God and Dreamtime stories.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 117
Topic's author
#1
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5

This is a topic which I’ve gotten into some detail before, but I think deserves a forum to itself. 

If you think about science and it’s origin, you can conclude that all science is observable in nature. Gravity is observable through day to day observation. Planets have been observed and calculations have been made to estimate the size of planets millions of years away. Evolution is observable through millions of years worth of evolutionary science and the interrelation between organisms. 

What I’m getting at is that all scientific facts have come from nature and are observable. Science can be replicated by anyone. Given the right place to look, everyone can notice evolution. Given a good enough telescope and mathematics ability, anyone can calculate the size of Mars. 

However, the same cannot be said for God and the Bible. I fail to see how nature proves the bible is correct in any way (like how nature proves evolution is right, or at least extremely plausible). When comparing the Bible to nature, there is almost as much correlation between the two than between an Aboriginal Dreamtime story and nature. Though the bible and Dreamtime stories mention nature, there is nothing testable within it’s pages. Take this as an example. The following is a quote from a Dreamtime story followed by a verse from the bible.

Now long, long time ago of course, in the beginning, when there was no people, no trees, no plants whatever on this land, “Guthi-guthi”, the spirit of our ancestral being, he lived up in the sky.

So he came down and he wanted to create the special land for people and animals and birds to live in.

So Guthi-guthi came down and he went on creating the land for the people-after he’d set the borders in place and the sacred sights, the birthing places of all the Dreamings, where all our Dreamings were to come out of.

Guthi-guthi put one foot on Gunderbooka Mountain and another one at Mount Grenfell.

And he looked out over the land and he could see that the land was bare. There was no water in sight, there was nothing growing. So Guthi-guthi knew that trapped in a mountain-Mount Minara-the water serpent, Weowie, he was trapped in the mountain. So Guthi-guthi called out to him, “Weowie, Weowie”, but because Weowie was trapped right in the middle of the mountain, he couldn’t hear him.
Followed by Genesis 1. 

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

It is clear that there are correlations between the two. Both of them include some mythical being coming down and creating parts of nature. However, neither of these accounts provide evidence. Essentially, an Aboriginal Dream Time is as testable as God. Neither are observable in nature. Neither provide facts, and neither are replicable. So I ask the religious readers, what makes God more evident than these Dreamtime stories? In fact, what makes Christianity more plausible than the Islamic faith? If you got a Christina and an Islam man together to discuss their religion, it would not be a debate, but a battle of blind faith.  


#2
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
Hi checkmate,

Every thing you have said about evolution is an estimation, nothing is verifiable. No one can go back millions of years ago. Estimations are not facts. Just probabilities based on jargon. 

Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable. Hence any story about the origin of the world is myth. Including the Big Bang. And is any notion of evolution - that suggests evolution of kinds. 

Science cannot prove anything that is not observable.  Evolution by its implicit nature is over millions of years - hence - at best - estimation. But not facts. Not observable facts - hence a myth. 


Topic's author
#3
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret

We meet again. 

Every thing you have said about evolution is an estimation, nothing is verifiable. No one can go back millions of years ago. Estimations are not facts. Just probabilities based on jargon.
To call the biggest and most recognised biological study ever “jargon” is a bit of a stretch. Just because you do not believe it, does not mean it is not true. However, since I have some knowledge about Evolution, I will debunk your main claim which is as follows. 

Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable. Hence any story about the origin of the world is myth. Including the Big Bang. And is any notion of evolution - that suggests evolution of kinds.
The first bit I have already debunked.  The second bit however, is a bit more comedic. What exactly do you support? The Bible, I would assume, a book of which no evidence supports.


#4
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate

Every thing you have said about evolution is an estimation, nothing is verifiable. No one can go back millions of years ago. Estimations are not facts. Just probabilities based on jargon.
To call the biggest and most recognised biological study ever “jargon” is a bit of a stretch. Just because you do not believe it, does not mean it is not true. However, since I have some knowledge about Evolution, I will debunk your main claim which is as follows. 


