Amoranemix

Amoranemix 420 :

The meaning of the term existence or the verb to exist for physical things like God is clear.[a] For abstract concepts like numbers is it not.[b] Whether numbers exist [c] is as much a question about the nature of numbers as about the meaning of term existence.[d]

I haven't seen zedvictor4 claim that the imagined is irrational, logically inconsistent and non-existent.[e]

Athias 421 :

[a] Why are you modifying "God" with the descriptive, "physical"?[68] And please cite this definition of existence which clarifies this specification.

[b] Once again, cite the definition to which you are referring.

[c] Numbers do exist. If one claims that numbers don't exist, not only would that be irrational, but it would also undermine the physical laws which are informed by them.

[d] Numbers don't have a "nature." They are conceptual. Then again, "nature," would be conceptual as well.

[e] No, he has only concluded as much based on his reasoning.

zedvictor4 333 :

And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.

Athias 334 [corrected] :

No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to a tee for sure, but it's still abstract.

Amoranemix 420 :

Christians sometimes make seemingly inconsistent claims about God. For example,

- God being perfectly loving.

- God is perfectly just.

- God is love.

- God is omnipotent.

- God is omniscient.

- Despite the above two God is allegedly incapable of mitigating lots of problems.

- God cannot lie.

The above claims seem hard to reconcile. Moreover, God supposedly can violate the laws of physics.

Athias 421 :

“Seem" is not an argument. You are welcome to demonstrate the inconsistency of these alleged claims.

Athias 370 to Double_R :

Nonexistence serves of the purpose of merely being the negation of existence. Nonexistence is not rational. And that does not apply to just God(s). It can be applied to Santa Klaus, the Tooth Fairy, Diet Soda, Colors, Numbers, even you and me.

Amoranemix 420 :

Nonexistence is not irrational either.

Athias 421 :

Yes it is. Nonexistence provides nothing to rationalize because it's the absence or void of everything.

Amoranemix 420 :

You keep missing the point. The question is whether it is (ir)rational to claim such a god does not exist.

Athias 421 :

I do not gauge the rationality of intentions; only arguments.[69] And the claim that "God does not exist" is based on an irrational premise. We are not pigeonholed to "physicality." This concerns ONTOLOGY.

Lunar108 432 to Athias :

they're asking others to consider their beliefs but have they  considered the beliefs of others ?

Athias 436 :

But why would they? If one believes one is "right" wouldn't considering a possible contradictory point undermine that?

Amoranemix 439 :

Your argument now appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.

P2. It is false that the nonexistent can be perceived.

P3. A false premise is irrational.

P4. Therefore, the premise that the nonexistent can be perceived is irrational.

P5. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.

Is that indeed your argument ?

Athias 436 :

P3. A false premise and its extension are irrational.

P5 is redundant.

Other than that, all checks out.

Amoranemix 439 to Athias 290 :

[68] It is complicated due to the triple negation.

The position is : “Atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

You hold the negation of that position : “It is false that the position of atheism being irrational is not a rationally defensible position.”

in other words, you hold the position : “Atheism is irrational is a rationally defensible position.”

You don't defend that position of yours because “sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible.” The belief in question is your position and the reason you don't defend it is because it is not rationally defensible. So you disagreement is not rationally defensible. You merely sustain that belief because you place value on it.

Hence we agree that the position that “atheism is irrational being a rationally defensible position” is not a rationally defensible position.

That comes close to what I said in post 289.

[69] You just mentioned another contention that you couldn't rationally defend. You also said that “God does not exist.” is irrational.

Athias 440 :

I create distinctions between "believe in" and "argue for." That is, the disbelief in God or gods as an expression of value needs not be "rationally defensible" because it's a declaration of one's private gnosis. As an argument, however, the proposition of a claim needs to be rationally defensible because argumentation is intended to resolve disputes between conflicting private gnoses using a consistent (not objective) standard as its measure. So, "I don't believe in God" needs not be rationally defensible; however, "God does not exist"--an argument--needs to be. And it isn't rationally defensible for the reasons I've mentioned.

Athias 421 :

You are alluding to spatial placement, not "existence."

Amoranemix 439 :

I was alluding to both.[a] It is a matter of what you consider to be part of the definition of something or not.

Spino is also the spinosaur that walked three times around the city walls of Jerusalem to make them fall. How does his nonexistence prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?[b]

If you also exclude that the history of something can define it, then your criticism of the claim “God does not exist” being irrational my not apply, for those who make that claim may consider that anything that failed to do the actions ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible is not God. God is also said to be omnipresent.[c]

Athias 440 :

[a] All material placement bears existence; not all existence bears material placement. In other words, all material placement =/= all existence.

[b] Because the nonexistent does not exist. The nonexistent provides no information. How does one identify a "Spino" if its nonexistence renders information on itself logically incoherent?

[c] Please delineate both the history and alleged failures.

Athias 290 to Amoranemix :

Not everyone.

[selfquote of post 117 :]

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

Amoranemix 381 :

Who doesn't agree and why haven't they attempted to defend that position ?

Athias 382 :

I don't agree; I haven't attempted to "defend" that position because sustaining a belief isn't necessarily measured by its being rationally defensible, but the value placed by the individual who sustains said belief.[68] I neither object nor contend against atheists who don't believe in a God or gods. My only contention is the statement "God Does Not Exist" is logically coherent/consistent/sound.[69]

Amoranemix 381 to Tarik :

Choosing normally qualifies as subjective.[a] The standard may be objective, but not its choice.[b] If ones is lenient on objective morality and using an objective moral standard qualifies as objective morality, then – contrary to what sadolite suggested - God does not have a monopoly on objective morality.

Tarik 384 :

[a] Normally isn’t always, especially in reference to God.

[b] Then who/what does?

Amoranemix 381 to Tarik :

I am not actively participating in the discussion about morality here as it is off topic.[c] Nonetheless it shows that there is good reason to be suspicious about the Christian position. Therefore it is rational to be suspicious. Being suspicious about the claims of a popular religion aligns well with atheism.

Tarik 384 :

[c] But you are, otherwise you wouldn’t have @ me making arguments pertaining to objective morality (or lack thereof).

Amoranemix 381 :

You are assuming Double_R's hypothetical is incoherent. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead

Tarik 384 :

…But I did, your inability to comprehend it isn’t equivalent to me not giving it. Taking someone’s arguments for reality and using it to suit a hypothetical narrative that hasn’t and won’t ever happen isn’t coherency because reality and hypotheticals against reality don’t mix/match. Consistency is an element of coherency that shouldn’t be ignored unless your being incoherent, if my redundancy hasn’t registered with you then perhaps it never will which is a you problem.

Double_R 405 :

focus the conversation on something I never said.

Tarik 404

By ignoring context and lying on my behalf in the process, hence why I put emphasis on implications because it seemed like you were losing track of the narrative to suit your own (which I still don’t know what that is because your all over the place) and if you were to ask me what’s the difference between the two statements I provided then I would say none at all, if you disagree mind explaining that difference?

Double_R 406 :

If you don’t understand what a concept is by now and the relationship between  X  and  the concept of X

Tarik 407 :

It’s not an issue of what I understand, it’s an issue of what you said.

Double_R 406 :

Conflating two things does not have to be explicit

Tarik 407 :

Coming from the guy that also said

[quote of Double_R 393] "But that’s a deduction you’re making, that’s not what the message the person speaking is pointing to."

Again, contradiction at its finest because the former embraces implications and the latter claims it’s separate from the message, which one is it dude because again your all over the place and with all this hypocrisy in your statements

Double_R 410 :

The narrative was never the conflation of belief/acceptance, that’s something you made up and were having a conversation with yourself about. It was never my point nor had anything to do with anything I was arguing.

Tarik 412 :

See #363

Double_R 410 :

And what about this over-simplified example makes you think I was avoiding anything, other than a 4 syllable word to ensure this example was as simple as I could possibly make it?

Tarik 412 :

Well how about you do yourself a favor and don’t use any more examples going forward, because they’re never on target (or simple for that matter) and you just end up confusing yourself and everybody else involved, not to mention you requesting me to make sense of your own stupidity, I’m not having it period.

Amoranemix 420 :

[65] Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. If one claims “God does not exist”, one assumes the nonexistent can be perceived.[a]

P2. The nonexistent cannot be perceived.[b]

P3. A claim made based on a false assumption is irrational.[c]

C. Therefore, the claim “God does not exist” is irrational.[d]

Is that indeed your argument ?[e]

Athias 421 :

[a] Yes.

[b] Exactly.

[c] No. A claim based on an assumption (false or not) can still be rational if it's inductive. That is not the issue here. A claim based on an irrational premise is irrational.

[d] Non sequitur.

[e] No.

Amoranemix 420 :

[66] How does the nonexistence of Spino, the spinosaur fishing in my bathroom sink, prevent me from knowing Spino does not exist ?

Athias 421 :

You are alluding to spatial placement, not "existence."

Amoranemix 420 :

[67] Can you prove that everything is perceptible ? Can you prove that everything that is perceptible exists ?

Athias 421 :

Simply put: Everything is the opposite of nothing; nothing does not exist; nothing is imperceptible, given that nothing provides no information; information is perceptible data; as the opposite of nothing, everything provides perceptible data.

n8nrgmi 313 :

first just a suggestion. you must put a lot of effort into annotating all the quotes and such. it just makes it hard to follow cause whoever reads it has to line up your point with the quoted point. it takes too much effort to follow, it's harder on you and the reader than it needs to be.

n8nrgmi 313 :

i do acknowledge that the afterlife is a different subject than atheism, given one can believe in the afterlife and still not be a theist. i guess it's worth noting to anyone paying attention, that i amended my originial thesis...i dont think atheism is irrational, i think a better word is 'unreasonable'. there's enough plausibility to be an atheist even if it's not reasonable.

n8nrgmi 313 :

here are two reasons atheism is unreasonable:[55] 1. inexplicable healings occur to theists who pray, but we have no such evidence for atheists, they are all explicable.[56] 2. the overwhelming majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it doesn't happen that theists become atheists.[56] the atheists who dont convert didn't get any special knowledge about the subject, so we can't base anything on what they think.[57] the only ones who get special knowledge, become theists. almost never the other way around.

i say that's why atheism is unreasonable. i suppose it's plausible, given maybe we just dont have evidence of inexplicable healings occurring to atheists, and it's plausible to argue that NDEs are subjective so maybe the information people receive about God isn't truth it's just like a dream. this all goes against the weight of the evidence, so it's still enough to say atheism is unreasonable.[58]

atheists and people who think NDEs are just hallucinations do need evidence.[59] i've presented an overwhelming amount of evidence,[60] so that means the skeptics have a rebuttable presumption against their views. they have to provide evidence if they want to debunk my evidence. they cant just sit on their hands with no evidence and pretend that their burden of proof is sufficicient.[61] that's not how logic or science or evidence works.

Amoranemix 307 :

Since for some reason you are unwilling (or are you unable?) to support your claim that atheism is irrational, I'll bring up some counter-evidence to your afterlife claim. Some children remember a previous life, supporting reincarnation. How do you reconcile that with an afterlife ?

n8nrgmi 313 :

it is common for people to believe in reincarnation if they have NDEs. i dont dispute that. reincarnation and an afterlife are both likely based on the evidence.[62] why dont you look at your own evidence though...[63] if there's kids who reemember past lives, maybe there is more to this life than just us being flesh robots that die and there's nothing greater to it. you have to ignore the evidence that you yourself brought up to pretend this life is all there is.[64]

Amoranemix 307 :

Fighter pilots are in their training exposed to strong g-forces, which draws oxygen away from the brain, and they often report NDE type experiences.

n8nrgmi 313 :

they might experience somehting similar to and NDE but they're not experiencings all the themes of NDEs and they're not experiencing elaborate afterlife stories.

n8nrgmi 313 :

also you asked once, so most of my evidence is based on two books, 'evidence of the afterlife' and 'God and the afterlife' both by the author Dr. Jeffrey Long. it's also worth lookin into books by neurosurgeon Dr Alexander and cardio pulmonary surgeon Dr Parnia. Parnia also is the author of the AWARE studies.

Amoranemix 308 :

The claim that needs to be supported is “Atheism is irrational.” But since no one is willing or able to deliver, we will have to settle with a weaker claim. Why is “God does not exist” an irrational statement ?

Athias 317 :

"God does not exist" is an irrational claim because it presumes the perception of or information on the nonexistent.[65] Since perception requires perceptible data, it necessarily follows that nonexistence cannot be perceived since it's devoid of any and all data. That is, if something does not exist, you don't know it does not exist, because it does not exist.[66] Any information the nonexistent can provide on itself is not there because "its self" is not there. The fact that one is capable of identifying "God" and much less place him as the subject in a claim already defeats and undermines the purpose of "proving his nonexistence."

Everything is perceptible (and therefore exists) [67]

Nothing is not perceptible (and therefore doesn't exist.)

God falls within the realm of Everything. God has a name; God has a form and being; God can be identified; God is perceptible; therefore God exists. If you want this in a syllogistic form then it would go as such:

P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.

P2: God is perceived.

C: Therefore God must exist.

zedvictor4 330 :

In this instance perception results in imagination.......So "therefore God must exist" is not rational and does not logically follow.

Athias 332 :

Okay, let's try this:

P1: Everything that can be perceived must exist.

P2: Numbers are perceived.

P3: Therefore, numbers must exist.

Athias then claims, using zedvictor's rationale (imagined = irrational, logically inconsistent, and nonexistent) that numbers are imagined. (Reason: numbers bear no physical properties; they're maintained via the mind as abstracts; they're functionally no different from the "imagined.")

zedvictor4 333 :

And numbers and mathematics are a completely different kettle of fish, to imaginary entities.

Athias 334 :

No, they are not. Math is logically consistent to tee for sure, but it's still abstract.

Double_R 340 to Athias :

What if the god proposed is logically contradictory?

Athias 343 :

Identify and sufficiently explain the contradiction.

Double_R 369 to Athias :

In this case, the question being asked is intended to analyze the assertion that all claims of god being nonexistent are illogical. Whether any given God   proposition is actually logically contradictory is entirely irrelevant for that is a completely different conversation. And one which I had no intention of having, BTW.

Athias 370 :

Nonexistence   serves of the purpose of merely being the negation of existence. Nonexistence is not rational. And that does not apply to just God(s). It can be applied to Santa Klaus, the Tooth Fairy, Diet Soda, Colors, Numbers, even you and me.

Double_R 369 to Athias :

I propose a god that can  metaphysically function beyond itself.

Athias 370 :

That's irrational, no matter how you put it. And it is not within my capacity to rationalize using irrational premises.

PGA2.0 352

If God allowed His people to be destroyed by these hostile groups or be grossly influenced it would nullify the prophecies about the Messiah's lineage. Thus, God had the greater good in mind, the salvation of a vast number of people in the long run.

Amoranemix 911

No doubt God has his personal greater good in mind, [a] as he is a narcissist. [b] However, what evidence can you present that he had the salvation of a vast number of people in mind and that [c] the promotion of military conquest and the oppression of natives contributed to that ?

PGA2.0 1116

[a] Again, just saying so does not make it so. The Bible repeatedly states that God is looking out for the good of us by requiring what is right, and just since He is loving.

Love does not seek its own benefit; thus, how can it be narcissistic?[628]

[b] Again, what evidence will you accept?[629] You do not accept the Bible as His word; you do not accept the proofs within its pages.[630] You do not accept the logic of/for God as a necessary being but assert yourself as one in your pronouncements of declarative and imperative statements.[630b] You keep begging that I should believe you.[630c] Why?

[c] About what?[631] You try to detach the context from your statements all the time when it comes to biblical things.[632] What specifically are you referring to? IMO, you fail to inquire why God would do such things to judge such people or save others. There are sufficient reasons.

Amoranemix 911

[*] Maybe. I don't know the figures, but what matters is what fraction of pregancies come from consensual sex, which is probably lower. Moreover, that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy is disputable.

In addition, [a] on what grounds would the mother have responsibility, beside opinions ? [a] Furthermore, what about the responsibility of the father ? Usually, in the case of abortion, he did nothing for the foetus, yet receives no blame.

PGA2.0 1116

[*] Maybe? These stats are gathered from US polls, which I noted in previous debates and posts. I am not doing the work again of listing them.

When sex is engaged in, there is often a chance that pregnancy will result, that a condom will fail and that fertilization will occur. To sluff off the idea that this can happen is again to find excuses if it does happen..."I did not know I could/would get pregnant."

Would you use the same excuse if you ran a red light and hit a pedestrian?[632] "I did not know this could/would happen by running the red." It is your responsibility to know the consequences of doing the act, either sexual or disobeying traffic laws.

[a] Because the woman knew that having sex could result in a pregnancy ( as did the father), however small that might be. Not only this, do we not have a moral responsibility to protect innocent human beings?[633] If not, what is stopping someone from killing you even when you have not committed a crime or done anything wrong?[634] Is it not self-evidentiary that it is wrong?[635] We are speaking of killing an innocent human being here. Do you not recognize that? You continually gloss over that fact. Why do you do this?[636]

Double_R  223 :

Because term “objective standard” is just as incoherent as the term “married bachelor”. A standard is what everything else is judged against, but one has to choose which standard applies. That will always be subjective. [ . . . ]

Tarik 224 :

…Your begging the question, how does God’s choosing of a standard make that standard subjective?

