Answering Atheists

[nPeace]

@nPeace I noticed you posted some criteria for determining something to be "designed". The criteria are...

We infer or perceive design from this...
the components of the object have 1) specific instructions, which are 2) intended to satisfying a set of specific requirements which are 3) intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal.
That's design.​

First of all, that's at least something to work with, so good on you for trying. Most ID creationists never get that far. So let's examine these criteria.

Sorry, but I don't know how you guys read.
The criterion is not the inference or perception. The criterion is what allows us to perceive or infer.
For example, when you smell cow dung, it has certain criterion, that identifies it as such. In the same way goat dung, and dog dung has their own.
Hence you can perceive, as well as infer from that, and other things, that you smell x dung.
There are certain criterion that you are familiar with. Similarly, there is certain criterion that we are familiar with, where design is involved.

"Specific instructions"

Can you explain what you mean by "specific" here? Specific to what? Are there examples of "vague instructions" we can contrast them with?

Specific - precise - exact -
Yes.

"Intended to satisfying [sic] a set of specific requirements"

"Intended" by whom, or what? How do you identify this intent? And as before, what do you mean by "specific requirements"? Are there examples of "vague requirements" we can use as a contrast?

The designer.
Yes.

"Intended to accomplish specific goals or a specific goal"

Again, "intended" by whom, or what? How do you identify this intent? What do you mean by "specific goals"? How do you identify the goals?

Finally, I'm hoping that your responses will be with examples from the biological world, rather than more analogies to man-made objects, because that would be much, much more helpful.

This one is for you, as well as @Sheldon, @9-10ths_Penguin, and any that would keep asking these questions, and similar ones, over and over again. Say what? .

This is an engine.

The little boy asked his dad, "Dad. Why is an engine in your car?"
This is an intelligent response. "It's there son, in order to drive the car. It's what makes the car go."

An unintelligent response would be one such as... "It's there, but I do not know why the engine is in the car." "Actually, it is just there, and not purposefully designed." "It just got there by chance, and has no particular purpose.... although it serves one." etc. etc.
Agreed?

Instruction - Order - Command - Signal - (Whether verbally, written, mechanically, or computer assisted. etc.)
The engine has specific set of instructions. When you turn your key in the ignition, you start a series of instructions, that make your engine work. There is a lot of communication taking place. Communicating specific instructions through mechanical assistance.

Component - a part or element of a larger whole.
These parts are communicating with each other.

Internal combustion engine control apparatus
Abstract
An internal combustion engine control apparatus comprises sensors for sensing operation parameters of an internal combustion engine, a control unit for controlling the operation of the internal combustion engine based on the operation parameters sensed by the sensors, and a control circuit operative, when one of the sensors or the control unit fails, to generate one of predetermined signals indicating a plurality of predetermined operation conditions in accordance with a current operation condition to continue the operation of the internal combustion engine in accordance with the generated predetermined signal.

As the concerns to the security of environment by the prevention of air pollution and the shortage of energy resources increases, a control apparatus which totally controls an operation condition of an automobile gasoline engine to improve an exhaust gas condition and fuel consumption is desired to this end, an electronic engine control apparatus (EEC) having a microcomputer which reads in signals from sensors which supply various data indicating operation conditions of the engine, such as an intake air sensor which senses the amount of air taken into the engine, a coolant temperature sensor and an oxygen sensor which senses a concentration of oxygen in exhaust gas to control various factors such as the amount of fuel supply, an ignition timing, the amount of reflux of the exhaust gas and an idling rotation speed, has been widely used. As a result, almost all controls required for the engine including an air to fuel ratio (A/F) control are totally controlled to an optimum condition to provide an engine which satisfies a severe regulation for the exhaust gas and improves the fuel consumption.

Intended by whom? The designer of course. Design requires a designer.
Since we are not discussing biology here, you lost me with the last comment.
However, since you so love Biology, that it must be mentioned in everything... Consider.

