Scientific and logical evidences for the existence of God

[Jollybear]

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes I see exactly what you’re getting at and I see the purpose behind you building these points from my analogy. And I think it’s quite clever, BUT…..there is one vitally important problem your missing in the equation. Here it is. Those differences in the blueprint are NOT LIKE mutations. To compare the blueprint with having a different location for the kitchen with a mutation in the DNA does NOT compare correctly for the sake of the analogy. Here is why: a mutation is HARMFUL, not beneficial. All those examples you gave about the house, those things are beneficial. So let me compare the analogy better. Suppose on the blueprint it was written or shown that the pluming had to be OUTSIDE the walls, to where they could be seen. Would that be good? No. Suppose it was on the blueprint that pieces of the plumbing had to be missing, that would be disastrous. Suppose you have the windows for the floor and the floor for the windows, how would that go over? Not too well. Suppose you had the wires OUTSIDE the walls, all of them showing, and some of them not hooked up correctly ACCORDING TO the blueprint, how would that turn out? That would NOT be good. How about the shingles on the sides of the house instead of on the roof of it, how would that be? Again, not good at all. The list can go on I’m sure, but you get the idea, THIS kind of house you cannot live in and this kind of house will NOT survive much time.

It’s THIS kind of house that I described RIGHTFULLY COMPARES to MUTATIONS in DNA and IN the human body. They do HARM, UNLIKE your comparisons.

To further compare the analogy, could you imagine technology (in the case of the house) getting BETTER through these TONS of mistakes being done by the writer of the blueprint? It’s UNIMAGINABLE to even THINK such a thing could happen. Likewise, it’s unimaginable that a human body full of mutations could evolve into something BETTER.

This is just a bald assertion on your part with no evidence to back it up.

How is it an assertion? ALL language is expressed by an alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent, is it not? Even if one wants to use SIMPLE let’s call it PRIMITIVE language, which would be PICTURES instead of letters, even THAT is a form of alphabet and has meaning and intent. The DNA HAS THIS. Does it not? Does the DNA copying machine not READ a MESSAGE from the DNA and COPY it and then bring it out of the nucleus and then a protein making machine attaches to the MESSAGE and then the protein making machine attaches to a protein packaging machine and then the protein making machine READS the MESSAGE and MAKES a protein and then the collagen protein is taken outside of the cell and then several collagen proteins join together to form a collagen fiber and many of these get made and join together to form a protein matrix and the protein matrix forms a tendon or muscles. Do you deny or do you agree that this happens?

What you’re doing makes me think of someone that would see two other people speaking a foreign language, and then conclude that they were speaking gibberish (none intelligent speech, it’s not language, it’s not information, it’s just noise). Would that be a reasonable assumption though? No, it’s an assumption based on ignorance. Just because he does not understand the foreign language does not make it gibberish. It just means he don’t understand that language he is hearing. However observing the two people talk, clearly has the hall marks of an intelligent language of information content.

Fine - can you describe for me an apparatus I can use that will let me create a letter written by a person from nothing but basic elements and energy?

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don’t think I understand what you’re asking, could you rephrase?

Baloney. And now that you gave us the actual quote, we can see that not only did you pull the first part of it out of context, you also misrepresented what the first part said:

You got to be kidding me? I most certainly did NOT take him out of context and misrepresent what he said. He believes THIS universe is highly unlikely and that is why he believes in the multiverse view. Why is that so hard to agree on? To me it’s clear as day. And yes I did not quote the other part which was that he believed a God creating this universe is even MORE unlikely, but I did not do that to DECIEVE at all! I did it because I thought and STILL THINK that it is irrelevant to my point. And when he says God is more unlikely that is his assertion.

In this quote, he doesn't say he agrees with the "fine tuning" argument; he only acknowledges that some people use it in their arguments for God.

Your wrong, he does acknowledge there is an illusion of design and that to give more credibility to his arguments that say it IS an illusion of design, he actually made an attempt to ACCOUNT for this illusion of design by saying and I quote the later part of his sentence “Thus, by the same reasoning, and the anthropic principle, it’s reasonable to invoke the possibility of multiple universes to account for that apparent improbability”

Thus by him saying “thus, by the SAME reasoning, and the anthropic principle, it’s REASONABLE to INVOKE the POSSIBILITY of multiple universes to ACCOUNT for that APPARENT IMPROBABILITY” this SHOWS that he AGREED that there is what LOOKS LIKE design, so to account for it NOT being TRUE design, he INVOKES multiple universes.

 

[Jollybear]

Try again, and this time do it honestly.

Don’t call me dishonest again, it ticks me off. I just explained above how you’re wrong about his quote and I explained that he DID INVOKE the multiple universe view BECAUSE of this so called illusion of design.

Plus by calling me dishonest, it’s a COP OUT from explaining to me HOW he did not MEAN what I explained above. I explained his quote to you USING the quote itself, now you explain the quote to me USING the quote itself. By calling me dishonest and that being a cop out, that cop out is dishonest in itself. But, I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt and call you an honest debater and I think you are the most honest atheist I met on here SO FAR, but by calling me dishonest now, you’re making me think differently.

To further give you an example of how pathetically stupid it is to call someone dishonest whom you do not KNOW is dishonest, here is an example. When I was debating with an atheist on a science forum once, he said to me that I was intellectually dishonest (typical standard attack isn&#8217;t it?). I told him, that I wasn&#8217;t, and if I was, I certainly am not AWARE that I am, and a person can only be dishonest if they are AWARE OF IT. IF there not AWARE of their dishonesty, then they are not DISHONEST, they are only IGNORANT at best in THAT case. So guess what he said as a come back? You won&#8217;t believe it, but this is what he said &#8220;well some people are not INTENTIONALLY dishonest&#8221; in other words, they are honestly dishonest. < Now, isn&#8217;t that stupid? That is VERY&#8230;.stupid. That is a contradiction, if one is not INTENTIONALLY dishonest, then they are not dishonest period, they are IGNORANT.

So, call me ignorant if you wish, but don&#8217;t call me dishonest again, I absolutely FURIOUSLY HATE it, and it really makes me not respect someone, because I know different, I KNOW I am honest and when someone tells me I am not, when I clearly know I am, it makes me look at them as COP OUT type of folk, which makes me then think THEY are the dishonest ones. And dishonesty MAKES ME MAD because I see it as cowering and I don&#8217;t LIKE THAT.

Help me out here, because I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Don&#8217;t call me dishonest again. Call me ignorant if you wish, but don&#8217;t go there with the dishonest standard tactic.

It don&#8217;t help you and it certainly don&#8217;t help me, NOR listeners who may happen to be TRUE seekers. So, let&#8217;s BERRY that tactic right now.

Please

Tell me where he says this, because he doesn't say it in the only quote of him you've given us.

Yes, in so many words he says this. He invokes the possibility of multiple universe to account for the apparent improbability of this universe being here the way it is. You explain to me how he is NOT saying that USING the quote itself, please.

Stop putting words in Richard Dawkins' mouth.

I&#8217;m not putting words in his mouth; in so many words this is basically what his quote is saying. That is WHY he invokes the many universes to ACCOUNT for the apparent improbability of this universe.

Explain to me how he is NOT invoking many universes to account for THIS one the way it is? Maybe it&#8217;s you putting words in HIS mouth.

And you pulling "likelihoods" out of your rear end somehow do matter?

I had said &#8220;True he says the odds of God making it are just as unlikely, but that is his assumption. His assumptions don&#8217;t matter for scientific evidence and logic.&#8221; And then you say the above. Why not ADRESS what I said instead of saying the meaningless words above?

Back this claim up or stop making it.

I had said &#8220;It is more LIKELY that God did create this universe then that the universe created itself.&#8221; Now you want me to back it up? Simple, if the universe created itself, then the universe would already be here in order to create, thus how could it create itself if it was already here to create? Thus the statement &#8220;the universe created itself&#8221; is a self defeating contradiction statement and therefore is NOT true. Therefore is the universe ETERNAL, no, because as I explained before you cannot have an infinite regression of causes and I explained why. So the LIKEHOOD of God creating this universe is more HIGH then both these views.

There, I just backed it up, now, blow a hole in it.

We don't need to.