Double_R 275 :

If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).

Tarik 277 :

Except God’s ACTUAL  will doesn’t match the will of your incoherent hypothetical (hence why you thought of it), it’s coherent and objective. It’s pathetic how you bring up hypothetical nonsense and try to use it as an argument for reality thinking it suits you. What ifs isn’t what is dude.

Amoranemix 289

In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.

Athias 290 :

Not everyone.

[selfquote of post 117 :]

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

n8nrgmi 302 to Double_R :

you dont like my criteria for whether something is valid or repeatable, i get it. using your standards, the evidence i presented isn't valid or repeatable. but it could be said to be both of those under different criteria.[*] if you ask someone what happened outside of their body when they were dead, and all witnesses say it was accurate, that's evidence that they had an actual out of body experience. sometimes doctors verify that they were doing things that no patient could have known. when you consistently ask several different people, and they are consistently accurate, that's strong evidence they had out of body experiences actually. we have no reason to assume this stuff isn't accurate, the surveys, so it's valid. anyone can do these surveys and get the same results, so it's repeatable.[87] i agree that there haven't been any strong examples (there are studies like this, but i question if they are accurate and can be done repeatedly) where under experiement someone reads something on paper that is impossible to have read unless they had out of body visions.[88] [ . . . ]

n8nrgmi 302 to Double_R :

you also confuse probable with possible.

-it's not probable that someone would hallucinate only family and dead people. if it's just a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent. all your arguments for why it's possible that would happen to people so consistently is just that... you are showing a possiblity. not a probablity. based on all dreams, hallucinations, and drugs that we know.... that shouldn't be that way, as a matter of probability.

Amoranemix 289 to n8nrgmi :

[41] Present a reference, please.

[42] Given atheism, that is to be expected.

[43] Since apparently you have looked into that, are there a significant amount of cases where people who had not heard of God before have discovered God ?

[44] The wide array of afterlife religious experience is not in individuals, but over different people, i.e. people each experiencing an NDE consistent with their religion.

[45] What a coincidence. We also know of no deity that can do that.

[46] Is that a valid form of argumentation, calling the hypotheses of your opponents stupid ? Can atheists do that too ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 289 to n8nrgmi :

[38] You forgot to answer my question. You know the answer, don't you ? And you dislike it, don't you ?

[41] I haven't kept track because NDEs are off topic. What I was referring to is Double_R's remark of NDEs adapting to the religious belief of the person. Ramshutu also has presented some unchallenged evidence I believe.

[42] You are confusing evidence with explanation. Others have presented hypotheses. You haven't. It is comfortable to criticize the explanations of others when you fail to provide one. It allows you to point out shortcomings of theirs while they can't point out the flaws in your explanation for you don't have one.

[43] Who decides what the greatness of evidence is ? You ?

[44] Maybe finally we shall get some studies. Please present them.

[45] It is all common nonsense, which you all posess in spades.

[46] You are misrepresenting the claims of others.

[40] Of course, if that science you allude to doesn't exist, it is understandable you fail to present it.

You forgot to answer my question.

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 289 to n8nrgmi :

References please.

Your evidence doesn't support that atheism is irrational.

[47] Why is that ?

[48] Images in hallucinations or dreams are not random.

[49] Why is that ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

n8nrgmi 307 to Double_R :

i pointed out to you that surveys and interviews of out of body experiences show highly accurate evidence of out of body experiences.[50] what do you respond with?

"So having no reason to assume surveys are not accurate doesn’t make them valid, it makes them tentatively acceptable. As far as how tentative, that’s where Occam’s razor comes into play. And given what they are alleging, it’s not unreasonable at all to question their accuracy, which again would not be a problem if these phenomenon were repeatable, which they’re not, so we’re left with very little to support any of this."

basically, you said 1. a bare assertion that you think it's reasonable to question if they actually are accurate 2. the point that these examples have not been repeated in a lab. 3. you also point out occam's razor

a bare assertion isn't an argument.[51] pointing out that these have not been repeated in a lab is a good point, but it's not enough to counter point the fact that there are so many witnesses corroborating the examples.[52] you didn't elaborate on your occam's razor point but i think that point is just a repeat that you think the simplest solution is that my evidence isn't accurate.[53] everything comes back to you to the point that you think hallucinations are the simplest solution, so you ignore all evidence that shows it's more than that.

basically, you provide a lot of bluster, but very little in the way of actual logic or science. this actually is a great example of someone, you, thinking you have provided competent rebuttal, but in fact have provided nothing of worth. a great example of dunning kruger effect.[54]

Reece101 110

By the way, using your same logic, will you admit not all apes are the same species?

Yassine 113

What logic that might be? If a species is such that the case of lack of interfertility with existing species, then all -great- apes are indeed the same species. That, contingent of course on wether gorillas are interfertile with the others, as the dispute is still going -which actually shows how confused & ignorant these people are.

Reece101 110

Can you tell me how I’m wrong?

Yassine 113

First of all, Evolution = biodiversity by natural selection & random mutation. If it's not that, it's not evolution. Not every thing that changes & moves is "evolving" in evolutionary terms. Second of all, viruses can not evolve in the evolutionary sense, for they are not self-sustaining & self-reproducing. Darwinian evolution on a virus is a spinning wheel. Third of all, no such thing as "speciated" bacteria.[32] If you're talking about the ecoli bacteria, then even the universe isn't large enough to accommodate evolution theory with that. Fourth of all, the oldest living fossil is a bacteria (cyanobacteria) & it has yet to "speciate" after more than 100 trillion generations. Finally, if this myth of a theory has any shred of spec of probability how come it's so utterly absently supported.

Reece101 90

All mutations are harmful? Like becoming lactose tolerant? You can see this in the human genetic/migratory record. This is natural selection.

Yassine 115

Another one of their tricks: equivocation. They call variants & snips mutation to give the impression of "randomness". These evolutionationists are really hopeless. Pathetic!

Reece101 114

It’s reasonable for me to conclude you think animals just pop into existence in the course of 100s of millions of years.

Yassine 115

That's a double false dichotomy. First of all, evolutionary theory =/= evolution.[33] It's possible that animals have evolved from one another; in case this is true it still does not entail that the theory of evolution, which is just a claim, is true too.[34] In the same way that the truth of objects falling because of gravity does not entail the truth of any theory attempting to explain it [35], for instance Aristotle's elements-attracts-elements theory -which we know is BS. Regardless of the truth gravitation, Aristotle's theory is BS. Likewise, regardless of the truth of evolution, the evolutionary theory is BS. Second of all, no evolution occurred does not necessarily mean pop-into-ion occurred. The two are equally unlikely occurrences from a natural perspective. In the fossil record, animals appear & disappear as is.[36]

Reece101 116

From a quick google search this is the definition google gave me:

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Yassine 117

E.g. Darwin's finches.

Reece101 116 to Yasseen

Cells require energy from outside, whether  it be radiation or various  molecules. 

You can consider them herbivores in a sense. 

Viruses  prey on them for them.

rbelivb 64

by definition this is such an abstract concept that we have no way to know that whatever our intuitive idea about God really has any relation to what God "really is."

EtrnlVw 137

What is your own intuitive idea about God? my next question would be.....does your own intuitive idea about God have any relevance to whether or not God actually exists? what I'm trying to get it is, the point that you are making is moot, irrelevant. We can believe all sorts of crap about God, but God still exists. The only thing that our personal belief (about God) changes is our personal perception of God, but God still exists despite what we think about it.

Let's say for example, that there were rumors going around about you that may not be accurate. What effect does that have on reality other than someone's opinion about you? the point I'm making, is that if God exists it doesn't really matter what anything thinks about God....what God "really is". Either God exists or God does not, our opinions about what God is or is not has no bearing on reality.

rbelivb 142

Believers have "faith" because their concrete ideas about God are mere arbitrary imaginings with no basis in experience nor in reason.

EtrnlVw 143

Lol, sounds like you're done having a conversation here. Let me know when you want to know something instead of asserting it. BTW, faith is not a "belief", it is the trust and confidence in how much you know something that supports a belief through experience and reason. Without reason or experience there can be no faith, because trust and confidence require both of those factors. I'm telling you this from a spiritual perspective, this idea that faith means to belief in anything without reason or evidence is a useless term. The more reason and substance one has to accept something as true, the more faith they have. The less reason and evidence a person has to believe something the less faith they have.

Lunar108 148

which god should you follow ? how do you decide ?

EtrnlVw 149

First you decide if you can handle accepting God exists.[13] Once you decide God exists it doesn't matter which name man has provided. What you want to look for, is things that resonate with you and knowledge you know you can accept as being true. You don't even need religion to become a Theist. Your soul originated with God not with religion. You're just looking to find your way back to your origins being a blind man, all religions can do for you is offer you information that can get you back in alignment with what you already knew. This is all innate to you, you just have to remove the conditioning that has shielded the truth from your soul since you were born.

Tradesecret 162 to Double_R:

4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. (2 Pet. 1:19,  21,  2 Tim. 3:16,  1 John 5:9,  1 Thess. 2:13)

Double_R 161 to Tradesecret :

You haven’t provided a method.

EtrnlVw 165 :

Obviously, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian (so this is not really relevant to your point about the Bible), but there are methods of deciding what is useful or true about what religious texts offer in general. The common misconception is that a cultures religious text must all be either true or false and if something appears to be nonsensical or bizarre then the whole thing must be discarded.[14]

[ . . . ]

Basically, by breaking down scripture into categories we can decide what "MUST" be true and what emphasis we put on accuracy in comparing content with reality. Being careful not to define reality where we limit it to our own biases. To be intellectual honest and open minded we must leave room for variations in our interpretations of what reality is and is not, what exists and what does not.[15]

[ . . . ]

We can take the story of Noah's flood for example, the story of Job, the story of Samson and Dililah, the story of Moses or Abraham, the story of Jonah ect ect..these are accounts we have no real way to verify so we simply take them as stories. There is no real reason to put any more relevance on them because they are no teachings or applicable practices, they are simply tales that may or may not have significant meaning and again, if they do it should be obvious. Arguing on whether or not they literally happened is IMO silly. It would not be a reflection on whether or not the Bible has something to offer us.[16]

EtrnlVw 8

Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility.[9] There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.

Amoranemix 158

[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

EtrnlVw

[no response]

Amoranemix 158

Aha. You believe in a creator because of the gaps in your knowledge.

When the vikings didn't know about weather phenomena, were they justified believing in Thor ?

EtrnlVw

[no response]

Stephen 168

Indeed 1646 was the time when that most famous Witch- Finder General Matthew Hopkins was at his peak and said to have been responsible for burning, hanging and drowning innocent women.... hundreds of them.... after torturing them .... doing gods work you understand.   Oh the mindset and beliefs of the Church of the times eh, Reverend "Tradey".

Tradesecret 171

So what? It does not change what I said. Your drawing attention to Matthew Hopkins is simply attempting to draw attention from the fact that you lied and that you are dumb.   Non-sequitur even.

Double_R 169

Using scripture to validate scripture is called circular reasoning, a violation of the most basic principal of logic. If you insist on sticking to that then you are by definition irrational and therefore incapable of having a logical conversation.

Tradesecret 171

My point initially was about axioms. You didn't read properly. That is on you.   Of course it is circular. I already said that. Look up above. I said all axioms are circular. Circular arguments are generally not helpful - but everyone uses an axiom - which is intrinsically a circular argument. Logical reasoning - for example - why would we use logic as an axiom - or a basis for anything? How can we trust logic? Because it is logical.   How do you prove logic is reasonable or logical without using logic? Impossible and absurd. Yet we do it all the time.

Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :

You also continue to claim that this is repeatable, seeming to have no idea what the word means.

EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :

Perhaps you aren't getting it, this isn't a science experiment where we have access to materials that are used under examination.[64] With NDE's, we have access to thousands and thousands of the same nature of events that can be scrutinized and learned from. The same event has been repeated over and over in every culture of the world. NDE's can't be repeated as an experiment of course, the circumstances are deadly....however the event has been repeated again and again. It has happened over and over.....that is what he means by repeatable.[65]

Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :

and could never scrutinize their story in any way.

EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :

Why not?[66] we have access to countless testimonies of the very same event under question that can be considered and investigated. What we don't want to do unnecessarily of course, is base our arguments entirely on speculations and sweep them under the rug as hallucinations. That would be stupid.[67] So, what we have is a large data base of evidence, which clearly correlates with the proposition of a soul and an afterlife. Let me repeat that.....we have a claim and evidence that supports the claim.

Envisage 127 :

If that is the best evidence you have for the existence of God then atheism is perfectly rational.

EtrnlVw 134 :

Lol, it's an alarming piece of evidence that suggests and supports that the soul exists (independent of the physical body) as reported by Theistic propositions.[68] It's simply a reality for you to consider that the claim of a soul and an afterlife has evidence. You can disregard it of course, which you will but just know sweeping evidence under the rug is a bad idea. It's not rational to accept speculation when you decide what is delusional based on your own worldview and ideas. That will limit your own potential for truth.

There are many ways in which to conclude God exists, at the very least God's existence is likely.[69] NDE's are simply one piece of the puzzle, there are many pieces however.

n8nrgmi 142 to Double_R :

you do a lot of merely asserting stuff.

Double_R 141  :

There’s nothing circular about my position. Brain chemicals are observed and then correlated to the point of  predictability  when it comes to the impacts we observe in the abilities and behavior of human beings. This is all logic 101 on how to establish a causal relationship.

n8nrgmi 142 :

i'm not saying that you're claims have absolutely no basis to them, but they are circular. you say brain chemicals explain all experience that are known to science, therefore you claim that brain chemicals must explain NDEs. when we ask you what do NDEs indicate, you claim they indicate brain chemicals. it's blatantly circular, but you merely assert it isn't.

n8nrgmi 142 :

philosophically, if it's common for people to experience elaborate afterlife stories when they die, that's prime facie evidence that an afterlife might exist.[70] even if i were to admit that an afterlife isn't most probable... it's objectively possible based on the evidence.[71] that's why it's objectively irrational to say there's not even evidence for an afterlife.

n8nrgmi 148 to Double_R :

u just keep ignoring all the evidence. the only way for you to be right, is for the evidence to be fabricated. i've shown evidence that blind people see in NDEs and ive shown that out of body experiences are highly accurate in what they report. it's more than just a really big number where sometimes people get it right.. it's a really big number where when measured, people almost always get it right.[72] all the other lines of evidence are at least consistent with people visiting an afterlife, but really it's more than just consistent given it's not plausible for the alternatives to be true.[73] for example, it shouldn't be the case that people only hallucinate family and dead people... if all it is is a hallucination, it shouldn't be so consistent.[74] you fail your own test. the alternative hypothesis/explanation isn't shown the be best. why do you keep ignoring this stuff? i'd think you'd at least engage my specific evidence but you avoid it like a disease.

also, you keep harping on validiity and repeatability but you just dont like the 'degree' by which NDEs are shown to be valid or repeatable. anyone can measure all the evidence i've shown, and reach the same conclusion... plus many people consistently experience this, another aspect showing repeatability. just because you can't go to a lab and do all this stuff, doesn't mean it's absolutely not repeatable. at the very least it's circumstantial evidence, but you irratinoally would call circumstantial evidence not evidence just because it doesn't fit your agenda.[75] [ . . . ]

EtrnlVw 151 :

People don't understand the significance of NDE's in that they are very distinctly reporting an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE. This is distinctly outside the parameters of a brain, and the physical body. This isn't some mental disorder or hallucination of a malfunctioning brain which takes place within those confines folks...these are conscious experiences of people specifically leaving their body,[76] they watch themselves literally leave their bodies behind! meaning they are able to travel freely away from their body. Under normal conditions (confined to a brain that is) our conscious parameters never leave the observation point of our earthly body...our consciousness is always present where our physical body is.

When the soul (which exists independent of the physical body) separates from the human form, the observation point at which you experience everything is distinctly separate from the confines of the brain and body. This is paramount in defining a specific reference to consciousness surviving a physical death, the shutting down of the physical body. Through NDE cases we can specifically show that people observe themselves leave their body, they can literally watch their material body as they continue to experience a parallel world (an afterlife).[77]

This is not a coincidence that religion has provided very precise propositions of both a soul and an afterlife, and here we have evidence that correlates perfectly with both propositions.[78] It IS very significant, claiming and speculating alternative explanations that have no clear and precise answers to what is most certainly a clear and precise (repeatable) event which can be distinctly matched with a Theistic proposition.

Now, had we just had NDE's alone with no awareness of what spirituality has been showing us for as long as humans have walked the earth we would have only a first hand testimony and we'd probably be scratching our heads.[79] But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved.[80] I mean I understand we need to examine and be skeptical to make sure we have all the dots connected but honestly the dots are already clearly connected here.[81]

Sadolite 195 to Double_R :

Believing something is believing something, not believing something is not believing something. It does not matter what the belief or non belief of that something is. Religious people believe that some beliefs are objective thus creating common ground among those who share that belief regardless if it appears subjective to someone who does not share those beliefs. Atheists share no common ground other than the belief there is no god. Any attempt to create common ground would also be completely hypocritical because atheism by its definition means everything is subjective.[82] An atheist cant tell another person what they are doing is wrong. There is no standard to measure wrong.[83] Religion with all of its faults at least isn't being hypocritical in establishing wrong from right as it has written text thousands of years old saying what is right and wrong. Atheism relies on what ever pop culture decides is wrong or right at any given moment.[84] Right is what ever you think is right regardless of how many people are inured and maimed by what you think is right.[85] You can never really do anything wrong other than tell other people they are wrong because you are always right. All laws in society are subjective, why do you follow them? Fear of persecution? Sounds like religion to me.[86]

rbelivb 1

Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists.[1] However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension?[2] What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison?[3] In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.[4]

rbelivb  1

However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence.