I don't see why it is a stretch. You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following. 


Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se.  I am dismissing evolutionary theory which alleges to have occurred over millions of years as "myth". The distinction is significant.  I disagree with the two terms of micro and macro evolution. Such terms are often used by creationists and are unhelpful terms. They also enable evolutionists to gain an upper hand without lifting a finger. 

Changes or adaptions between the species and within species is entirely consistent with creationist doctrine.  To call this micro evolution is again unhelpful.  It however - whatever term you call it - I prefer adaption, growth, is not the same as what you seem to be referring to as macro evolution. The former is and can be observed.  The latter not. 
The former is consistent with creation and does not require millions of years - it is observable - hence scientific. The latter - requires millions of years - is not observable - requires faith.  Hence, myth. 

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
Blah blah blah. Read what I said above.  Just because some people call it evolution - does not make it evolution.  Nor does it demonstrate a link between so called micro and macro. Saying it - does not make it so. Observational evidence would be required - which can't be done. Hence myth. 


The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions.  Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well.  The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale. 

Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable. Hence any story about the origin of the world is myth. Including the Big Bang. And is any notion of evolution - that suggests evolution of kinds.
The first bit I have already debunked.  The second bit however, is a bit more comedic. You say the Big Bang is a myth? Unless you can debunk the points from the website I have linked, I will not take this emotive claim seriously. And what exactly do you support? The Bible, I would assume, a book of which no evidence supports.

Well, sorry that is not a debunking.  Not even close.  I don't have to debunk the Big Bang. You have to prove it is true first.  I have seen no credible evidence for its existence or reality. In fact - it is highly improbably and very unlikely.  




Topic's author
#5
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
 You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following. 
The truth is not a democracy. 

Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se.  
Wise. However, you go on to essentially dismiss all of my arguments, which is extremely disappointing. However, you have provided me with a great amount of joy with the following section. 

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions.  Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well.  The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale. 

Hilarious! Absolutely comedic! You are a true cherry picker. Watch, just watch the following. 

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
The underline was your hilarious attempt to debunk science, followed by something called context underlines by me. 


Reality check, Creationism is not science, it is ad hoc and embarrassing. If you wish me to debunk creationism as a whole, I'll do so in my next comment. As to your attempt to put the BoP on me regarding the Big Bang, that would be true. Since I am proposing the idea of the Big Bang I must prove it (I wish this was your attitude when we talked about religion). But no matters, this article should keep you occupied. 

#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Checkmate
Science is the application of the human mind and and it's enhanced  ability to manipulate information. Which allows us to study natural processes and further our understanding of them.

So in reality scientific facts have come from the human mind.....Nature is only what it is, and not science per se.

GODS are also a product of the human mind, though at best pseudo scientific.... In so much as effects were noticed and causes were hypothesised, but not scientifically established.

Why is there a thunder storm up in the sky....Well there must be a GOD up there creating it.........Eventually, science provided us with the real solution.

As to the origins of matter.....That one is currently unknown.....GODS are one of many hypotheses.
#7
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
As to the origins of matter.....That one is currently unknown.....GODS are one of many hypotheses.
Interesting. Do you have any good reasons? Historically they haven’t been the most reliable source of phenomena, verifiably speaking.
They aren’t really on my radar. Well I guess we’d have to define what you mean by “GODS.” Could a god be a inter-dimensional/inter-universal manipulating Boltzmann brain? Or do you mean more traditional gods?

#8
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Checkmate
Yes but those abos had the bunyips in their dreamtime stories not God because God comes from heaven and not from the ground and he had to send Jesus down to tell all the abos and the witties about the true God. Some of the witties told the abos about the true God but then the scum witties told the abos about the other spirits that comes in the bottles.
#9
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Well hypotheses vary from the sublime to the ridiculous and the ridiculously sublime....Make of that what you will.

I currently work on the idea, of material evolution with a purpose, rather than nihilism.