I had said &#8220;This is the dilemma you are in: if you don&#8217;t hold to multiple universes to HELP create bigger odds for pulling this universe off, then how do you create bigger odds? If you do resort to multiple universes like Dawkins did in order to help create bigger odds, then how do you explain the sheer complexity of the universe maker and how it does its job and where it gets its information at to build and WHY it would build?&#8221; and YES you DO need to. It is CRUSHAL for your CASE to be strong, so you NEED to increase the odds SOME HOW. Richard Dawkins knows this and THAT is why he &#8220;invokes&#8221; the multiple universes.

By your own admission, multiple universes would increase the likelihood that the universe we see would happen at least once.

YES, I DO ADMIT THAT, FREELY I admit it WOULD increase the odds. BUT, you&#8217;re FORGETTING ONE BIG PROBLEM. The odds of the complex universe maker! It just begs the question back further.

But here's the thing: this only works if the probability of it happening on a single try is greater than zero.

Yea, a single first try the odds are very low, unless zillions of tries are happening at the same time by this universe making machine. Then the odds of this universe coming to be as it is, are higher, still very low, but A LOT higher. And the universe making machine well the odds of that are even A LOT LOWER.

 

[Jollybear]

If something's impossible on the first try, then it's impossible on many tries.

Right, but I did not say it was IMPOSSIBLE, I said the odds are VERY LOW, TOO LOW to be PROBABLE or PLAUSIBLE.

Your argument requires that the chances of the universe we see occurring on the first try be possible.

Right, it would have to be possible, but possible on very low odds. Like 1 out of a zillion, zillion, zillion is STILL possible by 1 chance out of that zillion, zillion, zillion. Is it likely or plausible? NO, but is it POSSIBLE, YES.

But that possible is not even WORTH believing because it&#8217;s NOT likely or plausible.

&#8220;I Don&#8217;t have enough faith to be an atheist&#8221;. You apparently do. And I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and call your BIG faith sincere. And yet the plausibility is MORE on my side and yet you call me insincere or dishonest. I DON&#8217;T LIKE THAT&#8230;..AT ALL. And therefore, I am NOT going to give you the time and day, I am going to continue this debate UNTIL your intellectually SQUEEZED until your brains come out your ears.

I've answered it several times; it seems you just don't like my answer.

No, it&#8217;s not about not LIKING your answer it&#8217;s about that your answer is NOT an actual answer to my ACTUAL question. If you actually did answer my actual question, I would then attempt to ask a DIFFERENT question or make a different argument, but since I am RE asking the same thing or making the same argument, this shows that you have not actually answered the actual point I am making. If you insist that I don&#8217;t LIKE your answer then you are implying that this is not ABOUT TRUTH for me, it&#8217;s about WINNING a debate, and that is NOT the case, this is ABOUT truth for me, and the truth is, you haven&#8217;t answered my question. If you did, and then answered all the rest that I would give after that, THEN I would come over to your camp and be an atheist. For me it&#8217;s all about truth and FINDING truth and to FIND truth ALL views have to go under and through the FIRE of SCRUTINY, and that ALL THE WAY and NOT HALF way.

THAT is what it&#8217;s about for ME, I don&#8217;t know about any other Christian or religious person out there, I don&#8217;t speak for THEM, but as for ME, THIS is what it&#8217;s ABOUT. Now you don&#8217;t have to believe me, but if you don&#8217;t, I certainly won&#8217;t respect you or any other person that does not believe me when I tell them what my motivation is.

So, can we get past this issue about what I like or don&#8217;t like, my motivation and my honesty or dishonesty junk. That&#8217;s all it is, junk, junk, junk and helps NOTHING.

You don't worry about increasing the odds because you don't need to. Unlikely things do happen occasionally.

And that is the key word right there &#8220;occasionally&#8221; and those occasional happenings are NOT fantastically amazing. And then you&#8217;re missing out of your equation the fact that not just the odd occasional thing has to happen in the universe, but MANY MILLIONS of UNLIKELY things have to happen, and many of them all at the same time as well. The odds of that as I said are very SMALL. How do you increase the odds?

I think it's very important that you watch this video clip: it's short, it's relevant, and there's an amusing ostrich:

Standard Life Advert, Ad - Standard Life Assurance - Video Clip


I did not see the ostrich in the video. But that video does not prove the odds of this universe being here are HIGH, nor does it even prove the odds of what happened in the video itself can happen. It&#8217;s a video that is fiction. What happened in that video would not happen in real life.

If you believe in odds that much, do you believe that a house could self assemble &#8220;occasionally&#8221; or if not occasionally, maybe just ONCE in human history? Why not, hey? It&#8217;s not IMPOSSIBLE, right? It&#8217;s unlikely and not plausible, but since it&#8217;s POSSIBLE by a VERY LOW, LOW odds, then surely you must believe it can or will happen, right?

&#8220;I don&#8217;t have enough faith to be an atheist&#8221;

Fine for you to believe this, but the big question is why should I?

Recap, I had said &#8220;Yes, I think there was a cosmic intelligent force that demanded that the universe allow for life.&#8221;

You should believe this because, well, it&#8217;s TRUE. It is true because if the universe was any other way then what it is now in it&#8217;s laws, forces, constants, ect, then it would NOT allow for life. Therefore the intelligent designer not only designed, but also had US in mind when he designed. But even if you took us out of the equation, he still would be a designer, just not a human designer. But, we are in the equation because well, we are here, so therefore he had us in mind.

That is why you should believe it.

What order, what patterns, and what fine tuning?

I am talking about the order in the whole universe and the patterns everywhere and the balance everywhere. The force of gravity is balanced, any stronger and we would not be here, we would be crushed, any weaker and we would not be here, we would float up into space. Or the universe would not form if it was weaker, or if it was stronger, it would calaps. Look at the patterns of water, the water droplets always go down the stream instead of up, it&#8217;s a pattern. It&#8217;s order. Everyone has a nose on their face, it&#8217;s order.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't think I was. I agreed that there's no obvious reason the universe had to be the way it is, but I don't think that anything forced it to be the way it is.

Well, you were dodging the question. Let me remind you, we were talking about the multiple universe maker. I had said, if you accept that, then you would have to explain the complexity of the universe maker, thus begging the question back further. If you don&#8217;t accept it, then you would have to find a way to increase the odds. You then said that if one rejects the multiple universe maker as false, the God believers would have to still explain how God did it. THAT was your answer, but that was not answering MY QUESTION OBVIOUSLY. So, in essence you were DODGING the question. You may not think so, but I am SHOWING YOU that you did. Do you want the exact quotes on the few pages back? I can do it, I already looked, but I just did not want to cut and paste the quotes because it would take longer flipping and doing all that. But I WILL do it if you want me to, or you can just go look.

Bottom line is, your dodging the question. I wonder why?

Perhaps because, hmmm, atheism is WRONG. &#8220;I don&#8217;t have enough faith to be an atheist&#8221;.

And if I may add, atheists don&#8217;t have enough ANSWERS to questions for me to take on their position. They dodge the questions.

It has always been my firm view that a belief that CANNOT answer questions, IS NOT TRUE. Now to be FAIR to the person that may believe the false view, they may be sincere, but there view is not true. I will give someone the benefit of the doubt, but, they SURE HAVE A LOT OF FAITH.

I already mentioned before I know a co worker at work, I get along with him GREAT. Actually I would probably consider him more so then anybody else in the store and even amongst some believers in God. And he is agnostic, he takes the &#8220;I don&#8217;t know position&#8221; but he does argue from an atheistic standpoint &#8220;playing devil&#8217;s advocate&#8221; with me many times, which I don&#8217;t mind, it makes for great discussion. But me and him get along great, but I seriously think that his &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; position is a position that takes a BIG GAMBLE and making no choice is actually a choice and reality will choose for him. And I also think the weight of the evidence strongly points more to God, too much for his position to be justified in the &#8220;I don&#8217;t know position&#8221;, so by him staying in that position, he has A LOT OF FAITH that nothing BAD is going to happen to him after he dies. Now, I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he has a lot of faith, and we get along great, I don&#8217;t attack his character and he has not ONCE attacked mine, which is why I always talk to him at work and we have fun discussions, MEANINGFUL ones. I consider him a good friend all the way around.

So I can give atheists and agnostics the benefit of the doubt, but I seriously wonder why they have so much faith. To me there faith is INORMOUSLY HIGH, and it&#8217;s very apparent to me, to me there is no question about it, the question for me is, why do they have so much faith?