EtrnlVw 8

You bring up a great point, and after all these years arguing with atheists it is nice to see an atheist come to terms with this. Because part of the problem is that they think there should be some form of physical empirical evidence for God somewhere, they never consider the very nature of God and whether or not God can be compatible with such a form of evidence.[5] Obviously, we would need another approach to such a subject, one that furthers or advances the topic in a rational, appropriate and direct way, one that I've been dealing with since I've started discussing this with atheists.[6]

However, it doesn't seem to matter to them what the nature of God is, and they simply go about repeating the same nonsensical statement.[7]

rbelivb  1

Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical

EtrnlVw 8

Correct, theological arguments were never designed to lend proof to God's existence rather it just lends credit to the hypothesis that God's existence is rational and not absurd.

rbelivb 1

- except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world.

EtrnlVw 8

Honestly though, "design" is a poor choice of wording because it forces the inquirer to focus on flaws of such a design rather than the function of it. We are not looking for perfection in a material world where life and death occur.... birth and destruction because by the very nature of life and death we have imperfection. What we want to focus on is function, processes and whether or not those factors suggest intelligence.[8] Basically, we are correlating the products of the universe with thought and mind, not perfection.

rbelivb 1

What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God –

EtrnlVw 8

Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility.[9] There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.

Sum1hugme 12

you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept.

EtrnlVw  18

Well, we definitely want to satisfy the intellect thoroughly before we even begin to justify the notion that God exists. I feel confident that Theism as a concept is as solid a proposition as any other worldview interpretation, and really there's only two to pick from lol. Even more, only one of the two match reality.

Sum1hugme 12

there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality

EtrnlVw  18

If there is strong indication and we can correlate the products of the universe with intelligence, then there is no reason to claim that God does not exist in reality.[10] Further, religion and spirituality are very much a part of human reality, observation and experience. It's literally written on the walls of every culture known to man in some form or another. To say there is no experience of God is to deny reality as we know it.[10]

rbelivb 1

Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists. However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence. Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical - except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world. How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension? What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God - and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.

Tradesecret 20

It is not the most common argument. It is an assertion. This is the interesting thing. The atheist asserts there is no god because he can't find any evidence. It is not an argument. Simply an assertion.[11] And as you rightly note, this assertion is made on a very unclear notion of what might constitute as evidence in the first place. This is why atheism is not a rational position but an irrational one.[12]

You may be correct about theist arguments being more rational than empirical.   Certainly, they tend to be based in logic rather than evidence and probably for the explanation you give.   You raise some interesting thoughts. Thank you.

Bones 23

Do you believe in Thor?

EtrnlVw

[ . . . ]

let me say it another way, I can believe in a Creator without any need to assert there must be a God of thunder or lightning lol. I thoroughly understand the nature and phenomenon of weather and why forces of nature occur. I don't need to inject the misconception that thunder and lightning occurs at the hand of any demigod, on the other hand weather patterns exist as a part of a whole that the Creator put together. Climates exist because of the arrangement of our solar system which God created, planets exist because of God, ecosystems exist because of God ect ect....but there is no relation to lightning striking to any spiritual force other than the fact that God established our world.

FLRW 19

When we analyze prayer with statistics, we find no evidence that God is "answering prayers."

ethang5 57

Because God is a sentient person, not an algorithm.[13] There can be no blind tests on an omniscient, omnipresent person, rendering such tests totally uninformative.

Tradesecret 76 to Reece101

On the other hand, if good is defined by humanity with the measure being "whatever the current culture by majority rule thinks is good", then God is not always good. If the current culture holds the view that abortion is good then God is not good. If the current culture deems polytheism and polygamy is good, then God is not good.

Reece101 111

How do you distinguish between them?

ethang5 114

The concept of God is sourced in the mind of a man. All concepts are. God isn't.

Reece101 130

Okay can you tell me what interactions God has with you? I assume It will be on par with your wife.

ethang5 114

Much deeper. God created me with his very "hands". He sustains me. The life force/power in my body and mind are sourced from Him. He soothes me when I'm afraid or dejected, He directs when I'm lost. He protects my loved ones. He gives me peace that passes understanding. He understands me.

n8nrgmi 92 :

if ya'll want a start in researching out of body experiences, 'evidence for the afterlife' by doctor jeffrey long does a short literature review of some highlights. there's lots of studies that look at the accuracy of those experiences and they're always shown to be accurate. there's whole scientific journals out there dedicated to this stuff, the evidence is basically too overwhelming to just ignore. that's why atheism is irrational.

n8nrgmi 50 :

there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist

Amoranemix 80 :

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

EtrnlVw 93 :

Lol, he apologizes....there isn't ANY evidence to be an atheist. There is no evidence that God does not exist so to be an atheist one has to make presumptions.

EtrnlVw 93 to n8nrgmi:

These are people who don't understand how evidence is defined, yet they think they are justified in claiming there is no evidence. We have a proposition, knowledge and a claim about a soul and then we have clear EVIDENCE that supports our claim. All they can do to run from the facts is speculate and pretend they have some superior understanding of evidence lol. We have fulfilled our burden of proof, it's on them to play the speculation game. Don't let them try and sweep you under the rug with all their fluff and misconceptions about evidence. If they want to play dumb just define it for them...

EtrnlVw 93 to n8nrgmi:

Evidence-

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

be or show evidence of.

an outward sign  : INDICATION

something that furnishes proof  : TESTIMONY

one who bears witness

A  thing  or  set  of  things  helpful  in  forming  a  conclusion  or  judgment:

Something  indicative;  an  indication  or  set  of  indications:

The  means  by  which  an  allegation  may  be  proven,  such  as  oral  testimony,  documents,  or  physical  objects.

ground  for  belief  or  disbelief;  data  on  which  to  base  proof  or  to  establish  truth  or  falsehood

a  mark  or  sign  that  makes  evident;  indication: 

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

Evidence  is anything that can be used to prove something"

n8nrgmi 95 to EtrnlVw :

the one dude said he considers it evidence if it's more likely than not true. that's not how evidence works in the legal system. the key word the legal system asks is whether something is 'probative'. does it make something more likely to be true or not? if only evidence that was more likely to be true was allowed, only cases that are usually winners would be tried. if something is 25 percent likely to be true, it's good evidence.[52] even low probability situations are evidence. i want to say there is objectively good evidence for God and the afterlife, but i try to respect others and at least try to get them to understand there's at least evidence to begin with. they can't even pass that hurdle... that there's enough to look at to call it evidence. i think they have issues with respecting truth, and they have issues with black hearts. of course, they also have issues with basic logic, but their personality flaws are what drives it i suspect.[53]

n8nrgmi 95 :

the minimum threshold for what is rational is "god might exist because there is evidence for that proposition".[54] "god might exist in the same way magic fairies might exist" is a rational statement, but it ignores that there is actual evidence for God while there isn't for magic fairies so there are irrational undertones in that statement.[55a] "i dont know if God exists" is rational only if they acknowledge that there's evidence for God even though they find it inadequate. "God deosn't exist" is irrational.[55b] "no evidence exists for God or the afterlife" is the most irrational statement of all

n8nrgmi 105 :

i dont think i can spell it out any clearer. there's only two fair conclusions that can be drawn here 1. god and the afterlife probably exist 2. atheists lack critical thinking

n8nrgmi 110 :

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/can-science-explain-near-death-experiences?utm_source=dscfb&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dscfb&fbclid=IwAR2dVholWQ0z8W42aCs6GwHniJa6aSSAJHr0XIPiIUUxVH7X9-iGEJZMXy4

that link has a good description of NDEs. it tries to give skeptics too much credit though,[56] but i guess the article is just trying to be fair. there are two examples of out of body experiences describing things out of the body, one was from the AWARE study and another was a personal anecdote from a doctor. (there are enough of these anecdotes to show a theme, though, it's repeatable and highly accurate,[57] and there's no way to explain how these people know what happens out of their body when they are dead)

again, if it's commonplace for people to die and tell us they experienced the afterlife, the simplest solution is that that's what happened.[58] if it was just a single person or maybe a few, we could say it's probably a hallucination. but that it's so widespread, philosphically it's just stupid to say people are consistently dying and hallucinating elaborate afterlife stories.[59] even if a person doesn't think actual afterlife stories are being told as the simplest solution to what's happening, you'd have to ignore all the evidence, too, from 'evidence of the afterlife' to continue thinking hallucinations explain it all.[60] everything studied here is repeatable... it's basic science.

Athias 117 :

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

Double_R 128 to n8rgmi :

Do you have any thoughts on the points that I made

EtrnlVw 133

Because there is no reason for him to discard his premise for one you have made up. Doesn't matter if he addresses your speculations or not, other than to simply appease you. His argument is fine,[61] it is no less valid then your speculations. If his argument fails, he could then consider your speculations as a valid rebuttal. If you want to face the reality that NDE's are what they are, you won't need to speculate so as of yet, he has the stronger hand.[62] In other words, he doesn't have to speculate anything, the evidence IS what it suggests.

EtrnlVw 133 to Double_R :

It's also insulting to otherwise intelligent people to disregard their understanding of what it is like to have clear conscious experiences as compared to a disorder. Everyone knows what it is like to be alive and have normal conscious experiences as it's a fact of what we are, when someone leaves the physical body they know what they are experiencing, they know they are not having an altered conscious experience or some type of a malfunction. To suggest they are, is simply more speculation. So again, he is justified in simply dismissing speculations as stupid albeit it is his opinion.[63] In other words there is no sufficient reasoning for him to abandon his opinion.

PGA2.0 369 to secularmerlin

I have told you many times. You do not listen. It is immoral because if offends the righteousness of God. It is wrong if there is an objective standard that we can measure values against that is fix and best. If not, nothing ultimately matters and morality becomes nothing more than subjective individual or group preference. Which way do you want to live?

Amoranemix 911

You believe that reality reasons like this : “PGA2.0 would dislike it if there is no objective standard that people can measure values against that is fixed and best. He does have a point. Morality would be nothing more than a preference. One wouldn't be able to tell what is really good. That would be terrible. Hence, to please PGA2.0, I make sure that there is such a standard.”

[a] Skeptics on the other hand, know that reality doesn't work that way. [b] They know that reality does not cater to their desires. Hence, [c] which way skeptics want to live is irrelevant to the existence of an objective standard, unless they can create such a standard themselves.

PGA2.0 1115

[About purpose of this thread]

[a] Again, you use spiked language to influence others. You are begging how you know the real (reality) by personal preference since you never state the evidence.[607] How does an opinion make something real unless it supplies justifiable evidence that its thought system conforms to the real through argumentation?[608]

[b] Skeptics know reality does not cater to their preference because they have nothing real or concrete to measure their opinions against other than other subjective, shifting opinions.[609] That begs the question of why I should believe you?[610] There is no reason that your opinion is any BETTER than any other (no better than Hitler or Kim Jong-un) unless you can supply an objective source for your opinion, an unchanging measure. That means giving evidence that meets the standard of objectivity. You can't.[611] You offer hot air that you want to meld and mould other opinions in conformity to your nonsense.[612]

[c] Again, "which way skeptics want to live" is very relevant to those who are being subverted and dehumanized and discriminated against by such skeptics and just saying so does not make it so.[613] Your thinking on this topic is reminiscent of T.S. Elliot's first stanza of The Hollow Men, IMO.   You base morality once again on FEELING ("a skeptic wants").

[d] An objective standard is one independent of subjectivity. It conforms to what is the actual case,[614] to reality, not whatever you want to make the case to be.[615] The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, of relativity, are actual principles. They are proven valid. The laws of logic are actual principles that exist. The laws of logic are self-evident. They are necessary to make sense of anything. You can't deny these laws without using them. To deny them does not make them any less real. They still operate whether you realize them or not. The laws of morality operate in the same manner.[616] There is such a thing as the good, the right, for any given actions, or else goodness is meaningless. It can mean anything because it has no fixed address.

Again, your worldview is absolutely pathetic, IMO, of making sense of morality.[617] I keep inviting you to try from an atheistic perspective. Go ahead. This is the objective of this thread. Show me you have what is necessary.[618]

PGA2.0 352

Morality is based on His nature.[100a] The Being that is God is pure, holy, just, compassionate, loving. These are good qualities. Since He knows all things He knows what is harmful and hurtful to us[100b], thus He commands that we do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet (that hurts us, creating all kinds of discord and inner turmoil within our life), do not commit adultery, do honour your father and mother, and honour your Maker.

Amoranemix 911

[100a] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

You could of course choose to base your standard on God's nature somehow. The result would then be your favourite standard.

[100b] Harmfull and hurtfull are tied to well(/ill)-being. Are you saying that goodness and God's nature are tied to well-being ?

PGA2.0 1116

[100a] You can't prove things to someone who is not open to the evidence. It is like talking to a wall. There is always one more "what if..."

I keep telling you the evidence or proof is reasonable.[619] You keep denying there is evidence.[620] How can I have a conversation with someone who does not want to hear it or look at the evidence?[621] You say the Bible is not evidence of God, yet it claims to be a self-revelation of God. Thus, what it contains is either reasonable to believe, or it is not. So, how reasonable is this evidence, these written records, in accordance with what we can know (via history, archaeology, and internal evidence/consistency aligned with external evidence)?[622] What is more reasonable to believe about our existence, our morality, our universe? Two of these are philosophical questions that should be weighed on logic and reason. The third, the universe, is more apt in applying physical evidence in its proof. The Bible speaks of creation by God, a Saviour, a covenant with a people (Israel), the destruction of that covenant, and the making of a better one. It speaks of a judgment in which a city and temple will be destroyed and a particulate people judged according to a specific timeframe. How reasonable are these things to believe as happening? How reasonable is it to believe these prophecies were written before the fact, the event, not after?[623] [ . . . ]

You are a master of smoke screens.[624] You seldom reveal your own perspective or how these moral things can make sense from your atheistic perspective.[625] Why should I believe what you say unless you can justify your belief???[626] This has been one-sided to date, IMO. How many times have I asked you to justify morality from your perspective to no avail?[627] On the other hand, I have given you a more reasonable perspective with common sense and logic.

[100b] [no response]

n8nrgmi 59 to Double_R :

per your counter points. you say it's too subjective to be authentic... that's just a weak theory, a hunch. plus, it ignores that almost everyone who has the experience believes in the afterlife afterwards, even if they didn't before the experience. and the large majority of atheists who have the experience end up believing in God.[41] (those who dont change just didn't get any insight into the matter.... it's pretty much never the case that a theist becomes an atheist or that an atheist gains knowledge that there is in fact no God)[42] plus experiencing God is common (along with Jesus experiences, i might add)[43], experiencing a wide array of religions is so rare that i doubt you can even provide hardly any examples of it.[44] so it's not as subjective as you claim it is, is what i'm getting at. but even if the experience is subjective, it all revolves around an afterlife experience, which nothing we know of drugs dreams hallucinations etc, doesn't replicate.[45] i've said it many times, but the idea that we hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die, is as stupid an idea as it comes.[46]

n8nrgmi 50 :

there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist

Amoranemix 80 :

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 80 :

[27] Good evidence is irrelevant. Good on topic evidence would be relevant, but alas, no one can provide that for some reason.

[28] On what grounds do you classify the evidence provided by theists as good and the evidence provided by atheists as bad ? Your bias, perhaps ?

[29] The problem is that you are unable to demonstrate a correspondence between your sayings and reality.

[30] We see a Christian presenting a red herring to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a case. What else is new ?

That atheists ought to be able to explain NDEs is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead !

What is your explicit theory for NDEs ?

[31] OK. You admitted that you know of no studies that demonstrate that God is responsible for miraculous healings. What studies can you show then ? How about ones that show that miraculous healings happen more often to theists than to atheists ?

[32] Is this thread about NDEs ? No. Is this thread about miraculous healings ? No. Again, read this thread's title to discover what it is about.

[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

n8nrgmi 59 :

the evidence theists provide indicates something.[34] they indicate that there's an afterlife and that miracles happen to theists.[35] i can understand if someone wanted to remain a skeptic, as if they needed more evidence to embrace the conclusions fully. but to pretend there's no evidence for the supernatural or God or any of that, is objectively wrong. that's why atheism is irrational.[36]

Amoranemix 80 :

[34] Indeed. It indicates they don't have a case.

[35] The problem is that the existence of an afterlife or miracles are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not indicative evidence.

In 1950ies there were in the USA many reports of flying saucers with hammer and sickle symbols. That indicates that already back then the Soviets mastered flying saucer technology.