GOD is just an epithet.
#10
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Nice posts zed. 
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
 You seem to have no issues dismissing religion which has a far longer history and following. 
The truth is not a democracy. 
Well that is a matter of opinion. And it really depends on the situation.  Truth is whatever people decide it is if there is no absolute truth. 

Firstly, I am not dismissing evolution per se.  
Wise. However, you go on to essentially dismiss all of my arguments, which is extremely disappointing. However, you have provided me with a great amount of joy with the following section. 
No, I am simply trying to narrow down in on your argument to demonstrate you are incorrect. 


The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
I have underlined some key words for you. Inference. Hypothesis. Predictions.  Creationists make predictions based on their understanding as well.  The problem is - it is not observable. the best is still a guess and a hope. It is faith. Hence it is a myth. and just because you really really want to believe it is fact - does not make it so. It is at best a myth and at worst a fabrication or fairy tale. 

Hilarious! Absolutely comedic! You are a true cherry picker. Watch, just watch the following. 
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided. Words that demonstrate you do not rely on facts but faith. 


The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.
The underline was your hilarious attempt to debunk science, followed by something called context underlines by me. 
Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation.  Like I said - there is NO direct observation.  Any testing done in any of the historical sciences can never be validated except with observation.  True, they test and if a prediction falls within a particular percentile aisle they claim it is validated. Yet, it is a test of a hypothesis.  But prediction as a measure of truth is not valid.  Prediction relies upon premises - many which will be debunked. So it is a useless attempt to prove truth. Only direct observation will do so. Tests, hypothesis, predictions only confirm particular theories - so long as the assumptions are correct. When the assumptions are wrong, then then the test can still predict a confirmation, only to be debunked later because the assumptions have been reset because anomolies have occurred.  In other words - it is not a valid way to establish the truth. And as we both know - democracy nor testing based on assumptions is a determiner of truth. 

Reality check, Creationism is not science, it is ad hoc and embarrassing. If you wish me to debunk creationism as a whole, I'll do so in my next comment. As to your attempt to put the BoP on me regarding the Big Bang, that would be true. Since I am proposing the idea of the Big Bang I must prove it (I wish this was your attitude when we talked about religion). But no matters, this article should keep you occupied. 
I never claimed creationism is a science. I suggested that creationism can make predictions which demonstrate the validity of its assumptions.  It is not a valid determiner of the truth either.  

My attitude to B of P is not actually the person who asserts must do so.  I think that is the way some people understand it. I also think that this is a modern way of trying to do it - and most likely was done in order to take theists out of the picture. In other words, atheists are unable to prove God does not exist. We all know that. Similarly, theists cannot prove God exists. We all know that as well.  It is a political point of view. 

I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position.  This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it.  When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P.  Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do. Hence, they have tried to change the rules. But really it only ever becomes an issue when theists and atheists discuss God. It does not occur in any other field of life.   Not really and not with any real sense. Yes, today as atheists or progressives tend to have a much larger sway on things, the point is becoming more of an issue.  



Thanks for those sites.  I love how people talk about things like facts when they don't have any way to ACTUALLY prove it.  None of this would pass a court room test. 

And I am not talking about BRD, I am talking on the balance of probabilities.  

#12
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Well hypotheses vary from the sublime to the ridiculous and the ridiculously sublime....Make of that what you will.

I currently work on the idea, of material evolution with a purpose, rather than nihilism.

GOD is just an epithet.
Would you mind sharing your ideas?

Nihilism should be considered an epithet too. There were tribes without the concept of God(s). Would you have called them nihilists?






Topic's author
#13
Checkmate
Checkmate's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 104
0
1
5
Checkmate's avatar
Checkmate
0
1
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided. 
Your not cherry picking? Are you serious? Do you even know the definition of cherry picking. The definitions is as follows.

the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.
What you have done is ignored words such as "verifiable" and "can be tested."

Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation. 
With this logic, I can side sweep the whole bible, as no one alive has been involved with any event in the bible. I can say that you religious folks are simply inferring what is said in the bible and that you cannot actually travel back in time to when Jesus roamed the world. 

