The battle of evolution vs creationism

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Even if every Gospel started out with "I am Matthew/John/Mark/Luke, and I approve this message", skeptics would/could say "how do we know that they actually wrote it, anyone could of wrote it and attached their names to it. When does it stop?

Second, two of the alleged authors weren't even disciples. If names were going to be attached to the authorship, why not say that Peter wrote Mark's gospel, instead of saying that Mark disciple of Peter wrote the Gospel? Why not say that Paul wrote the Gospel, instead of saying that Paul's physician Luke wrote it?? Paul and Peter's name holds more credibility than Luke and Mark. Why not attach more prominent names to the books? Unless you are just simply telling it like it is...which is exactly what they did. They told the truth.

Besides the fact that no transcripts even have an attached name to any of the gospels?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, when you said:

"It is true based on the BACKGROUND evidence that corroborates the events."

You didn't mean that either?

Which is it? Is corroboration required to ascertain truth value, or isn't it?

The assertion is that Jesus rose from the dead. That claim is corroborated based on background historical evidence that is best explained by the assertion being actually true.

I'm not playing favourites. We're discussing Jesus, not Alexander the Great. You currently have no idea whatsoever with regards to my opinion on the historicity of Alexander the Great, so bringing him up is irrelevant.

Still missing the point, huh. The point is you keep saying things happened 100 years after the fact so it can't be trusted. All I have to do is point out other cases at which there were 100 years (or longer) after the fact, just like Alexander the Great, and if these cases are accepting by historians as reliable, then there is absolutely no reason why Jesus isn't accepting. But this is irrelevant anyway, due to the fact that the sources covering Jesus isn't 100 years after the fact, and historians already accept the fact that Jesus is a historical figure.

You are committing the taxi-cab fallacy, my friend.

I'd just like to point at out this stage that you are willing to go with the majority consensus of experts on this issue and not on the issue of evolution. Talk about playing favourites.

Well, if there is a position that both believers AND skeptics generally agree on by the vast majority, then I am willing to listen. Second, there is a difference in historical evidence and empirical evidence, and I reject evolution as a science.

This isn't really much confirmation. Is there anything else which corroborates these dates?

We also have sources that are earlier than the Gospels, such as the letters of Paul, and the Q source. Paul states in 1 Corin 15:4 the creed which was handed down to him by the disciples themselves. Those events are said to have occurred no later than 10 years after the Resurrection. So again, all of the letters of Paul predate the Gospels, and so does the Q source.

Actually, half a century very much is a long time after the fact for people to have suddenly started writing about it, and it more or less confirms that any accounts given in the text themselves will be at least second or third hand accounts.

50 years is not a long time at all. The assassination of JFK occurred almost 51 years ago, and the incident is still being talked about...television shows continue to make documentations about it...and there are people that were alive during that time that can be interviewed about what they saw. Hell, in one documentary regarding the assassination had one of the young fellows that was standing in the crowd when JFK was rushed to the hospital. This fellow, obviously older now, was interviewed and remembered vividly the gore that he observed looking at the vehicle JFK was in, and this happened 50 years ago.

Confirm this?

The second century church testify as to who wrote what in their writings. There is no reason to lie about who wrote the Gospels, especially if you have one less prominent disciple in Matthew, one disciple of Peter in Mark, and a physician (Luke) of a newly converted former skeptic in Paul . The apostle John is the only prominent guy in this foursome. What is there to gain by saying that these lesser known gentleman wrote Gospels involving the newly and growing religion of Christianity?

So none of Jesus' supposed 5,000 followers thought to write any of what they witnessed down? Was Jesus a wandering messiah or a lesser-known political figure at the time?

Jesus wasn't a political figure. Remember when the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by asking him about paying taxes to Ceasar? He didn't come on earth to overthrow the Roman Empire or anything like that. That wasn't the purpose, and Jesus even told some of the people not to tell anyone about what they saw.

As far as no one writing anything down, hey, if I saw David Blaine downtown wowing the audience with his street magic, I am not going to write a book about it.

So, what you're saying is that it isn't necessary to have direct, observational evidence of an event occurring in order to establish that the event occurred? Interesting.

We have direct, observational evidence. You ever heard of the Apostle Paul?

Then you're being unreasonable, which I'm not being by demanding contemporary evidence of a man who supposedly went around performing miracles with 5,000 followers and who came back to life from the dead.