[36] How is that supposed to follow ?

n8nrgmi 82 :

indicative evidence is still evidence. i can respect not being a theist, but declaring that there's no evidence for God is irrational.

n8nrgmi 59 :

"people die and tell us of their afterlife experience" this is a fact.[37] i realize ya'll like to poke holes in it, but it's still a fact. a stubborn fact. i think ya'll can't deal with it, cause it's so blatantly clear evidence that contradicts your worldview.

Amoranemix 80 :

[37] Is that so ? Then please demonstrate that fact.

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 80 :

[38] Of the thausands of UFO observations that were investigated, how many do you think turned out the have the simple explanation, the one perfectly in line with Ockham's Razor, that those were alien craft flown by aliens ?

[39] You are mistaken. Others have also presented counter-evidence, that you have skillfully ignored.

[40] Great. Please present that science.

Is that science limited to reports of afterlife experiences or is there independent scientific evidence ?

n8nrgmi 82 :

[38] [no response]

[39] what evidence am i ignoring?[41] i think the most specific anyone has gotten is to argue that all humans are similar in design, and that there's a survival gene, therefore they claim that it's to be expect that we hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. talk about jumping to conclusions. and this argument lacks specificity in science....[42] they dont show an afterlife gene or something in our brain, all they do is say it's possible to draw on science to explain NDEs. all this stuff boils down to, is a hunch. it lacks science. whereas, 'evidence of the afterlife' is great evidence,[43] as well as all the studies published in journals about out of body experiences being accurate.[44] it's also just common sense, which ya'll lack...[45] to not think that it's common to hallucinate a bunch of elaborate afterlife experiences when we die, if there's no good evidence to justify that argument.[46]

[40] [no response]

n8nrgmi 87 :

another piece of evidence is that experiencers almost always see relatives when dead, and almost never see someone who is still living. it's possible people just have a strong connection to their families and automatically think of the dead when dying... but if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of random people in the experience, both living and not living. the consistency of this is good evidence.

n8nrgmi 88 :

another good piece of evidence is that when experiencers are surveyed, they say their 'life reviews' are always accurate, 100% of the time. if this was just a brain going hay wire, we'd expect lots of false memories.[47]

i think this also goes along with the idea that if this was a brain going hay wire, people would experience lots of random images, like a hallucination or dream. instead,[48] they see lucid clear after life experiences that they have no doubt about and that are more real to them than their earthly lives.

also, people often see images in their life review, that they've long forgotten. it's not as likely just a brain going hay wire if it's showing the whole life even the forgotten stuff.[49]

n8nrgmi 88 :

it's also good evidence that the same sorts of NDEs happen to people who have never heard of these experiences, and to children who are too young to know about it either.[50]

it's also good evidence, that across all cultures, the themes in the experiences happen the same. that is, tunnels, light being, life   reviews and such... all these things happen at the same rate regardless of country or culture. i realize humans are similar, so the argument that we just have similar experiences is possible. but if this just a brain going hay wire, it wouldn't be so consistent and would be a lot more like random images or random experiences.[51]

Ramshutu 182 to Double_R :

I’ve never seen someone so singularly dedicated to avoiding the other persons point. Right?

Fruit_Inspector 199 :

I am trying to address it, but you keep dodging the question.

Ramshutu 200 :

Fruit_inspector self own(25) flat out bald faced lie. The question has been answered multiple time’s:

Fruit_Inspector 199 to Ramshutu :

I'm just going to assume that your answer is no, the law of noncontradiction is not a metaphysical assumption.[11]

Since we can rule out option 2 (the universe caused itself) using the law of noncontradiction - which is not a metaphysical assumption - we have a basis to rule out at least one of our options without adding any metaphysical assumptions.[12]

Fruit_Inspector 203 to Ramshutu :

For something to create itself, it would have to be before it was.[13] It would have to exist before it existed. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, option 2 (the universe is self-created) is invalidated as a reasonable option due to the law of noncontradiction.[14]

Any explanation of origins that falls under option 2 can be ruled out based on the law of noncontradiction?[15]

Fruit_Inspector 203 to Ramshutu :

The universe created itself=the universe is self created

"The universe came from nothing" is just another way to say the universe is self-created. That is why I said I would simplify it. My original comment was to someone else, which is why I phrased it that way. Had I known you were jumping in, I would have simplified it from the start to avoid the rambling we are now experiencing.[16]

If the universe has no cause, it is eternal.[17]

That is option #1. All possibilities are accounted for.

Fruit_Inspector 205 to Ramshutu :

If something existed without having been caused, it would be eternal.

"The universe came from nothing" is just another way of saying that "the universe created itself," option #2. It also violates the the principle  ex nihilo nihil fit.

So this claim violates two basic logical principles.

Fruit_Inspector 205 to Ramshutu :

If we are then left with options #1 and #3, it is still possible that the universe is eternal - so there is no special pleading here. To say the universe is eternal is also to say it is uncaused.

Amoranemix 209 :

How does the universe starting itself violate the law of causality ?

ethang5 210 :

Do you know the law of causality? There needs to be a first cause.[18] A first cause cannot pre-exist itself,[19] and an effect cannot be causeless.

Amoranemix 209 :

How does it violate entropy ?

ethang5 210 :

A closed system cannot have a decrease in entropy, And a universe that "starts" itself cannot be an open system. Do you know the laws of entropy?

They are called the laws of thermodynamics and I know them.

Amoranemix 209 :

How does it violate life from non-life ?

ethang5 210 :

Science has, for all of its existence, observed that life only comes from life. Every scientific experiment to date has confirmed this. There is not one shred of evidence that supports life from non-life.

Amoranemix 209 :

Scientific laws have an area of application. A phenomon outside the law's area of application may violate that law and that is no good reason to dismiss the phenomenon as impossible.[a]

The Newtonian theory of gravity, conservation of mass, most triangle laws, Ohm's law, Bohr's atomic model and the ideal gas law are all invalid under certain circumstances.[b]

So contrary to what you seem to believe, that is not evidence against the possibility of the universe having created itself.[c]

ethang5 210 :

[a] Exactly. God is outside the area of application of the laws that govern and affect His creation. Laws cannot affect things outside their area of application.

[b] I did not say the laws were invalid. A law cannot affect anything before  that law begins to exist. I said a self-starter universe violates those laws.

[c] They certainly are. Our universe operates on logic. Effects preceeding causes, or being causeless, and a "closed system" universe with increases in entropy are all illogical.[20]

ethang5  71 :

The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.

Amoranemix  120 :

It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.

ethang5  128 :

God is a singularity. He precedes, and is the source of, all laws. Every other "creator" is composed of the same material as his creation, and is not the author of the natural laws governing his creation. God is unique that way. Believing God would be subject to laws He pre-existed and created IS irrational.

Amoranemix 209 :

You are merely arguing, not demonstrating, merely claiming even, that atheists are wrong. You are merely claiming (again), not even arguing, let alone demonstrating, that believing otherwise is irrational.

ethang5 210 :

I see you have reached the end of your argument and the conclusion you wanted is still out of sight.[21] I am demonstrating logic.[22]

The words in our discussion have set meanings. Neither of us can treat them as if their meaning will be decided at a whim, or that their meaning is fluid within the discussion. The concept of "God" has a logical meaning.

Requiring you to adhere to that logical meaning is not merely "arguing".[23] If you believe that your argument, and indeed the universe, do not need to operate under the laws of logic, then discussions with you will be pointless.[24]

949havoc 22 to Ramshutu

Occam would not agree with the convolution that is determinism. Nor does God.

TheMorningsStar OP

Why do you use this definition of atheist (the Flew definition)? It is a definition rejected by essentially all academics in the Philosophy of Religion, yet it is common to find laypeople on the internet use this definition of atheist. Within academia the definition of atheist is "one who believes there are no gods", yet so often when this definition is mentioned online it seems 'atheists' almost take offense to it and get defensive of the 'lack of belief' definition.

Why is this? Why hold onto a definition that is rejected by academics? Especially those here, on a website designed for debating? Why not use the definitions used in academia?

Oromagi 3 quoting STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA of PHILOSOPHY to TheMonringStar

[ . . . ] His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms.  Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

Polytheist-Witch 10 to TheMorningStar

The problem with the term atheist is that I know plenty of people that are involved in spirituality in witchcraft that will tell you their atheist. This tells me or they will say to you I don't believe in gods or I don't work with gods. That is a completely different scenario than the atheist that post here at this site. They believe in nothing spiritual. They do not believe in a soul, they do not believe in spiritual practices like meditation, they do not believe in the practices involved in witchcraft. There needs to be something that describes a full on atheist that believes in nothing other than themselves and the atheist that also has a spiritual practice because they are in no way shape or form the same animal.

Castin to OP .

Because they don't want to define atheism as a belief.

I find it is also common for online atheists to be Christ mythicists, even though the mythicist position is rejected by most academics in the field. Nothing says atheists must be in step with all things academia.

Amoranemix 1095 to PGA2.0

Notice again that it someone with a reality-based worldview who is teaching someone with a god-based wordview, not the other way round.

ethang5 1096

Would you be that person teaching others?

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

A problem is not all theists believe in the same god. So God changes depending on who your are talking to. Can one really know a fictional being that keeps changing ?

ethang5 1096

You think the reality of God changes by peoples opinion?[601] I bet you don't say the same thing for evolution or the constitution. So at least you're half logical.

Amoranemix 808 to PGA2.0

Atheism is not a worldview, so why would it need to pass a test for worldviews ?

ethang5 1096

Atheism CAN BE a worldview, and often is. It needs to be justified by those who hold it as a worldview.

Amoranemix 995 to PGA2.0

So far the only way to discovering that truth has been by making it. How ? Create an objective moral standard and then discover what it says.

ethang5 1096

So far in the insane world. This is utter gibberish.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

First, claiming actions that God cannot do seems at odds with God's alleged omnipotence.

ethang5 1096

And citing this inability as a weakness of God does nothing to remedy the incorrectness of the original comment that "Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard." Please stay on topic.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

Second, God's actions being morally good does not a priori place a limitation on God's actions, since we lack an objective measure for what actions are morally good.

ethang5 1096

It is God Himself who places limits on His actions. Your incorrect statement assumes God sets no limits.[602] And Christians do have an objective standard for what is morally good, you don't.[603]

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

If morally good actions are those actions done by God, then he could still do anything he wants, as the only action he could not do would those he does not do. Hence, if morally good is some aspect of his nature, then he could still not restore killed children if it is not in his nature to do so.

ethang5 1096

This comment did not stay long enough in your oven and came out half-baked.

Amoranemix 995 to ethang5

So from a Christian perspective, assuming the latter definition, whatever the Bible says on the topic, it should not be a problem, as God would merely be acting in according with his nature, which by definition would be good.

ethang5 1096

Which means something definite, not what you want it to mean, that ANY action can be included. Logic is required here.

Amoranemix 995 to PGA2.0

[266] That is easy to refute : Torturing little children for fun is wrong

ethang5 1096

Do you have any objective reason for saying it is wrong? I don't think you do.  Torturing little children for fun cannot be wrong simply because YOU think it is.

ethang5 1096

You have not presented a coherent argument, one not plagued with problems. I want logic, not opinions.

PGA2.0 1100

79 posts behind. Help. This is going to take a while.

3RU7AL 1097

ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "NOT-Hinduism" is a "worldview".

ethang5 1102

ATHEISM is a "worldview" in exactly the same way "Hinduism" is a "worldview".

3RU7AL  1107

Of course, nobody is under any OBLIGATION to describe themselves as an ATHEIST, regardless of what they might or might not happen to believe.

ethang5 1109

Just like Hindus!

3RU7AL 1107

There is no ATHEIST tradition.

ethang5 1109

Yet every atheist here will quote atheist comments of our founding fathers if you tell them that America's tradition is Christian.

3RU7AL 1113

There is no uniformity of ATHEISTS.

ethang5 1114

They are quite uniform here.

3RU7AL 1113

They only share a particular LACK-of belief.

ethang5 1114

But for the word "only" above, your comment would be correct.

Amoranemix 911

There appears to be another inconsistency in your worldview. You claim that skeptic's views are merely preferences because not based on some ultimate, absolute, fixed standard and yet you keep asking skeptics for their views, as if their preferences matter. [a] What relevance do their preferences have ?

PGA2.0 1115

No, what I do is invite them to prove me wrong, that your preference does matter in determining what is moral.[604]

[a] [About atheists imposing their views on others using means PGA2.0 dislikes] [605]

[More about those terrible atheists and even about the thought pattern controlling Democrats] [606]

Amoranemix 46 :

[a] Fortunately reality is independent of your thoughts.

[b] So? That atheism requires defending is your opinion, not mine.

[c] You are mistaken about NDEs. That topic was brought up by n8nrgmi, who does not appear to be an atheist. I agree an atheist brought up a diffent topic, which you chose to engage in in stead of ignoring it or steering the conversation back the the alleged irrationality of atheism.

[18] How so ?

ethang5 47 :

[a] Is that why you tell us your thoughts when we ask for reality?

[b] Then your responding here is quizzical.

[c] Atheists can ONLY debate the existence of God. Any theistic topic gets devolved to the existence of God by atheists. It is a waste of time trying to keep them on topic.

[18] Atheism contradicts itself. Self-contradiction is self-evudently irrational no?

Amoranemix 46 :

[8] I asked for clarification and evidence.

[19] You are mistaken. That is not the reason why I think that and you are wise enough to suspect the real reason.

[20] No. A sound, on topic argument is required. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.

[21] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man. I have not claimed what you imply I have. Contrary to what you claimed, some atheists have spoken about atheism.

[22] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Strangely enough it would be precisely in a thread on that topic that atheists do not exhibit that behaviour.

[23] If you are sceptical of my claim, then surely you have reasons why, unless your scepticism is irrational, which I would dislike to believe.

No, I don't think that is logic.[d]

ethang5 47 :

[20] What ever you hold, you don't hold the keys to what is required or whether it is sound.

[21] Not one, including you, has defended atheism.

[d] No wonder it's in your toolbox.

Amoranemix 46 :

[24] That is kind and tolerant of you, but I'll pass. You too may feel free to be irrational.

[25] Do you expect people to believe you find that amazing ? No, you don't.[e]

ethang5 47 :

[24] Ethan is not a liberal. Irrationality is not an option for him. You go on though.

[25] No, I expect them to find it amazingly close to my comment,

[e] Your skill at observation is impressive.

n8nrgmi 50 :

there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist

Amoranemix 46 :

[14] Of course I ignore evidence. So what ? Everyone ignores evidence. No one can take into account all evidence.

[15] OK. Let's forget for the moment that you still have the burden to demonstrate that atheism is irrational.

Should we also consider the evidence to conclude not God or ignore that ? Should we also consider the evidence we expect to observe if God or ignore that ?

[16] So you have the icing. Where is the cake ?

[17] Is the universe's decreasing non-dark energy supposed to be evidence for God ? If so, how and if so, please demonstrate it is decreasing.

[18] That doesn't make sense to who ? You ?

[19] So we don't understand the origin of the universe. Is that supposed to be evidence for God ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 46 :

Is this thread about whether theists get more miraculous healings than atheists ? No, it isn't. Suppose we were able to establish they do. Then what ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 46 :

That God is a good theory is merely an assertion of yours, but suppose you are right. Is it irrational to not adhere to a good theory ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

n8nrgmi 59 to Double_R :

atheists have a rebut able presumption.   good evidence is provided by theists.[27] bad evidence, or no evidence, is provided by atheists to rebut.[28] that's why i say there's insufficient evidence to be an atheist.[29]

we see people die and come back to tell afterlife stories. we see out of body events being described highly accurately under scientific study. atheists have no good evidence to say what's happening is anything other than what we observe... the best they have are vague theories, but with scant science attached to it.[30]

we see praying theists with inexplicable healings but we have no evidence that these things happen to atheists... atheist healings as far as i can tell are always explicable. all we have is atheists telling us to assume the same things happen to them too.[31]

this is very plain evidence provided by theists.[32] yes it's possible to remain a skeptic, but it goes against the evidence... it's skepticism for the sake of skepticism.[33] you cant come up with coherent counter theories, cause you just dont understand science or logic.

n8nrgmi 59 :

the evidence theists provide indicates something.[34] they indicate that there's an afterlife and that miracles happen to theists.[35] i can understand if someone wanted to remain a skeptic, as if they needed more evidence to embrace the conclusions fully. but to pretend there's no evidence for the supernatural or God or any of that, is objectively wrong. that's why atheism is irrational.[36]

n8nrgmi 59 :

"people die and tell us of their afterlife experience" this is a fact.[37] i realize ya'll like to poke holes in it, but it's still a fact. a stubborn fact. i think ya'll can't deal with it, cause it's so blatantly clear evidence that contradicts your worldview.

n8nrgmi 59 to Double_R :

all you've shown is that you are good at creating elaborate theories to deny basic observation, basic evidence. ockam's razer is that if people die and tell us of the afterlife, the most simple explanation is that they died and experienced the afterlife.[38] you have a tendency of defining yourself to be right by definition... "nothing can't exist outside the universe" "the supernatural can't exist". i can relate to thinking experiencing the afterlife is too good to be true, but that's what it looks like. and, all your counter ideas for why it's not authentic experience, is that you have a hunch. that's all the skeptic counter arguments amount to, a hunch.[39] there's scant science attached to it. read 'evidence of the afterlife' by dr long or read studies on out of body experiences... we have lots of science on the pro authentic side,[40] and mere hunches with scant science attached to it on the anti authentic side.