I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position.  This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it.  When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P.  Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do.
This is what I call jargon. How can you possibly believe the BoP is on atheists? Your logic is quite literally, "A lot of people have agreed for a long time so it must be right". The reason you have taken the BoP away from me is either a) you are insane and actually believe this to be true or b) you cannot provide any evidence for God. I'll give you an example. Imagine if there was an age old cult which believed in intangible, invisible and inaudible fairies (they cannot be detected in any way). According to your logic, it would have to be I who debunks these undetectable fairies, which is an impossible task. In this scenario, who do you think bears the BoP. 


Nevertheless, I ask, what would be sufficient evidence provided by an atheists which will make you question religion. Since you believe the BoP is on me, what sort of evidence would you like to hear. 
#14
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Well hypotheses vary from the sublime to the ridiculous and the ridiculously sublime....Make of that what you will.

I currently work on the idea, of material evolution with a purpose, rather than nihilism.

GOD is just an epithet.

See you believe in god because only God can give porpoise and it is only scum atheists who say that there isnt. But you probably dont believe in the true god which is the problem because when you believe in the true god then you have true to yourself.
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Checkmate
I am not cherry picking anything. I have simply used the terms and words you have provided. 
Your not cherry picking? Are you serious? Do you even know the definition of cherry picking. The definitions is as follows.

the action or practice of choosing and taking only the most beneficial or profitable items, opportunities, etc., from what is available.
What you have done is ignored words such as "verifiable" and "can be tested."
Seriously!!! If this is the case, which I reject, then surely your own words prove your lie. After all, rather than actually trying to refute my point, you get all upset that I don't engage with other words. I think the word verifiable must be used in the context.  I highlighted words because they clearly reveal the subjective nature of what this kind of science is doing as opposed to the objective kinds we see. Verifiable in this context is clearly - "best guess". Not verifiable as "seen with real time observation". And as for "can be tested"?  Says who? I did engage with that as well. It is you who seem to be cherry picking. I said that the best tests are still only done to within a percentile based on assumptions. Clearly that is not cherry picking.  I happen to like science. I think it is one of the best fields of research we have in this time. Yet, I am not going to just assume that something is proved or fact - based on statistics, probability, assumptions or best guess. If I could or if we should - then socialism ought to be wiped off as a psuedo science. The assumptions underlying capitalism are far more reliable than the Marx or Hegel . The entire environment movement is based on the same statistics and assumptions as capitalism. The underlying assumptions relating to estimates, and modeling and best guesses.  Yet the two fields of life are fundamentally opposed to each other - based on their own science.   



Macroevolutionary study is itself a myth. It involves "inference" rather direct observation. 
With this logic, I can side sweep the whole bible, as no one alive has been involved with any event in the bible. I can say that you religious folks are simply inferring what is said in the bible and that you cannot actually travel back in time to when Jesus roamed the world. 
Absolutely, if the bible was saying that direct observation was the determiner of truth.  


I actually take the view that the B. o P. is on the person who asserts something contrary to the default position.  This makes more sense and is how legalists and historians understand it.  When there is a general consensus about an idea or fact, then it is assumed to be correct until the new reviser of history or the idea can demonstrate otherwise. In this case, it would be the atheist who has the B. o P.  Atheists however know that this is something that they can never do.
This is what I call jargon. How can you possibly believe the BoP is on atheists? Your logic is quite literally, "A lot of people have agreed for a long time so it must be right". The reason you have taken the BoP away from me is either a) you are insane and actually believe this to be true or b) you cannot provide any evidence for God. I'll give you an example. Imagine if there was an age old cult which believed in intangible, invisible and inaudible fairies (they cannot be detected in any way). According to your logic, it would have to be I who debunks these undetectable fairies, which is an impossible task. In this scenario, who do you think bears the BoP. 

