you give, I cite:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html, Quote #58.
“And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.”
Note the use of "at first glance" there; there's a reason it's there, and it implies that if you look deeper, he's going to contradict this statement. I don't have the SciAm article to hand, so I can't check that.
High information content cannot come from non-intelligent sources nor by chance. NEVER. It would violate the laws of physics, laws of mathematics, and laws of logic.
We've been over this before; provide a mechanism for retaining information -- like the DNA-RNA-protein chain, or the written word -- and you can generate high information content from low information content. It does not violate any of the laws you describe.
>>>>>2.7 This is an argument from ignorance and by popularity. Many scientists may believe it; many do not. There is also the question of "insoluble" as in "we can't show how it happened in our case" vs. "insoluble" as in "We don't see how it could happen." I refer you back to Orgel's Second Rule. ;)
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Orgel’s Second Rule states that “Evolution is cleverer than you are”. I am aware that this is not to imply that evolution has conscious motives or methods, but that most people who say that this or that could not evolve are simply exhibiting a lack of imagination. However, doesn't this violate the laws of materialism? I have Jake's rules: "Evolution is cleverer than the evolutionist but inferior to the Creationist."
Also, you form a strawman when you say that Christians say "we don't see how it could happen." As you have read so far, we can explain very well why it can't happen. Former evolutionists who are not necessarily Christian can agree that evolution "can never happen."
When an evolutionists says "Science seems incapable of solving it," is that he does not want any non-materialist explanation to be thought of as "scientific." However, science itself invalidates the hypotheses of materialist philosophy, and proves the existence of a Creator.
(next 2.8)
However, doesn't this violate the laws of materialism?
DeleteNot at all; he was speaking humorously, as I'm sure you're aware. I am a tad confused when I see above that you understand correctly that it does not imply any consciousness to evolution.
Also, you form a strawman when you say that Christians say "we don't see how it could happen." As you have read so far, we can explain very well why it can't happen.
Only by repeatedly ignoring how the second law of thermodynamics and deep time work; otherwise, all you have is "we don't see you proving that it did happen, therefore it didn't."
When an evolutionists says "Science seems incapable of solving it," is that he does not want any non-materialist explanation to be thought of as "scientific." However, science itself invalidates the hypotheses of materialist philosophy, and proves the existence of a Creator.
You're missing the distinction. It's the difference, for want of a better way of putting it, between a wealth of choices and a paucity of choices.
There are many different competing theories about how we made the jump from amino acids to living creatures; we may never be able to tell which one is right, because that evidence is long lost. This is not the same as saying "Science cannot explain it." It's "Science cannot say for certain which of many explanations is true." See the difference?
(And in the presence of a glut of materialist theories, why expand to a non-materialist one that provides no increase of explanatory power?)
>>>>>8. One would expect natural law working out over many different scales to produce similar results, wouldn't one? This is not evidence for design, but evidence for consistency. You must also realize that the probability of natural law creating a universe such that we could exist in it, when we do exist, is equal to 1. We have no idea what else might have happened -- but there is no way a universe that was inhospitable to life could have generated any. This is the flip side of the anthropic principle.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE:
Your argument is circular reasoning:
Natural laws created existence
We are proof because we exist
Therefore Natural laws created existence
Your premises are false and your conclusion is false. You have not explained what created the natural laws. Anything existing after the cause is not proof of what caused it based on natural laws that didn't exist before we were caused. Materialism breaks down every time it hits this brick wall the question "what caused the big bang?"
(Z is the uncaused cause, X is the Big bang, Y is existence.)
X is needed to create Y, if Y didn't exist before X, therefore Y can't create X.
Z is needed to create X. When X exists it can create Y. Therefore Z created Y
If X did not exist before it created Y, and Y exists after X, Z created X and Y.
If X doesn't know how to design, and Y shows design, and Z knows how to design, Z designed X and Y.
If Z existed before X, and X existed before Y, Y existed because of Z.
Therefore Z is intelligent, existed without a cause and created existence.
Your materialistic explanation for the origins of life breaks down every time when you apply simple logic. Why do you hold onto a theory that doesn't make sense?