You claim that reptiles changed to birds, yet I am being unreasonable?

 

[averageJOE]

We have direct, observational evidence. You ever heard of the Apostle Paul?

The Apostle Paul directly observed a guy named Adam being created from dirt?

 

[McBell]

The Apostle Paul directly observed a guy named Adam being created from dirt?

Huh?
I thought he was saying that the Apostle Paul directly observed God create the kinds....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The Apostle Paul directly observed a guy named Adam being created from dirt?

No, but he said he observed the risen Jesus after his death.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Actually I'm not. Though I would like to know what you have seen being brought into existence and what caused it. I'll bet you've never seen "something come from something". We have only observed change rather than creation. So we are ignorant of what causes creation.

So just as I expected, you are obviously falling victim to the infinity absurdity as most people do that want to reject the notion of a first cause. I will leave you to your absurdities.

By all means present the modal ontological argument and explain how it is except from the points that I presented.

Dont mind if I do.

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists

3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds

4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world

5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.

6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.

And you have to make the argument that it is NOT physical. And that our experiences and such are non-physical. This is required to claim truth. You don't "know". You have no evidence supporting your statements. Ergo it is an argument from ignorance. So I don't have to prove you wrong.

So if your brain and your mind are the same thing...when you are happy, are you happy, or is your brain happy? When you are sad...are you sad, or is your brain sad? If you woke up and you found yourself in the body of your dog, yet your human body is still in the bed; are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed??? If something is true for your brain, but not true for your mind, then they can't be the same thing, can they? Please answer these questions.

You've set up a false premis. Your using an engineered item specifically to front you cause. Its far better to use another analogy such as a waterfall or a river. The exact course of the river is astronomically rare. However in shape or another a river will form if water is introduced. Would you say the river is "finely tuned" no matter which shape it takes? And I don't mean the water content but the shape of the river specifically. Do you think that the shape of the Mississippi River was fine tuned?

How the river is shaped would be dependent upon pre-causal factors. The shaped is determined by pre-causal factors. On naturalism, there WERE no pre-causal factors that would have "determined" the parameters for human life. And if you think there were, then you are falling right back in to the problem of infinity. If the universe started as a singularity (or whatever), you wouldn't get the kind of low entropy that is needed to make life permissible.

It is not faulty logic. You made the claim that the universe is finely tuned for life. I have made the case it isn't. In fact it is so demonstrably false that it is "fine tuned" for life that it is nearly infinitely more dangerous than it it supportive. If someone were to "fine tune" the universe to support life then it why is the majority of it not?

So If I have 500 acres of land, and build a house on that land which covers only 250 acres of land...the other 250 acres is just flat out land, right? So based on your logic, that would mean that my house on the first 250 acres is not fine tuned just because the other half of the land is vacant? Faulty logic.

Why is such an astronomically (litteral usage of the word) small amount of it livable? Hell even this tiny spec of dust we call the earth has scant few places that are livable.

I don't know. On judgement day, ask God "why was only a small amount of the universe livable".

the amount of brainwashing you went through must have been one hell of a process.

Yeah, birds came from reptiles, but I am the one that is brain washed lol.

I am uniquely familiar with the concept and I am uniquely familiar with the reason why its total bull. But if any of those 30 were different how do we know that a different kind of life couldn't exist? Or that the chances of it happening is almost guranteed in the sheer vastness of the universe?

Once again, we could of built the space shuttle in different ways, I am sure. But that does not change the fact that the space shuttle that we actually built itself is fine tuned.

If we needed a machine to print out the exact sequence of 11000222001100111110001000112002002020020030020120101200202020101020230300003230232334556345245663465123622342626361134236256457452252234234523636 to support life then the odds would be crazy to get that exact sequence. HOWEVER if we had the machine print out enough sequences then it would in fact eventually happen.

No because you don't get that many rolls of the dice. That is what you fail to realize. There was only one chance, and it had to be right the first time. I understand that you would love to have an infinite amount of rolls of the dice to help increase your chances of getting a fine tuned universe, but that just simply isn't the case. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but you only had one shot to get it right.

What part of that don't you understand?

The part that people think that intelligence can come from nonintelligence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So just as I expected, you are obviously falling victim to the infinity absurdity as most people do that want to reject the notion of a first cause. I will leave you to your absurdities.

I have claimed nothing. So I can't be accused ob absurdity. You however can. How do you know there was a first cause? What evidence is there?