IT is not jargon. It is simply what history reveals.  You might not like it.  For the record I think the B. of P is on the atheist.  Most of the world just happens to be right about God because for them god is right there. I don't have to prove that air is real for me to be able to breathe it. People who are just born - don't need to learn what air is. They just do it. Blind faith you would call it.  It is not wrong to learn something from your parents. Atheists tend to suggest that anyone who is religious learnt it from their parents and that somehow this is blind faith. It is just nonsense argument. 

The difference between your example and real life is substantial.  Apart from the obvious disconnect from reality since I did not suggest that extreme examples ought not be challenged. My logic is not that a lot of people have agreed therefore it must be right. It is that the default position is in place for a reason, and just because someone comes along who disagrees with it - does not mean that suddenly the tradition has to prove itself.  Why should the newcomer get the right to question the tradition without first putting up their reasons for why the tradition should be challenged? 

I think traditions are important in our world.  They might be crazy traditions and perhaps they need to be changed - BUT I certainly do not think it is right that a new comer can come along and say - to the tradition, without first putting their own views first, you must prove your tradition. That is backwards logic. It is insulting to the past and to our parents.  It is not the way to win arguments and it is not the way to help change the world. 

Nevertheless, I ask, what would be sufficient evidence provided by an atheists which will make you question religion. Since you believe the BoP is on me, what sort of evidence would you like to hear. 
I thank you for the curtesy of asking me? But before I do, let me ask you why you are asking this question? The reason I asked is that I asked a similar question on the reverse side of the argument recently and pretty much was told "it ain't going to happen". The God Topic (debateart.com)

And for the record, I think that you ask the question is because you are insightful and not closed minded yet. And this I think is a good thing. 

I will address your question - but before I do - how about we explore the question of evidence further. 

#16
KeLu777
KeLu777's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
2
KeLu777's avatar
KeLu777
0
0
2
-->
@Tradesecret
@Checkmate
If you think about science and it’s origin, you can conclude that all science is observable in nature. Gravity is observable through day to day observation.

Where science is reliable is where it is observable. What happened millions of years ago is clearly not observable.
We can't forget that there is no "observable insurance" that isn't actually a vast collection of data points. We must perceive through the passage of time; this is relativity. You're day-to-day is many days. Though it seems instantaneous, you actually have to release the apple, and then wait for the moments when it is falling to observe gravity.

In the scope of time without relativity (and presumably the divine), there is little difference between 2 seconds, 2 weeks, or 2 billion years. There is only meaning in your observations if there is a scope, a point a and point b. Science is well aware of this relationship, which is why we can lean on seemingly instantaneous observations as confidently as millennial observations... Not the young millennials, the time... Like eons... You get it...

It's always easiest to work your evidence from current and go back, just like researching for a paper. You come up with questions like "why are birds kinda like reptiles, and reptiles a lot like amphibians...? And amphibians kinda breath like fish...? But why are mammals and bugs different from all of them?" Or "but if the bible can't be proven, why do so many rational people believe in it, and have for thousands of years? Why are so many of it's accounts that are considered less fantastic consistently backed by history? And why do so many people that don't believe in it still okay with the idea of God, heaven, and/or hell?" The answers remain unclear, but all the evidence is in old books or in the sand... So to speak.
#17
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Jargon? Literally most of modern biology is based on the fact of evolution.
#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@KeLu777
We can't forget that there is no "observable insurance" that isn't actually a vast collection of data points. We must perceive through the passage of time; this is relativity. You're day-to-day is many days. Though it seems instantaneous, you actually have to release the apple, and then wait for the moments when it is falling to observe gravity.

In the scope of time without relativity (and presumably the divine), there is little difference between 2 seconds, 2 weeks, or 2 billion years. There is only meaning in your observations if there is a scope, a point a and point b. Science is well aware of this relationship, which is why we can lean on seemingly instantaneous observations as confidently as millennial observations... Not the young millennials, the time... Like eons... You get it...