(next 2.9)
Actually, my argument is that any argument starting "How unlikely was it that things would have happened such that we could observe them?" is useless, because had things not happened that way, we couldn't observe; thus, the probability that we exist in a universe such that we could exist is 1.
DeleteThe argument you describe is, indeed, false, but it's not what I'm making.
You have not explained what created the natural laws.
The natural laws do not need "creating" any more than the Big Bang does, as they are human formulations of emergent behaviors.
Now; looking at your argument:
There are several places it falls apart; for example, there is no reason to believe that Z does not equal X -- to separate them is an assumption, not something proven.
Similarly, you have not demonstrated that Y shows design.
(I also notice that you state, at the beginning, that Z is an uncaused cause, and then conclude at the end that Z existed without a cause.)
So, given that your premises are unproven, your logic doesn't hold water.
Indeed, if one accepts (as one could) that Z and X are the same, you get:
X created Y.
The end. No need to presume an intelligent creator at all.
>>>>>9. randomization does not in and of itself create organization. I refer you once again to Miller & Urey. One lab, one short time period. Randomness and natural law together can produce astounding results; most people don't realize the scales at which the two forces can work. No one is talking about the wind blowing through a junkyard and creating a 747; that's not how this works. But the slow and relentless ratcheting of gains, over billions of years? That's a different matter altogether. Never, and I emphasize the word NEVER. To borrow a phrase from one of Dan's heroes: "How do you know?" We exist in one solar system out of perhaps a hundred million in this galaxy alone, and we as people who can write down our observations for 10,000 years out of hundreds of millions in the history of the earth. To say "I haven't seen it, therefore it can't exist" is an error of enormous scale. Random initial conditions, combined with natural law, have been shown in simulation to be able to create solar systems; random initial conditions, combined with natural law, have been shown to be able to create proteins. It's not just dice being thrown, independently, over and over and over again; there are mechanisms to preserve results, and *that* is what makes the explanation of evolution so powerful.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Randomness and natural law CANNOT create complexity. And by the time you read this, you will know that Miller's experiment is debunked, even Miller admitted it was bad science.
(next reality)
Randomness and natural law CANNOT create complexity.
DeleteI hate to break it to you, but adding caps and repeating it doesn't make it true. ;) And please cite where Miller admitted it was bad science? Because if you're referring to the quote above, that was badly quote-mined, and was from Harold C. Urey.
>>>>>3. ARGUING FROM BEST EXPLANATION FOR REALITY:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think atheism fights the evidence that Christians present so strongly if they felt it was not important or was "false". Because that evidence and faulty reasoning can lead to beliefs that often produce harmful effects?
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: If we claim our evidence is valid based on the exact same criteria evolutionist use and it is still ignored, who is the one who has the faulty reasoning that can lead to harmful effects?
>>>>>Therefore, Christians have the best explanation for reality. I'm not even going to get into the "which religion has the best explanation", because that is not an argument I am entirely qualified for. I will leave it at "I have yet to see any reason why the Christian explanation is any better than the Jewish one."
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Remember, the biggest battle is against christian claims, not any other religion. Because Christians will gladly help you disprove other religions.
>>>>>Therefore, the universe presents design at all levels. As you will see above, I disagree strenuously with this claim.
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: By the time you get to this point, you will see that I and many former evolutionists agree strenuously with the ID theory and that evolution is hoplessly flawed.
(continued)
RESPONSE: If we claim our evidence is valid based on the exact same criteria evolutionist use and it is still ignored, who is the one who has the faulty reasoning that can lead to harmful effects?
DeleteBecause you don't use the same criteria, as far as I can tell; you rely on incredulity and gaps to find fault, rather than present alternative *testable* theories. ID is entirely a negative program, so far as it has actually been presented.
Now, if Christians did not insist that their beliefs justified changing or setting public policy in accordance with them, I would care significantly less what they believed; but when your belief significantly impacts my freedoms, and the freedoms of those I care about, then I will not let them go easily unchallenged.
RESPONSE: Remember, the biggest battle is against christian claims, not any other religion. Because Christians will gladly help you disprove other religions.