Dont mind if I do.

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists

3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds

4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world

5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.

6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.

How do you know its possible? That is your first mistake. We don't "know" if its possible to have a god. If there is no god then there was never a chance for a god.

So you have to provide evidence that there is reason to believe its "possible" rather than pure ignorance of the subjectmater. For example if I have a box and I say god is that box and its "possible" for god to be in the box then by your logic there will ALWAYS be god in that box. I just opened my shoebox and there was no god in it.

This disproves your entire modal argument.

So if your brain and your mind are the same thing...when you are happy, are you happy, or is your brain happy? When you are sad...are you sad, or is your brain sad? If you woke up and you found yourself in the body of your dog, yet your human body is still in the bed; are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed??? If something is true for your brain, but not true for your mind, then they can't be the same thing, can they? Please answer these questions.

When you are sad it is actually chemical reactions affecting the nerves in your brain. So yes it is your "brain". There is no "you" apart from your brain in terms of consciousness. Its why brain damage is such an extreme problem. All your memories, personality and everything else that makes you "you" is in your brain.

As far as we know its impossible for mind's to switch like this. So your analogy has no meaning whatsoever. If you have a specific case of someone switching minds with a dog and being believable then we can talk.

How the river is shaped would be dependent upon pre-causal factors. The shaped is determined by pre-causal factors. On naturalism, there WERE no pre-causal factors that would have "determined" the parameters for human life. And if you think there were, then you are falling right back in to the problem of infinity. If the universe started as a singularity (or whatever), you wouldn't get the kind of low entropy that is needed to make life permissible.

*sigh*
You don't know how it happened. I don't know how it happened. The naturalistic, scientific, atheistic and logical positions (all of them independent of each other btw) all say "we don't know". There does not need to be an answer. You have put in a made up answer to try and satisfy a question. I and others like me will not sully our integrity and feign knowledge when we are so draped in ignorance on the subject.

So If I have 500 acres of land, and build a house on that land which covers only 250 acres of land...the other 250 acres is just flat out land, right? So based on your logic, that would mean that my house on the first 250 acres is not fine tuned just because the other half of the land is vacant? Faulty logic.

There you go again. If you said that the entire of your neighborhood was fine tuned for life and all but a single blade of grass was covered in lava or toxic waste I would say that it is in fact not fine tuned for life by any leap of logic.

You may twist it any way you like but this remains true.

I don't know. On judgement day, ask God "why was only a small amount of the universe livable".

Nah. I'll just be dead.

Yeah, birds came from reptiles, but I am the one that is brain washed lol.

No no your right. What was I thinking? The world is 6 thousand years old and the universe was created with a size greater than we can ever understand and we are the only speck in it that the all seeing, all knowning creator created just for us so that we can be his buddies in the afterlife and all this information was unlocked by some Jews 2-5 thousand years ago in the middle of the desert when they didn't even know that the earth rotated around the sun.

And every other civilization that has created a god concept of at least equal validity and evidence is just "wrong" and full of crap.

Yeah I'm the delusional one.

Once again, we could of built the space shuttle in different ways, I am sure. But that does not change the fact that the space shuttle that we actually built itself is fine tuned.

Explain an example of a universe that is not fine tuned.

No because you don't get that many rolls of the dice. That is what you fail to realize. There was only one chance, and it had to be right the first time. I understand that you would love to have an infinite amount of rolls of the dice to help increase your chances of getting a fine tuned universe, but that just simply isn't the case. Sorry to break the bad news to you, but you only had one shot to get it right.

How do you know this? How do you know there are not multiple universes?

Though this was not about the universe as a whole but that the universe as vast as it is would, will and does support life in extremely rare pockets. And that rare as it might be its not impossible or even improbable.

The part that people think that intelligence can come from nonintelligence.

Really? Your non-living atoms that make up your body and the electrons that pass along neuro messages to allow you to think, create memories, move your body and run your senses (all non-living) that create everything that "you" are is somehow unbelievable to think that it originated from the same compounds that you are?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists

3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds

4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world

5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.

6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.

2 is false since a MGB entails contradictory attributes; there is no possible world such that a MGB, defined along these lines, exists. Certain maximal properties exclude certain others (trivially, maximal hotness and maximal coldness), and maximal virtues no less (maximal justice and maximal forgiveness, maximal courage and maximal prudence, etc etc); no one entity could logically possess them all.