Now by saying there is no OBVIOUS reason the universe had to be the way it is, I disagree, I think there is a reason (which I am sure you would agree with, you just disagree that this reason is CLEAR) and a obvious one at that. And I am giving those reasons in this gigantic post. Then you said you don&#8217;t think that ANYTHING FORCED it to be the way it is. So CHANCE did not FORCE it to be the way it is. So chance is not a FORCE at all, it&#8217;s NOTHING, it&#8217;s a non entity, it&#8217;s not THERE, it holds NO FACTORS. I like that admission. So, if chance did not do it, what did it? What was the prime mover? Let&#8217;s hear it, should be good. If nothing forced it to be the way it is, then what got it started? What moved those dominoes?

No, you haven't, because this conclusion relies on bad reasoning and things being true that you haven't demonstrated to be so.

How does it rely on bad reasoning? Why is the reasoning bad, SHOW me why it&#8217;s bad and don&#8217;t just ASERT that it&#8217;s bad. And I have demonstrated that it IS true, show me that I have NOT demonstrated that it&#8217;s true. Demonstrate that I have NOT demonstrated it?

I did above.

This is very strange, you like to say A LOT that you HAVE answered questions, but so far, you haven&#8217;t answered NONE of the questions you say you HAVE answered. You like to assert that you have answered them, but then I show you that you haven&#8217;t. You like to assert that I don&#8217;t LIKE your answers, but you don&#8217;t KNOW what I like or don&#8217;t like. And then again I show you again that you have NOT answered the questions.

Why not just answer them, if your view is TRUE, surely it can survive questions&#8230;&#8230; can it not?

That's not how it works.

Yea, that is how it works in a debate. I have given the proof, you shot arrows at the proof and I have shown why your arrows DON&#8217;T WORK.

You started this thread claiming that you had "scientific and logical evidences" for the existence of God. You assumed the burden of proof, which is completely separate from any claim I'm making. So far, I haven't been asserting that God doesn't exist; I've only been asserting that your argument is bad.

By asserting my argument is bad, your IMPLYING God doesn&#8217;t exist, that&#8217;s consistency. Also by asserting my argument is bad, you admit it&#8217;s only an assertion. Now, SHOW ME why my argument is bad, PROVE that my argument is NOT proof? This you have NOT DONE YET. And surely you will think I am insane for saying it, but no I am not, I CLEARLY do not see how you have proven my proof as NOT proof. Your arguments are weak, and that I am not asserting, that I am SHOWING YOU.

Even if you were to validly shoot down every point I make (though I think the odds are pretty long on that),

No, the odds on that are very high and I am doing it already. Already so far, you cannot answer a lot of my questions, but I can answer EVERY ONE of yours.

 

[Jollybear]

you'd still need to make your case and support it on its own merits.

I have, STILL AM and still GOING TO weave my web around all your replies and further points and SQEEZE you very hard.


I am giving you NO FOOTHOLD.

There are only four views, either God did it, or nothing + chance + time did it, or it was always here, or it made itself.

Now out of all four views, nothing + chance + time doing it is NOT plausible because from nothing, nothing comes, and chance, well that don&#8217;t exist, it&#8217;s a none entity which holds no factors in stuff. And even if there was chance, there would have to be a prime mover to get the domino&#8217;s going so chance could carry all the domino&#8217;s. And since chance has no GOALS, time would not HELP IT out. So, that one is out of the question. The next one, we were always here, well that one even conventional science does not agree with that. You know the big bang implies a beginning (although I don&#8217;t believe in the big bang personally, but I&#8217;ll use it against you). And the very nature of things show causes and effects. So, it&#8217;s not eternal for that reason and it&#8217;s not eternal also because there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, otherwise it would take forever to get here, or all things would be happening at the same moment in time, thus chaos. So, that one is also out of the question. The next one, the universe made itself. Well that is a self contradiction, if the universe made itself, then the universe would not need to make itself, since it is already there in order to make itself, like, duh. So, that one also is out of the question. So the ONLY ONE we have left is GOD DID IT. And that one is the MOST PLAUSIBLE. And it&#8217;s that one that has NO PROBLEMS WITH IT. And if it does (which it don&#8217;t) it certainly does not have as much problems as the other three views do. So if I can dismantle all three other views, just doing that, would PROVE my case for God&#8217;s existence, I would not even NEED to build a case FOR God, because by proving the other views WRONG, God&#8217;s case would thus already be proved. Because you see, there are only 4 views, there is no 5, there never WAS a 5 and never WILL be a 5. There are variations with all 4 of these views, but there is NOT a 5. Now, does this mean I refuse to SHOW why &#8220;God did it&#8221; is the most plausible? No, I don&#8217;t refuse that, but I just want to make the point that if I disprove in a negative sense all the other 3 views wrong, God&#8217;s case is already proven right, now take that into the equation and add it to me PROVING in a positive sense HIS existence, then my case is even MORE SUPER STRONG. So I have evidence FOR GOD&#8217;s existence and I have evidence AGAINST all three of the other views. Therefore my case is AIR TIGHT.

Now, whatcha gonna do about those beans?

Again, I don&#8217;t have enough faith to be an atheist.

You're engaging in another logical fallacy: appeal to the consequences of a belief. One's like or dislike for the implications for a claim have absolutely no bearing on whether the claim is true or false.

I absolutely agree that one&#8217;s like or dislike for a belief has no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. Your absolutely correct there. But my point about agnostics being the WORST position is true because agnostics by definition claim to NOT KNOW the truth and then go on with life. And they keep asserting to not know the truth and many years go by and by and they still don&#8217;t know. The problem with that is this, by their actions they are CLAIMING to KNOW that whatever the truth is, it certainly won&#8217;t be harmful to them, and that is why they are so PASSIVE about knowing the truth. But by being passive, that action asserts to know the truth, the truth is for them that nothing will be harmful for them.

Also there is another problem with the position of agnosticism, it asserts that no one can know the truth, that means they are asserting to KNOW that they nor anyone can KNOW. Well, how do they know that? By that very assertion they are claiming to KNOW the truth, the truth being that we cannot know the truth. They don&#8217;t know that.

So really, there are no TRUE agnostics. There are only people who CLAIM they are agnostics without understanding they are NOT.

Also why would you accuse me of dealing with ones LIKE or DISLIKES if that is what you did to me by saying that I did not LIKE your answer to a question I had? Is that not a double standard going on there?

If my non-commital position on this issue offends you in some way, then you might want to provide more evidence or valid argument to convince me one way or the other. Until then, IMO, the facts simply aren't in to support a firm "yes" or "no"... regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Offends me? Good gravy, no way. I am way to confident in my position to be offended, I do WONDER though about YOUR GREAT faith. However, what DOES offend me is NOT your position, but your claim that I am dishonest. THAT offends me because I consider that in itself dishonest and then you calling me dishonest while being dishonest adds in hypocrisy. I can&#8217;t handle that, so that offends me. But your position does not offend me, although I think it is terribly illogical and HIGHLY full of faith. But your great faith does not offend me, it makes me wonder though. I wonder why you value faith more than the weight of evidence and what is most plausible.

I didn't say that they were. I just said that I don't have enough information to tell which one is right.

Right&#8230;.but not having enough information to tell which one is right, does not mean you don&#8217;t have to make a decision. Which one do you PICK or which one do you think is right, and then which one would you LIKE to be right?

Plus there is enough information, I am giving it all here, I am answering all your points and questions and you lack answers to my questions. That should tell you something right there, WHO is right.

 

[Jollybear]

What's the gamble?

- the multiverse hypothesis is correct: at the beginning of time, the universe had a certain non-zero likelihood of occurring.

You keep misunderstanding my point. IF the multiverse hypothesis is correct, then you have to explain the unlikely universe MAKER.

- the multiverse hypothesis is incorrect: at the beginning of time, the universe had a certain non-zero (but lower) likelihood of occurring.

If the multiverse is incorrect, then you have to explain how the odds of this one universe came to be. This is what you keep misunderstanding.

Either way, the probability of the universe existing given that the universe exists is 100%. I can tell this because it exists.

