The plight of atheism, is this why the incessant arguing?

[blü 2]

I agree, abiogenesis can and will never be confirmed. You speak of the "sterility" of ID, but how much have considered it ?

More than many creos, I dare say, since I've read and tried to understand both sides. The kindest thing I can say about ID is that its basic premise is untrue, and that its 'scientific' advocates like Meyer, Dembski &c know full well it's antiscience.

Have you looked at it from the cosmological point ? The absolute and virtually impossible chain of events that created an earth specifically designed for life (oops I said it). How about the numerous and specific studies by statisticians and those who work in the laws of probability about this occurrence ?

If the odds against a self-reproducing cell forming by chance are, let's say, one in 100 sextillion (10^23), then since we guesstimate there are comfortably more than 100 septillion (10^26) planets in the universe, such a cell is dang near a certainty.

How about the studies conducted of certain organisms that identify quandaries that the theory evolution can't explain ?

They were all lined up at the Dover trial as evidence of 'irreducible complexity'. Every one of them was explained in terms of evolution (by exaptation, to be precise). That cupboard is bare.

... he does not see darwinism, and abiogenesis as reasonable and scientifically verified theories.

He's a creo, isn't he. The ICR plays the music and he dances along.

To me then the issue spills over into such things as philosophy and theology and logic.

I'll debate you on theology when someone can give me a definition of 'god' useful to reasoned enquiry ─ so that we know what we're talking about, what we're looking for, and how, if we find one, to show it's an authentic example.

These being very straightforward questions about reality (rather than the realms of pure imagination), how come no one can put me straight about them? If I say theologists have no idea what they're talking about, that would be a fair statement of the position, wouldn't it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you sick or what? My grandfather died of alcohol and i have lost close friends to drugs. Your accusations are baseless and ignorant, only made because you are not clever enough to work out simple multiplication maths

AND WHEN DID I EVER WRITE "E=MC^2 shows God cannot in the future have worshipers in Heaven?" Show me where i wrote that or admit you are not telling the truth.

I said that E=MC^2 shows the god of revelation 19:6 kjv cannot exist in this universe.

Hi Christine,

The rest of your post was as bizarre, therefore the question. Revelation 19:6 says, "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

Please explain how E=MC^2 explains how God or angles cannot make loud sounds.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, non sequitur.

But, I don't think logic or reasoning will change your view. Perhaps this is something you would have to experience.

Cheers

Impossible, since logic and reasoning changed me from skeptic to believer. Also, I'm open-minded, indeed, Jesus's very definitions of truth seeking indicate believers are more open-minded and reasonable than non-believers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No two of you can agree about what it is that you are seeing, which is why atheists tend to believe that you are seeing a part of your own mind, misinterpreting what it is, and projecting it onto the world.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical and are thus indistinguishable to me. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people like you that tell me that God is obvious, or as you worded it, self-evident, and how I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds. They describe multiple gods with multiple personalities, each of which happens to think just like they do.

An interesting concept you have. I like your sharp thinking. You honestly clearly have some deep thoughts on these matters.

My response would include "Clearly God loves diversity in the creation and human minds are wondrous creations."

It should be encouraging, not dissuading, that God is a God who responds to ones individually, just as they need.

Further, while the fact that most people find God self-evident is something I find persuasive, I find it more persuasive that the Bible gives great insight on human behavior and thinking, along with fulfilled prophecy, encouragement and love.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Weren't you just complaining that atheists are disrespectful for "assaulting" the ideas of believers? That describes your posting behavior pretty well.



There you go again. What respect do you think you deserve? I'd say much less than you're getting. Everybody posting to you has been more polite than you are to them.



LOL. You can't stop arguing. Why do you incessantly argue?

Is you response to me, arguing that I incessantly argue, not an argument you are making, incessantly?

But seriously, I have great respect for open-minded atheists, like you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I made it clear that imaginary gods give me no trouble. I don't dispute that people imagine gods all the time.

I'm asking you to tell me what a non-imaginary god is, how I'd know one if I encountered one, since, as I said, I don't know. That's not a joke, by the way. I see no way in which such a thing could exist but you apparently can.