From the cell - tiniest or largest,

to the largest living system, there are components (elements, parts) that communicate instructions... - specific instructions - precise - accurate - not random - all over the place. These communicated instructions are based on a set of specific requirements, in order to reach intended - non random - specific goals... or a goal.
Anatomy of the gray whale
I see design. Tell me, what do you see?
When you look at objects, what indicates to you whether they were designed or not, or had a designer?
Say for example, you went to Mars, and saw a strange object, what would convince you that it was designed... or not? a) The majority of scientists conclude that it is designed by aliens. b) You had to see someone or something make it. c) Other. Please specify.

For me, it would be the criterion for design.
Does it have intricate components that work together based on specific communicated instructions (not necessarily verbal or written) for a particular goal?
I can infer design. Design is perceived.

If we do not consider manmade objects when considering design, what kind of a conversation can we have? Can you explain?

 

[nPeace]

I have to return tomorrow or later. My apologies. I am running a task on my computer that's eating up some memory, so I am having a hard time navigating my browser.
Hence, I'll get back to you guys some time later.

 

[Sheldon]

there is certain criterion that we are familiar with, where design is involved.

I agree.

1. We can cite objective evidence of designs being made.
2. We can cite objective evidence of the completed designs themselves.
3. We can cite objective evidence of factories using those designs, and creating things from them.

4. Designed things never randomly appear in nature.

 

[lukethethird]

Sorry, but I don't know how you guys read.
The criterion is not the inference or perception. The criterion is what allows us to perceive or infer.
For example, when you smell cow dung, it has certain criterion, that identifies it as such. In the same way goat dung, and dog dung has their own.
Hence you can perceive, as well as infer from that, and other things, that you smell x dung.
There are certain criterion that you are familiar with. Similarly, there is certain criterion that we are familiar with, where design is involved.


Specific - precise - exact -
Yes.


The designer.
Yes.


This one is for you, as well as @Sheldon, @9-10ths_Penguin, and any that would keep asking these questions, and similar ones, over and over again. Say what? .

This is an engine.

The little boy asked his dad, "Dad. Why is an engine in your car?"
This is an intelligent response. "It's there son, in order to drive the car. It's what makes the car go."

An unintelligent response would be one such as... "It's there, but I do not know why the engine is in the car." "Actually, it is just there, and not purposefully designed." "It just got there by chance, and has no particular purpose.... although it serves one." etc. etc.
Agreed?

Instruction - Order - Command - Signal - (Whether verbally, written, mechanically, or computer assisted. etc.)
The engine has specific set of instructions. When you turn your key in the ignition, you start a series of instructions, that make your engine work. There is a lot of communication taking place. Communicating specific instructions through mechanical assistance.

Component - a part or element of a larger whole.
These parts are communicating with each other.

Internal combustion engine control apparatus
Abstract
An internal combustion engine control apparatus comprises sensors for sensing operation parameters of an internal combustion engine, a control unit for controlling the operation of the internal combustion engine based on the operation parameters sensed by the sensors, and a control circuit operative, when one of the sensors or the control unit fails, to generate one of predetermined signals indicating a plurality of predetermined operation conditions in accordance with a current operation condition to continue the operation of the internal combustion engine in accordance with the generated predetermined signal.

As the concerns to the security of environment by the prevention of air pollution and the shortage of energy resources increases, a control apparatus which totally controls an operation condition of an automobile gasoline engine to improve an exhaust gas condition and fuel consumption is desired to this end, an electronic engine control apparatus (EEC) having a microcomputer which reads in signals from sensors which supply various data indicating operation conditions of the engine, such as an intake air sensor which senses the amount of air taken into the engine, a coolant temperature sensor and an oxygen sensor which senses a concentration of oxygen in exhaust gas to control various factors such as the amount of fuel supply, an ignition timing, the amount of reflux of the exhaust gas and an idling rotation speed, has been widely used. As a result, almost all controls required for the engine including an air to fuel ratio (A/F) control are totally controlled to an optimum condition to provide an engine which satisfies a severe regulation for the exhaust gas and improves the fuel consumption.