Actually, the biggest battle is against religious claims in general; for example, Jews will happily help me debunk the heretical position, and Muslims would explain to me why Christianity has been superseded.
RESPONSE: By the time you get to this point, you will see that I and many former evolutionists agree strenuously with the ID theory and that evolution is hoplessly flawed.
I see this; however, it does not change my position; and there are many former creationists who have changed to evolutionists -- so neither change is relevant to the truth of the position.
>>>>>It simply cannot, because it violates all laws of nature, logic, science, and mathematics. And this is simply nonsense. There are several different abiogenetic hypotheses out there -- it is a matter of which *one* is correct that is in heated dispute. No one can point to the exact mechanism with certainty; but this is not for a lack of possible mechanisms. ;)
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Let us look at the origin of life. There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:
-Spontaneous assembly of life from chemicals
-There is a Creator who designed biological systems
If you deny the existence of a Creator, scientific studies demonstrate that you must believe each of the following things about the origin of life:
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Reject the second law of thermodynamics
ATHEIST PROBLEM: In the absence of enzymes, there is no chemical reaction that produces the sugar ribose, the "backbone" of RNA and DNA.
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Science of the gaps ("promissory materialism")
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Chemical reactions in prebiotic soups produce other sugars that prevent RNA and DNA replication
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Purine and pyrimidine nucleotides (nucleosides combined with phosphate groups) do not form under prebiotic conditions
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
ATHEIST PROBLEM:Even if a method for formation of pyrimidine nucleosides could be found, the combination of nucleosides with phosphate under prebiotic conditions produces not only nucleotides, but other products which interfere with RNA polymerization and replication
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously. In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes.
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
(Continued)
Your arguments here are mere summaries of the points you've made above for the most part, and I have dealt with them above.
DeleteI will present you with this:
Religious problem: There are a huge variety of possible religious explanations, none of which provide any useful testable hypotheses, rendering them utterly indeterminate. Many of them make predictions that are not in accordance with real-life data (for example, no real evidence of a global flood).
Religious solution: Discard scientific methods, that have provided massive advances in human well-being, and ignore data.
I am not going to go further and dig up responses to each of your individual citations; that would be a far lengthier process than I am currently willing to go into; and the evidence you have provided so far has been of poor quality, giving me little reason to trust the others. (quote-mines, old data & hypotheses, failed understanding of how evolution works.)
Jake_Russel:
DeleteATHEIST PROBLEM: Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Reject the second law of thermodynamics
The real solution, is to do more research instead of ignoring the problem.
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously. In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself
ATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
Wrong. Do at least a little reading:
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Homochirality somehow arose in the sugars and amino acids of prebiotic soups, although there is no mechanism by which this can occur and is, in fact, prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics (law of entropy).
DeleteATHEIST SOLUTION: Reject the second law of thermodynamics
The real solution, is to do more research instead of ignoring the problem. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/chirality-of-li.html
----------------
RESPONSE:
Well Reynold, I did read your little atheist web site and unfortunately they agree that it does not prove a solution to the problem of "why we are here". If you read at the bottom in the comments, a Creationist rips apart his theory explaining why it can't work. READ YOUR OWN SOURCES. This is the second time I have caught you pasting a source and NOT reading it to see if it is refuting your own claims.
Also, At the bottom of the page (related links) it asks "Does chirality suggest intelligent design?" Click on it and read it. At the bottom, it says, "Ultimately, this is really a philosophical question. Those of a more scientific persuasion can always argue that we just don't know the data yet to construct a "scientific" theory explaining the phenomenon (any phenomenon around which this kind of debate happens)." Also at the end it says " But for cases in which that hasn't happened, logically one can't argue that it will happen or that it won't; you either believe that it will or you believe that it won't." So your site is no closer to answering the question, and have just admitted that. Thanks for refuting yourself.
(continued)
ATHEIST PROBLEM: Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously. In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself
DeleteATHEIST SOLUTION: Discard chemistry data
Wrong. Do at least a little reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
-----------------------------
RESPONSE:
Once again Reynold, your ignorance is amusing.