It's always easiest to work your evidence from current and go back, just like researching for a paper. You come up with questions like "why are birds kinda like reptiles, and reptiles a lot like amphibians...? And amphibians kinda breath like fish...? But why are mammals and bugs different from all of them?" Or "but if the bible can't be proven, why do so many rational people believe in it, and have for thousands of years? Why are so many of it's accounts that are considered less fantastic consistently backed by history? And why do so many people that don't believe in it still okay with the idea of God, heaven, and/or hell?" The answers remain unclear, but all the evidence is in old books or in the sand... So to speak.
Yes.  time is an element of the world we live in. I recall at uni - making predictions based on previous data. We used all of the appropriate information we could get our hands on - but our estimates were right some times and they were wrong sometimes.  We used the best modeling - but at the end of the day - we were right sometimes and wrong sometimes.  We also tried going backwards in the data - using the same modeling techniques.

And to test our theories and hypothesis - we jumped an entire dataset we had - to dates further back. And this is within a couple of years.  We were well off. 

And this is within a couple of years. This is where it takes FAITH to believe - that anything we say about millions of years ago is necessary.  It really is impossible to verify. It is like me looking at my data set for the past two years - getting it pretty close or even right for the first 6 months. Then jumping 5 years. Getting it close again - and then saying that the correct point was such a such thing - 20 years down in the past.  

To be able to validate the past - you need to know the past.  And when the validations are based on ASSUMPTIONS that change - from time to time with more information - then basing anything on the dodgy ones in the past ought to be omitted. Yet they are not. 

It is a crock.  Science can only provide real information about observable things. Once they delve into the future or the past - it loses FACTUAL status and becomes best guestimates.  And sometimes they are going to get it right and sometimes they are going to get it wrong. But what is true - is that these things are not facts. 


#19
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
It is a crock.  Science can only provide real information about observable things. Once they delve into the future or the past - it loses FACTUAL status and becomes best guestimates.  And sometimes they are going to get it right and sometimes they are going to get it wrong. But what is true - is that these things are not facts. 
How far are you willing to go with this logic? Are you saying the existence of black holes is not a fact?
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
How many black holes have you seen? 

I understand the theory.  But it still requires particular assumptions. 


#21
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
So you’re also saying gravity is not a fact as well?



#22
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
Do you think that gravity is not observable?


#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Utanity
Nope. Atheists lack a belief in a specific GOD.....Which doesn't mean that they cannot assume a purpose in material existence.....People that assume a purposeless existence are usually referred to as nihilists.

I just utilise the well known term "GOD" , which I assume represents a purpose.....If you find that confusing, then I will refer to it as BOB instead.

I certainly do not believe any BOB principle.....I simply consider them.

I consider the Christian hypothesis to be fundamentally the same as all hypotheses, but I consider the accompanying tales that sprung up a few thousand years ago in the Arabian Peninsular, to be nothing more than the naive reasoning that they clearly were. 




#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes gravity itself is non-observable, though Its effects are. Do you understand? Now apply this logic to wider science.
#25
KeLu777
KeLu777's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 12
0
0
2
KeLu777's avatar
KeLu777
0
0
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists lack a belief in a specific GOD.....Which doesn't mean that they cannot assume a purpose in material existence.....People that assume a purposeless existence are usually referred to as nihilists.

I just utilise the well known term "GOD" , which I assume represents a purpose....
Though I chose to believe in a little deeper meaning in God, I strongly support this viewpoint. Surely there must be a rational notation for God, as a quantum concept even. If there isn't, I demand a scientific symbol for BOB!
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101

There is an effect that we refer to as gravity...To which we applied tall tales....And then we applied science and gained understanding.



#27
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
You’re confusing affect with effect.

#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@KeLu777
Yep. The rational notion for GOD/BOB is purpose over nihilism....Though whether that is rational or not is impossible to say.

I base my BOB assumption purely on the existence of matter and the evolution thereof....Which is purpose enough.

0-1 is symbolic of BOB.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
An effect, affects.

So are aware of  effect, because it affects.

Therefore because of the affect, we referred to the effect as gravity.
#30
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Alright buddy.