Jump to content


Photo

Let's All Be Honest...


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#41 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 07:43 PM

And if you were one of the bystanders, you'd probably cheer that on believing the same thing. What's the point? Are you dfending those who dabble in magic?

View Post



ikester, people can "dabble" in magic all they want. That doesn't mean magic is real. Or do you believe otherwise?

Also, I believe if falcone were a skeptic who existed 100 years ago, he most definitely would NOT be one of the bystanders cheering on the witch burners. Rather, people who believed in the Bible's exhortation to burn witches (people like yourself perhaps?) would be the ones cheering them on.

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 08:54 PM

I think that would be the no evidence part.
The way to refute my position would be to provide some evidence that gods exist.

View Post


Either your joking or you didn't understand the question. Jason, what interests you about this debate? If we really were as incapable at advancing evidence and arguments as you purport then what are we even talking about?

You have told us that you have asked God to reveal Himself to you several times... did you do that because non-evidence and non-arguments were not drawing you to seek?

#43 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 09:04 PM

The way to refute my position would be to provide some evidence that gods exist.

View Post


Questions:

Do you believe/understand that nature is everywhere in the universe? That is what science has concluded. Therefore nature is omnipresent.

Do you believe/understand that nature created the heavens and the Earth and all life that exists in the universe? That is what science has concluded. Therfore, nature is a creator.

Do you believe that nature holds all the power in the universe? That is what science has concluded. Therefore nature is all powerful.

Do you believe that that power is limited or infinite? The gravitation force in the singularity of the Big Bang was infinite in magnitude. Therefore, nature has infinite power.

Do you believe/understand that all knowledge in the universe resides in all living creatures including man. Do you understand those creatures to be a product of nature? Therefore nature is all knowing.

The attributes I have just described...

Omnipresence
Creator
Omnipotent
Infinite in Power
Omniscient

These are the definitive attributes of God. You have all the evidence of this God that you need. You have chosen to call Him "nature".

The 1828 Websters Dictionary defines nature as:

NATURE, n. [L. from nature, born, produced,]


1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in nature.

And look through nature up to natures God.

2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author, is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the Author of created things, or the operation of his power


My how just a few twists of a definition can change the world. Lets define God out by giving nature all the attributes of God.

There is your evidence. Now will you recognize it, or ignore it?

#44 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 09:08 PM

Either your joking or you didn't understand the question. Jason, what interests you about this debate? If we really were as incapable at advancing evidence and arguments as you purport then what are we even talking about?

You have told us that you have asked God to reveal Himself to you several times... did you do that because non-evidence and non-arguments were not drawing you to seek?

View Post


Other people seem to believe in all sorts of supernatural things. I'm becoming very much of the opinion that there is a natural explanation for why people believe as they do, whether it is the gamblers fallacy or Texas sharpshooter fallacy for prayer, or the low blood pressure that causes a near-death experience.

#45 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 09:15 PM

Questions:

Do you believe/understand that nature is everywhere in the universe?  That is what science has concluded.  Therefore nature is omnipresent.

View Post


Well yes, nature is any part of the universe we can examine. That is true by virtue of definition.

Do you believe/understand that nature created the heavens and the Earth and all life that exists in the universe?  That is what science has concluded.  Therfore, nature is a creator.

View Post


No, nature didn't create anything. Nature is what is.

Do you believe that nature holds all the power in the universe?  That is what science has concluded.  Therefore nature is all powerful.

View Post


Nature holds all the power? What does that even mean?

Do you believe/understand that all knowledge in the universe resides in all living creatures including man.  Do you understand those creatures to be a product of nature?  Therefore nature is all knowing.

View Post


Nature isn't all knowing. Neither is man.

The attributes I have just described...

Omnipresence
Creator
Omnipotent
Infinite in Power
Omniscient

These are the definitive attributes of God.  You have all the evidence of this God that you need.  You have chosen to call Him "nature".

The 1828 Websters Dictionary defines nature as:
My how just a few twists of a definition can change the world.  Lets define God out by giving nature all the attributes of God.

There is your evidence.  Now will you recognize it, or ignore it?