To begin with it is doubtful Dr. Henry Morris ever made the statement, protein needs DNA to form. This is an inaccurate statement. DNA requires protein to form, but protein does not require DNA to form. In addition, if such a thing was really stated by Dr. Morris, it is obvious Talk Origins failed to catch this scientific error. Now, as to the claim DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator, this is simply untrue. Proteins used in biological living systems are composed entirely of left handed amino acids. In nature, left and right-handed amino acids occur in equal numbers. Right handed amino acids completely prevent left handed amino acids form bonding together to form the much more complex proteins so necessary for the building of the DNA molecule, and therefore life. Talk Origins suggests RNA as the most likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication. However RNA is simply a mirror image of DNA and as such also requires the formation and utilization of proteins. Proteins cannot form naturally as has already been stated due to the pervasive presents of right-handed amino acids.
In this context, what applies for DNA also applies for RNA. In addition, Leslie Orgel and Gerald Joyce, eminent evolutionary microbiologists revealed the absurd nature of the theory in their book, “In the RNA World”: “ This discussion...has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential.”
Dr. John Horgan, an evolutionist also went on record regarding the concept of the RNA world. “As researchers continue to examine the RNA-World concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones.” The claim, “The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes.” (Levy and Ellington 2003).
Is mere conjecture without a shred of empirical observation to base it on. Dr. Orgel defines the qualities such an RNA would have to possess and how totally impossible these would have been in an article published in Scientific American in October of 1994: “This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties NOT evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.” So, Contrary to Talk Origins claims, neither DNA nor RNA could have spontaneously arisen on their own; independent of intelligent direction, and this conclusion is based on all the known observed laws we witness in prebiotic chemistry.
I refer you here: http://www.fasebj.org/content/7/1/238.full.pdf
DeleteIt is worth noting that you might want to start including a bit more context in your quotes, since this is not the first time in this discussion that contradicting quotes have been found quite easily, and there is a lengthy history of quote-mining in the Creationist world; it is very possible that "This scenario", for example, applies to something else; again, I do not have the SciAm article in front of me.
Please note, in the interests of congeniality, that I'm not accusing *you* of quote-mining; I suspect your sources, instead.
And on the matter of the panda's thumb post on chirality: Which comment "rips apart" the theory? You can't mean Timothy Chase's comment, since that provides a materialist explanation for the development of chirality.
DeleteI have no problems accusing Jake of quote-mining: It's par for the course for these people. Remember. Jake is one one who had said:
DeleteRESPONSE: You obviously do no research but on atheist conjecture web sites that don't bother to get the full story. Atheists always ALWAYS jump to simple conclusions on everything and yell "see its proof your God doesn't exist, hahahaha".
Yet he's showing that he's the one who is doing that exact thing.
I call hypocrite, I call dishonesty.
imnotandrei
DeleteAnd on the matter of the panda's thumb post on chirality: Which comment "rips apart" the theory? You can't mean Timothy Chase's comment, since that provides a materialist explanation for the development of chirality.
That's what I was going to ask. I think Jake is "reading" what he wants to "read".
ATHEIST PROBLEM:The most common abiogenesis theories claim that life arose at hydrothermal vents in the ocean. However, recent studies show that polymerization of the molecules necessary for cell membrane assembly cannot occur in salt water (Szathmáry, E. 2000. The evolution of replicators. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 355: 1669-1676.). Other studies show that the early oceans were at least twice as salty as they are now
ReplyDeleteATHEIST SOLUTION: Life arose in freshwater ponds (even though the earth had very little land mass), using some unknown mechanism.
New theories, such as assembly of biomolecules on mineral surfaces, are constantly being proposed to attempt to get around the problems associated with the spontaneous origin of life. However, even if you put purified chemicals together (which can't be synthesized prebiotically), you can get polymers only up to 50 mer (obviously not enough for life) (1997. MEETING BRIEFS: Primordial Soup Researchers Gather at Watering Hole). Therefore, none of these theories has been able to get around the fundamental chemical problems required for life to have begun on the Earth. Some quotes from evolutionists are cited below:
"It's a very long leap from [mineral] surface chemistry to a living cell." Norman Pace (evolutionary biologist, University of California, Berkeley).