This makes no sense if atheism is correct. If nothing + chance + time made the universe, then the likelihood of this universe being here is NOT 100% because of the simple fact that it&#8217;s &#8220;HERE&#8221;. Just because it&#8217;s here does not make the odds of it being here 100%, you ASSUME that. But you&#8217;re wrong. If nothing created something and that something turned into lots of other stuff by chance over time, then the odds of it creating what we now see, are VERY UNLIKELY. The odds are against it. The odds are against it because, from nothing, nothing comes, and chance, well that don&#8217;t even exist, it&#8217;s a non entity and holds no factors in stuff. And therefore time does not help it either.

What your saying is equivalent to let&#8217;s say someone has a dart board in their house and they have a dart. They are not playing darts at the moment, let&#8217;s say they are watching a sports game and there team loses, and so they freak out and go hey wire and get all upset and then they take the dart and throw it at the dart board out of frustration; but as they do it they are not looking at the board and they don&#8217;t care where it hits, they just throw it. So we would RIGHTFULLY conclude that the ODDS of the dart hitting the buzi, are VERY LOW. But let&#8217;s say the dart happens to hit the buzi, according to what I hear you saying, is that because the dart is NOW in the buzi, the odds of it hitting there were then 100% because well after all the dart is in the buzi.

Do you see how silly that is?

You may say well because it&#8217;s in the buzi, the odds are 100% AFTER the fact, but BEFORE the fact, the odds were against it. But you see, that would be inconsistent because if the odds are against it BEFORE, then they are against it AFTER. Now IF he were to throw the dart in the exact same position, with the same force, at the same angle, in the same way, in the same direction, would the odds be for or against the dart hitting the board at the buzi again? The odds would be for, and that 100% FOR, since he is simulating it the exact same way as he did the first time by accident. But in order for him to pull this off, he would have to have perfect knowledge and perfect control.

Now here is the BIG problem that you need to leap over. The universe by chance hit the buzi just right in order for it to exist the way it does or exist period is what you&#8217;re saying. So BEFORE the universe existed, the odds were against it, but AFTER the universe existed, the odds of it happening the way it did were 100%. And again, this is inconsistent. The odds would STILL be against it, it would have just hit the 1 out of a zillion, zillion, zillion mark. Now if the universe were to be made again, by hitting the explosion the exact same way, same angle, same everything, THEN the odds of the universe happening the way it did are 100% the same, like simulating the guys perfect knowledge and control in throwing the dart a second time sort of speak. But, here is the BIG problem. Not only do you need by chance the dart to hit the buzi, but you need billions of darts hitting the buzi over and over and over again and again, all the time, in order to BUILD THIS ONE universe.

Good luck

YOU should not have enough faith to be an atheist.

Remember the ostrich.

I&#8217;m not getting that thing with the ostrich?

Like I said, I think it's an interesting question for science, but I don't see how it has any real bearing on this debate.

Actually it has the MOST crucial question and bearing ON THIS debate. Quite the opposite to what you&#8217;re saying. It is MOST important for this issue we are talking about here.

It&#8217;s funny, when you get into a hot spot corner, you like to either say &#8220;you don&#8217;t know&#8221; or &#8220;I answered it already, you did not like it&#8221; or &#8220;it&#8217;s not relevant&#8221;.

That don&#8217;t work for TRUTH. Knowledge is not satisfied with &#8220;I don&#8217;t knows&#8221; and it&#8217;s not satisfied with &#8220;so called answers&#8221; and it&#8217;s not satisfied with &#8220;that&#8217;s not relevant&#8221; when it clearly is.

No, it's more like sitting around after skydiving, when someone runs up to you and tells you that your parachute was a different model than you thought. Does this mean that it was less likely to open? Hard to say without more information, but because you're sitting around chatting and not embedded in a field somewhere, you know it did open.

No your miss using the analogy. The sky diving itself represents life&#8217;s journey. The par shoot represents the worldview that you have bought into or put your trust in, and then jumping off the plain represents your commitment to that worldview that you trust in, and then once you pull the rope, that is when you find out if what you trusted in is TRUE or FALSE. So if after you DIE (the rope being pulled) you find out your in hell (pulled that robe and the shoot did not come out) then you know you were wrong.

Do you want to take a chance on it? Someone tells you that this par shoot is not the best workable one, but it MAY work, would you want to take your chances? I am the one telling you that it won&#8217;t just MAY work, but I am saying it WON&#8217;T work period.

And of course I have not brought into the equation the other ways to KNOW if the parashoot works, that is one can know BEFORE they die, that is by spiritual experiences, out of body experiences, and death experiences and science evidence. But of course after death is the most SOLID way to know of course. But again, would you want to take your chances? That parashoot may not work, you sure you want to jump for it?

Ground looks pretty far down, looks scary, doesn&#8217;t it? Huh, huh? Sure you want to do it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A "zillion" isn't a real number.

 

[Jollybear]

Which would scale up God's complexity, and therefore his unlikelihood, as well, wouldn't it?

Look: forget the whole multiverse thing. It's irrelevant.

No, the universe maker would not be similar in complexity to God, since the universe maker would not be a MIND, but rather a cosmic machine of sorts that produces universes the multitudes. How would this machine get there and why would it do what it does? How would it KNOW to do what it does? Where would it get its energy from to do what it does? Why would it do what it does?

You see, God is the big MIND, he KNOWS what to do and why and what needs to be done and he knows where his energy is and he knows he is eternal. He has intent, a universe maker does not.

God explains nothing. God is a placeholder for an explanation, not an explanation itself.

No, God does explain this, it&#8217;s &#8220;nothing + chance + time&#8221; that explains NOTHING and would create NOTHING. God is not a place holder, nothing + chance + time is a place holder.

And if you were to be right that God does not explain nothing, then again, nothing + chance + time all the more does not explain nothing. But since, nothing + chance + time is a none entity, and God IS an entity, God actually explains things by FACTORS, while your three headed &#8220;nothing chance time&#8221; does not.

Those things are not factors and do not generate energy, or purpose, or information, or plans, or intents, or goals, they DO NOTHING. But a God (entity) with INTENT DOES do something. And as I explained by logical means it is the God view that holds the MOST plausibility. Thus to reject it, is to go on PURE FAITH.

I don&#8217;t have enough faith to be an atheist.

This

atheist doesn't use any multiverse argument.

Ok, if you&#8217;re not going to use the multiverse argument, then you have STUCK yourself in the OTHER problem. WHICH IS, HOW do YOU increase the odds of THIS universe being here, this ONE universe that exists?

The BEST argument that YOU have according to what I see, is that you have to go on PURE faith, GREAT faith that the lottery hit the 1 out of a zillion, zillion, zillion number and that over and over and over again and again by tons of successive chances over much time.

In other words your best argument is, that you have NO argument, you just have great faith that it hit many times that 1 chance out of zillions.

I won&#8217;t doubt your sincere faith, great faith, but I do wonder about it. Why would you value faith more then what is most plausible?

And Achilles can't catch a tortoise. Your problem was dealt with more than two thousand years ago.

I read the article and I don&#8217;t see how they FIXED the problem, yea they had to deal with it, but they did not fix it.

In simple terms, you tell me how this universe COULD be eternal. If you have an eternal amount of causes, would it not then take an eternity for all those causes to happen? Thus would that not mean they would NEVER happen?

Also, if you say that eternity means all the causes WILL happen at the same time, that is past, present and future causes and events will all happen in the NOW time, that means there is NO MOTION. But, the fact is, there IS motion. I am typing my fingers away and they are full of motion. My eyes don&#8217;t lie.

So, explain that paradox or contradiction if you can. I double dare ya.

I don't know, but I also realize that just saying "mind" adds no explanatory power at all.

AHAH! You don&#8217;t KNOW. Great admittance, just to recap, I had asked &#8220;There has to be a FIRST cause. That is the problem you would have to explain if you resort to the infinite causes tactic. Also you would have to explain how nothing, chance and time which has no mind can PUSH energy into order and complexity without a will or intent. Why would it not just remain STATIC?&#8221; and you said you don&#8217;t know.

So this means your acting more like an agnostic then an atheist now. So that means you should change your icon from saying &#8220;humanist atheist&#8221; to &#8220;humanist agnostic&#8221; right? Would be consistent, hey?

So do you KNOW there is no God (atheism) or do you NOT KNOW (agnosticism)?