Please enlighten me.

It isn't self-evident to me. And alas, your personal opinion, to which you're completely entitled, is not evidence.

Thank you for sharing that if one million people jumped off a ledge, you still wouldn't (as the overwhelmingly majority of persons find God self-evident within). I admire your mental resolve and toughness. I was the same way--it was VERY, VERY difficult to convince me about Jesus as a zealous Jew and as a sometime skeptic of God, too.

To answer your question, when you encounter God, respond with trusting Jesus for knowledge and direction. That is your best response. Jesus said He will draw all persons unto Himself. Your time shall surely come.

 

[Curious George]

Impossible, since logic and reasoning changed me from skeptic to believer. Also, I'm open-minded, indeed, Jesus's very definitions of truth seeking indicate believers are more open-minded and reasonable than non-believers.

I simply meant that I hope you can experience in person the care and respect another can have for you despite your views. And I would hope you learn to love and respect others depite theirs, since it is such a foreign concept to you.

Cheers

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

You can be sorry as you want, there are literally millions of websites that say I'm right, and as far ad i can see, none that say I'm wrong.

where does the bible say god is o!nipotent - Recherche Google

 

[ChristineM]

Hi Christine,

The rest of your post was as bizarre, therefore the question. Revelation 19:6 says, "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

Please explain how E=MC^2 explains how God or angles cannot make loud sounds.

What has sound to do with omnipotence?

Omnipotence = infinite power

Power = energy expended over time

E=mc2 shows that energy cannot be infinite.

 

[shmogie]

You can be sorry as you want, there are literally millions of websites that say I'm right, and as far ad i can see, none that say I'm wrong.

where does the bible say god is o!nipotent - Recherche Google

God is omnipotent. You are now confusing omnipotence with omniscience. Take a deep breath and try and decide exactly what it is you are talking about

 

[blü 2]

when you encounter God, respond with trusting Jesus for knowledge and direction. That is your best response. Jesus said He will draw all persons unto Himself. Your time shall surely come.

I don't understand your answer. I've already agreed that people imagine gods all the time. I'm talking about real ones ─ ones with objective existence. Only then can I answer the rest of your question.

So in the real world : What entity or thing is Jesus? A 2000 yo man? Something else? What? Do you have photos or videos? What life-systems keep him going? Where should we look for him? If we need anything more than a video camera, what do we need and why? How can the identity of this entity be confirmed as Jesus?

 

[blü 2]

God is omnipotent. You are now confusing omnipotence with omniscience. Take a deep breath and try and decide exactly what it is you are talking about

If I'm omnipotent, then I can have omniscience (and omnipresence, and perfection, and weekends off) at the snap of my omnipotent fingers, no?

If I can't, I'm not omnipotent.

 

[shmogie]

If I'm omnipotent, then I can have omniscience (and omnipresence, and perfection, and weekends off) at the snap of my omnipotent fingers, no?

If I can't, I'm not omnipotent.

Power, and knowing what hasn't occurred have no relation to one another. That is why there is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence

 

[shmogie]

More than many creos, I dare say, since I've read and tried to understand both sides. The kindest thing I can say about ID is that its basic premise is untrue, and that its 'scientific' advocates like Meyer, Dembski &c know full well it's antiscience.

If the odds against a self-reproducing cell forming by chance are, let's say, one in 100 sextillion (10^23), then since we guesstimate there are comfortably more than 100 septillion (10^26) planets in the universe, such a cell is dang near a certainty.
They were all lined up at the Dover trial as evidence of 'irreducible complexity'. Every one of them was explained in terms of evolution (by exaptation, to be precise). That cupboard is bare.
He's a creo, isn't he. The ICR plays the music and he dances along.
I'll debate you on theology when someone can give me a definition of 'god' useful to reasoned enquiry ─ so that we know what we're talking about, what we're looking for, and how, if we find one, to show it's an authentic example.

These being very straightforward questions about reality (rather than the realms of pure imagination), how come no one can put me straight about them? If I say theologists have no idea what they're talking about, that would be a fair statement of the position, wouldn't it?