"On theoretical grounds, however, it [mineral clay synthesis] seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication." (Leslie Orgel)
'There is now overwhelmingly strong evidence, both statistical and paleontological, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions.... There simply was not enough time... to get life going." Niles Eldridge (paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History).
(Next topic)
>>>>>Since the laws of thermodynamics proves that energy must be added from outside its system to "jumpstart" the universe, If the physical universe had to start from something non-physical, therefore something very powerful started the universe. False premise, false premise, no reason to reach conclusion.
ReplyDelete-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: You (evolutionists and cosmologists) have yet to prove something not immaterial was the first cause. Therefore, we can assume that the first cause is immaterial (based on extensive scientific research rather then half-baked theories of strings and singularities), therefore my argument is reinstated as valid.
>>>>>If something very powerful started the universe caused complexity, and complexity is in everything, therefore the cause of the universe is very complex. Unproven premise, false premise, conclusion that does not follow -- indeed, many theologians would quibble with your notion, arguing that God's nature is not complex at all, since that smacks of polytheism. ;)
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Wow, saying premise one is unproven would also apply to your theory that everything came from a singularity which is confirmed flawed. You would also have to deny that there is no complexity in existence including you, to break the first premise which I would like to see you try without creating a self-defeating argument. Premise two is true because premise one is true. There is so much scientific evidence supporting this that if anyone agrees to the contrary is doing it for a reason other than scientific;) Arguing from irrelevant authority by saying "theologians" would disagree about God's complexity. Citation needed, until then your claim is invalid. I can also say that there are agnostics and evolutionists who can disprove your claims to support evolution and how illogical and impossible it is, with proof ;) Therefore, this argument for complexity in everything is reinstated as a valid argument.
(Continued)
RESPONSE: You (evolutionists and cosmologists) have yet to prove something not immaterial was the first cause. Therefore, we can assume that the first cause is immaterial (based on extensive scientific research rather then half-baked theories of strings and singularities), therefore my argument is reinstated as valid.
DeleteThis is silly; at best, one could argue that a non-material source has not been disproven, which is *not* the same as being able to assume that it was true. Indeed, part of the problem with an "immaterial" explanation is that it is not testable at all, as I've said before. So, saying "Something untestable has not been disproven" is not the same as saying it's been proven.
RESPONSE: Wow, saying premise one is unproven would also apply to your theory that everything came from a singularity which is confirmed flawed.
I'm not the one who's claiming to "prove" anything; my argument was that your evidence did not rise to the level of proof. So, unproven premise is a perfectly valid argument here against your syllogism.
You would also have to deny that there is no complexity in existence including you, to break the first premise which I would like to see you try without creating a self-defeating argument.
Nompe; you asserted: "Complexity is in everything." Which is logically the same as "There is nothing that does not contain complexity." What you are asking me to assert is "There is nothing that contains complexity", which is a different proposition.
In other words, you are saying: All X are Y.
I am saying "Not all X are Y."
Your retort: To say that you have to prove "No X are Y."
This is wrong.
Arguing from irrelevant authority by saying "theologians" would disagree about God's complexity.
I would rather think that theologians would be the most relevant authority on God's complexity, no? ;)
Citation needed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_simplicity
So, given that you have an unproven premise, a false premise (I defy you to define, say, a square mile of empty space as "complex" ;) Indeed, unless you are going to argue that atoms themselves are complex, in which case you are using so broad a definition as to be useless, I'll point to the hydrogen atom.), and a conclusion disagreed with by many people of significant opinion on the subject. I would, to borrow the Mythbusters line, call this "Busted."
>>>>>If the cause of the universe is complex, and all things complex come from a mind, therefore the universe was designed by a mind. This syllogism begs the question of "All things complex come from a mind -- therefore where did this complex mind come from?" as noted above. Another one we've been around on many, many times.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Once again, you use a materialistic explanation for everything. That's a self defeating argument because the "question begging" will then be, "Where did everything come from if there was nothing materialistic to begin with?" Surely you don't believe everything came from nothing, because "nothing" is an immaterial entity. There is no materialistic explanation for the cause of existence, therefore a materialistic explanation provides no evidence. An assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. Therefore, this argument for design by a mind is reinstated as a valid argument.