Reece101 87

Are you a Young Earth Creationist?

Yassine 89

- Look what we have here. You had to say that from loss of confidence in your arguments. Guess what, evolutionationsts are far more delusional than youngEarthcreationists.

Reece101 87

If you agree natural selection occurs, why do you have a problem with speciation?

Yassine  89

- One is fact, the other is fiction. The most famous story of speciation that they taught us & still teach all over the world, is the tale of Darwin's finches & their "speciation". As it turns out, Darwin's finches are actually interfertile. No speciation ever occurred. Yet, the mythologists insist to telling this lie because frankly they got nothing!

Reece101 87

Depending on the organism, let’s say 100,000 generations, you think they’ll still be the same species from where their ancestors started?

Yassine  89

Dude. Your own DNA is copied & split in your own body into 100 trillion cells, each cell copying DNA & making some 50 million proteins, that's 5 billion trillion times (not just 100,000), & still the same effing DNA. Cyanobacteria has been going on since 3.5 billion years, that's more than 100 trillion generations. It's still cyanobacteria.

Reece101 87

Apart from habitat and behavioural differences of not seeing each other as potential mates, there’s also chromosome and enzyme differences. Though i would agree a chimpanzee and a bonobo could create a hybrid, a gorilla and chimpanzee on the other hand, not so much.

When you say  ALL  apes are interfertile with each other, you’re simply wrong.

Yassine  89

Interfertile =/= interbreed. Amazon tribal people are interfertile with Inuit people even though they don't interbreed. If you're talking about the human-gorilla clad vs. human-chimpanzee clad theories, then nothing is conclusive as of yet. Studies have been done on gorilla "hybrids". But I will grant you this, whoever side of the argument wins, those flimsy trees will change yet again. lol! Regardless, if in the case of gorillas not being interfertile with other apes, then they are their own species, as is the case for gibbons. All this is entirely besides the point, which is morphology =/= descent. Wolves, coyotes, dogs... are all interfertile, yet they look so different. In effect, these are all the same kind, the same species, in different races.

Reece101 87

Do you understand that gene mutations occur? 

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mutation

Yassine  89

Lmao! Have you ever taken a class in biology! All mutations are bad news. Have you heard of cancer? The abusively called snips or variants are not actually mutations in the evolutionary sense. All these discussions show a deep lack of knowledge in molecular biology & the function of the cell.

Yassine  89 to Reece101

- Two, the *actual* similarity between human DNA & chimp DNA is around 70%, at best. Using the aforementioned programs, they determined that 75% of human DNA code is most congruent with 82% of chimp DNA code; so they discarded the rest (basically 30%), then discarded any insertion or deletion (some 3%), to claim a 1-2% difference in DNA... Isn't his the most hilariously pathetic story!? It's so cringe I know! [25]

- Three, & this is really funny, the cosmic stupidity that we just witnessed can, in fact, be applied to absolutely any computer binary code & will give similar results. Take any two computer codes (0s & 1s), of a book or a program or an image. Then compare them with the assumption that they descent from the same parent code. Then eliminate the incongruent parts, you will inevitably end up with a very tiny difference -around 1%. In fact, this is -probabilistically speaking- a necessity, for the average 0-1 ratio in any uncompressed code is about 50-50%. I've done this myself btw.  Here is an exercise, take any two -fairly large- texts of similar size, one in Chinese & the other in English, convert them to binary, then compare them. You'll get something around 70% similarity.[26]

– Four, & this one is interesting. In retrospect, other camps among these evolutionationists are estimating similar ranges for other animals instead, namely gorillas & rats, away from chimpanzees. In truth, you can do the same for any mammal, for their genome size are around the 3 gigabases. You just need to tweak the algorithm a little bit, & boom the elephant is 99% human.[27]

- Finally, similarity in DNA code means absolutely nothing, the same way similarity between two binary codes mean nothing. It's not about the binary sequence, it's about the meaning of that sequence, aka words & sentences. In DNA case, these are instructions, aka genes, to make proteins. Proteins are basically workers with specific tasks in the cell;  billions of types of proteins are produced by the human body, making on average  trillions of each. Proteins are constructed from gene instructions; some genes can engender thousands of different proteins. Comparing chimp proteins with human proteins we can infer the information in the genes, that 80% of proteins are different between these two species. This is analogous to comparing two source codes, not based on some binary code similarity, but rather based on the actual instructions in the codes.[28]

Reece101 87

I agree it’s complicated and there are many grey areas. that’s the rough outline. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect by any stretch.

Yassine 89

- It's BS. Myth. Nonsense.   I will tell you why "it's complicated".[29] In this particular case the answer is pretty straight forward. Strict definitions of taxonomies prevent evolutionationists from taking advantage of equivocations & ambiguities to further expand their fantasies.[30] If speciation & species was strictly defined based on interfertility (which they profess when it suits them but ignore when it doesn't), then Darwin's finches would be strictly one species, which means no speciation happened within the Galapagos finches, thus no evolution.[31] Instead, they claim these are different species, because they are non-interfertile, due to  long isolation & evolution from a common type; BUT the the fact that they are in fact interfertile shouldn't diminish from this, because they are not interbreeding as same species, rather as hybrids, & we will call this hybridization. Genius isn't it! You gotta give it to them, they finally achieved squaring the circle.  

Sum1hugme 93

I would love to debate it, but yassine and I would have to agree on what evolution is, because I say that abiogenesis should not be included in the definition of evolution.

Yassine 97

The evolutionary theory necessarily entails descent by natural selection and abiogenesis, wether you think it should be included in the definition or not. If A then B, means if not-B then not-A. No abiogenesis necessarily entails no evolutionary theory.

Yassine 108

- You have yet to show what you claimed. That the theory of evolution has been useful in something. Give me ONE thing.

Reece101 101

Understanding how we came to be. Pretty simple.

https://www.google.com... :

Ancient meteorites reveal that our planet had plenty of water, right from the start.

ethang5 1 :

Oops! There goes the atheist counter that the Earth does not have enough water to have fed Noah's flood.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org... :

....Geologic evidence suggests that over Earths history, the fluxes of water between the interior and the surface - have been large.

ethang5 1 :

The Bible notes that Noah's flood was augmented by water gushing from underground. How did the author know this fact so long before science did?

https://www.sciencedaily.com... :

"This discovery can help scientists create new, more accurate models of what's going on inside the Earth,..."

ethang5 1 :

"...new, more accurate models..." means, closer to the narrative in the Bible.[1]

https://www.google.com... :

"We"re not sure how it got there. Maybe it"s been stuck there since early in Earth"s history...."

ethang5 1 :

Science now agrees again with the Bible, this time that there has always been water on the Earth, and lots of it.

Again, though the Bible AND science silences and shames atheists, they can only dismiss the Bible while claiming to uphold science which says the same thing!

ethang5 27 to Ramshutu :

Atheists first said there was not enough water on Earth for Noah's flood to be true. Science has proven that claim wrong.

Atheists then said, there was no way for the water in the Earth's mantle to come to the surface. Science again proved them wrong.[2]

Atheists calculated that 40 days of rain would not produce enough water to cover the Earth to the depth indicated in Noah's story. The Bible says the water did not only come from rain, but from under the ground too.

Science just verified that there is more than 3 times as much water in the Earth's mantle as in all it's oceans! How am I cherry picking?[3]

Ramshutu 31 :

Did such a flood happen? No: science can rule that one out.

ethang5 32 :

Science once "ruled out" enough water on Earth to cover every peak.

Ramshutu 31 :

Is it possible for it to happen? No: this water is not free water; and is locked up in magma hundreds of miles beneath the surface - not as water, but as OH Hydroxyl molecules bound to magma.

ethang5 32 :

You've back paddled. You use to say there was simply not enough water on Earth. But sorry, science has found that under certain conditions, this water can be brought to the surface.

Ramshutu 31 :

You pointed to individual cases of data that seem to confirm your position...

ethang5 32 :

I pointed to an individual case of data that is consistent with my position. That is how science works.

Ramshutu 31 :

...Demonstrate evolution,

ethang5 32 :

Evolution has never been demonstrated.

Ramshutu 31 :

...demonstrate the local nature of various flood around the world, and explicitly rule out a cataclysmic global flood as described in Genesis.

ethang5 32 :

Untrue. Science can only "rule out" a global flood within a time frame if in the relatively recent past. Noah's flood has never been "ruled out" by science, it is scientists with agendas that do so.

Ramshutu 34 :

Erm - yes? That’s why “It just moves between the mantle and the surface” is what “earths magma contains water in volumes that are variable” means. Did you lose track of what you were arguing?

ethang5 35 :

Ah, lol! That's why you keep saying magma. You really should look up magma and bone up on geology before you post again. The water is in the Earth's mantle, not in magma.

Ramshutu 34 :

Pretty sure that Cataclysmic volcanic activity overturning billions of square kilometres of magma to release its water; would not be described as water spurting from the ground, but a burning hellfire that vaporized every ocean on the planet

ethang5 35 :

And that doesn't clue you in that your "magma" idea is loony? Any water in Rock would be squeezed out under the tremendous pressure needed to make it hot enough to melt, and any water would immediately vaporize out as soon as the pressure dropped long before the magma reached the surface.

Lol. Funny how new scientific revelations always confirm the Bible's narrative.

Ramshutu 34 :

Using the ones that Agree with you, and ignoring all the ones that do not - is cherry picking.

ethang5 35 :

I have "ignored" nothing, unless you mean that my OP did not contain  hundreds of thousands of studies.

This thread is about the water on Earth, not about evolution, or age of the Earth, or common ancestors. You wish to deflect to those topics because you know atheists have lost the "enough water on Earth" topic.

Ramshutu 34 to ethang5 :

Please block quote this whole thing and reply to it in one go; you just went line by line and completely lost any semblance of a point lol.

Ramshutu 37 :

You are cherry picking the science that agrees with the bible; ignoring all the other science that does not; and then claiming science validates the bible. Cherry picking

ethang5 41 :

No Sir. I said science validates one claim of the Bible, that there is enough water on Earth for Noah's flood. You are trying to insert an argument for me...

Ramshutu 37 :

We can rule out a global flood 5-6 thousand years ago by various means

ethang5 41 :

Noah's flood did not happen 5 to 6 thousand years ago. It is a much older event.

Ramshutu 37 :

If water in rock is squeezed out under pressure as it melts - then where the hell did all this water you claim was on the surface go?

ethang5 41 :

I did not say rocks (or magma) came out. I said water. You brought out the magma clunker.

ethang5 41 to Ramshutu :

In this case, we do not currently know the mechanics of Noah's flood, but we are getting clues.[2]

- There IS enough water on Earth [3]

- the rainfall was augmented by water from below the surface [4]

these are consistent with our current running theories.

You want to make this about the larger Noah's flood so you can escape having to concede the limited point of this thread, that there is enough water on the Earth to be consistent with a global flood of the kind mentioned in Genesis.[5]

Ramshutu 44 :

By all means share these other studies; I wasn’t able to find more than the single study after a brief search...

ethang5 49 :

Well that certainly proves there is only one.

Ramshutu 44 :

The Bible makes all sorts of claims we can invalidate[a] - but there are some where it’s able to by right by accident. Like this one.[b]

ethang5 49 :

[a] We who? You mean the "experts" you have faith in?

[b] Lol. You say, "by accident", and that is speculation. But that is fine by me. You admit the Bible was correct WHEN NOBODY ELSE KNEW, not even scientists.

...but there are some where it’s able to by right by accident. Like this one

EtrnlVw 82 to Ramshutu :

The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.

Amoranemix 120 :

So God allegedly created the stuff within spacetime, but not spacetime itself ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

This question is nonsensical. Creation is directly related to time, the very action or process of creation is when time can appear as something that can be observed and measured. I'll let you dwell of the idea of "fixed" for awhile. Spacetime is simply an expansion, that expansion had a beginning. Time and this expansion are not relevant to an eternal structure. They occur within it not with it.

Amoranemix 120 :

[5] That is your belief and hypothesis. However there are many belief on the origin of the universe. The scientific ones referring to God are low on the popularity list in cosmological circles.

[6] What does eternity mean in the absense of time ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

[5] Materialism is idiotic no matter what circles it infiltrates. To accept that inanimate forces and materials can build a working functioning universe is one of the most absurd notions that exists.

[6] As I already said, honestly I'm getting sick of trying to get someone to comprehend such a simple concept. I've thoroughly went over it in this thread. Eternity in the absence of time is a fixed state of existence because again, we need not bump into the infinite regress paradox. There is no paradox because time is only relevant to a starting point and an ending point. Remove those features and we have a stationary fixture. An infinite past is idiotic and makes no sense, it doesn't exist.[7]

Do you think that brain inside your skull can handle the distinction between eternal and temporal and time vs no time?[8] please say yes, because I'm not going over it again.   I mean I get it, everyone here is completely familiar with their life in relation to time....it's all they know, birth and death, beginning and ending, we start here and we go there ect ect but trust me. I've thought about this more than anyone here, once you get it through your head that time is basically an illusion and nothing more than a measurement you'll go "ahhhh well hell, that makes perfect sense". 

Eternity has no relationship with space between two events, it has no association with linear time as we observe it. 

Ramshutu 114 :

You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.

EtrnlVw 127 :

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't in an argument. However, none of my opinions are without justification, they are always well thought out whether or not you agree with them.[9] I understand you don't like my opinion but I didn't need to give anything other than what I think is true because I was not arguing or debating it. You on the other hand didn't argue my premise, you just claimed they were assertions and gave your own opinion. Heck, I wasn't even addressing you to begin with.

Ramshutu 114 :

Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear.

EtrnlVw 127 :

Again, perhaps you completely don't understand my premise. Reciting processes is making my point not countering it. I'm not arguing against them, I'm giving you the dynamics of why they occur.

ethang5 4 to n8nrgmi :

Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.

Amoranemix 120 :

Which laws of science does the claim that the universe started itself violate ?

ethang5 128 :

Causality. Entropy. Life only from life.

ethang5 71 :

The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.

Amoranemix 120 :

It may be wrong, but that does not make believing otherwise irrational. Almost every creator is subject to some of the laws their creation is subject to, like the laws of mathematics and the laws of physics.

ethang5 128 :

God is a singularity. He precedes, and is the source of, all laws. Every other "creator" is composed of the same material as his creation, and is not the author of the natural laws governing his creation. God is unique that way. Believing God would be subject to laws He pre-existed and created IS irrational.

Double_R 129 :

Third, is that this is a comparative statement. I wasn’t assessing the strength of the conclusion, I was explaining why the universe having no cause is a stronger explanation than God being the uncaused chase.

Fruit_Inspect 130 :

I wasn't arguing that God is the uncaused cause. I was arguing that there is an uncaused cause. Once we establish whether or not there is an uncaused cause, then we can discuss what that cause is.

Ramshutu 132 to Fruit_Inspector :

Q11: Can you please explain to me why you skipped every single one of these questions without any explanation - and replied as if they didn’t exist.

Double_R  139 :

We know of nothing beyond the universe that exists, so the conclusion requiring the least amount of assumptions is that the universe is not an effect.

Fruit_Inspector 140 :

That is an assumption based on philosophical naturalism. You then forced your naturalistic presupposition onto my argument by forcing me to accept that "we know of nothing beyond the universe that exists." I reject that presupposition.

Fruit_Inspector 149 :

I don't know if anyone else has said this, but you may want to consider breaking up your responses as individual posts to those particular users.

Amoranemix 148 :

Why must we avoid infinite regress ?

Why should that cause be an eternal entity ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

Assuming the laws of thermodynamics, why could the universe not be eternal ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

[ . . . ]

So if you are strict enough then it would indeed seem that something cannot come from nothing. However, giving that you call the cause of the universe an entity, you are very lenient, suggesting that that nothing can be a lot of things.

Please explain why something cannot come from nothing.

[9] Have you considered the possibility of a time loop ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

You reasoned as follows :

A. Time has a beginning.

P1. If time has a beginning, then time coming into existence is a product of time.

C. Therefore, time cannot have a beginning.

Can you demonstrate P1 ?

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Amoranemix 148 :

[4] Almost everything in the universe is timeless, meaning it does not require time to exist.

What does it mean for time to come into existence if time already exists ?

The no boundary proposal seems to fit your description. If it is true then the answer would be yes.

Fruit_Inspector :

[no response]

Ramshutu 160 :

Of course it can’t be correct: That’s my entire point.

Fruit_Inspector 161 :

So your understanding of how reality works is incorrect...

Fruit_Inspector 160 :

You'll have to forgive my request for clarity. I am, after all, just an incompetent buffoon who likes picking peanuts out of poop.[10] But I want to make sure I'm absolutely clear what you're saying.

Double_R 12 :

Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause for other things.