Intended by whom? The designer of course. Design requires a designer.
Since we are not discussing biology here, you lost me with the last comment.
However, since you so love Biology, that it must be mentioned in everything... Consider.

From the cell - tiniest or largest,

to the largest living system, there are components (elements, parts) that communicate instructions... - specific instructions - precise - accurate - not random - all over the place. These communicated instructions are based on a set of specific requirements, in order to reach intended - non random - specific goals... or a goal.
Anatomy of the gray whale
I see design. Tell me, what do you see?
When you look at objects, what indicates to you whether they were designed or not, or had a designer?
Say for example, you went to Mars, and saw a strange object, what would convince you that it was designed... or not? a) The majority of scientists conclude that it is designed by aliens. b) You had to see someone or something make it. c) Other. Please specify.

For me, it would be the criterion for design.
Does it have intricate components that work together based on specific communicated instructions (not necessarily verbal or written) for a particular goal?
I can infer design. Design is perceived.

If we do not consider manmade objects when considering design, what kind of a conversation can we have? Can you explain?

Who designed the Designer?

 

[nPeace]

Oh sorry, you must be behind about 1 century on science. There are 4 fundamental forces in nature. They account for everything we see from the formations of super clusters of galaxies to all the processes that happen here on Earth. From looking at distant galaxies we see the same spectrum coming from stars and the processes happening there are the same across the entire universe. Same with gravity. Everything that happens here on Earth is understood to be some manifestation of one of the 4 forces or the associated particle (boson) that communicates the force. So we understand an incredible amount at the fundamental level. At larger scales there is also vast knowledge from chemistry, molecular science up to macroscopic sciences that deal with geology and such.
While there are still mysteries in science the laws of physics account for an amazing amount of knowledge. What your point is here is unknown, do you have one?

Excuse me for asking, but are you listening to yourself? Do you understand what you are saying?
Listen... "Everything that happens here on Earth is understood to be some manifestation of one of the 4 forces or the associated particle (boson) that communicates the force."
Did you hear yourself, or do you want me to repeat?

News Flash! The understanding of man is not the ultimate source of truth.
In fact, if tomorrow scientists woke up and said, "We thought they were 4 forces of nature. We now know they are 5." You would jump on that and say. "Yes, you must be behind about a year on science. There are 5 fundamental forces in nature. They account for everything we see from the formations of super clusters of galaxies to all the processes that happen here on Earth."

What do you know? Only what you are told. isn't that so?
Sorry, but I find it shamefully disgusting, that people put their trust in changing views, and present these opinions and ideas as fact, and regardless of how often this happens, continue to be blinded by pride.
King David said, it's God's humility that made him great. I totally agree with him.

There are no OPINIONS. There is evidence.

We all have evidence. What's your point?

The entire biblical history field is vastly in agreement. The gospels are myths written about a teacher named Jesus. Biblical archeology is also mostly in agreement. Moses is a myth, Exodus didn't happen, Israelites came from Canaanites, all the empires were far smaller than claimed, Yahweh was paired with Ashera and so on. The evidence shows this. The myths are all re-works of Mesopotamian myths, not just the flood myth.
It did not happen the way it said, was written far after when it claims and does not support most of the events in scripture.
There is no historian who thinks the supernatural stories in the gospels are actual history.
Here is a quote from historian Richard Carrier on the field:

"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

Here we go again. You are free to accept whatever opinions make you feel above the clouds..

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."

After the 2nd Temple Period the Israelites were occupied by the Persians and Greeks and were greatly influenced by both cultures myths. National God being promoted to supreme, dying/rising saviors who after a passion return to life, resurrection, souls that can return to heaven after being redeemed, all elements of Hellenism which Judaism adapted to during the invasion. As did most religions during this time. All historical facts. Yes, apologists avoid this like the plague for obvious reasons.


Ok.