>>>>>If a mind designed the universe, and there must be intelligence involved in all of creation, therefore, there must be an intelligent designer. If the premises were true, I'd grant the conclusion, but I don't think the premises are.
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: Thanks for affirming the validity of this arguments conclusion. Since I have proven above that the premises for this argument are valid or at least logical, the conclusion is valid ;)
>>>>>THEREFORE, GOD EXISTS AND THE BIBLE IS TRUE And *this* is an enormous leap utterly unsupported by any of the evidence you've presented. Nothing you've said here disclaims either, say, the "pocket universe" hypothesis, in which our universe is a science project in some vastly powerful hyperintelligent alien science fair ;), or that we had a Watchmaker God who set up initial conditions favorable to life, and let it run.
-------------------------------------------
RESPONSE: I agree that this is a big leap from the arguments, but remember, this info I present is PROOF #1 of 6 to create a conclusive argument for God's existence. The other 6 proofs will be combined into one large argument that will validate this statement once and for all. You asked for my reasons why I believe God exists despite the fact I have not seen or experienced God, well I will take you on that journey so you can see where I get my conclusion for God from.
Surely you don't believe everything came from nothing, because "nothing" is an immaterial entity. There is no materialistic explanation for the cause of existence, therefore a materialistic explanation provides no evidence. An assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence. Therefore, this argument for design by a mind is reinstated as a valid argument.
DeleteAnd a non-materialistic explanation also provides no evidence, hence it can be dismissed without evidence. ;) This is *why* I find logical "proofs" of the subject so valueless; the weight is entirely in the opening assumptions.
RESPONSE: Thanks for affirming the validity of this arguments conclusion. Since I have proven above that the premises for this argument are valid or at least logical, the conclusion is valid ;)
Save that you've not proven it at all, as I beliefe I have demonstrated. The conclusion would be valid, if the premises are true, but the premises are still very much in question.
The other 6 proofs will be combined into one large argument that will validate this statement once and for all.
I am curious, but purely because I enjoy theology as a contact sport; your arguments at this point, if they are based on what you have provided, are based on sand.
Indeed, they amount in their entirety to "All things created must have a Creator, and since you can't prove there isn't a Creator, there must be one; and since there are gaps in biology I don't find sufficiently explained, evolution is wrong."
As I said, a foundation of sand.
Wow Jake. Did you even read, and comprehend, the OP?
ReplyDeleteTo imnotandrei and Reynold
ReplyDeleteI have chosen to not respond to your comments anymore. I easily could have, and thought about it, but this would prove futile. I will not go down that rabbit hole of endless refutes (I think you agree with this too). But what I would like to do is send a final statement to you about what I have learned from you and other atheists I have debated. It probably will make no difference to you and you will still dismiss this analysis with more closed minded and illogical explanations but that's your problem, not mine. (NOTE: I am not attacking you as a person, rather your decision to hold onto a bad belief system despite any logical reason to reject it).
Even if I "won" you would still say I haven't proved anything. Just like the Bible says, "you can beat a fool, but his folly will not leave him" (Proverbs 27:22) and "The fool says in his heart there is no God." (Psalm 14:1-3) When a person is closed minded and is determined to explain away or rationalize theories by WHATEVER means, its futile to exchange info with them. I can sit here and shoot down all arguments (using arguments from former evolutionists, top scientists, references to evolutionist statements of doubt of their findings, and scientific data from every source at my disposal) and all you would do is say "well you have proven evolution wrong but it still doesn't prove God exists, it just proves we don't know why everything appears to be designed". Which starts you back to where you began. There is a possibility to go line by line to prove everything you believe is wrong but no one would sit and do that, neither would you go through that. It would take months and months because you literally have 1000's of misconceptions at every level, from basic theology (you even admitted that you know little about religions as a whole) and science (you only know what atheists have taught you or have taught you to reject, not the other side of the evidence).
