-->
@zedvictor4
See Trinkaus, E. (1995). "Neanderthal mortality patterns". Journal of Archaeological Science. 22 (1): 121–142.
The God Topic
Posts
Total:
64
-->
@FLRW
O.K.
So what's GOD got to do with it?
And which GOD?
And as I stated...Limited life expectancy, wasn't just a Neanderthal expectation.
-->
@ethang5
I really do not see how that argument is actually used since it does not refute God or his existence.Are you sure? For example, If something else can explain the ground being wet, then it didn't rain.So I came out of my house the other day and saw my neighbor washing his car with a hose. He smiled at me and said, "I bet you think it's strange of me to wash my car right after a big rain. I told him that his hose adequately explained the wet ground and therefore I know it did not rain.I learned that bit of brilliant science from atheists.
Hi ethang5, yes I understand that argument and I don't have an issue with it. But in relation to God it is an non-comprehensive argument or only a partial argument. The reason being that God is understood to be the ultimate cause of all things - the first cause. Hence for it to be a valid argument against God, then the atheist needs to refute not just the second causes - which occur - but the first cause as well. Atheists using the above argument only ever get to first base - and thinking they have scored a homerun, miss the fact that the biblical God is not just a God of first base, but of all the other bases as well.
This means in practice that the above illustration misses the point. It explains only the second cause. Not the first cause. It is inadequate to do so.
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, a LIAR of their true gender,
Jesus. and I want to thank you for understanding that in your silence to the link shown below, and subseuent to my quote listed herein, you admit that I outright own you and your biblical ignorance! LOL. Obviously your run away subsequent posts to my post #6 were a vain attempt to address it, and embarrassingly do not count in any type of refutation, understood, Bible fool?
“Tradesecret, listen, to save yourself from even further embarrassment in opening up the flood gates regarding our serial killer Jesus, just remain silent because you DO NOT in any way have the acumen to discuss this topic with me as shown before, okay? You have made yourself enough of a Bible fool within this forum, therefore why add more proverbial egg to your face? Get it? Therefore, in you remaining silent upon this post, reaffirms the fact that I and many others completely OWN your Bible ignorance upon this forum. Thank you for agreeing to this simple notion.”
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN EQUAL TO TRADESECRET THAT WANTS TO BE BIBLICALLY “OWNED” BY THE BROTHER D. WILL BE …?
.
-->
@ethang5
Are you sure? For example, If something else can explain the ground being wet, then it didn't rain.So I came out of my house the other day and saw my neighbor washing his car with a hose. He smiled at me and said, "I bet you think it's strange of me to wash my car right after a big rain. I told him that his hose adequately explained the wet ground and therefore I know it did not rain.I learned that bit of brilliant science from atheists.
No your wrong because atheists dont have brilliant science becuase there is not enough water that comes out of a hose to flood the earth so the world wasnt flooded like that. There were fountains of the deep which means that it rained up from the ground for forty days and forty nights.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
TRADESECRET, a Bible 2nd class woman NOW, the Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he/she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark, the pseudo-christian that says kids that curse their parents should be killed, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19 and 2 Timothy 4:3, an admitted sexual deviant, and had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, a LIAR of their true gender,
Hi Brother, good to see you are back. Without you about, things were getting a bit dry. So good to see the entertainment is back. I just want to correct a few things of your flattering description of me.
- What is a bible 2nd class woman? That sounds strange. Can you please find a first class bible woman? Thanks Brother.
- I have not run away from any debate. How strange? Indeed, all you had to do was demonstrate that you could concede graciously and I would have jumped in without a doubt. So, the ball is in your court and has been for a long time now.
- What is a Bible denier? I don't deny the bible. I think it is real. I have several in my possession.
- I don't deny that Jesus is the Son, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I have never denied this. However did you come to your false conclusion? Oh yes, because I denied that Jesus was the Father. And I denied that Jesus was the Holy Spirit. Can you please confirm what you think? Is The Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit all the same person or are they three persons of the SAME GOD. I would certainly not call the Father, the Trinity. I would not call the Holy Spirit the Trinity. And I would not call the Son, the Trinity. Yet all three together, not separately are the Trinity. And they are ONE GOD. Not three separate gods.
- I have not run away to a division of Christianity. I know what I am. If you are a true Christian, you would be able to discern. Hmmm.
- I have not committed the unpardonable sin. The fact that I call Jesus LORD sincerely and in good faith demonstrates that truth.
- Am I the number 1 biblical fool? Happy to accept that compliment. Thanks Brother.
- Noah's Ark. I am happy to work with what the Bible says.