Modern geology, its sub-disciplines and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[ Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying these principles, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale). In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.
...

Uh... Is this a rerun?

 

[nPeace]

Yes and Godzilla is unlikely to be real. However if you still think there is a possibility because the word "unlikely" is used then great, for you Godzilla is real.

The actual term for a world flood is "all evidence points to no flood". Again, quibbling about those semantics is further proof you have very little interest in what is actually true


Whatever fantasy you have in your mind about primary sources I'm not at all interested in guessing what it is. You have to be a big boy and make points all by yourself.

I can however demonstrate actual PhD sources, over and over saying Genesis is fiction, written way after the fact and is not considered historical and the flood story was a re-work of the Epic of Gilamesh. It also contradicts 8 scientific fields.


"The narrative has very strong similarities to parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which predates the Book of Genesis."


"A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.[6"



"While some scholars have tried to offer possible explanations for the origins of the flood myth including a legendary retelling of a possible Black Sea deluge, the general mythological exaggeration and implausibility of the story are widely recognized by relevant academic fields. The acknowledgement of this follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history and especially the geology and paleontology of the planet.["



"So-called "Flood Geology" was championed in the latter half of the twentieth and on into the twenty-first century by Christian fundamentalists who believe in Young Earth creationism. Historian Ronald Numbers argues that this ideological connection by Christians wanting to challenge aspects of the scientific consensus they believe contradict their religion was first established by the publication of the 1961 book, The Genesis Flood.[50] The scientific community maintains that flood geology is a pseudoscience because it contradicts a variety of facts in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archeology.[6][51][3][52][53][54][55][56] For example, in contrast to the catastrophism inherent in flood geology, the science of geology relies on the Charles Lyell's established principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces, uniformitarianism explains the formation of the Earth's features by means of mostly slow-acting forces seen in operation today. In contrast, there is a lack of evidence for the catastrophic mechanisms proposed by flood geologists, and scientists do not take their claims seriously"

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

I have not read about Godzilla... Or maybe I did, a very long time ago... I don't remember.
However, I don't think any part of Godzilla was ever presented as a first hand account of an actual event that would become history.
The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.
In fact, many of the events from that prima\ry source, is undisputed, even if people living centuries later give another explanation for how the event occurred.

There is no reason for anyone to believe a modern day theory over a primary source, which has the backing of a secondary source.
Oh yeah. there is one reason... personal bias.

I have nothing more to say to you on this, as I have been around this circle with you, time and again, and the circle just gets bigger, but we are going no where... other than around and around. So until you have something fresh, that allows us to proceed... That's it.

 

[nPeace]

That's just a YouTube user making endless unevidenced claims? I've no problem with YouTube if it actually offers something, but if all you can cite are bare claims that's meaningless.

Youtube??? Whaa
I'm not even going to waste my time asking you where you saw youtube in the part I pointed out to look at? It's obvious you did not bother to look where I three times directed.
No worries. I totally understand.

Yes.


Is English not your first Language?


Nope not even close, and the real irony is you quoted what I actually said verbatim, and everyone can see it above again, so your sophistry is manifest.


Yes

1) Designs for it can be objectively evidenced at every stage, as I said previously and you have dishonestly ignored.
2) We can see designed things being manufactured, again as I have said repeatedly, and again you have dishonestly ignored.
3) We can see that designed things don't occur randomly in nature, and again I have pointed this out, and again you have dishonestly ignored this.


Utter gibberish sorry, if you want a cogent response, and I suspect you do not, then you will have to offer something that vaguely resembles cogent English, and that does not.


Rubbish. Design is defined as a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.


Sorry? I thought your superstitious beliefs claimed your deity designed everything? If that were true then simple things are also designed, and your assertion is manifestly absurd. If there are no simple things, then again your assertion is asinine nonsense.


Excellent, glad you've grasped that, now can you demonstrate any fact, or explanation for any deity that goes beyond pure assumption? As that is all you seem to have offered thus far?