View Post


So you see the universe as being your God? How do you reconcile that with the bible?

#46 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:16 PM

That doesn't make sense.  The laws of chemistry aren't written in our DNA, and chemistry still works.

View Post


There are even laws in chemistry, only certain neutrons, electrons, and protons can be used to get the desired reaction. Chemistry works because of the right combination, DNA replication works because of the right combination of stored information. New information is not used, the same codes are, but what makes them different is from the male and female partner.

Which in turn rearrange the same information from both parents to create you, thats why you may look like some of your relatives, or your very distant relatives... old information can pop up anytime. This has been observed, but we don't necessarily create new information. If that were true, only chaos would insue throughout the reproduction process.

Reproduction can be predicted, as with Farming, when we breed animals, we expect to get a certain breed from past information, or you can create a new breed from past information. It's all the same code.

Those lab mutations can also be predicted through breeding. Remove some of the code, and you get mutations. Rearange the code wrongly, and you get a mutation.

Therefore, Microevolution is not evolution at all. It's just the predictable recombination of old information as has been studied, tested, and observed for over thousands of years of breeding.

#47 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 February 2009 - 02:12 AM

There are even laws in chemistry, only certain neutrons, electrons, and protons can be used to get the desired reaction.  Chemistry works because of the right combination, DNA replication works because of the right combination of stored information.  New information is not used, the same codes are, but what makes them different is from the male and female partner.

View Post


You are going to have to explain this in more detail. Especially the bits about neutrons, as they are neutral are they not?

Which in turn rearrange the same information from both parents to create you, thats why you may look like some of your relatives, or your very distant relatives... old information can pop up anytime.  This has been observed, but we don't necessarily create new information.  If that were true, only chaos would insue throughout the reproduction process.

View Post


How would that work exactly? How would you get chaos?

Reproduction can be predicted, as with Farming, when we breed animals, we expect to get a certain breed from past information, or you can create a new breed from past information.  It's all the same code.

Those lab mutations can also be predicted through breeding.  Remove some of the code, and you get mutations.  Rearange the code wrongly, and you get a mutation.

Therefore, Microevolution is not evolution at all.  It's just the predictable recombination of old information as has been studied, tested, and observed for over thousands of years of breeding.

View Post


How does that lead to new species that can no longer reproduce?

#48 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 03:44 AM

I don't think that's right.  We see no evidence for a god, so it stands to reason that none exists.

On the other hand, we could assume that everything exists, until evidence is presented to show that it doesn't.  But that would require me to believe in every single thing that anyone else believed in until I could find evidence that it didn't exist.  I'm sorry, but I just can't believe in that many crazy and contradictory things.

View Post


There’s a difference between not seeing evidence, and ignoring evidence. That being said, you ignore the fact that according to “either/or” logic (which I have explained many time previously, and is foundational). Either there is a God, or there isn’t, and no matter the position you take, you have to be able to logically, philosophically and scientifically make your case for your stance.

When you make the statement “We see no evidence for a god”, and cannot provide the substantiation for such a claim (logically, philosophically and scientifically), your claim has no merit. And, other than the plethora of logical, philosophical and scientific facts that support God (Primal Mover, Cosmic Initiator, Creative Force), you are doing no more than spitting in the wind with such a claim.

The bottom line (when dealing with your unsubstantiated claim) is that you are relying on way more faith to believe there is no God, than the Christian is relying on faith that there is a God….

#49 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 February 2009 - 04:14 AM

What possible events can you think of, that according to your beliefs, fits the description of these; events with unknown causes?

I can think of two specific and personal experiences which I could easily have attributed to the supernatural. I won't go into the details on a public forum. For all I know, they may have had a supernatural cause, but I have absolutely no evidence of this. I just find the scientific explanation (of experience 1) and my own explanation (of experience 2) more plausable. In the face of no evidence, I reject the supernatural explanations. I won't accept the experiences themselves as evidence of anything.

And at this point we can start a discussion. Since you have viewed all the current evidence for evolutionary and biological science, cosmology, geology, my question, then, becomes “How can everything (all of this) come from nothing”?