- I never said that kids who curse their parents MUST be killed. I have indicated in the first place I believe this is talking about adult children. I conceded that some perceptions of it might include minors. I never conceded that I thought it. I indicated that cursing parents is akin to "threats to kill" or to "harm". I don't take the view that is simply swearing at them. Blessings and Curses in the bible - were instruments used in a covenantal sense. To bless someone meant to do good - to curse someone meant to do something harmful. When an adult child cursed their parents - as Jesus suggested the adult pharisees were doing to their parents, Jesus reminded them of the OT law. I have also indicated that it is my position that the statute relating to the death penalty - is a covenantal death - in the Hebrew - it literally reads, "dying, you shall die". It is a Jewish idiom and suggests that the maximum penalty is death. Maximum is not the only punishment. Furthermore, the more serious the penalty on an offence - the higher and greater value was placed on the preserving of society. In this instance - families - honoring parents is a particularly high moral point to preserve. I do not resile from my position.
- Yes, the Bible contains some works of fiction within its pages. Many of Jesus' parables for instances - were works of fiction. Possibly based on true stories - but essentially the point was made whether true or not. The truth of the story was not the actual story but to what the story pointed to.
- I am not guilty of Revelation 22:18-19. I do not add to the words of God and I do not take away from them. Any of my words or discussions are not at in any way an attempt to be authoritative as revelation. Nor do I reduce any of the words of the Bible from being authoritative. I interpret the Scriptures in a particular way and manner which is consistent with many others in this world. Please give me an example of where I have added to the scriptures or where I have taken away? That would be a good start for your assertion.
- I am not guilty of 2 Timothy 4:3. It is you, not me who tolerates false doctrine. You need to argue your point.
- I have never admitted to being a sexual deviant. I am not a sexual deviant. And I find your continued repetition of such lies harassing and unjustified.
- I have not had gender surgery realignment. But if I did, it would be none of your business. I do not find it to be categorically ungodly either. I have changed my profile on my account on numerous occasions because I wanted to model you. After all, you have the most FAKE profile on this site.
Jesus. and I want to thank you for understanding that in your silence to the link shown below, and subseuent to my quote listed herein, you admit that I outright own you and your biblical ignorance! LOL. Obviously your run away subsequent posts to my post #6 were a vain attempt to address it, and embarrassingly do not count in any type of refutation, understood, Bible fool?
You do not own people. That is illegal. You certainly own your own biblical ignorance all by yourself. Can you explain how I can post subsequent responses to your post and still be a runaway. Isn't the definition of a runaway - someone who does not stick around to respond? Oh by the way - you did not ask any questions so I presumed that you were making a speech.
“Tradesecret, listen, to save yourself from even further embarrassment in opening up the flood gates regarding our serial killer Jesus, just remain silent because you DO NOT in any way have the acumen to discuss this topic with me as shown before, okay? You have made yourself enough of a Bible fool within this forum, therefore why add more proverbial egg to your face? Get it? Therefore, in you remaining silent upon this post, reaffirms the fact that I and many others completely OWN your Bible ignorance upon this forum. Thank you for agreeing to this simple notion.”
I assume you must be speaking about Jesus Barabbas. He was a serial killer wasn't he? Silence is a great tool. I agree. To bad you don't have the capacity to use such a great tool.
After all, you have the most FAKE profile on this site.
Ouch.
7 days later
-->
@Tradesecret
Evidence for me would be anything that shows by necessity the natural world required an intelligence to create it. To be clear, I said by necessity. I don't in any way insist there is no god, only that nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
-->
@amandragon01
Evidence for me would be anything that shows by necessity the natural world required an intelligence to create it.
That's easy, so we would use common sense and correlation. The universe is constructed through a succession of processes, processes are associated with intelligence or agency. The counter position would be to accept that inanimate forces and materials can begin to generate intelligent processes all by themselves. But, we know through commonsense there needs to be thought (mind) to understand how a process should unfold and what materials are needed. So really the evidence, or indication that intelligence is required for the processes that created the universe to unfold is pretty strong if not unanimous as far as commonsense goes.
I don't in any way insist there is no god
Excellent, then you come across as someone I'd like to converse with.
only that nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
That's a shame, hopefully I gave you something to ponder above.
Here's a good way to consider it, every time you observe energy you observe awareness, every time you observe awareness you observe energy. Basically they co-exist. I can make that claim simply by how energy acts within our universe.
-->
@amandragon01
This is why God should speak to the people from a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show.
-->
@FLRW
This is why God should speak to the people from a burning bush on the Jim Bakker show.