Well done, you've got something right, and we know they are designed, because we can cite objective evidence that this is the case, as I previously pointed out and you have ignored here again. For instance we can know objectively that people create designs, there are designs themselves and (design) offices where they are created, and we know objectively that those designs are used to manufacture things, I have worked my entire life in manufacturing, and we use designs to manufacture things. Again if this is something you can't fathom, you might want to stay off commercial jets, as one example.

Ah. Thanks for making yourself doubly clear.

Design is defined as a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

So when you speak of design, you refer to a plan. Correct?
When you speak of creating a design, you refer to creating a plan. Good?

Please, based on your understanding, criterion for design, please explain this statement to me, using that definition.
A number of molecules, such as molecular propellers, have been designed, although experimental studies of these molecules are inhibited by the lack of methods to construct these molecules.

 

[nPeace]

Who designed the Designer?

I think you can answer that question.
Here is a designer.

David Hanson (robotics designer)
Who created that designer?

 

[Sheldon]

The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.

No it hasn't, how do people who profess to be Christians not know this? There are no first hand accounts in the bible. The authorship of the gospels are unknown, the names were assigned post ad hoc.

A fact is just something known to be true, but since humans are fallible evolved mammals, and no one can entirely rule out new evidence even facts supported by overwhelming objective evidence, must necessarily remain tentative and open to the possibility of revision in the light of new evidence, This doesn't mean it is not a fact. The likelihood that species evolution (for example) will be entirely reversed, is about as likely as waking up to find the earth is flat and at the centre of the earth after all. nonetheless this scientific fact, like all scientific ideas must remain tentative. It is one of science's greatest strengths, that is able to admit of any error, and abandon or revise things in the light of new evidence.

Otherwise science would be left doggedly clinging to ideas that were demonstrably false, like young earth creationists of course.

 

[Viker]

One of the Atheists argument is as follows :-

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

Is this the correct argument? I heard it before, but some of this sounds a bit strange.
However, the gist is somewhere in there.

Why can God not exist (as a morally perfect entity, who is all powerful, all knowing and all wise), where evil exists, although God knows when evil existed, and although God wants to do something about it?
The argument is not a sound one.

Romans chapter 8 verses 20 and 21 says this... "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God."

Allowing suffering for a permanently lasting freedom from corruption, seems pretty moral to me.
How can that not be moral?
It would actually be evidence too of one who is all knowing, all wise and all powerful. Isn't it?

This is more like the Epicurean argument. It's not exactly a stock atheist argument or stance. Epicurus was not an atheist.

 

[nPeace]

No it hasn't, how do people who profess to be Christians not know this? There are no first hand accounts in the bible. The authorship of the gospels are unknown, the names were assigned post ad hoc.

Lol. Sheldon, I tire of your baseless "off the top of the head, just say the first thing that comes to mind, no matter how senseless and void of supportive reference"
Repeat... The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.

Of all the accounts I can refer to, I'll refer to just one. Historicity of Jesus
Care for more, just take your pick from here.

However, take note that the opinions of scholars are not relevant.
While the first hand accounts are questioned until they actually dig up the evidence... and have no choice but to accept - smell the coffee even if they don't want to wake up ... lest they can come up with an explanation to deny some, I echo the words of one Jew mentioned in a Times magazine. “To me it doesn’t matter whether scientists are able to find a historical basis for something that happened around 3,500 years ago.
Their theories are simply the imaginations of men.

Now I keep my promise. You have no actual supporting data to post in behalf of your baseless claims.
I don't have the time for any "just say whatever" exercises.
Have a good day, and take care.
Peace out.

 

[lukethethird]

Lol. Sheldon, I tire of your baseless "off the top of the head, just say the first thing that comes to mind, no matter how senseless and void of supportive reference"
Repeat... The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.

Of all the accounts I can refer to, I'll refer to just one. Historicity of Jesus
Care for more, just take your pick from here.