You said it, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221;. Now you got to live with it. And I already showed the problems with agnosticism already.

Also &#8220;Mind&#8221; has MORE explanatory power then your atheism view&#8217;s or any agnostic position does. It is the MOST plausible. Anyone that does not go with the most plausible has MORE faith. I have LESS faith then you do.

Also let me point out a contradiction in your statement. You say you don&#8217;t know, then you say you realize that adding mind gives no explanatory power. Well if you don&#8217;t KNOW the answer, how then do you KNOW the answer is NOT God? Thus in one part of the sentence you claim you don&#8217;t know, then in the other part you claim you DO KNOW. So, which is it, you know or you don&#8217;t?


Stop contradicting yourself or else I will have to keep exposing it and keep weaving my web around your points.

 

[Jollybear]

I didn't say out of nothing, but maybe. You certainly haven't given us sufficient reason to exclude the possibiltiy.

Maybe? What exactly do you believe then? Anyway, I have given sufficient reason to exclude the possibility that nothing made something.


We observe ALL THE TIME that if something comes about, it is ALWAYS caused or created by something else. That is what our experience and our witness always observes. There has not ever been ONE time in all human history where we ever observed nothing creating or causing something else. And it defies common sense to think that sometime in the remote past nothing did create something.

From nothing, NOTHING comes.

I think that IS sufficient, if you don&#8217;t think it is, you have GREAT faith in magic.

As a side question, if nothing can create something, what is stopping NOTHING from let&#8217;s say, popping a horse out of nowhere in your living room? It&#8217;s a good thing that nothing does not create something; for that would probably cause allot of weird stuff to go on in our world.

Let's let tumbleweed speak for himself, shall we?

I was not speaking FOR him, he HIMSELF told me that he believes in a PRIME mover.

And "God" isn't an answer; it simply moves the answer back one step. One you posit God, you need to do two things:

- substantiate why God and not something else.

I DID substantiate WHY God and NOT something else. I told you why all the other views cannot be the cause and then I told you why God IS the cause. Tell me why my reasons are flawed, don&#8217;t just say they are flawed.

- give an explanation for God.

Again: forget about multiple universes. They're irrelevant to the question at hand.

What in specific do you want me to explain ABOUT God? Do you mean where did God come from? I told you already that he is eternal, he is a MIND, has a will, has consciousness, is intelligent, ect. Give me a more refined or specific question that you want me to answer. Make it VERY specific.

So nothing that's very improbable ever happens?

If things happen, they happen for a reason, by factors, not chance. Now if you say it is improbable for some things in to happen in the world, but they still happened, I would agree, although, they did happen for specific reasons and factors at the same time. But, in the case with the lottery machines, they are tweaked in a certain way.

Also the improbability of this universe happening, is billions of times more improbable then winning the lottery. Again it&#8217;s equivalent to winning the lottery a zillion times over and over.

But there is that 1 chance out of those zillions. But, why even put faith in that? It&#8217;s not even worth buying into.


If someone were to tie you up while you were sleeping and then wake you up holding a gun to your head and told you that they were going to flip a coin 100 times in a row. And then told you that the chances of the one coin hitting heads facing up 100 times in a row are like 1 out of zillions and zillions, now if you CHOOSE to believe in that one chance that it will happen, but then it DOES happen, then he promises to let you go. BUT if it does not happen as you choose to believe it would, THEN he has to shoot you. If however you choose to NOT believe in that one chance out of zillions, but choose to say it will land on both heads and tails fairly close to equal amounts. And then it happens, so then he lets you go.

So which one would you want to put your faith in? You would probably put your faith NOT in the 1 chance out of zillions, so if that is the case with THIS crazy situation, why would you NOT choose it, but you would choose it on a grander scale with the universe and take such a risk for your soul?

So? "VERY low on ALL levels" is still non-zero. And you still haven't backed up your assertion that the odds were very low in the first place (and no, your link doesn't count).

Right, it&#8217;s still a none zero, but not worth putting faith in that 1 chance out of zillions.

That article I gave you DOES count. All you have done is say it don&#8217;t count without saying WHY the link was wrong. So your response which is not a complete response to the point of the article DOES NOT count.

 

[Jollybear]

No, that's not what it means. Did you ever take basic probability and statistics in school? I can go through the math if you want, but there's no point if you already know it and have just decided to ignore it.

Go through it for me and then compare it to THIS universe.

Personally I think your ignoring something very big about THIS universe. You even said yourself that this universe got made by MANY chance events through lots of time. That means EACH chance event would have to win the lottery, and then the NEXT chance event would have to win it AGAIN. And then on and on the same.

It&#8217;s you that is ignoring this powerful point.

And sorry to say, but you&#8217;re not addressing it.

Where did your "300" number come from?

And the probability of the same person winning 300 times in a row isn't any less than the odds that some other specific sequence of 300 winners would come up.

Where did I get the 300 number from? It&#8217;s a hypothetical example off the top of my head. Change it to 400 or 200 or 500 lottery wins in a row if you want, it does not have to be 300. I am just referring to a large number, and I wanted to pick just ONE number to stress a hypothetical example.


Also the odds of someone winning the lottery 300 times in a row BIG money each time, is VERY low. It&#8217;s the same with 300 competitors as well. To say otherwise just takes GREAT faith.

I had a look at it. Your website just happens to be spectacularily wrong in its assumptions.

Now... if you want me to go into more detail, you'll have to provide an argument of your own for me to respond to, because it's not fair of you to expect me to expend all sorts of effort responding point-by-point to a link that it took you only a few seconds to copy-paste.

Hmmm, I seriously would if I had a mind for math, but I don&#8217;t. I really dislike math. Here is what I&#8217;ll do for you. Instead of giving you that link from a source that believes in God, I&#8217;ll give you THIS source that does NOT believe in God and they ALSO calculate the odds and do the math. Perhaps that will help you out and then you give me your response or thoughts to the three part video from youtube. It&#8217;s a good watch as well.

The only answer I can give you is that based on complexity, and much of it, the odds are TOO low for it to built by itself. That is a simple answer and it&#8217;s the one I give because I don&#8217;t like math.

But here is a source from scientists who do NOT believe God did it. And they still calculate the odds, and ADMIT they are low. And by the way, they also believe in the multiverse view, go figure.

[youtube]p6rNbMRNye8[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rNbMRNye8&feature=related it is 5 video&#8217;s

Enjoy.

Yes, you did misunderstand it. The fact that he repeated an argument does not necessarily mean the he agrees with it. The fact that he noted that the multiverse hypothesis is a response to it does not necessarily mean that he personally agrees with the multiverse hypothesis.

What do you mean repeated it? He did not repeat it at all, he spoke it as if he OWNED the sentence. Plus that video I gave you BELIEVES in the multiverse theory as well as a way to respond to the intelligent designers.

There is NO question whether they believe in the multiverse view, the question is, HOW DO YOU increase the odds? I even read an article on talk origins website (atheist website) that made arguments for the multiverse view, I can give you that article as well, but I will have to look for it, if you want it, ask me and I&#8217;ll find it for you. But I read it a long while back and I remember it clearly.

As Aristotle said, "it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it."

I am entertaining all your thoughts without accepting them. But that is not what Richard Dawkins did. And that also is not what the video did that I gave you. If he was promoting a view in order to further give strength to his premise that there is no God, that means he ACCEPTS that view. Not to mention the way his sentence flows, he OWNS the sentence.

If you want to say he did not believe what he was promoting, why not say that I don&#8217;t believe anything I am saying to you right now?

You see how silly that is?

Your site's math is wrong,

No it&#8217;s not wrong, I gave you a video from people who don&#8217;t believe in God&#8217;s existence or at best are trying to get away from it, and they say the same thing, the odds are against this universe.

Don&#8217;t just say something is wrong, show why it is.

and Dawkins did nothing of the sort.

I see that your bent on saying Dawkins did not believe what he promoted. SHOW me from his own sentence WHERE and WHY he did not believe what he said.

 

[Jollybear]

Its calculations are incorrect and depend on false assumptions.

Look, you can say something is wrong all day till your blue in the face, that does not make it so. Tell WHY it&#8217;s wrong and SHOW where and WHY it&#8217;s wrong.

How do you figure?

All the galaxies and stars are spaced out at the right distances from each other. Here is how I figure. Here is a quote.