This would presuppose that God would want this particular world other than what it is. Do you agree that if something like that were to happen it would change the nature and course of this particular world, making it something entirely different? if it were to become something entirely different, then the experience would also become something entirely different.
This would also assume that the account in the Bible actually literally happened (not saying it didn't either), and apart from the fact someone said it did, we really can not say either way. So basically there's no reason to assume that God wants that to happen on the Jim Bakker show. The question becomes, are there alternatives to knowing God exists? I would say of course so, that's why millions of people believe in God without that taking place. And as well without altering the course of this particular world.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Millions of people believe in a GOD, because millions of people are conditioned to believe in a GOD.
Teach your kids nonsense and they will grow up believing in nonsense.
N.B. The GOD principle is not necessarily nonsense....Though associated human based and fantasy embellished mythologies tend to be nonsensical.
-->
@zedvictor4
And also, due to God's poor design, scientists have found that damage in a certain part of the brain is linked to an increase in religious fundamentalism.
-->
@amandragon01
...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
Life doesn't?
-->
@Tradesecret
@BearMan
I know you said you never debate God so just ignore this post if you want Bearman.
Merely saying that "everything" is evidence is a baseless claim, as you have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists.
He was not presenting his evidence, he was telling us the nature of his evidence, that is, all creation is evidence.
But there is a problem. He doesn't have to prove every single thing in existence is solid proof that a God exists. To require that is disingenuous. Consider this:
If I claimed the the sum of two numbers is always larger than either of the two numbers added, would I have to add all numbers to prove they all produce a sum larger than the two added numbers? No. We would just pick numbers at random and test them against the claim. Why the different, unfair standard for god claims?
The fact of the matter is if an atheist challenges the evidence correctly, there shouldn't be any reason why the atheist should believe in that piece of evidence you have provided.
This is another bit of fancy footwork. The theist is not debating for your belief. His job is to present a sound and logical argument. And it doesn't depend on the atheist for its validity. Theists are not submitting an argument for your belief and acceptance. The atheist is not the boss sitting in judgement of the theist's argument. The strength of the theist's argument remains unchanged regardless of the acceptance of the atheist.
You claim that it's not really reversing the burden of proof, which it actually entirely is.
Whether it is a reversal or not depends on the claim being discussed.
Claim made: God exists. Claim Maker: Theist BoP On: Theist
Claim made: God does not exist. Claim Maker: Atheist BoP On: Atheist
The principle is clear, logical, and consistent. If the atheists says that he cannot prove a negative, who forced him to make a claim he could not prove? Certainly not the theist.
The thing is that the atheist wants to use "God exists" as the original argument for every God argument. Why? Why can we not use HIS argument? He will barge into a debate where no one has claimed that God exists, and try to use the person simply being a theist as if that was a positive claim, already made, that God exists.
What this does is to force the theist in every argument between a theist and an atheist to have the BoP, regardless of the claims of the atheist!
TS was absolutely right to reject such self-serving nonsense. TS was even more magnanimous than I would have been. He agreed to defend his claim, if the atheist would defend his own claim also. How is that unfair or unreasonable?
But no. The atheist wants an argument where all his claims go unchallenged, as he hammers away at the theist. This was doable back in the days before militant anti-theists, when atheists were still intellectually honest. Not so today. And certainly not on the internet.
If you can't or won't defend your claims, we can dismiss them. If you think your only position is offense, you will get a nasty shock. If you claim you believe nothing, then you hold no beliefs that contradict mine and we thus have nothing to debate.
That's how I see it.
-->
@ethang5
...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.Life doesn't?
Not in any demonstrable way no. What about life necessitates a creator (for the sake of clarity here I am being colloquial and mean an intelligent creator). Most of the arguments I've heard are essentially arguments from ignorance. How do you propose life demonstrates the necessity of an intelligence in its formation?
-->
@FLRW
Yep....If you force feed kids nonsense, then your going to damage them.....
-->
@EtrnlVw
That's easy, so we would use common sense and correlation. The universe is constructed through a succession of processes, processes are associated with intelligence or agency
This doesn't follow.
To be clear I would agree that the universe contains and likely develops through processes (using the specific dictionary definition of processes as a change through time), or as the interaction of forces. I don't feel you have in any way shown that all processes involve intelligence. To avoid miscommunication can you give me your definition of process please?
Here's a good way to consider it, every time you observe energy you observe awareness, every time you observe awareness you observe energy. Basically they co-exist. I can make that claim simply by how energy acts within our universe.
And what about the way energy acts demonstrates awareness? How do you determine that energy must possess or be guided by an intelligence?