However, take note that the opinions of scholars are not relevant.
While the first hand accounts are questioned until they actually dig up the evidence... and have no choice but to accept - smell the coffee even if they don't want to wake up ... lest they can come up with an explanation to deny some, I echo the words of one Jew mentioned in a Times magazine. “To me it doesn’t matter whether scientists are able to find a historical basis for something that happened around 3,500 years ago.
Their theories are simply the imaginations of men.

Now I keep my promise. You have no actual supporting data to post in behalf of your baseless claims.
I don't have the time for any "just say whatever" exercises.
Have a good day, and take care.
Peace out.

Since when and where do historians get their data from reading scripture, surely you jest.

 

[nPeace]

Since when and where do historians get their data from reading scripture, surely you jest.

? Pardon me?

 

[lukethethird]

? Pardon me?

You believe everything you are told to believe, you have no filter?

 

[Sheldon]

Lol. Sheldon, I tire of your baseless "off the top of the head, just say the first thing that comes to mind, no matter how senseless and void of supportive reference"

It was your false claim that was unsupported. I merely pointed it out, the rest of your verbiage is meaningless.

Repeat... The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.

Hilarious, so I will repeat, no it does not, you're claim is errant nonsense you cannot support.

Of all the accounts I can refer to, I'll refer to just one. Historicity of Jesus
Care for more, just take your pick from here.

Oh my mistake, I thought you understood what "first hand account" meant, but clearly you don't.

However, take note that the opinions of scholars are not relevant. While the first hand accounts are questioned until they actually dig up the evidence...

There are no first hand accounts.

Times magazine. “To me it doesn’t matter whether scientists are able to find a historical basis for something that happened around 3,500 years ago. Their theories are simply the imaginations of men.

Hilarious, a link to an article from a scholar claiming biblical myths may not be real, is somehow offered as evidence for your previously unevidenced assertion they are first hand accounts? I think I know the answer here, but do you think claiming a narrative is true, and claiming it is a "first hand account" are the same thing?

You have no actual supporting data to post in behalf of your baseless claims.

It was you who made a baseless claim, that the bible was based on first hand accounts, it simply isn't, and there is no evidence for your claim. I don't need refute it, as you offered it without even the pretence of evidence.

I don't have the time for any "just say whatever" exercises.

I don't care what you profess to have time for.

Have a good day, and take care.

I had a very good day, thank you.

 

[joelr]

Excuse me for asking, but are you listening to yourself? Do you understand what you are saying?
Listen... "Everything that happens here on Earth is understood to be some manifestation of one of the 4 forces or the associated particle (boson) that communicates the force."
Did you hear yourself, or do you want me to repeat?

News Flash! The understanding of man is not the ultimate source of truth.
In fact, if tomorrow scientists woke up and said, "We thought they were 4 forces of nature. We now know they are 5." You would jump on that and say. "Yes, you must be behind about a year on science. There are 5 fundamental forces in nature. They account for everything we see from the formations of super clusters of galaxies to all the processes that happen here on Earth."

Yes science changes in some ways. There will not be another fundamental force to explain the standard model, it's complete. A 5th force could explain dark energy or dark matter. But all of the physical processes are in fact explained. So we understand the workings of the universe. Adding a deity is not needed.

What do you know? Only what you are told. isn't that so?
Sorry, but I find it shamefully disgusting, that people put their trust in changing views, and present these opinions and ideas as fact, and regardless of how often this happens, continue to be blinded by pride.
King David said, it's God's humility that made him great. I totally agree with him.

Wait, did you just say you find it disgusting that people trust science and then quote an ancient book of mythology who all historians know is not historical and all biblical archeologists say did not happen as written?
What you clearly don't understand is that current science still being researched will change. Established science will not. Gravity will always follow the inverse square law. General relativity just improved upon the accuracy of the theory. The Earth will always orbit the sun.

We all have evidence. What's your point?

You do not have evidence that stands. It can easily be debunked, you just look the other way. It is a fact that scripture uses older myths almost entirely. Many other lines of evidence can be presented. You have no evidence.