I must concede with Dan on only one of his statements, that you cannot convince an atheist by evidence alone, nor by reasoning. There is an unpenetrable deception and only one thing can touch it and that's the Holy spirit. Even though many atheist became Christians from science (like I did), I now see that it was caused by an epiphany of the truth apart from the evidence, rather than by the actual fact that evolution and other atheistic stuff is proved flawed. If someone wants something to be true, they will hold onto it for dear life. There are atheists out there that know that what they study in evolution is wrong, but don't know what to do because they also believe religion is wrong based on all the misconceptions they were taught by atheism. So they are between a rock and a hard place, forever confused.
(Continued)
So my experiment is now complete. A closed minded, self-deceived person cannot be reached by any human means. It is the equivalent of debating a mentally retarded person as to why he hits his head against a wall even though it hurts him. If he was able to comprehend the fact that he should stop, he would not be retarded. Its a "catch 22" situation. It is a force beyond him that prevents him from coming to a stable state of reason to stop the destructive path he is on. Therefore, attempting to explain sight to someone who is blind, is futile, because they will keep saying "I can't see that," which you did the entire time of this debate. You couldn't see that your theories, scientific research and logic could not in any way explain why there was a cause to existence or why everything has specific laws and complexity without referring to illogical and debunked experiments pitifully showing life came from "supposedly" nothing. Why would all of creation come from nothing, yet you wouldn't even think something millions of times less complex like a watch came from nothing. This is beyond illogical if you believe something comes from nothing, that 0 + 0 = 1. You are deceived. You call your little cell experiments an example of evolution, but its under far different conditions than what it would take if coming from space from nothing. Since we know no living organism can survive very long in space because of cosmic rays and other radiation,this theory is highly dubious and does not answer the question of where or how life did originate. The reason why I know you are delusional is because even some of the people who study these things have concluded that they are not conclusive enough to prove life came from nothing. An atheist scientist can tell you to your face that abiogenesis is impossible and you will probably say "that's your opinion but I choose to believe its true." If naturalistic molecules-to-human-life evolution were true, multibillions of links are required to bridge modern humans with the chemicals that once existed in the hypothetical “primitive soup”. You are so blinded to this fact, that you refute yourself when you try to explain it illogical, outdated, or simply "staged" examples that prove nothing. This is the fatal blow to the atheist quest against God and it must be repeated. From every logic, every branch of science, history, physics, chemistry, and simple reason shout that abiogensis is IMPOSSIBLE and can NEVER HAPPEN under even the best circumstances. Useful Information, DNA, or any specified complexity MUST come from intelligence. There is only one cause to existence and its not science.
ReplyDelete(Continued)
The naturalistic origin of life hypothesis has become less and less probable as molecular biology has progressed, and is now at the point that its plausibility appears outside the realm of probability. Numerous origin-of-life researchers, have lamented the fact that molecular biology during the past half-a-century has not been very kind to any naturalistic origin-of-life theory. Perhaps this explains why researchers now are speculating that other events such as panspermia or an undiscovered “life law” are more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.
ReplyDeleteYou even believe that this is stupid to think there is purpose, function and significance to even yourself. Why would you want to believe in a negative belief system that can't even explain why its here, and teaches you to not even consider any other alternative that includes intelligence? I would much rather believe in a positive belief system that is untrue than to believe in a negative system that may be true but proves everything has meaninglessness and nothingness involved in its creation. I am terrified of atheism now, it destroys your mind and leads you into an intellectual tailspin of confusion and depression. If all of this is just an accident and we are all going to die to nothing anyway, I would rather take the religious way of heaven and a loving God with me throughout life than the doom and gloom of "everything is meaningless so I will just live my life anyway I want until I die". That is exactly what the devil wants you to do.
You rule out the answer before you ask the question. You will start with "there is no God. Now what is the origin of life?" The reason you never find the answer is because you ruled it out before you asked the question. Its highly unscientific and anti-intellectual to rule out answers. Its no different than going to a math class and saying "There is no number 4. It is simply a figment of some fundamentalist imagination." Then you go to class and the teacher says, "What is 2 + 2?" You answer "3" or "5", but it cannot be 4, because 4 doesn't exist. The problem is when you do this you are no longer involved in science but rather indoctrination.
(Continued)