-->
@Mopac
The Truth as God.
You are very mixing up and you also saying the god of truth which is also mixing up because the true god is being the truth and when you no the true god then you no the truth.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The universe is constructed through a succession of random processes, processes that are not associated with intelligence or agency.
A team of astronomers is making a bold prediction: In 2022, give or take a year, a pair of stars will merge and explode, becoming one of the brightest objects in the sky for a short period. It’s notoriously hard to predict when such stellar catastrophes will occur, but this binary pair is engaged in a well-documented dance of death that will inevitably come to a head in the next few years, they say.
-->
@FLRW
When god does things they are not random because they are deliberate and when god makes the stars explode he is make them explode deliberately and he does not choose to do it randomly.
-->
@amandragon01
...nothing has been presented to me that would demonstrate the necessity of a creator.
Life doesn't?
Not in any demonstrable way no. What about life necessitates a creator (for the sake of clarity here I am being colloquial and mean an intelligent creator).
Three things...
1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life
2. Man has not been able to create life at all
3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.
Most of the arguments I've heard are essentially arguments from ignorance. How do you propose life demonstrates the necessity of an intelligence in its formation?
Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.
Three things...1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life
This neither removes the possibility of such an instance nor shows intelligence must be involved.
2. Man has not been able to create life at all
So the only example we have of intelligence hasn't been able to create life and this is evidence that life must require an intelligence to form? How does this prove the necessity of an intelligence at all? It really only seems to show what we can't do.
3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.
I agree that life creates and manipulates information if you define information as
"What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things."
Then however I would ask why that requires an intelligence? What would prevent natural processes forming and manipulating such sequences?
Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.
Again we derive information from sequences, nothing seems to suggest these sequences. Why must these sequences be formed by an intelligence?
-->
@amandragon01
Three things...
1. There is no known instance of life ever starting without prior life
This neither removes the possibility of such an instance nor shows intelligence must be involved.
Agreed. But yet it is more in favor of intelligence being involved than not. So you have less reason to assume abiogenesis than I have to assume creation.
2. Man has not been able to create life at all
So the only example we have of intelligence hasn't been able to create life and this is evidence that life must require an intelligence to form?
Not must, but highly likely. It is more reasonable to conclude that life comes from life than to assume abiogenesis when not only is there absolutely no evidence for abiogenesis, but there is a ton of evidence for life only from prior life.
How does this prove the necessity of an intelligence at all? It really only seems to show what we can't do.
Why can't we do it? The science seems to indicate because abiogenesis is incorrect/impossible.
3. Life makes, uses, and adapts information, and information creation & manipulation requires intelligence.
I agree that life creates and manipulates information if you define information as"What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
Acceptable.
Then however I would ask why that requires an intelligence? What would prevent natural processes forming and manipulating such sequences?
Only intelligence can produce a "particular" arrangement or sequence. Non-intelligence can only produce random arrangements or sequences.
Without the information in DNA/RNA, life cannot start. Without life, we cannot have DNA/RNA. It's simple and intuitive.
Again we derive information from sequences, nothing seems to suggest these sequences. Why must these sequences be formed by an intelligence?
Because only intelligence can produce, use and store "particular" information.
S.E.T.I. was based on this truism. Otherwise, we could never know if a thing like a spaceship or a novel was a product of intelligence of of random chance.
Though the reasons to conclude intelligence in crestion life are not ironclad, there is absolutely no logical reason to assume abiogenesis. None whatsoever.
-->
@ethang5
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility....Even if those possibilities are seemingly illogical.
-->
@zedvictor4
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility....Even if those possibilities are seemingly illogical.
Your being real dumb hear because then you are trying to make everything is happening like when your jeans is falling down is not logic it is because your being stupid. And when you saying that dog turd with legs is running down the street that is not logic that is stupid and then you assume and make dogs ass out of you and the dog.
-->
@Utanity
LOL.
-->
@zedvictor4
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility....Even if those possibilities are seemingly illogical.
OK, give us an example of a logical reason to assume a seemingly illogical "possibility".
This comment of yours is the exact opposite of science. I should frame it for posterity.
-->
@ethang5
Question and supposition.
I'm not certain that science can be said to have an "exact opposite"....Fantasy maybe.....Even then it could be argued that elements of reasoning go into the production of fantasy.
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not certain that science can be said to have an "exact opposite"....
Your comment comes very close.
There are logical reasons to assume every possibility, even seemingly illogical possibilities.
Wow. Breath taking! If ever there was a definition of what science is NOT. This is it.