No, the fair statement is YOU have no idea what you are talking about., You play fast and loose with the facts, make them up as you go along, and are sarcastic and arrogant in the bargain. Your factual credibility with me is very low, your ego quotient with yourself is very high. Consequently, I will make little effort to respond to you, and I will never take your pap as relevant to much of anything.

 

[shmogie]

Certainly enough to know that it has generated no useful ideas. If you disagree, please nae a useful idea from ID and how it has improved the human condition.



I'm familiar with arguments of that natures. Hoyle's fallacy is the best known example.



Yes.



Evolution is settled science. Abiogenesis is a different matter.



Then tell us what that is.

Macro evolution is FAR from settled science, and you believing it is is unnerving when you say you are up to date on the sciences. Hoyle is ancient history. There is a whole body of work using methods and information that Hoyle never imagined. Things move on, more information is gathered all the time, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, having a closed mind and eschewing modern data

 

[shmogie]

So what? The Bible never says "omnipresent," "omnibenovolent," or "triune," yet they're all characteristics ascribed to god by almost all Christians.

As for god's omniscience, it's indicated in several passages.

om·nis·cience
ämˈniSH(ə)ns,ämˈnisēəns/
noun
noun: omniscience
the state of knowing everything.
​

1 John 3:20
for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Psalm 139:4
You know what I’m going to say long before I say it. It is true, Eternal One, that You know everything and everyone.

Job 37:16
Do you know how the clouds hang in the sky? Do you know the miracles of God, who knows everything?

Hebrews 4:13
“Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account”

.​

.

God knows everything that has occurred. He know's his created beings as well as possible, and can predict behavior based upon that knowledge. There is nothing that has occurred that cannot be known by God. All your verses fit within this paragraph. It doesn't describe omniscience, try again

 

[shmogie]

Noted.

It might be advantageous to re-examine them before then, particularly on how well the bible, read in a straightforward way, accords with reality ─ they really did think the earth was flat, for example ─ but that of course is a matter for you.

The Bible nowhere describes a flat earth, for example. I have no need to re examine my beliefs, I was once as you, and am satisfied that. I am not any longer. non living chemicals cannot not create a living organism, that is reality. A universe cannot create itself from nothing, that is reality. You would tell a child that a magician cannot create a ball from nothing, but you accept everything that is created, created itself, from nothing. Yet, you talk about reality. Cosmologists and physicists are looking at the possibility multiple universes in different dimensions existing right along side us, yet unseen. Could you believe such a theory if promoted by leaders in these fields with equations ( some exist already) that seem to verify these multiverses ? Yet, no doubt you scoff at Paul when he speaks of powers, principalities and princes unseen. Get real.

 

[blü 2]

Power, and knowing what hasn't occurred have no relation to one another. That is why there is omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence

So omnipotence doesn't mean omnipotence, you say? It merely means being able to do some things and not others.

What's the full list of things your omnipotent god can't do?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hi Christine,

The rest of your post was as bizarre, therefore the question. Revelation 19:6 says, "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

Please explain how E=MC^2 explains how God or angles cannot make loud sounds.

Oh I get it! Angles and noise explain god! Well how easy was that!.

 

[Polymath257]

No two of you can agree about what it is that you are seeing, which is why atheists tend to believe that you are seeing a part of your own mind, misinterpreting what it is, and projecting it onto the world.

Here's a good question: How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was I that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical and are thus indistinguishable to me. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people like you that tell me that God is obvious, or as you worded it, self-evident, and how I know that the people telling me that they have experienced a god are only experiencing their own minds. They describe multiple gods with multiple personalities, each of which happens to think just like they do.

I'm sure you know this, but your story is very close to how color blindness was first discovered.

Dalton, the man who formulated the modern version of the atomic theory, was color blind. He noticed that his colleagues were able to distinguish colors he himself wasn't able to. And that they were consistent in being able to do so. He presented a paper detailing his inability to distinguish red and green based on his observations of others.

That's why an old word for color blindness is daltonism.