Does this mean God and/or the supernatural doesn’t exist? No, it means that they cannot be asserted even as a  candidate  explanation until you can first demonstrate that they exist.

n8nrgmi 34 :

it looks like you're getting close to merely asserting that God doesn't exist. i dont have to prove conclusively that God exists if all i need to do is show that God existing is a good theory.[10] it's stupid to the point of irrationality to claim that it's common to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when we die. do you even hear yourselves? all you guys do is assert that to you it looks like a hallucination, or a drug trip. simply asserting it's a hallucination isn't an argument.[11] [ . . . ]

you've given no good reason to assume things that look supernatural happen to atheists. like a blind person's retina being healed. if something happens to one group, praying theists, but we have no reason to assume it happens to another group, atheists.... then i'm gonna take that as plain evidence that something is special with the theists.[12]

i could go on and on. it really does boil down to skeptics being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical, to the point of irrationality.[13]

n8nrgmi 34 :

plus NDEs are studied extensively, and when researchers (who report their findings in journals) ask people to explain what they experienced out of their body, they are very highly accurate with even doctors and such to verify the stories. i realize that it's not determined to the degree either of us would like (leaving no doubt about the accuracy), but it's still strong evidence that you just choose to ignore

Double_R 37 :

So here we have Phenomenon X. What are our candidate explanations?

n8nrgmi 41 :

the evidence is plain, you just choose to ignore it.[14]

look at the totality of the evidence to concluded God.[15] yes the design of the universe is weak evidence for God, and that alone shouldn't cause someone to believe in God. yes we can say it looks like something caused the universe but i agree it doesn't have to be called God. but if you look at all the evidences together, these arguments are icing on the cake.[16]

you may be right that energy is increasing in the universe. i dont know, all i know is what we see, non dark energy, where energy is decreasing.[17] if you are correct i would have to amend my argument. it doesn't make sense that there would be a definite beginning in time and an eternal end.[18] it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to the human mind that a one time event just happens and that's all there is too it.[19]

n8nrgmi 41 :

the evidence for NDEs is strong. [ . . . ]

n8nrgmi 41 :

i can show you an example of someone who is blind having their retina healed after they pray. there are lots of examples like this.   that level of inexplicable healing hasn't been demonstrated in atheists, and no one has given a good reason to assume those sorts of things happen to atheists. so we have one group of people, theists, experiences inexplicable healings while another group, atheists, do not have those things happen. you do the math. i'm gonna assume there's something special about theists... it's basic observation;   it's basic science.

n8nrgmi 41 :

even if i can't say God is proven, if you look at all the theories together... it's a good theory that God exists. certainly enough evidence to not obliviously and irrationally argue "God doesn't exist".

Amoranemix 39 :

[8] How is that supposed to follow ? I follow as far as the conclusion that there is evidence for an immaterial soul, but your conclusion is stronger than that. How can you justify it ?

[9] You are committing a non-sequitur fallacy. That theism includes a soul does not imply that a soul implies God.

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

[10] Clinically dead does not mean dead : www.britannica.com/topic/near-death-experience

[11] You claim that an NDE can take place when there is no brain activity. How is that ? You appear to assume the existence of an independent soul, which is begging the question.

[12] How are they recorded ? What evidence can you present that the soul detaches from the body ?

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

[13] It works against atheism being irrational, which happens to be this thread's topic.

[14] There is also an important difference, namely that there is no justification for making that assumption.

[15] If I understand correctly, you believe the following : If one is close to death one of the deities of one's religion comes to collect one's soul and shows one what one expects. So that is your hypothesis (which seems incompatible with most religions, including Christianity). What evidence can you present to support it ?

[16] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

Besides, if I am Hindu, that would not require me to witness a Hindu afterlife. I could meet my acquaintances in Christian Hell.

[17] Can you present any science behind that, like scientific articles about the soul, these parallel worlds and how the soul navigates there ?

EtrnlVw :

[no response]

Amoranemix 39 :

You are mistaken. None of them have explained how they personally don't believe the Bible.[a] I came here to see theists try to support the irrationality of atheism and show them wrong and I suspect other atheists did too.[b] Alas, they won't even bother. In stead they lured atheists into debating NDE's and the popularity of Christianity.[c]

ethang5 45 :

[a] As I think any unbiased person reading this thread will see you are wrong, I can leave this point as is.

[b] Yet other than ask questions about claims, you haven't once defended atheism or attacked the claim that it is irrational.

[c] Both of those tangential topics were brought up by atheists. Atheism is irrational because it is self-contradictory.[18]

Amoranemix 39 :

[8] You are assuming that an unsubstantiated claim is an attack worthy enough to require a defense. That may be your personal opinion, but it is not mine. My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.[d] For some reason the OP has been unable to deliver.

Furthermore, you are mistaken. If you read the first page of this thread, you will notice several people have spoken about atheism.

[9] If theists really believed that, you would expect them to present a pertinent case against atheism to enjoy the spectacle of atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism. The problem is, for that theists would need something resembling a defensible case.[e] Most Christians aren't the ignorant fools they pretend to be. They know presenting the best case they have would show the opposite of what they desire.[f]

ethang5 45 :

[8] Then your responding here is quizzical.

[d] That is because atheists think delivering on the BoP means "convincing" them.[19] My personal opinion is that no one needs an atheist's validation. They only need to present a valid argument.[20]

Mentioning the word "atheism" is not the same as defending atheism as rational or debunking the claim that atheism is irrational.[21]

[e] Lol!! Our perceptions of the religion board certainly are different!

"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism." Is a succinct discription of what atheists do on the religion board.[22] For those few atheists that actually try at least.

[f] Ah, yes, the old atheist nugget of pretending to know the inner mind and intentions of the theist. I bet you think that is logic, hmm?[23]

Amoranemix 39 :

So, thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.

ethang5 45 :

Reality is never irrational. Though skeptics are free to be irrational.[24] But that discrepancy will become obvious when said skeptics enter the religion board of debate site.

Your comment,

"...atheists showing their irrationality when they clumsily try to defend atheism."

Is amazingly close to my comment,

"If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended. And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism."[25]

949havoc 87 :

I'm trying to figure out what age of anything has to do with jump-starting the universe, or that it did it itself. Who really needs to tie age to it? It happened when it happened whether yesterday, this morning,   or billions of years ago, or more.

But I'll debunk the self-start theory for the same reason as the fallacy of ex nihilo; nothing from nothing.

Tradesecret 88 to Ramshutu :

The position was put. You did not like how it boxed you in. You changed the assumptions - to contain your own conclusions. 

You made me smile - mainly because you rationalized it so quickly without actually realizing what you were doing.

Ramshutu 85 :

Before. Implies time prior go an event

EtrnlVw 90 :

No, you are conflating time with existence. Existence does not rely on time, time relies on events even though events occur within existence. There must be a succession before time can be measured. A fixed reality has no succession of events. You're getting shit mixed up here, surely before I begin any event there was "time" before it...that's because I exist within a frame structure that occurred before me. I'm talking about before creation, before events unfolded. You do understand what fixed means right?

Fruit_Inspector 93 to Double_R :

So my claim is specifically that the universe is an effect, and must therefore have a cause. And to avoid infinite regress, there must be an uncaused cause where all effects stem from. For the sake of this topic, we need not complicate the matter by determining what that cause is (God or some other eternal entity).

Double_R  92

You claim the universe could not possibly be eternal but God is.

Fruit_Inspector 93

Not solely based on some some arbitrary preclusion. I do not believe the universe is eternal mainly because of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which do not apply to God. So this is not an accurate comparison.

Ramshutu 94 to Fruit_Inspector :

IE: does the universe exist at all points of time, or not.

If it does - discussion of cause, or creation, etc, is meaningless because it’s not possible to have the cause preceding effect with no time reference.

n8nrgmi 100 to Double_R & Ramshutu

[ . . . ] while i agree, my only quibble with that, is that i think we can have some potential answers to origins that makes more sense than others.... and the common atheistic answers make less sense, scientifically.

EtrnlVw 90 to n8nrgmi :

Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes, inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge.[7] That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product.

Amoranemix 120 :

How does option 2 violate reason ?

Fruit_Inspector 121 :

That something can come from nothing is impossible.[8] Nor can the universe cannot be self-created as that would require the universe to exist before it existed.[9]

Fruit_Inspector 76 :

I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.

Amoranemix 120 :

You know too little about the topic to make such a claim. Experts think that time can have a beginning. See for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state. FLRW talks about that hypothesis in post 86.

Fruit_Inspector 121 :

This comment was bringing Double_R's claim to it's logical conclusion. I reject his reasoning that every cause is the product of time.

Fruit_Inspector 123 to Ramshutu :

Well it seems reasonable to want to have an agreed upon definition of the Law of Causality rather than just saying it doesn't matter. You have said that the idea of an uncaused cause is possible, but it violates our notions of causality. You are assuming what "our notions of causality" are, while dismissing an attempt to try to come to a fundamental point of agreement. But let's look at the time issue to avoid more of your rambling.

You stated than an uncaused cause is possible. Now an uncaused cause would have to be self-existent, not requiring anything else for it's existence. This entity, whatever it may be, does not require time to exist. The possibility of an entity that can exist without time must be factored into this discussion. Specifically, can a timeless entity cause time to come into existence without time previously existing?[4]

Amoranemix 120 :

I assume you mean that the sequence of causes must have begun. Why is that ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

On a logical note an infinite past is not possible no matter how you look it, you can't have two linear ends that never reach a destination.[5] I think everyone probably knows this, they just haven't thought it through enough to agree with it. I've settled the dispute with a fixed reality, where movement (creation) appears on top of that eternal framework.

[beliefs about the nature of reality]

The atheist doesn't seem to understand that we have two natures of reality...we call one eternal and the other temporal. Eternity is fixed, but temporal is dependent upon the beginning of an event and the end of the event. Basically time only appears where we have a succession of events that occur where we can measure the distance between them but there is no succession of events in eternity and so there is no time that can be measured, there is no beginning point and ending point. As I said it is a fixed Reality.[6]

[beliefs about the motives of atheists]

EtrnlVw 82 :

The BB represents the beginning of time, cause and effect. What precedes that has no relation to time, cause and effect. I'm positing that God precedes the BB.

Amoranemix 120 :

Precedence requires time. If the universe exists for T >= 0 and there is no T < 0 then God cannot precedede the universe.[a]

The reasoning you both arguing about assumes a universal time. I suspect though time was close enough to universal around the time of the Big Bang.[b]

EtrnlVw 125 :

[a] If the "universe" is eternal it is only because God is eternal. That being said when I refer to a beginning I'm referring to creation....events that occurred after the BB. Creation is the processes God manifests to bring things into existence.

[b] Time began at the BB, this is where we observe an expansion, this is where we begin to observe events taking place. Prior to this, it was a fixed reality where there was no sequence of events. Again, eternity is not an infinite past and future it is a static fixed state of existence. In other words there is no recollection of birth and death and so there is no relation to something that began and something that will end. Linear time is non-existent.

EtrnlVw 82 to Ramshutu :

The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence.[3] If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work.[4] Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.

Amoranemix 120 :

[3] Who is the we that correlates these processes with intelligence ? I don't correlate the creation of gamma ray burst, white dwarf stars and tau neutrinos with intelligence.

[4] Why is that ?

EtrnlVw 125 :

[3] Processes that reach a desired outcome for a desired product indicate knowledge. This is about as simple of a commonsense observation one can make.

[4] I like things that align with commonsense logic?

Ramshutu 17 :

Explanation of is not evidence for.

With NDEs, God is one of a class of explanations for which God is an explanation. They are not evidence for God because they do not indicate one explanation above another.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Perhaps you're missing the point entirely. Whether or not NDE's prove any particular relationship with any religious source is not the point. NDE's are evidence that the soul exists independent of the physical body which certainly indicates that what religious and spiritual sources have been proposing is true, or at the least there is plenty of evidence which supports the claim that a soul exists.[8] And if a soul exists then it certainly indicates that God exists, since of course.... a soul falls into the category of Theism.[9]

Ramshutu 17 :

Specifically because;

- they can occur without life threatening conditions.

EtrnlVw 24 :

NDE's by definition are when a person has been declared medically, clinically dead.[10] Brain death occurs within minutes after the hearts stops beating, after the heart stops beating and there is NO brain activity is when an NDE can take place.[11]

The documentary called "I Survived Beyond and Back" introduces NDE occurrences who have been hospitalized and presents the corresponding medical facts with each case. If you are not sure, clinically dead are those who have "flatlined". These NDE's are recorded after the heart stops beating and there are no signs the person is alive. This is when the soul detaches from the physical body and freely moves outside the confines of the brain and body.[12]

Ramshutu 17 :

- they are culturally and personally specific to each person, rather than a single consistent deity.

EtrnlVw 24 :

I'm going to assume you have no clue why you are saying this, did you hear it from somebody else? However, when a person leaves the physical body they may have many variations of experiences, including extensions of their cultures and this doesn't work against NDE's.[13]

Variations of experience is not a negative it is what makes creation beautiful....It would be like sending ten people across the globe in various directions and assuming they should all come back with the same experience of persons, places and things.[14] Rather, the afterlife is as vast as the physical universe and perhaps much more so. Many societies that we experience here extend outside of the physical world so it is likely when a soul will exit here they will continue their relations they had with their religious affiliations and cultures. In other words souls who have certain religious backgrounds will not be forced to be in the company of other strange and unfamiliar beliefs.[15] No one would force you to leave your family and friends to go live with strangers and places you are not welcome [16] why would you think that should happen when a soul leaves the body?

When you leave the physical body you will be present in a parallel universe, you could be located in any number of places and where you go from there could be virtually any numbers of other places. A soul is not bound to anything really except for Karma, and many times it's a persons desire that dictates where they will go next.[17]

Ramshutu 17 :

- There’s no verified example of any of these extra-corporeal experiences revealing extra corporeal information.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Lol, what is this supposed to mean? what it verifies is the proposition of the souls existence as being distinct from the brain and body. That's what we're looking for here.

Ramshutu 17 :

If the NDEs all showed the same God, or showed external information that would only be accessible to people if the vision were real - it would be evidence.

EtrnlVw 24 :

Typically, NDE's don't "show" God, again...I think you're missing the point besides the fact you appear to be very ignorant of such cases. [ . . . ]

TheUnderdog 14 :

People are reading the bible and are alienated by it.

ethang5 25 :

Untrue. This is your opinion. Most people who say they are "alienated" by the Bible held that opinion before they read the Bible.

Reading the Bible is a very dangerous thing for an atheist to do. What most do instead is read snippets online beside atheist interpretations on atheist websites. My experience has been that very few atheists actually know the Bible. They know movies and TV shows, and ignorant views from idiots like DeeDee or Stephen.

ethang5 to TheUnderdog :

But as I suspected, atheists will not want to talk about the thread's topic, but will instead tell us how they personally don't believe the Bible.[6]

Amoranemix 22 :

[6] Your prediction turns out to be wrong.

ethang5 26 :

Unless you carry the plural of majesty, my prediction is still right.

ethang5 26 :

Just their responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.[7]

Amoranemix 22 :

[7] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

ethang5 26 :

It would be amazing if my personal opinion was being posted by atheists. The OP claimed atheism was irrational. Not a single atheist poster, including you, has spoken about atheism. Instead, you all   either attacked Christianity, or merely requested clarification of his argument.[8]

If any of you actually tried to defend atheism, he would quickly see that something irrational cannot be logically defended.[9] And that is why the responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.

n8nrgmi 27 :

the central issue, is that what i presented in the opening post, is plain evidence. and atheists demand more evidence, and remain skeptics for the sake of being skeptics.

Amoranemix 22 :

What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

n8nrgmi :

[no respone]

Amoranemix 22 :

[1] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

n8nrgmi :

[no respone]

Amoranemix 22 :

What is the idea there ? We don't understand it, therefore God must be doing it ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. We don't understand the behaviour of energy in the universe.

P2. God is the explanation for everything we don't understand.

P3. In order to be the explanation for something, God must exist.

C. Therefore God exists.

Is that indeed your argument ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

Correction : apparent design.

Are you suggesting it be irrational to not be convinced by weak evidence ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

Amoranemix 22 :

[3] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

You also seem to be missing that the total energy of the universe appears to be increasing as the amount of dark energy appears to be increasing.

[4] How so ?

[5] If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. We don't understand how something with an infinite ending can come from a finite beginning.

P2. God is the explanation for everything we don't understand.

P3. In order to be the explanation for something, God must exist.

C. Therefore God exists.

Is that indeed your argument ?

n8nrgmi :

[no response]

n8nrgmi 1 :

theists say God could have caused the universe. atheists say the universe could have caused itself. but the problem is we have reasons to think otherwise.

n8nrgmi 1 :

1. lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.

n8nrgmi 1 :

2. existence should have an infinite beginning given it looks like there's an infinite end. i acknowledge there could be a finite end, but from what we can tell existence will be forever more even if it's emptiness. an infinite ending of our universe cannot have a finite beginning that we see. something else must be the infinite beginning. if i'm wrong, how can a finite beginning cause an infinite end? how does that series play out out of nowhere?

n8nrgmi 1 :

i acknowledge that there could be evidence that contradict these principles... the problem is that we see no such evidence in the universe, all we have is speculation that these presumed principles are faulty.

n8nrgmi 1 :

lower energy states come from higher energy states. something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. as far as we know it from our reality, an energy state greater than the universe must have caused it to occur, because we have no reason to think the universe could have caused itself given it had a maximum energy state as a beginning.

ethang5 4 :

Exactly. In fact, the claim that the universe started itself violates some of the laws of science. But atheists are quite willing to contradict science in order to keep God out of the picture.

ludofl3x 8 :

THe question of why is there something rather than nothing has fascinated humanity forever, and still no good answer to it.