&#8220;Distance between Stars. The distance between stars affects the orbits or planets &#8211; and even whether they can exist at all. The average distance between stars in our region of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, gravitational interaction among stars would destabilize planetary orbits. On the other hand, if the distance between stars were too great, then there would be an insufficient concentration of heavy element debris thrown out by supernovae to produce the rocky planets that produce life forms.&#8221;

http://thehensonhome.org/Anthropic_Principle.htm

Could you imagine a universe that is more suited to life than the one we're in? I probably could.

Ok, tell me what you would change in this universe if you were the creator or designer? Did you ever see the movie &#8220;evens almighty&#8221; God actually let the guy be him for one day, and he thought he could do it better, but he made it worse.

The universe is apparently not as "fine-tuned" as it could be, which speaks against the idea that it's "fine-tuned" at all.

If someone looked at a building and said, I don&#8217;t like the way that building looks, would their preference speak against the fact that it&#8217;s STILL designed? Obviously not. When people design things, there is a give and take in designing.

Wait... so what are you arguing that the universe is fine-tuned for? Life, or "God's pleasure"? It's one or the other.

Hold on, YES I can argue for BOTH. It&#8217;s fine tuned FOR life AND for God&#8217;s pleasure. It&#8217;s fine tuned for BOTH. It&#8217;s not one or the other, it&#8217;s both.

I agree... but they weren't different.

Right, and WHY from your perspective was the universe not made different?

But the expansion rate was what it was.

Yea and why was it the way it was? Why was it JUST right?

I doubt that my explaining it again will make a difference. You've made your mind up, and just as you've misconstrued what I've said numerous times here, you've misconstrued what Dawkins said. The difference is that he's not here to correct you.

No, you have misconstrued what Dawkins said, I have not. Show me how I have misconstrued what he said.

Also saying I have made up my mind is not helpful. You have made up your mind, there, did that help you much? No.

Plus my mind being convinced about my case does not mean that if you dismantle my case and show yours to be better that I won&#8217;t give up my case. I&#8217;ll give up my view if you prove your point and prove mine wrong.

Depends what you mean. I certainly have a sense of right and wrong, and it's important to me. Whether it's cosmically important is another question altogether.

I was not asking you if you HAD a sense of right and wrong, that I KNOW you do. But I am asking WHY do you have a sense of right and wrong? Why is this sense important to you? You said whether it&#8217;s cosmically important is another question, ok, answer that question, is it cosmically important?

You've got feelings about what's right and what's wrong; so do I.

This part is obvious, but this is not the question I have. Your dodging the arrow without disarming the bow.

 

[Jollybear]

So does everyone else. Is there one set of feelings about right and wrong that's better than all others? I don't know,

Ok, you admitted you don&#8217;t know. I appreciate your honesty by you admitting this, but know this, by you not having an answer to this question, it poses a problem for atheism.

and I don't see any way of figuring that out.

And you&#8217;re right, from an atheistic standpoint, THERE IS NO WAY to figure it out. I&#8217;m also glad you admitted this. If there is no way to figure an answer out for this, that poses a even bigger problem for atheism.

That being said, if your sense of right and wrong is different from mine and you feel like doing things that I and others feel is wrong, go for it... if you want. Just remember that other people will have feelings about what's right and wrong in responding to your actions.

Again, this part is obvious, but is not addressing my question. I know there are disagreements in the world.

Are you talking about objective morality? If so, I don't think it exists. Nonetheless, each of us has individual morality, and human societies have shared codes of behaviour.

Yes, I am talking about objective morality, maybe I should have said that word earlier. Ok, now you&#8217;re saying objective morality does NOT exist. Ok, here is a question I have to your claim. IF objective morality does NOT exist, WHY then do you HOLD to personal morals of right and wrong?

No, that's not what I said. That's the explanation for how things got to be the way they are.

Ok, so evolution is all about survival, not about what&#8217;s right or wrong. So, why NOW at the present time make it about what&#8217;s right and wrong?

What you do from there is up to you.

Yea, but I am not talking about free will or decision making, I am talking about what it is ABOUT. Is it about what I DO (about right and wrong) or is it about SURVIVAL?

Evolution is an explanation, but it doesn't impose any sort of moral imperative on you.

Ok, so if evolution does not impose any OBJECTIVE moral imperative on us, then why should we OBEY another human being who tells us what to do? AND, why should another human being impose any sort of moral imperative on us as well?

Lots of ways. In some cases, it's kin selection. In other cases, it's traits that are generally beneficial, but harmful in specific circumstances.

Ok, if someone saves there enemy, and endangers themselves in doing so, and then even if they do save them successfully without killing themselves, they are still endanger because it was there enemy (a warrior enemy let&#8217;s say). How is that a trait that is beneficial for survival?

And it's not. The only moral restrictions on your actions are your personal feelings and the things that the society you're in tries to impose on you. There's no mystical force that tries to get you to do the right thing.

Again your dodging the arrow without disarming the bow. Why do I have these feelings that tell me right and wrong? Also why do others tell me to do what they think is right and wrong?

I prefer to think of it differently: we're free to assign meaning to things as we see fit. But I do agree that without God, there's no divine force that commands you to value this but not that.

Yes, we are free to assign meaning to things as we see fit. Yes, but again, your dodging the arrow - the question. Why do we assign meaning to this over that, or higher value to this over that?

Your self-interest doesn't matter if there is a God, so why would this be a factor for the non-existence of God?

And anyhow, you're appealing to the consequences of a belief again. Like I pointed out, it's a logical fallacy.

If there is no God, why is self interest important to you? Also if there IS a God, yes self interest IS important, because then you have an eternal SOUL and this God can JUDGE IT with torment. So if there is NO God, why is your self interest important? If there is a God, your wrong, self interest WOULD be important.

Also the consequences of a belief ARE NOT a logical fallacy. This is all relevant; you&#8217;re just running from the issue by saying this. This is all a part of the whole thing.

Again, why is self interest important?

I don't know; I just find it important. What can I say? I'm a people person.

Well, I am glad you are a people person, that is a good thing, but it does not help your case by saying it. And again you admitted you don&#8217;t know. You just find society important, but you don&#8217;t know why it is. Ok, why are you a people person?

 

[Jollybear]

No, it doesn't. And you're just re-stating the thing that you're trying to demonstrate. Logical arguments don't work that way.

Again here is why God gets to be the arbiter of right and wrong. He is GOD, that means he creates the CONCEPT itself of right and wrong, thus that puts him in the position to decide what IS right and wrong, since the concept itself comes from him, since all things come from him, he created all things, all things have their source from him. How is that a logical fallacy?

That's not correct. We're not free to impose just any standard on our kids. If I were to come up with an "every kid gets beat twice a day whether they're good or bad" rule, I'd probably end up in jail.

There is a big problem with what you just said here. There is NO ONE ABOVE God to PUT HIM IN JAIL sort of speak. Also since God is the one who creates stuff, without STUFF being created, there is no CONCEPT to go on about what is right and wrong FOR that stuff. So the stuff (universe, life, ect) and the concept of right and wrong, come FROM GOD. Therefore he knows BEST for all that stuff. The BEST is what is TRULY right and TRULY wrong, thus he gets to decide it. He does not restrict himself in coming up with just any rule even if there WAS someone above him, he decides what is BEST, since he KNOWS what is best, since he created ALL stuff. This is an important point that I think you may be misunderstanding.

This contradicts your first point. Logic requires premises to act upon. If they're rooted in God, then the final conclusion isn't dictated by logic, because the initial premises aren't dictated by logic. If the premises are external to God, then God's not the arbiter of morality.

I don&#8217;t understand how it contradicted my first point? Actually it was YOU that contradicted yourself. First you say &#8220;just re-stating (premis) the thing that you're trying to demonstrate. Logical arguments don't work that way&#8221; now you said &#8220;Logic requires premises to act upon.&#8221; So which is it, logic is based on premises or logic does not have a statement of premise?

Now I will show you how I have not contradicted myself. Watch this, even though I have evidence for God&#8217;s existence, I am now debating with you about an issue that is based after the ASSUMPTION of his existence. Anyway, watch this: I am going to make some premises and then show the logic based on them.