I have absolutely not viewed all the current evidence for evolutionary and biological science, cosmology, geology. I am very much a science novice. My question though, and the foundation of my atheism, is "How can everything (all of this) have been deliberately created this way"?

Why do atheists take such pains to ignore the perceivable implications of current knowledge when current knowledge is heralded as so great? How do you decide which areas of study must be labeled as unknowns or troublesome facts that will someday have a solution... hopefully?

To me, great pains would be to correlate current knowledge with something supernatural. If God is out there and wants me to believe, He knows how to do it*

And if you were one of the bystanders, you'd probably cheer that on believing the same thing. What's the point? Are you dfending those who dabble in magic?

My point is this: As time goes on, as we improve our knowledge and understanding of the universe, as we keep looking for solutions to the unknowns and troublesome facts, we have less reason to call on supernatural causes.

I don't think that as individuals we are any smarter now than we were 500 years ago. But we now know how to make fire spring from our fingertips. Anyone can do it with just a cigarette lighter, it's not magic.

Magic, ie Gandalf type magic, doesn't exist. Any "magic" experiments that appear to have some tangible outcome are just unexplained science.


* I'm paraphrasing someone from another forum, apologies I can't remember who or where

#50 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 06:09 AM

I have absolutely not viewed all the current evidence for evolutionary and biological science, cosmology, geology.

View Post


That, of course, is my point…

#51 Preachbill

Preachbill

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Interests:Preaching the Word, FlightSimming.
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 13 February 2009 - 06:43 AM

Falcone, I am not picking on you...Just my thoughts on your responses.

The word "Universe" means=Uni-One,verse=Sentence. ,"And God said...God Created Time,Space,Earth. We use time(past,prestent,future),space(Height,Width,Depth) and Earth= matter(Liquid,Solid,Gas). Man designs things for our survival and destruction. Everything we design comes from the Earth. Man cannot create or destroy "matter". Belief or Faith must come from man, what you believe in or faith in determines your actions and outlook. If there is no GOD, who determines "Right and Wrong"?

Falcone said"To me, great pains would be to correlate current knowledge with something supernatural. If God is out there and wants me to believe, He knows how to do it*
He did, by him Jesus,dying on the cross in our place for our Sins, that we may have eternal life with God, It comes to free choice to believe or faith,in God.


Falcone said"I don't think that as individuals we are any smarter now than we were 500 years ago."

I disagree, we have flight, transportation, advance's in all the science's.

Falcone said" My point is this: As time goes on, as we improve our knowledge and understanding of the universe, as we keep looking for solutions to the unknowns and troublesome facts, we have less reason to call on supernatural causes.

I agree to a certain point..Yes there are things in science that can't be explained by science,therefore its has to be either a supernatural cause or remain a mystery.

Man designs everything we use, all materials come from the earth, Man designs, gathers the material, forms the materials, builds the materials.

P.S. Can someone here tell me how to use the Quote function? thatway I can do less typing in a response. Thanks Bill

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2009 - 07:21 AM

I can think of two specific and personal experiences which I could easily have attributed to the supernatural. I won't go into the details on a public forum. For all I know, they may have had a supernatural cause, but I have absolutely no evidence of this. I just find the scientific explanation (of experience 1) and my own explanation (of experience 2) more plausable. In the face of no evidence, I reject the supernatural explanations. I won't accept the experiences themselves as evidence of anything.

View Post

Are we to understand that even things which you yourself witness are inadmissible, if you don't like the implications?

#53 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 07:46 AM

I can think of two specific and personal experiences which I could easily have attributed to the supernatural. I won't go into the details on a public forum. For all I know, they may have had a supernatural cause, but I have absolutely no evidence of this. I just find the scientific explanation (of experience 1) and my own explanation (of experience 2) more plausable. In the face of no evidence, I reject the supernatural explanations. I won't accept the experiences themselves as evidence of anything.

View Post


Are we to understand that even things which you yourself witness are inadmissible, if you don't like the implications?