Fruit_Inspector 9 :

I agree with the analysis that any claims about how the universe began fall into one of three categories:

- The universe is eternal

- The universe came from nothing (or is self-created)

- Something caused the universe to come into being.

Option 1 violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. Option 2 violates reason. That leaves option 3.

Double_R 22 :

What could you possibly know about whatever laws would have applied to the universe if it existed in some other form prior to the Big Bang?

Fruit_Inspector 28 :

My understanding is that the laws of physics have applied to the universe for as long as it has been in existence. Why should we assume otherwise?

ludofl3x 43 :

I'm asking you: are there any causes that were not at one time effects? You said yes, only one thing. This is another way of saying "All causes were at one time effects, except this one special thing." That's special pleading. A universal statement that applies to everything, except one thing, and that one thing is only asserted to be special, not proven to be so.

Ramshutu 33 to Fruit_Inspector :

Well... uh... yeah.

That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.

EtrnlVw  44 :

We have two things that have to be dealt with here, a system of effects which have causes and an infinite regression paradox. Everything within the known universe had a cause, yet at the same time there must exist a point in which those causes began,[1] which brings us to WHY they began. This is not an excuse to bring God into the equation it is a logical calculation and God happens to fit such a postulation. We can trace everything back to a single moment of that which began a succession of events, to a point which preceded those events.[2]

n8nrgmi 48 to ludofl3x :

you are correct that atheism is just believing god doesn't exist, but you are incorrect in saying atheism isn't related to the idea of the universe causing itself, or always existing or any of that stuff. atheists usually hold those beliefs, even though there's no good evidence for them.

n8nrgmi to ludof33x :

it's not possible to seek a neutral position in this, by claiming your claim is that you dont know how the universe began. the problem, is that any explanation for how the universe began breaks down, and must be a special exception that can't be demonstrated. that means if a person has the balls to speculate a theory, they are committing a fallacy, according to you. your position isn't neutral if you call anyone speculating as committing fallacy, when all we can do is speculate.

ethang5 71 :

Some of the problem in conversations about origins is equavocation on certain words. For example, when we say, "every thing has a cause", what does the word "thing" mean in that sentence?

Theists know there are only 2 "things" in existence, God, and everything else. God is not really a "thing" like creation. Natural, physical, universal laws apply to creation, not the creator. This is only logical, for the creator preceeds creation.

The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.

Fruit_Inspector 76 :

I ask because if time has a beginning, then it seems that time coming into existence must be a product of time. So if you believe time has a beginning, you have the same problem I do and you should reject the idea of time having a beginning.

Ramshutu 81 :

The Big Bang is T=0

EtrnlVw 82 :

The BB represents the beginning of time, cause and effect. What precedes that has no relation to time, cause and effect. I'm positing that God precedes the BB.

Ramshutu 81 :

If there is no T<0 then the universe cant have been created or caused, because the universe has always existed.

EtrnlVw 82 :

The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence.[3] If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work.[4] Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.

Ramshutu 81 :

Is the universe a piece of string with a defined start and end that can pointed to; or is it like the surface of a sphere; finite(?) but with no physical start or end.

EtrnlVw 82 :

The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.

Ramshutu 81 :

Notions of creation, or causation requires time before and after

EtrnlVw 82 :

No, this is where you don't seem to follow the logic. Time as we measure it, is only relevant to that which we can trace within the universe. Before that, there is no time, it is an illusion because it only exists if processes exist. What I'm saying is that time began the moment creation began, before that there is no linear time scale.[5]

I've thoroughly explained how eternity and God's existence is exempt from needing time to exist.[6]

n8nrgmi title :

atheism is irrational

n8nrgmi 1 :

there's good evidence for God.[1] atheism is irrational because they pretend there's no evidence or at least there's enough evidence to be at least agnostic.

n8nrgmi 1 :

the large majority of people who have NDEs who are atheists end up believing in God (almost everyone who has those experiences, even skeptics, end up believing in the afterlife, but that's just a related point). there's lots of good evidence for NDEs so we should take them seriously. such as out of body experiences being verified under scientific study.     it's stupid to argue that it's common for people to hallucinate elaborate afterlife stories when they die and then give no good reason why that happens, when drugs dont cause that to happen either. dr longs book 'evidence for the afterlife' is full of good evidence.

n8nrgmi 1 :

there's good and inexplicable evidence for demonic possession.

n8nrgmi 1 :

there's the point that the universe is going from high energy to low energy as if it's a clock that got set (how does something happen once within all eternity and never happen again, what does that even mean?)... there's no good alternative hypothesis that has good evidence for it, just speculation.

n8nrgmi 1 :

the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence

n8nrgmi 7 :

drugs dont cause people to experience elaborate afterlife stories.[2] there are some similarities with drug trips, but they are completely different otherwise. most drug trips involve lots of random imagery, a scatter shot of experiences. not consistent elaborate afterlife stories.

n8nrgmi 8 :

lower energy states come from higher energy states.[3] something had to cause the first maximum energy state of the universe. similar to the causation argument but also pointing out that the universe causing itself is a violation of reality as we best know it.[4] also the ticking clock point is such that how can we have an infinite ending come from a finite beginning?[5] something has to be at the beginning that is infiinite but it doesn't look like the universe meets that criteria.

ethang5  to TheUnderdog :

But as I suspected, atheists will not want to talk about the thread's topic, but will instead tell us how they personally don't believe the Bible.[6]

Just their responses here aptly demonstrate the irrationality of atheism.[7]

PGA2.0 335

Furthermore, since [a] the Bible makes the point that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we would have a consciousness that retains some of His goodness [96](even while denying Him), but the problem is that the moral standard is garbled by the Fall and our subjectiveness without God

because we have no clear ideal we can mirror right and wrong against, just a dim reflection.[97] So, even to an extent, Hammurabi can reflect some of the standards of God without that close personal relationship. We see that Caan knew that killing (murdering) his brother was wrong. He hid from God just as Adam did when he took the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Amoranemix 908

[96] Is that hypothesis supported by evidence ? [a, b]

You like to ask how questions. Answer one yourself. How did God inscribe morality in our hearts ? [*]

[97] [a] So God messed up. Did he mess up on purpose or out of clumsyness ?

PGA2.0 1065

[a] Yes, evidence you continue to pretend does not exist. The Bible is evidence. It makes claims that are backed in several ways.

[b] You continually speak of good and bad, right and wrong as a reasoning being that the Bible says is made in His image and likeness.

[*] By creating us as intelligent beings who are capable of finding MEANING and purpose. The problem is that we mar the meaning and purpose when we do not rightfully understand where it comes from or that there are objective truths regarding meaning/morality/right/wrong.

[a] Again, a false assumption from a biblical perspective.[591] God did not mess up; humanity did.[592] That is a clear message revealed in its writings. Even those who are mentally challenged can understand it.

[b] He did not mess up,[592] yet He allowed us to by giving Adam a free will to choose. Even though you have a will to choose, you will not choose God without His mercy and grace. Thus, in a sense, your will is not free but in bondage to whatever controls it. 

3RU7AL  306

Any human can detect their own moral intuition without any assistance from a book.

PGA2.0 335

I would argue they are personal preference, not moral right, unless the belief reflects God's principles.

Amoranemix 908

Then they would reflect God's personal preference.

PGA2.0 1065

God knows all things.[593] Thus, He has an objective knowledge of all things or, if you like, a real, true knowledge. You do not unless you think His thoughts after Him. I have been trying to demonstrate the inadequate, small-mindedness of our limited reasoning without God, and you are doing an outstanding job of backing me up![594]

Amoranemix 908

[98] [a] Right according God's personal morality (GM), you mean. So what ? [b] Why should people who don't believe in God and who dislike GM, want to do what is right according to GM ? [c] That sin is preventing me from doing that, doesn't bother me.

[99] Indeed. [a] Biological evolution tends to generate animals that [b] couldn't care less about GM.

PGA2.0 1066

[98, a] So what? He knows all things; you do not.

[b] They don't usually.[595] They want to do the opposite, like giving a licence to kill the most innocent human beings (the unborn).[596] If they truly want to find out what is the right thing to do, it requires an omniscient, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal God revealing it to them.

But sometimes, people get tired of all of humanity's inhumanity and look for the answer and find God in/as that answer.

[c] You are not telling me anything I don't know.

[99, a] That is your worldview, biological macro-evolution, not mine. I believe human beings were created differently from the animals to their own kind. You think that we have a common ancestor, the one-celled organism, whereas I believe that our common ancestor is God. You believe the "evolutionary chain" shows animals adapting and changing from that one common ancestor. I believe we are similar and yield similar traits because we share the same environment and food sources. Thus, we must share common traits.

[b] Except for humanity. Most societies throughout history have looked to God or gods.

PGA2.0 352 to 3RU7AL's ten yamas

Some of these are restated in the Ten Commandments. Others I disagree with. Finally, who is the authority who revealed them? Is such an authority almighty? If so, let's discuss that being.

Amoranemix 908

So what if the source is not mighty enough to [a] your taste ? I am sure God, were he to exist, [b] could smite all his competitors, but [c] not everyone likes might makes right morality.

PGA2.0 1066

[a] You mean your "tastes." We are not even there yet until you understand that your worldview is insufficient and unreasonable. 

[b] Yes, He could immediately. Instead, He has given us a lifetime, and when we die, we will come into His presence and be accountable. Usually, He lets our sins reach their maximum before He holds us accountable, but all the while, we face trials in this life that turn us to or against Him. The trails can come by our fellow human beings doing wrong that affect us, or they can come by a natural disaster in which judgment comes in some form, even up to the taking of our lives. 

[c] The only might that is right is the might that knows right. You have not demonstrated that you know what is right.[597] It can change according to who holds the idea in your worldview. After all this time, you still have avoided proving what you believe as an atheist is more reasonable than what I believe as a Christian.[598]

[a] Where are you talking about ? I was talking about your (PGA2.0's) taste, in singular.

Again, so nothing apparently. Merely another red herring to distract from the fact that you don't have a case.

[c] You again omitted to mention the reference standard to promote confusion (the skeptic's enemy). Presumably you are referring God's personal morality GM. Usually might makes right fans know what is right according to themselves.

PGA2.0 1068 to 3RU7AL

If you wanted proof, I am willing to go into the prophetic argument as to its reasonableness. Are you willing to go there? If not, I will not bother. If so, I want a commitment to staying the course, and I want feedback from you. When I ask a question, I would expect an answer.

PGA2.0 1068 to 3RU7AL

That is a big assumption; providing physical necessities makes you free. If your mind is not free, neither are you. Whatever controls you keeps you unfree.

3RU7AL 1070

(IFF) you cannot freely generate your own food, clothing and shelter (THEN) you must submit yourself to your (human) provider

Mopac 386

The Truth is God.[101]

As atheism is a denial of Absolute Truth or Ultimate Reality, it is the position of nihilism.[102]

Nihilism demolishes morality. Anything built off nihilism is like a house built on sand. Morality becomes a matter of convenience for whomever has the ability to excercise authority.[103]

Amoranemix 911

[101] What do you mean ?

[102] Can you prove that ?

[103] If morality becomes a matter of convencience, then, contrary to what you claimed, it is not demolished.

Mopac 1078

[101] I mean that The Ultimate Reality is God. That is, God is what is ultimately real. The singular reality, The Truth

[102] As God is The Ultimate Reality, to be an atheist towards this God is very naturally the position of nihilism.

Nietzsche himself, who was instrumental in bringing nihilism to the forefront of philosophy said...

"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs-no 'thing-in-itself.' This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind."

[103] It certainly is, because this is not morality.[599] This is arbitrariness. From the orthodox standpoint, morality has everything to do with one's relationship with The Truth.[600] If The Truth doesn't exist, there is no way of operating that can be properly called moral.

Tradesecret 1 :

I would suggest that there are 4 basis for knowledge and truth.

Reason - we sit and we think - requires a belief in the immaterial because the laws of logic are not material. We cannot touch them or taste them. 

Empiricism, evidential evidence, we see and touch and feel etc.     Relies on the material and denies the immaterial. 

Pragmatism.   If it works it must be true.   Says we should not waste our time on the above, because we are here and we think - in the material and immaterial. But indicates that the end justifies the means.     There is no real knowledge save except what works.   

Transcendental.   Revelation.   Based on the view that none of the others can consistently and rationally make sense by themselves.

ethang5  3 :

For the atheist, it's his subjective feelings. He rationalizes this by concluding that everyone goes by this metric too.[1]

But then will insist that his claims are objectively true. Go figure.

EtrnlVw  20 :

Who's observations of reality are we going by? those who witness something or those who do not? there's nothing about spiritual knowledge that contradicts reality, it's a huge percentage of human experience.

Ramshutu 24 :

We have reality - as it is, this is the truth of how things are, you are absolutely correct that what is true, is true irrespective of us.

Tradesecret 25 :

I am not identifying reality with truth. That is what you indicated and I disagreed.   Reality is subjective. Truth is not. Truth is true irrespective of what we think of it or what our own reality tells us.   Reality however for the sake of the discussion must be our connection.

Ramshutu 24 :

You open the box; and it has the number 9 in it. You’ve confirmed the truth and can now say you “know” what was in the box; but your guess was still a guess - you did not “know” what was in the box before it was opened.

Tradesecret  25 :

Well actually, no you have not confirmed that there is a number 9 is in the box.   You have not confirmed anything at all.     You are making many assumptions within that sentence.   Firstly, that you have the ability to open a box. That the box is able to be opened. That the number you see in there is the same number that was in there when you made your guess. That your understanding of the number 9 is the same as the one who put it into the box. That you are actually mentally healthy enough to see with your eyes or even see the nine in the first place.   That the principles of logic are true.   The most you can confirm from opening the box - if you are able to do - is to say that what you see with your eyes right in front of you is the number nine.   And that is if you appreciate and know that this is a nine in the first place.

Ramshutu 24 :

In this respect there is no “truth” or “religious truth” just truth. And there is no “knowledge” or “religious knowledge” - only that which you can confirm is true.

Tradesecret 25 :

Like I said, I don't agree.   Your assumptions are all over the place.   You are using logic and reason to suggest that empiricism is the way to understand truth. That is a mixed use of knowledge basis. You use one to justify truth and then use the other to justify truth. And interestingly enough without a fixed point of reference you cannot consistently talk about truth or use reason.[2] In other words you are being arbitrary.

Interestingly enough, many religious folk have opened up the box and confirmed their god. Just because you cannot figure how to open the box is a problem with your assumptions, not with religious truth.[3]

Ramshutu 24 :

What “religious knowledge” is, is a group of people getting together and professing loudly that they believe with all their heart that the box contains the number 48391, that people have had visions and experiences of it containing that number. With other groups claiming it contains the number 3628 for exactly the same reasons, and others still saying 9492.

Tradesecret 25 :

Well respectfully, that is no different to the scientific methodology.   Why is it that peer group reviewed scientific articles cannot be repeated in over 70% of cases? Why is it that the half life of knowledge for engineers is 10 years. And for doctors 5 years. And for scientists even less? Because all of them are guessing, educated guesses, but still guesses. Why? Because they don't use consistent knowledge basis.[4] Like you they run from logic to experience and then back to logic. Religious knowledge is done in similar ways. I personally don't think we should put God into a box. Or in a test tube for that matter.

Ramshutu 24 :

These Boxists come into Boxism forums and loudly process that their belief and their ideas should be counted as knowledge, that we aboxists must agree that the box contains 48391, and that their agreement is not a guess because they all agree on it, and have all experiences something that tells them it is so; that somehow their guess is special because of their collective belief, and that if somehow holds some special deeper truth even though they have no ability to show what is really in the box.

Tradesecret 25 :

An argument from authority is not the best argument.   A consensus of scientists might agree - but that does not make them correct.   It does not automatically make them wrong either.   But it is still an argument of authority. No different to religious people referring to their sacred text.

Tradesecret 25 :

Thanks for letting us know you are an evidentialist. Or an empiricist. Or even an experientalist. But not a person of reason.

EtrnlVw 60

Just out of curiosity, what issue would you take with evolution being compatible with creationism?

Yassine 61

- Regardless of the truth of Creationism, Evolution is nonsense. I have no doctrinal issue with Evolution as a concept, I have a rational issue with Evolution as a farcical theory. It's a bogus theory which relies on infinite monkey fallacy, give it enough time & every possible thing will happen; which makes it the most god-of-the-gaps theory ever imagined. If we don't know how, evolution did it.

EtrnlVw 60

Since we know nothing is poofed into existence, God must have a process to take nothing but energy and element and create form out of those materials. If you shun the idea that God uses evolution to generate species on earth, how do you propose that God manifests creatures into existence including the physical body we call humanoid to become what they are?

Yassine 61

This is a false dilemma. Because we don't have alternative explanations, therefore evolutionary theory is true! The simple answer is we don't know. In fact, we can't know. To understand transformation in matter, one must understand its parts & its whole. Without our understanding of electrons' & photons' behavior, we can never know what happens in chemical reactions & why it happens, no matter how many theories we cook up. Analogically, to understand Life, one must understand its parts & its whole. We do not yet understand the basic building blocks of Life, such as amino acids & lipids & proteins. We do not yet know how they do what they do & why they do it. Any exercise of understanding Life without this knowledge is effectively futile.

ludofl3x 65

If evolution isn't scientific fact, what's the alternative explanation for the variants over time of the Covid 19 virus?