First premise, God exists, second premise God creates all things, now here is where the logic comes in; without things there can be no morality. So God creates all things, therefore God knows all things about all those things he created. That means God knows what is BEST for all those things he made, therefore God is in the position to be the arbiter of what is MORAL. That is LOGIC based on the premises. Now the premises are not PURE faith, the premises are based on EVIDENCE, which we have been discussing all that above, to which you have to further answer those next points I gave you.

If God is the arbiter of morality, then this is redundant.

I had said &#8220;God&#8217;s motivations are PURE GOOD. His laws are based on his character of goodness and love. He gives us commands FOR OUR GOOD, not to **** us off.&#8221; Now how is it redundant? Morality has a lot to do with motivations as well. And it has a lot to do with what is BEST, and to find out what is best takes KNOWLEDGE.

But your four reasons are bad reasons.

How are they bad reasons? All you have done is make assertions that there bad reasons, tell me how they are? I have just shown now how they are GOOD reasons. Show me how they&#8217;re not good; dismantle what I am saying by logic and reason and not by assertion alone.

That doesn't follow from what I asked. "God's wisdom" as a reason for holding up God as a moral authority implies that he bases his decisions on knowledge... i.e. things external to himself. If that's the case, then God isn't the arbiter of morality, he's just the one in the best position to see what "proper" morality is.

Well morality itself is not the authority of what morality is, that would be nuts to say that. That&#8217;s like saying to your kids &#8220;the rules are the authority in the house because they are the rules&#8221;. No, the rules are the authority because dad knows best and he is enforcing what is best and he can do that because he is dad, someone who is bigger then you&#8221;. God made all things, that includes us, therefore he KNOWS what is BEST for us, since he created us. Therefore he decides what morality will be. Why does he decide that? Because he created STUFF to be a certain WAY, and that WAY implies morality must go THIS way instead of THAT way (LOGIC). IF God created stuff to be DIFFERENT, then what would be BEST would be DIFFERENT then it is now, therefore morality would be DIFFERENT, and he would KNOW what best would be in that scenario, therefore God would be the arbiter of morality either way you look at it. And it would be based on logic through how he CREATED STUFF. The logic is based on knowledge of his own creation. First he knows what is BEST for his creation, that knowledge of what is best is the LOGIC, then he has the PURE motivations to ENFORCE what is best. Do you understand now?

I feel the issue is that you don&#8217;t TRUST God&#8217;s motivations, you think he is out to oppress you or something OR that you think he is STUPID and that you may know BETTER than him?

 

[Jollybear]

So all that stuff about God's wisdom and loving nature was irrelevant, wasn't it?

It&#8217;s funny how you took me out of context. You cherry picked from what I said. First here is what you said
&#8220;So... whatever God does, no matter how destructive, horrible or abhorrent, is automatically good simply because God did it?&#8221;
And then here is what I said in response
&#8220;Exactly, that is absolutely correct. However I want to mention something so there is no misunderstanding. There are different factors involved in each destructive situation. Let&#8217;s go all the way back to Adam and Eve, God said to them that the day they eat the fruit, they will die. And so they eat it and now they killed the whole human race by the growing old and dying curse that was implemented through there sin. Paul the apostle in the New Testament also confirms this. Also a curse came on the earth through there sin. Paul also confirms this as well. Now, that being said, is God DIRECTLY sending tornadoes and earthquakes and destruction on people? Well based on the CURSE that was implemented through sin, NO, God is not directly doing these destructive things. However SOMETIMES he WILL DIRECTLY send destructive judgment. But all of this must be evaluated case by case. So in some cases that destruction was brought on by Adam or OTHER people and sometimes it&#8217;s brought on directly by our own selves ALONE. And sometimes it&#8217;s brought on directly from God, in those cases that God directly does it, it is right.&#8221;

So all you picked from this was &#8220;exactly, that is absolutely correct&#8221; without recognizing the other parts which are vitally important. You need to address the whole thing I said. What I said here in it&#8217;s CONTEXT does NOT contradict or show to be irrelevant God&#8217;s wisdom and loving nature. God sends discipline because he loves. If you are a father don&#8217;t discipline your kids, how is that love? Your kids may hate you for it at the moment they are receiving the discipline from you, but it&#8217;s for their own good.

Basically it comes down to what I said before, you don&#8217;t trust God&#8217;s MOTIVATIONS, you think he is motivated to oppress you, and maybe this is combined with that you think you know BETTER than him, even though is the creator and knows everything there is possible to know about every situation down to the MINUTE details.

So, so far here is what I hear from you. You have more faith in chance then in that which is most plausible, and you have ZERO trust for God&#8217;s motives and you think you know better than him.

So far, that is what I gather from you.

Do you eat shrimp or cheeseburgers?

I don&#8217;t practice eating cheeseburgers, but I sometimes eat burgers (which I don&#8217;t consider sinful, or even BAD for my health) and I have eaten shrimp before, but I do not eat shrimp now. I try to eat as healthy as possible. And that is what the dietary laws in the Old Testament were really all about, was the people&#8217;s HEALTH. Again, God&#8217;s laws are ONLY for our GOOD, not to tick us off.

Every design comes with an instruction manual, God&#8217;s design also comes with an instruction manual (his laws).

Do you keep the Feast of Weeks?

I am going to show you how silly this question is.

First I am not in the position of power or wealth to enforce the feast of weeks (God understands that). Second, if others happen to be in a position of power and wealth to enforce it and it was in my local area, I would take part, but NOT because I am Jewish, but simply because it would be interesting. Thirdly JESUS is the fulfillment of all the festivals of sacrifices in the Old Testament. So, my trust is not in animal and grain sacrifices to atone for my sins, JESUS did that. IF however I was living in the day&#8217;s BEFORE Christ, I would then be VERY diligent in taking part in this festival, by ALL MEANS.

You thought you got me stumped by that one didn&#8217;t you? Well no didn&#8217;t.

Have you ever lit a fire on the Sabbath?

I can&#8217;t remember. But the Sabbath like all the laws was made for the peoples GOOD, not to oppress them. It was a day of REST. You know, take the day off, relax from all your hard work. If anything if this law was not there, THAT would be oppressive, you know, like work 7 days, never have a day off. The Sabbath does NOT mean you can&#8217;t MOVE. God forbid that you move your finger (oh my gosh, that took work). That is a complete misunderstanding of the laws. Jesus himself even corrected the Pharisees when they accused him and the disciples of crushing grain on the Sabbath. If making the fire was taking HOURS of long hard labor (you know, no matches back then) THEN that would be understandable, in other words, DON&#8217;T LITE THE FIRE if it&#8217;s too much work.

Also one commentary says it refers only to servile work for smiths or plumbers amongst slaves. So if the fire is EASY to make and is not BINDING on someone else, then it&#8217;s not wrong to light the fire. You have to capture the SPIRIT of the law. This you are MISSING.

Also back then making a fire WAS more laborious then it is today.

Also to show you a broader context within the bible where it is NOT against cooking over a fire on the Sabbath days, look at Exodus 12:15-16 it says they cannot work EXCEPT prepare food on Sabbath days. That means they must COOK it UNDER FIRE.

If this means what you think it means, then it would be against the law to flick my light switch on Saturday. How absurd that interpretation is.

So, you still did not get me. Good try though.

Which isn't what you asked for.

Then you misunderstood what I was asking for. I meant to convey to you where is consciousness source.

Right - so you do agree that parts of the brain light up with consciousness, which is exactly the thing you said that nobody had found.

No, you put words in my mouth there. I did not say they did not find parts in the brain that light up. I realize they have found that. But where is the SOURCE of consciousness. This is what I was trying to ask, perhaps I did not clarify it well enough. But hopefully it&#8217;s clear now. This you have not answered.

Why would that matter? Wouldn't it be about quality, not quantity? You've already asserted that there are evil spirits roaming the Earth, planting evidence for "false" religions. How can you conclude that Christianity isn't one of them?

The evidence for Christianity is quantity AND quality. As for false evidences planted by evil spirits, again you can DISTINGUISH the difference between the good from the bad. I already gave those tests to find that out.

Plus just think, God is going to make the weight of the evidence point in his direction. Which he has. Satan will try to blur it, and will do so successfully to those who don&#8217;t THINK CAREFULLY as they look at the evidence.

 

[Jollybear]

What good reason can you give to say that the "evidence" (poor as it is) for the Christian religion actually comes from God and not from, say, Loki, the Norse trickster-god, who's successfully managed to lead billions of people away from Odin?