3 is question-begging. 4, 5 and 6 redundant.

In other words, if one was teaching an introductory modal logic course and wanted an example of just a terrible deductive argument, this would make an excellent candidate- there aren't very many more ways for an argument to stumble. This is what we call "an epic fail".

And BTW, this is more for MoR's, and other posters', benefit than CotW's, since he's proven neither willing nor able to understand the force of the objections to Plantinga's laughable demonstration. Consider this your update on contemporary phil of relg.

 

[johnhanks]

Yeah, birds came from reptiles, but I am the one that is brain washed lol.

Yes, birds did indeed evolve from dinosaurian ancestors: do you recall being completely unable to tell me where exactly among "feathered reptile" fossils we might find the boundary between birds and non-birds? Wishbone / no wishbone? Pygostyle / no pygostyle? Teeth / no teeth? Lol indeed.

You may also remember asking several days ago in another thread that someone might

...explain to me how can a dog that is alive today every get to the point of producing a non-dog. Explain to me how can that happen??

You even added

I will patiently wait.

Well Call your patience wasn't tested too severely - a lucid explanation was posted within five hours. Why have you seemingly lost all interest in a question you yourself raised?

 

[cottage]

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists

3. If a MGB exists in one possible world, a MGB exists in all possible worlds

4. If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, a MGB exist in this world

5. If a MGB exists in this world, a MGB exists in reality.

6. Therefore, a MGB exist in reality. God exists in reality.

1. There is a Supreme Entity defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, intrinsically indifferent towards creation, and necessarily existent.

2. There is a possible world in which the SE exists

3. If the SE exists in one possible world, then the SE exists in all possible worlds

4. If the SE exists all possible worlds, then the SE exists in this possible world

5. If the SE exists in this world, then the SE exists in reality

6. If one omni-being cannot be superior to the other, and two omn-beings cannot exist together, then both are impossible; therefore there are no omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent necessary beings.


Conclusion: There are no MGBs or SEs existing in reality

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I have claimed nothing. So I can't be accused ob absurdity. You however can. How do you know there was a first cause? What evidence is there?

When you claim there is no first cause, then infinite regression is the default position. Or didn't you know that, smart guy?

How do you know its possible? That is your first mistake. We don't "know" if its possible to have a god. If there is no god then there was never a chance for a god.

The concept of a MGB is logically sound/valid. Any anything that does not defy logic and reason is possible.

So you have to provide evidence that there is reason to believe its "possible" rather than pure ignorance of the subjectmater.

Explain to me how the concept of a MGB defies logic and reason. If you can't, then admit that it is possible for God to exist.

For example if I have a box and I say god is that box and its "possible" for god to be in the box then by your logic there will ALWAYS be god in that box. I just opened my shoebox and there was no god in it.

It is possible for God to be inside a box, if that is the way he chooses to manifest himself.

This disproves your entire modal argument.

No it doesn't but it is funny that you think it does.

When you are sad it is actually chemical reactions affecting the nerves in your brain. So yes it is your "brain".

So your brain is sad?? Ok, so if how you feel is solely determined by chemical reactions in your brain, then how do you have free will? If you commit a crime, you committed this action based on the chemicals in your brain...so how are you responsible for your actions?

There is no "you" apart from your brain in terms of consciousness. Its why brain damage is such an extreme problem. All your memories, personality and everything else that makes you "you" is in your brain.

I will ask again, if you woke up and found yourself in the body of your dog, but your human body remained in the bed...who are you? Are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

As far as we know its impossible for mind's to switch like this. So your analogy has no meaning whatsoever. If you have a specific case of someone switching minds with a dog and being believable then we can talk.

You are right, "as far as we know"...and we "know" very little. Now you can sit there and tell me how impossible it is and not answer the question...fine...but that would only would lead me to believe that you won't answer because regardless of what answer you give, it won't help your position, so its better to play it safe by denying the impossibility altogether.

*sigh*
You don't know how it happened. I don't know how it happened. The naturalistic, scientific, atheistic and logical positions (all of them independent of each other btw) all say "we don't know". There does not need to be an answer. You have put in a made up answer to try and satisfy a question. I and others like me will not sully our integrity and feign knowledge when we are so draped in ignorance on the subject.

Sorry, but saying "we don't know" just won't cut it. We do know that either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't have a beginning, and to negate one is to grant the other. But I won't get in to all of that. Not worth it.