Here we go again. You are free to accept whatever opinions make you feel above the clouds..

When you can freely hand wave the entire biblical historicity field as if it's some vast conspiracy or they are all possessed by Satan you do not care about what is true. It helps confirm that you do not have an argument and are emotionally following an ancient myth just like a member of Islam or JW.

Uh... Is this a rerun?

A religious person not caring about evidence, yes that would be a rerun.

 

[joelr]

I have not read about Godzilla... Or maybe I did, a very long time ago... I don't remember.
However, I don't think any part of Godzilla was ever presented as a first hand account of an actual event that would become history..

Almost all Christian scholarship says the gospels are anonymous:

Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[30] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[3] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[4] and John AD 90–110.[5] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
Gospel - Wikipedia

For historians it's 100%.

The gospels were obviously written to appear to fulfill the Jewish savior demigod prophecy so if that's what you mean then that isn't proof of anything.

The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.
In fact, many of the events from that prima\ry source, is undisputed, even if people living centuries later give another explanation for how the event occurred.

Every biblical historian says we cannot know what actual accounts in the gospels actually happened. All biblical historians consider the gospels to be a mythical narrative of a teacher named Jesus. None think he was an actual demigod who resurrected. Not one. I actually sourced that in the last post to which you just said "is this a repeat?" Even better, you claim it became "part of history" and I quoted a HISTORIAN saying it isn't.

"the majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel,
Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels because they share many stories (the technical term is pericopes), sometimes even identical wording; finding an explanation for their similarities, and also their differences, is known as the synoptic problem,[56] and most scholars believe that the best solution to the problem is that Mark was the first gospel to be written and served as the source for the other two[
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

There is no reason for anyone to believe a modern day theory over a primary source, which has the backing of a secondary source.
Oh yeah. there is one reason... personal bias.

Well that's great then your version of Christianity is completely wrong. That was established in 312 at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. The primary source and 1st canon was the Marcionite and in the 1st century we had all sorts of vastly different Christian canons that were accepted as true and none were your version, mostly Gnostic:

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

• Gnosticism – second to fourth centuries – reliance on revealed knowledge from an unknowable God, a distinct divinity from the Demiurge who created and oversees the material world. The Gnostics claimed to have received secret teachings (gnosis) from Jesus via other apostles which were not publicly known, or in the case of Valentinius from Paul the Apostle. Gnosticism is predicated on the existence of such hidden knowledge, but brief references to private teachings of Jesus have also survived in the canonic scripture (Mark 4:11) as did warning by the Christ that there would be false prophets or false teachers. Irenaeus' opponents also claimed that the wellsprings of divine inspiration were not dried up, which is the doctrine of continuing revelation.[citation needed]
• Marcionism – second century – the God of Jesus was a different God from the God of the Old Testament.
• Montanism – second century – a pentecostal movement initiated by Montanus and his female disciples, featuring prophetic continuing revelations from the Holy Spirit.
• Adoptionism – second century – Jesus was not born the Son of God, but was adopted at his baptism, resurrection or ascension.
• Docetism – second to third century – Jesus was pure spirit and his physical form an illusion.
• Sabellianism – third century – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of the one God and not the three separate persons of the Trinity.
• Arianism – third to fourth century – Jesus, while not merely mortal, was not eternally divine and was of some lesser status than God the Father.[note 1]

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.

Many groups were dualistic, maintaining that reality was composed into two radically opposing parts: matter, usually seen as evil, and spirit, seen as good. Proto-orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, held that both the material and spiritual worlds were created by God and were therefore both good, and that this was represented in the unified divine and human natures of Christ.[47] Trinitarianism held that God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit were all strictly one being with three hypostases.

Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia


So since you don't believe that the first canons are correct your theory about prime sources is junk.

what you don't seem to realize (or apologists brainwashed you). is that all of the information historians are using were available since the beginning. They are analyzing. the gospels and what historians of the time were saying. Back then some leaders may have known dying/rising savior demigods were in most religions but the church swept that under the rug. Now it's common knowledge. As is much information that demonstrates the religion is just another mythology. The gospel writers were trained in Greek rhetorical style - religious fiction, parables, it's all from Hellenism. Another aspect we now can see.

The Greeks also thought that Zeus was real at the time, Hindus believed Krishna was real and now centuries later we see they are fiction. So again, your theory that what people think at the start of a religion is true is complete crank. No wonder people can believe a religion when they have such ridiculous ideas?

I have nothing more to say to you on this, as I have been around this circle with you, time and again, and the circle just gets bigger, but we are going no where... other than around and around. So until you have something fresh, that allows us to proceed... That's it.

If you had nothing to say, and you were a man, you would say nothing. If you had something to say and said it and THEN claimed you had nothing to say, that is a cowards way.
I don't need anything "fresh" because I have debunked everything you have said. But I can continue to debunk anything you have. If you have something that cannot be debunked then great, I will learn something!

Your reluctance shows you know you don't actually have evidence.

 

[joelr]

Lol. Sheldon, I tire of your baseless "off the top of the head, just say the first thing that comes to mind, no matter how senseless and void of supportive reference"
Repeat... The Bible on the other hand, gave first hand accounts of actual events, that has become a part of history.

Of all the accounts I can refer to, I'll refer to just one. Historicity of Jesus
Care for more, just take your pick from here.

However, take note that the opinions of scholars are not relevant.
While the first hand accounts are questioned until they actually dig up the evidence... and have no choice but to accept - smell the coffee even if they don't want to wake up ... lest they can come up with an explanation to deny some, I echo the words of one Jew mentioned in a Times magazine. “To me it doesn’t matter whether scientists are able to find a historical basis for something that happened around 3,500 years ago.
Their theories are simply the imaginations of men.

Now I keep my promise. You have no actual supporting data to post in behalf of your baseless claims.
I don't have the time for any "just say whatever" exercises.
Have a good day, and take care.
Peace out.

HA, yes some historians think these was a man named Jesus. No historians think he was a demigod who resurrected? Zero?

Also Wiki:
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus,[72] the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[10] Many scholars have questioned the authenticity and reliability of these sources, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.[72]

Elements whose historical authenticity are disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus; the miracles, such as turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, walking on water, and various cures, exorcisms, and resurrections; his own resurrection; and certain details about his crucifixion.[


NO historian thinks the gospel narratives are anything but a myth created around a Jewish Rabbi.
Some historians think there wasn't even a man but it's all myth.
Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Elaine Pagels, Thoman Thompson, J.D., Crossant, Pervoe, Thoman Thompson, Sanders, Davies

You hand waved a quote from an actual historian yet are now using Wiki to make arguments????? WTF? You argued for "primary sources" yet now use Wiki articles because you think they support your argument? How do you not realize that they are not saying they believe in magic Jesus? "Historicity" of Jesus in historical studies means a man named Jesus was the basis for the myths in the gospels? It does not mean a demigod Jesus was real?
Huge fail!?
And the latest historicity study, a 700 pg peer-reviewed book makes the case that there wasn't even a man named Jesus. It's likely all myth.



Bart Ehrman is the most prolific Jesus historian, he believes there was a man named Jesus and the Gospels are religious fiction. He became atheist after studying the evidence.

"He subsequently left evangelicalism and returned to the Episcopal Church, where he remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist .
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia

You claim I'm repeating stuff and then went and used MY EVIDENCE as if it supports you? I told you no historian supports the gospels as real and you said some crap and then used my evidence??????

Note "ALL NON-FUNDAMENTALIST SCHOLARS"-

Dr Carrier, NT and Jesus historian:
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolutionor cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves.

Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

 

[nPeace]

You believe everything you are told to believe, you have no filter?

That's an obvious baseless assertion.

 

[lukethethird]

That's an obvious baseless assertion.

It was a question.