Yassine 67

First of all, that's a false dilemma. The lack of alternative explanation does not make evolution a good explanation![16] Second of all, viruses are literally the least understood organisms in biology. Nobody knows what they do & why they do it.[17] If they did, there won't be a Covid19.[18] Third of all, they love to stick their evolutionary mythology into everything. The spike protein in Covid19 is derived from a 3800-base long gene. That's 2 to the power of 3800 possible mutations (or 10 to the power of 968). You think these are random mutations?! Far more complex things happen constantly in every cell in every organism. Viruses are the worst possible example to give for evolution, for they are not even self-sustainable.[19] Finally, what does any of this have to do with the theory of evolution anyways?![20] Absolutely nothing. It explains absolutely nothing of significance. If you've ever taken a biology class, you would know that all mutations in coding-DNA are bad, for they crash the function of proteins.[21]

ludofl3x 65

seems like exactly how science says evolution works.

Yassine 67

Just like everything else in this evolutionary failed narrative, this too is a fallacy. They use 'evolution' to mean anything & everything that moves or changes. That's an equivocation fallacy. Evolution as intended is the evolutionary theory that postulates that different species originate  from a common ancestor via undirected processes, such as natural selection & random mutations. Literally nothing that has ever been observed fit this postulate.[22] Calling any hereditary change or genetic variation or population shift 'evolution' is equivocation nonsense.

Theweakeredge 66

and a dude who doesn't understand what a species is.

Yassine 68

- Do tell, what are species? Or do you mean this definition that you posted: "A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species."

Yassine 69 to Reece101

- . A postulate is the claim of a scientific theory, which may prove to be more or less accurate, or outright false. In the aforementioned case, all previous postulates of natural selection, starting from survival of the fittest, through selection from adaptive traits, to gene selection theory, have been discarded, after having been professed to be the truth, to be replace by gene selection through reproductive potency.

Reece101 73

Did you only read the title? Why should I bother to respond?

Yassine 79

You're projecting again. I know exactly what the study is about, it's nothing new. Natural selection within a population has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.[23] The claim of the evolutionary theory goes far beyond just natural selection. "natural selection happens, therefore evolution happens" is a composition fallacy. Seriously, how hard can this be?!

Reece101 73

You’re saying all apes are the same species so they can all create hybrids with another? What you’re saying is blatantly wrong on so many levels.

Yassine 79

False. If you define a distinct species as a taxon whose individuals cannot interbreed with existing species -which is the actual definition of speciation-, then all apes are, by definition, the same species, for they can all interbreed. All apes have the same DNA, thus their offspring -being half of each parental DNA, is the same DNA.

Reece101 73

How closely related organisms are to one another doesn’t always translate to being interfertile. Take hares and rabbits as a classic example.

Yassine 79

This is BS. "Two organisms from the same genus  may  produce fertile offsprings. But two organisms from two different genera  cannot  produce offsprings that are capable of reproduction.  " is factually false, there is interbreeding on the order level, & the class level, let alone on the genera level -such as the case for moths & butterflies.[24] You shocked? Yeah, there is actually no objective definition for any taxon. As the evolutionary biologist (aka mythologist) Prof Roger Butlin said: "We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere". Isn't that convenient.

Reece101 73

You can pretty much say the same thing about star and planet formations. That gas and dust  spontaneously compounds/collapses and creates chemical reactions, etc. But do you have any conjecture for them?

Yassine 79

My bachelor essay was on a similar topic. About how gravitation induces revolution of matter around a massive core, which compresses under gravitation force & transforms into heat, which -by energy conservation principals- forms spheroids. You can do all this with maths, to very accurate degrees. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is in its entirety ad hoc after the fact stories.

ludofl3x 77

If evolution is false, what's the explanation with observable evidence, a condition you demand of evolutionary theory, that explains the mutation and propagation of the various variants of the Covid 19 virus?

Yassine 80

- Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with variants in Covid19, or any other virus. In fact, a virus is a good example of anti-evolution! A virus is not self-sufficient, it cannot exist without a cell. Evolution on a virus is -literally & conceptually- a non-starter. Indeed, the barrage of evolutionary vomit daubed on everything that moves unavoidably confuses people as to the prominence of this mythology. Particularly, the Evolutionary Theory rests wholly on the premise of self-sustainable self-reproducing cells capable of darwinian evolution (descent of new species from common ancestor via natural selection & random mutations). <= If you don't see this, then it is not evolution.

Amoranemix 908

[a] Something you are missing is that in matter of abortion, almost everyone agrees on what has value, i.e. [b] they have shared preferences. [c] Both the rights of the mother and the life of the child have value. [d] The contention is about what has most value. [e] Almost noone is of the opinion that abortion is good. However, many people consider, i.e. are of the opinion, [f] that in some cases no abortion is even worse.

PGA2.0 1059

[a] I did not miss it. Tens of millions disagree that abortion is a good thing. The only value comes when saving the woman's life in a tubal pregnancy.

[b] I must remind you that preference makes nothing right, just doable if the person, group, society has the might to act their preferences.

[c] What about the "Rights" of the child/unborn? Why are you only giving the woman rights?[576] Must I again remind you, the most basic natural right for any human being is the right to life.[577]

[d] So, once again, you do not recognize that all human beings have equal rights to life.[578] You join the long list of people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-un, Pol Pot, Putin, Yi Jiping, who are selective in who lives and dies.[579] These people dehumanized those that they see as less valuable.

[e] Wrong. Many are of that opinion since they are woefully ignorant about what is being killed. They would not support abortion if they thought is wrong.

[f] 95-99% of abortions are "choice-based" on want or affordability, depending on what source is cited. Since when could anyone other than a mother kill her own offspring based on not wanting them or not being willing to support them?

[Statistics]

Again, I will remind you that you discriminate against one group (the unborn) yet not the other.[580] [ . . . ]

3RU7AL  306

You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using  YOUR  moral intuition.

PGA2.0 335

I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging.[92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94]

Amoranemix 908

[92] That doesn't look like what you are doing.[a] You seem to be of the opinion that slavery is wrong, but the Bible appears to condone slavery.[b] So you torture the Bible to make it say what you want. With success. Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*

Moreover, you have so far been unable to demonstrate that being fixed and unchanging are necessary attributes for a standard.[*]

[93] No, it does not. You have admitted yourself in post 301 a word's meaning depends on context. Hence one person may mean something different  with the same word. So, if one person is saying “Trees are marpalent.” and the other is saying “Trees are not marpelent.”, then that could mean :

a) They are contradicting each other. In the real world it happens that people contradict each other. That is why that also happens in the worldview of skeptics, because, unlike you, skeptics base their worldview on the real world.

b) [a] Both persons do not mean the same thing with 'marpalent'. Hence, they would not be contradicting each other. You gave as example in post 301 how green can have more than one meaning. In our debate on debate.org, you said a few times that things can't be both right and wrong in the same sense, because you realize they could be [b] right and wrong in a different sense. But then you also realized that guarding term was underming your argument, so you stopped using it and assumed that the same word always means the same thing, thereby leaving reality and entering your fictional worldview, where there is room for God.

[94] A subjective standard is not supposed to meet what is necessary. My bycicle doesn't meet what is necessary, yet that doesn't make my bycicle wrong and it would be stupid to discard my bicycle because of that.

PGA2.0 1065

[responses to a and b]

a) It is common sense and not logically consistent to believe two opposite things regarding the same thing can both be true about it simultaneously and in the same relationship. If you want to deny logic's laws, I think we have gone as far as we can because you are being irrational. A thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time.[581]

[a] I don't even know what the word means if there is such a word, but if there are several meanings, then the same meaning must be used in both cases to be understood or else there is no equivalency.[582] If I say, "The grass is green," it does not mean the same thing as saying, "I am green with envy."   One use of the word green speaks of the literal grass's colour, the other speaks of jealousy/covetousness/desire. In the second instance, I am not saying I am literally green.

[b] I'm not sure of your specific reference since you once again gave no actual context or link.

If the context is speaking of one thing, you can't switch that context to another thing. When you speak of the moral good, you can't switch that to what you like and call that morally good.[583a] The two are used to express different things; one an ought, the other a desire or like. There is equivocation going on when that happens.[583b]

[94] Again, there is a disjunction happening here. You are again trying to equate riding your bicycle with moral good.[584] Not only this, but you are equating a thing as necessary as opposed to a person/persons.[585] Morals come from sentient beings. They do not come from bicycles. Bicycles are not necessary for morals; beings are.

Amoranemix 908

[95] [a] You seem to be assuming that one needs to be able to justify one's opinion to be better than someone else's. However, if I understand correctly, [b] you yourself are unable to justify your opinion to be better than someone else's. You certainly haven't done so.

[c] Notice again how you omitted to provide a definition or reference standard for “better”. You wouldn't want people to know what exactly you mean with “better”, would you ?

PGA2.0 1065

[a] Oh, boy... Better is a comparative term. It implies it is being compared to something else. If there is no ideal, then what are you comparing it against?[586] Something that constantly changes? How do you KNOw it is better in such a fleeting standard?[587] Your mark keeps shifting.

[b] Again, I have what is necessary for there to be a "better." Your worldview does not, or at least...you have not been able to demonstrate it does. I have what is necessary to justify morality; you do not. Thus, once again, my Christian system of thought is more reasonable to believe than yours.

[c] I have pointed to the standard many times - the biblical God, as I did in the next paragraph, it appears.[588] You continue to ignore it and blow smoke.[589] I can give you many avenues of reasonable proof of His existence.[590] Choosing not to believe them is your choice.

Reece101 40

Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find.

Yassine 41

- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate.

Reece101 40

Can you tell me how?

Yassine 41

- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!

Reece101 40

The scientific fields that fall under evolution have.  

Yassine 41

- No such thing. Evolution is a parasite narrative, leeching off everything else. Bring me a single useful thing that we have thanks to Evolution.

Reece101 40

Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?

Yassine 41

- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.

Theweakeredge 49

Well no - cuz' first of all - you are the one to have intially made the claim

Yassine 50

- And you initially made the contrary claim.

Theweakeredge 49

furthermore - I am just describing you - you are denying science, therefore you are a science denier - pretty easy.  

Yassine 50

- Blahblah... You're a science denier for denying Eugenics, & all the other hundreds of discarded scientific discoveries... This is not a very credible start to your case!

Theweakeredge 49

As a scientific theory, however, which facts does evolutionary theory explain? One pivotal example is the succession in the fossil record. This evolution, namely, macroevolution, explains the larger evolutionary picture that is the appearance of the greater groups, such as the evolution of mammals, insects, and plants. Fossilized mammals are easily recognized, as they have distinct types of teeth, such as molars, canines, and incisors. These vertebrates are also very likely to fossilize on account of their rigid teeth and hard cranium. If mammals are so easily fossilized, how can we explain a rich fossil record full of vertebrates and invertebrates with no mammalian fossil before 300 million years ago?

Yassine 50

- Species from different layers evolved from each-other, why?[12] Because there are different species in different layers, why?[13] Because they evolved from each-other. Brilliant. Regardless of the circular nature of this whole story, an argument for possibility is not an argument for existence, "it is possible that Harry killed Oliver, therefore Harry killed Oliver" is a logical fallacy.[14] "it is possible that evolution happened, therefore evolution happened" is a joke! Most of Evolution is actually circular.

Theweakeredge 49

A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

Yassine 50

- Funny bit here. All the above is a lie. Finches are all inter-fertile. They are all actually the same species under the very definition of speciation. Confused? Don't be, the evolutionationists have a story, like they always do. The finches are actually not the same species even though they interbreed, no, no... they are different species & their interbreeding & actually hybridization. Solved! Just slap a new name & a new tale on the issue & you're safe. [ . . . ]

Theweakeredge 49

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.

Yassine 50

- No such thing. We have human fossils & we have ape fossils. Nothing in between. They dropped that whole schtick a while ago. They don't say it's a human sequence anymore. That story couldn't pan out so they dropped it. The new story is the different "hominin" all have shared a common ancestor. Funnier still, the infamous Lucy being an ape and all, it had a posterior pelvis. This was of course unacceptable, how dare an ape skeleton which was supposed to be able to walk upright have a posterior pelvis like a regular ape?! The audacity!! So they brought a doctor who set it upright & invented this beautiful tale about how the pelvis was actually upright but it only looked posterior to us because the ape had a deadly accident where the bones were crushed making it posterior... true story! Oh, btw, the remains were scattered across a couple miles too.. You can't make this shit up!

Theweakeredge 49

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

Yassine 50

- Their creative imagination ability always amazes me. So delusional!

Yassine 50 to Theweakeredge

- I already provided my argument. If you didn't get it, let me write it into a simple syllogism for you:

P1. Richard Dawkins is most knowledgeable of Evolutionary Theory. [fact]

P2. Richard Dawkins knows the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P1]

P3. Richard Dawkins is most advocate for Evolutionary Theory. [fact]

P4. Richard Dawkins presents the best arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P2 & P3]

P5. Richard Dawkins has not presented any good arguments for the Evolutionary Theory. [my finding]

P6. The best arguments for Evolutionary Theory are not good arguments. [follows from P4 & P5]

C. There are no good arguments for Evolutionary Theory. [follows from P6]

Reece101 52

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.

Yassine

Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.

Yassine 55

- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.

Reece101 56

What would be the point?

Reece101 56

How do they do it?

Yassine 57

- Different species have different DNAs. DNA sequencing is used to determine the base pairs of the genome. Genome size can vary a lot between species, up to 200 times the size of the human genome (3 billion). [ . . . ]

PGA2.0 301

Words carry specific meaning when in context. From a context you can determine what is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning more clear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have not understood what the author said or communicated.

Amoranemix 908

What if the author fails to make the meaning more clear ?[*] I sometimes debate a Christian who keeps throwing moral attributes around without specifying the referenced moral standard.[**] He assumes that when different people use the same word, like good or right, they mean the same thing. The author appears to want to sow confusion (the Christian's friend).[***]

PGA2.0 1054

[*] By questioning him/her, you inquire into the true meaning. When the author is not available to supply the true interpretation, there is obscurity. That is not the biblical case, although you will probably argue otherwise.

[**] I have always made it clear that I argue for no god but God (the biblical God). Thus, I am particular when speaking about morality per the thread's title and my opening post. The reference is God, and by His nature and revelation, we come to understand His goodness. Only one God has been revealed as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal.

[***] I speak of the right and wrong principle and sometimes get into specific examples as I did with abortion. I keep asking you what you mean by "the good" if goodness is relative, and there is no fixed and final standard - God and His nature.[569] You have provided nothing that withstands scrutiny.[570]

[*] Indeed. You on the other hand have not argued that the meaning intended by the biblical authors is unambiguous. You have merely asserted it.

Multiple different interpretations by Christians and damaging interpretations by non-Christians are evidence to the contrary.

Amoranemix 908 to secularmerlin

Actually, just now I get the sense of your analogy. You should have explained it. It thought the kidney stood for the fetus. I suspect PGA2.0 didn't get it either.

PGA2.0 1055

It is a common argument used by abortion advocates that stems from Judith Jarvis Thomson's  violinist analogy. It would help if you familiarized yourself with such arguments before you make these claims against me. I understand it well, and I disagree with the premise for several reasons, and here are a few of them:

[ . . . ]

PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOne

Now you mention two types of foreign slaves, one a war captive and therefore a reparation for the damages suffered[90], and the other bought to serve the Hebrew family from a foreign country, again usually becoming a slave in a foreign land because of poverty or debt. Even so, the type of slavery or servitude was different between the treatment in Israel to that experienced in other ANE nations. But to your point, the foreigner, during a war, would be responsible for the damages inflicted on the victor.[91] [ . . . ]

Amoranemix 908

[90] I doubt the Israelite's victims found enslavement sufficient compensation for the damage they suffered.

[91] [a] Might makes right morality. [b] In that respect your fictional worldview does not differ from reality.

PGA2.0 1059

[90] Thanks for yet another doubtful opinionated statement![571] Are you speaking of matters you know something about?[572] Have you done any research on ANE slavery? What do you know about ANE slavery??? [573]

[91] [a] It was common in ANE cultures to use might. The Mosaic law was based on justice and mercy. I've explained it briefly above and in other posts.

[b] Your same old worn-out tune. Show you can explain morality. That is what this post is about, which worldview is more reasonable concerning morality.

Amoranemix 908

I don't know what banana republic you live in, but in our justice system, it is not necessarily the one who lost a conflict that has to pay the damages. If Bob stole and wrecked Alice's car, in my country it would be Bob who would have to repay the damages to Alice, not the other war round.

PGA2.0 1059

[a] reparations | History, Definition, & Examples | Britannica

German War Reparations in WWI & WWII | Study.com

COVID-19 and International Law: Must China Compensate Countries for the Damage? (justsecurity.org)

War reparations - Wikipedia

[b] You are the one turning it around (give your head a shake).[574] Just as Bob stole Alice's car, so Germany inflicted great loss in many countries during WWII.

[ . . . ]