There you go again. If you said that the entire of your neighborhood was fine tuned for life and all but a single blade of grass was covered in lava or toxic waste I would say that it is in fact not fine tuned for life by any leap of logic.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth it.

Explain an example of a universe that is not fine tuned.

A universe that isn't fine tuned would be one at which there would be no intelligent human beings to say "explain an example of a universe that is not fine tuned".

How do you know this? How do you know there are not multiple universes?

Give me reasons to conclude that there are other universes outside of our own and I will consider it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Who said we have Free Will?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

2 is false since a MGB entails contradictory attributes;

Here we go again..

there is no possible world such that a MGB, defined along these lines, exists. Certain maximal properties exclude certain others (trivially, maximal hotness and maximal coldness)

Nothing can ever be maximally hot or maximally cold.

, and maximal virtues no less (maximal justice and maximal forgiveness, maximal courage and maximal prudence, etc etc); no one entity could logically possess them all.

No one entity needs to possess them all. First of all, those virtues have nothing to do with at least three of the four omni's. Ominbenevolence (OMB) is what is attacked here.

1. Maximal Justice: What does this mean?

2. Maximal Forgiveness: This contradicts ominbenevolence for the simple fact that included in the attribute is justice/discipline. Christians believe that God's omnibenevolence makes him a perfect judge and disciplinarian, and you can't be a perfect judge and disciplinarian if you don't discipline immoral beings as needed.

3. Maximal courage: Why would one need maximal courage if there isn't anything to be feared? God does not fear anything or anyone.

4. Maximal prudence: Wouldn't that be omniscience?

3 is question-begging. 4, 5 and 6 redundant.

In other words, if one was teaching an introductory modal logic course and wanted an example of just a terrible deductive argument, this would make an excellent candidate- there aren't very many more ways for an argument to stumble. This is what we call "an epic fail".

And BTW, this is more for MoR's, and other posters', benefit than CotW's, since he's proven neither willing nor able to understand the force of the objections to Plantinga's laughable demonstration. Consider this your update on contemporary phil of relg.

If anyone wants to see enaidealukal (amongst others) get intellectually whooped on this argument, just go to the Ontological Argument thread I created a few months back.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. There is a Supreme Entity defined as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, intrinsically indifferent towards creation, and necessarily existent.

Before I dissect this argument, I don't know what "intrinsically indifferent towards creation" means. Explain that to me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Who said we have Free Will?

If we don't have free will, then there is no accountability for our actions, and all those in prison should be set free.

 

[idav]

Dont mind if I do.

1. The Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as an ominscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenveolent being. God is also defined as a supernatural first cause, a cause that is eternal and necessary it his existence. We will call this being a maximally great being (MGB)

2. There is a possible world at which a MGB exists.

It doesn't even get passed 2 because it isn't necessarily even possible that a MGB exists. We have no proof that the supernatural is even possible.

And no the resurrection is not proof of the supernatural.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If we don't have free will, then there is no accountability for our actions, and all those in prison should be set free.

Not really.

It's a common argument that you cannot be held accountable for your actions because you were pre-programed to do them, but the thing is you still did them, and the people holding you accountable are pre-programmed to do so as well.

 

[Falvlun]

If we don't have free will, then there is no accountability for our actions, and all those in prison should be set free.

The bolded part doesn't follow. Even without accountability, protection from undesirable societal elements is still desirable. Plus, it is possible that fear of punishment is something that could cause someone to avoid committing a crime. If we remove the punishment, crime might go up, just on a cause-and-effect basis.

(A free-will debate isn't probably appropriate for this thread. Just wanted to throw that out there, and if you want to pursue it further, we can create a new thread. For the record, I'm a free-will believer, anyway. )

 

[Parsimony]

Even if there was no freewill, we'd still have to enforce laws and punishments or society would fall into chaos. It's a necessity for stability. I doubt there are many (if any) determinists who believe that everyone should have a "get out of jail free card" for this reason.

 

[idav]

Even if there was no freewill, we'd still have to enforce laws and punishments or society would fall into chaos. It's a necessity for stability. I doubt there are many (if any) determinists who believe that everyone should have a "get out of jail free card" for this reason.

In a society where everyone has freewill, it means we also have the freewill to take someone elses freedoms away. That's where are freewill is limited is when pitted against someone elses contradictory plans.