View Post


On one hand, falcone wants to say he had “two specific and personal experiences which I could easily have attributed to the supernatural.”, and “For all I know, they may have had a supernatural cause”, but then he uses the limited materialists version of pseudo-science that says “everything must be proven naturalistically” (which is self-refuting on its own).

He doesn’t even realize the problems in this unscientific and illogical progression. But, the foundation of your reasoning is absolutely spot-on CTD, the materialists will dismiss the metaphysical specifically BECAUSE of the implications…

#54 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 07:59 AM

There are also many that fell away from Christ after a lifetime of believing in him.  So that doesn't really prove or disprove anything does it?

View Post


Okay Jason, I’ll try one more time…. You just re-iterated what I said, attributed it to yourself, and tried to make it look like I didn’t say it… This is a little disingenuous on your part (if it was intentional).

My point was that “YOU” were generalizing in your initial prejudicial statement that (and I quote) “I think that being a Christian necessitates believing in God first and then bending everything else known about the universe to reinforce that belief.”. And I pointed out that (and I quote) “I agree with you that there are some who see God first, then see the universe from that standpoint. But there are many-many (many-many many-many many-many) atheists who do the same.” As you’ll notice that I was agreeing that there were SOME on both sides who do this. But, to prejudicially encompass ALL Christians in your statement was illogical and unfounded….

It would be the same as me saying that all Atheists come to Christ as I did. But that would be just as illogical and unfounded as your original statement…

#55 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:02 AM

If there is no GOD, who determines "Right and Wrong"?

The world finds itself in constant disagreement over what's right and wrong. I think that if God had determined what's right and wrong, it would be more obvious. I find the explanation that our social conscience is a product of evolution more plausable that the 'God did it' explanation.

He did, by him Jesus,dying on the cross in our place for our Sins, that we may have eternal life with God,

Unfortunately, I can't just accept that at face value. If what you say is true, I need it proved to me.

It comes to free choice to believe or faith,in God.

I don't think that belief is a choice - that would suggest that there were alternative options to consider. Do you think that there is a viable alternative to YEC that you could consciously choose? I doubt it. I didn't choose to be an athiest. I am one because I have a lack of belief in gods.

Falcone said"I don't think that as individuals we are any smarter now than we were 500 years ago."

I disagree, we have flight, transportation, advance's in all the science's.

True, but these are advances in technology, not in brain power. Are people actually any smarter now? Perhaps I should have used the word intelligent. Don't forget that knowledge has been lost as well. We don't know how Stonehenge was constructed, for example

I agree to a certain point..Yes there are things in science that can't be explained by science,therefore its has to be either a supernatural cause or remain a mystery.

If something ends up never being explained, then yes, it remains a mystery. I see no reason to invoke the supernatural though.

P.S. Can someone here tell me how to use the Quote function? thatway I can do less typing in a response.

If you hit 'reply' to this message you'll see how quoted sentences are built using the word 'quote' in square brackets and the start of a sentence and finishing it with '/quote' in square brackets.

#56 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:21 AM

Are we to understand that even things which you yourself witness are inadmissible

In these instances, I have doubts about my reliability as a witness.

#57 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:28 AM

But, the foundation of your reasoning is absolutely spot-on CTD, the materialists will dismiss the metaphysical specifically BECAUSE  of the implications…

View Post


Why do you both think I wouldn't like the implications? ;)

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:31 AM

Why do you both think I wouldn't like the implications? ;)

View Post


If you read the posts, you wouldn't have to ask B)

#59 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:41 AM

In these instances, I have doubts about my reliability as a witness.

View Post


If they were experiential, then you were witness to them. Unless, of course, you were impaired for some reason or another. Then your witness could be called into question….

So, were you impaired falcone. Or is your lack of impartiality of empirical observation, and inability to accept the metaphysical in your limited naturalistic understanding keeping your intellect stunted?

Just wondering….

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:50 AM

Okay, so let's review.

The atheist seeks a magic bullet. This magic bullet could come in the form of Jesus Himself shaking their bedpost at 3:00am and saying; "Do you believe me now?"

However, this personal experience must be dismissed because God won't let us put Him in a test tube...

...quite the intellectual quandary.

We want personal proof and we'll reject personal proof! ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users