Because I already showed you that polytheism (loki and odin) is not logically based. I demonstrated this already.

Let's not go through all of it; how about just the best. Pick the single piece of evidence that you think gives the best support for Christianity, and we'll discuss it.

Great, my favorite is (don&#8217;t know if it&#8217;s the BEST, there is many great ones amongst this subject of the resurrection) is the apostles DIED for their witness of Christ&#8217;s resurrection. No one dies for a KNOWN lie.

 

[Jollybear]

The_Voice_Of_Reason

I did not want to respond to your post because it addressed nothing to my arguments, nor did it make any good points. But I am going to address it anyway since all you want to do is BASH me instead of address things, which I don&#8217;t respect bashing, so I am going to put it in its grave RIGHT NOW.

To me I look at you as someone who is AFRAID, and that is WHY you have spoken these stupid and ignorant judgments toward me.

You seem to think that "science" is a single discipline. Do you understand the difference between a PhD from an accredited college, and one from Bob Jones University? Lastly, if you wish to assert that "there is a good number of them", then please, feel free to provide us with a list of these people. I'm sure you can Google up a list of "creationist scientists" on the internet. Be forewarned, though - those lists have some serious flaws in them.

Yes, I understand the difference between an accredited college and one that is not. Stephen C Meyer graduated at white worth university and it IS accredited. Also here is a whole LIST in this link A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science

I don't doubt that you have read many articles from sites such as Answers in Genesis, and other creationist strongholds.

Ok, here is just one of those stupid fearful statements of yours. You accuse me of not listening, yet you have done the very thing. Why not live up to your own rule in telling me to listen. Anyway, I just finished telling you that I have read stuff from BOTH sides. That means not JUST answers in genesis and other creationist websites. I have read articles from websites that YOU favor. Now if you doubt that, that is your judgment, and it&#8217;s a WRONG judgment at that. And not to mention, it&#8217;s COMPLETELY unnecessary because it does not help YOUR case, nor does it HELP me, NOR does it help any listeners. So why bothers mouthing off your ignorant FEARFUL judgments against me?

Just remain silent if you got to go down this path. Frankly I have ZERO respect for people like this. And I CERTAINLY WILL NOT listen to you if you go this road.

You don&#8217;t know me, so therefore your opinion or judgment of me is worth ZERO cents. It should also be worth zero cents to you as well.

It&#8217;s funny you even admitted that 9_10ths_panguin was a better man then you. I am glad you admitted that much. That is something CORRECT you said. But why be PROUD of it? Why not follow his example in being courteous? You like being the LESSER man? Makes you feel better to judge others you don&#8217;t know? Does it appease your fears?

What I don't think you understand is that the articles that they slather on their sites have been disproven and debunked.

Yea, well you can assert that till your blue in the face, DEMONSTRATE IT or keep silent.

They post those articles just for the purpose of feeding acolytes such as yourself, even though they KNOW that they have been rebutted.

They KNOW there is ATTEMPS of rebutting, but they know there articles have NOT been disproven. You are calling every creationist dishonest when you say this. Yea, well good luck with that one.

... and yes, that makes you ill informed.

This statement assumes I have not read both sides, to which I already told you that is not true, I have read both sides. So I am NOT ill informed and I am NOT STUPID to realize that your worldview is NOT PROVEN.

 

[Jollybear]

That is exactly what members like 9/10's are doing. Unfortunately for them, you are not even listening to what they have to share with you, nor do you intend to.

Again, this is another stupid judgment on your part and is a wrong judgment at that. I am listening to every single thing you said and he said. I have responded to everything he spoke. THAT in itself PROVES that I have LISTENED to every word he said to me. Now if you mean listen as in AGREE, NO I DON&#8217;T agree and I have said why I don&#8217;t. But as for listening, by my definition of listening, I indeed have listened. But I don&#8217;t AGREE. And I keep on INTENDING to listen to further responses if he gives further responses.

Unfortunately for you, you show strong signs of being pathologically incapable of even trying to learn. C'est la vie.

So that is another way of saying I am mentally ill and that is why I can&#8217;t learn. Your something else man.

I am fully convinced that people who use these kinds of judgments are nothing but cowards to the FULLNESS.

I gauss every other creationist is mentally ill too right? Or is it just me? If there all mentally ill, how do you know that? Also if it&#8217;s just me, how do you know that?

Instead of making stupid WRONG judgments, prove them. All your doing is displaying seething cowardice.

Because you are not listening, and you have no itention of starting now.

Man, it&#8217;s YOU that is not listening, I TOLD YOU I am not AGREEING, but not agreeing does not = not listening. I AM listening, I am proving that by responding to every single word your all saying to me. That PROVES I am listening. But I am NOT agreeing. And I am being courteous by telling you WHY I don&#8217;t agree.

You are correct on this point. My judgements are just judgements. They are based on your reactions to information that you find uncomfortable.

It&#8217;s not the information that I find uncomfortable, I am not afraid of information, I am not afraid of the truth. It&#8217;s that I don&#8217;t AGREE with your information and my disagreement is from HONEST motives. I don&#8217;t care if you don&#8217;t understand that, it&#8217;s a fact whether you like it not.

They are based on your unwillingness to examine your own position.

My unwillingness to examine my own position? Wow. Let me say two things to this. I am NOT an agnostic, ok? I don&#8217;t sit on the fence. Secondly, I get OTHERS to examine my position by reading articles that take a different position and by debating CIVILLY with other people who disagree with me. So yes in that sense I examine my own position. But I don&#8217;t ARGUE against my own position, because then it would no longer by my position! If however these other articles or people convince me that my position is wrong, then I will CHANGE positions.

They are based on your complete misunderstanding of statistics, science, and logic.

Yea you can assert that all you want, I don&#8217;t believe it. SHOW me or be silent.

 

[Jollybear]

I AM judging you - and I find you to be devoid of intellectual honesty.

Yea, well I find YOU to be devoid of intellectual honesty because you say this, which I consider a COP OUT from dealing with the issues in a HELPFUL and meaningful way. So by you saying I am devoid of intellectual honesty, THAT in itself to me is intellectual dishonesty. I consider you a coward. But, I&#8217;m sure that does not help you very much, it probably makes you more angry then anything, or dumb founded. But regardless, nothing of this is helping me, NOR you, is it? So why bother going down this road? Why?

This is the biggest question I have for you right now. WHY bother going down this road? WHY is going down this tension road GOOD to you? WHAT is the benefit of it?

Why, indeed? Only you can answer that. It is you that is paying lip service to your efforts to learn, not me. You aren't really learning anything. You are simply ignoring mountains of evidence and spouting the talking points that others have put out for you.

Look, I read other viewpoints that I disagree with. That shows I am not afraid of learning. So if I was afraid of learning, why would I read stuff I disagree with? Answer the question for me, since you like to judge so much. It&#8217;s funny how you judged my motives to high heaven, yet when I ask you to judge them further by asking the question &#8220;why do I read other stuff I disagree with if in fact I am afraid of learning&#8221; yet to this question you respond by saying you don&#8217;t know. So you refuse to judge me in that regard but choose to judge me in the other areas. Why do you cherry pick which area you choose to judge me? If you don&#8217;t know the answer to this question, how do you know your actual judgments are correct?

People like you disgust me so much. Yet I do understand that it&#8217;s people like you that need the MOST love.

Fine. Believe as you will. Just be honest with yourself, and admit that you believe as you do (in the Biblical version of events) based solely on your faith.

No, I have faith based on strong evidence and the most plausibility, you have faith based on faith and the most implausibility. And when I say that, I am being honest and I REALLY mean that.

You do yourself an injustice when you try to subvert science in an effort to justify your beliefs.

You use science to subvert in an effort to justify your belief in chance creating this universe. How are you any different? The only difference is that my view is MORE plausible then yours. The weight of the evidence points in my favor and NOT yours.

 

[Jollybear]

There, I am done posting, read it all carefully and respond. Read it ALL BEFORE you respond though, otherwise you will be responding to the same stuff repeatedly. Read it, understand it, then respond.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There, I am done posting, read it all carefully and respond. Read it ALL BEFORE you respond though, otherwise you will be responding to the same stuff repeatedly. Read it, understand it, then respond.

:sleep: