1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Evidence God Is

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by nPeace, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,372
    Ratings:
    +4,077
    This one, from your post I was replying to:

    Hebrews 3:4 says, Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.
    If I say to you, I believe what this verse says, and I also believe that we have a variety of species (I hope you understand what I mean by species now) of the same kind, by means of reproduction, and adaptation, what process do you think I believe is responsible for the arrival of grasshopper / octopus / toucan / cayman / pangolin / frog / man...?
    Thanks




    Every detail of the Bible has not be “proven incredibly accurate” and I’ve seen no real evidence that any prophecy mentioned within it has ever come true, any more then I’ve seen any Nostradamus prophecies come to fruition. Despite the apparent fact that some people seem to think they have.

    It's not? Well then it's awfully weird that you keep asking people to show that it's not designed. :shrug:

    Of course it's just an assertion - until you back it up. Same as if I told you unicorns were real, and where's your evidence that they're not.
    It doesn't work that way. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In other words, I see no reason to believe that your assertion is true, and I have no wish to believe every single thing somebody asserts until someone else can disprove it. That's silly.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. Apologes

    Apologes Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Ratings:
    +143
    Religion:
    Christianity
    Glad we cleared that up.

    Why so baffled? I hardly said anything controversial given how you have the exact situation for all sorts of things. For example you can't discuss the evidence for moral realism/antirealism without doing moral philosophy. No matter what side of the debate you're on you'll have to immerse yourself in the discipline if you want to say anything constructive. Sitting on the fence and throwing pebbles of strawmen will hardly contribute anything to the question.

    Likewise, you can't discuss the existence of God without immersing yourself in theology and philosophy of religion which would consist of (but is not limited to) seeking out the meaning of religious utterances about God and constructing arguments for or against such concepts.

    You may object that you, as an atheist would be doing atheology but you'd still be going over the exact same things only aiming for a different goal. Ofcourse, atheists can be and are theologians so that point would be moot in a way.

    There is no circularity here, even your previous paragraph was an example of you doing theology. How exactly do you avoid that then?

    The state of the academy means nothing to you but a shallow new atheist narrative warms you up? You're really not doing yourself any favor by not just refusing to study a necessary discipline for the subject but also rejecting to take into consideration why people take it as seriously as they do.


    All philosophies are "made up" to study a particular subject so that's a rather silly remark. As for being made with a specific purpose of finding evidence, this again reveals your lack of understanding as theology has gone through periods and movements that still persist which openly oppose attempts of proving the existence of God.

    You just placed yourself even more outside the bounds of contemporary scholarship by continuing to compare metaphysical concepts with fictional characters and typical folklore. Is your goal here to completely discredit yourself?

    So Jesus is a myth in your opinion? I think you've flew in the face of contemporary scholarship enough already so you really shouldn't attempt to contradict the overwhelming consensus in the historical Jesus studies as well.

    Be that as it may, I have no apriori bias against Thor or pagan mythological creatures. As a fan of asian cultres I am well aware of polytheism being a thing even today. I also know that Japanese (for example) differentiate between folklore religions as purely a traditional set of practices and religion with actual metaphysical commitment behind it - something you seem to be pretty confused about which is evident through your constant comparing of the two even going as far as to introduce comic book characters into the mix. Again, a shallow new atheist rethoric no more sophisticated than what the OP is doing.

    It is now my time to express skepticism with regards to how popular actual belief in trolls is among Icelanders.

    Last time I checked (and I know a fair bit of mythology) trolls and elves weren't gods so there would be no theology for them. Again, it is pretty curious how easily people dismiss the fact that there is no discipline studying these creatures as real entities in the academia in their attempts to make belief in divine look silly.

    Why do you think offending someone or avoiding that is relevant to what I am talking about? This is not about hurt feelings.
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You say they know. Are you standing on your opinion, or are you interested in facts? Facts in science depends on testable observable evidence, not assumptions.
    It's science okay, because it's an ongoing study, but anytime you reach a conclusion that you know, without direct evidence, it is not a fact.
    That, I understand, is true science.

    In science, scientists may make inferences to reach their conclusions, but they don't know that their conclusions are correct.
    They are not facts.
    They continue to gather evidence to help them reach conclusions, but it only takes new evidence to overturn those conclusions overnight.

    Take just one example of thousands...
    Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray
     
  4. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    9,229
    Ratings:
    +4,223
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Oh dear. A self fulfilling theory about things that have no evidence whatsoever otherwise. How long have you guys been doing that?

    And what are your conclusions after centuries of deep thinkings, sophisticated arguments and formidable scholarship?

    My impression is that they awfully looks like zero.

    Atheology? Lol. there are atheists only because there are theists. If there were fairist, then we would be afairists.

    Of course there is. You have no evidence of X, and you create a philosophy to study the evidence of X, and you declare that philosophy as sole arbiter for the evidence of X.

    I thought you guys believe prayers work. Same with miracles. Why don’t you show that, instead of getting too cryptical and exclusive about that?


    There is no new atheism. There is only old atheism without the fear to be roasted by theologians who believe that this would be the best for our souls.

    Of course it is made up. And that is why they backpaddle all the time a new scientific discovery has been done. It is actually funny to see how their musings are destroyed by simple empirical observations.

    It is obvious who owns the intellectual supremacy here, between methodological naturalism and sophisms.


    You assume that gods are not fictional. How do you come to this conclusion? Academia? Revelation? :)

    You keep on arbitrarily exempting your god from the properties you attribute to other myths. Without any justification whatsoever, apart from some made up philosophy you believe, for some reason, to be truely able to discriminate the sensible from the silly. To read this continuous exercise of question begging is quite painful.

    A bit of respect please for characters that have the same evidence to exists, and to be the product of human imagination, as your Allah, Juju, Christ, Apollo, or whatever.

    And? i believe Jesus existed. Probably King Arthur existed, too. That does not entail that there was a sword with magical powers. People like to exagerrate, you know.

    If there are people who believe to have seen Mary or the goddess Kali today, imagine what it was like in 1st century palestina.

    Again, what makes you think that all those gods are not fictional? They cannot all possibly be true, so where do they come from if not human imagination.

    By the way, where I live there are some convinced jediists. What about them? They also seem to start developing a philosophy for their star wars religion. Does that make their belief magically more plausible? :)

    It is odd that you might find it offensive if I compare your God to Superman, but not if I compare it with the elephant God Ganesh.

    Why is that?

    Why? There are institutions in Iceland collecting the evidence and trying to preserve their habitat.

    Not enough academia? Maybe they do not need it like your god does, in order to bootstrap himself some intellectual respectability out of thin air.

    After all, there are no phisophies trying to study the existence of cars or dogs, for obvious reasons.

    So, not enough academia. As I thought. Shall we make one up to convince you about the plausibility of trolls and elves? Maybe not theology, since they are not gods. Trollogy maybe?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    #284 viole, Nov 20, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2018
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Why is the scripture not true to you?
    Why would you think the scriptures require a skeptic to prove it is true?

    I already said, it's not an assertion, and I provided the evidence.
     
  6. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,372
    Ratings:
    +4,077
    Some parts are true, some aren't. Depends what bits you're talking about. Obviously, I don't accept the supernatural stuff and I've already spoken about "prophecy."

    I don't believe books to be true just because they say they're true.
    I'm not sure I understand your question. I do think ancient texts that are claimed to be holy should be looked upon from a skeptical perspective, at least until it's claims have been met. I don't see that the Bible's claims have been met.

    I don't blindly accept everything the Bible says as true and factual because I see no reason to do so and I see no reason to believe that it is entirely truthful and factual in all places.
    You can say that it's not an assertion, but it is indeed an assertion (which you've unknowingly admitted to when you say you've provided evidence!).
    Your evidence, as far as I can tell is "things look designed and I can't think of any other explanation than 'God did it,' so the God of the Bible must have designed them. That's nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. You've simply asserted that everything is designed because it looks that way to you. That's not a demonstration that everything in nature is designed. It's an assertion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    9,229
    Ratings:
    +4,223
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Are you telling me that biologists are not scientists.
    What about cosmologists? Astrophysicists?

    Yet, despite your homo herectus example, or any controversy concerning life development in the past few billions of years, they all accept the only relevant fact: that we are the evolutionary product of just one common ancestor. The details may vary, but the conclusion is the same. No serious biologist believes that life has been instantiated multiple times on our planet.

    Do you think they are all wrong?

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Some parts are true, some aren't, because you have a biased opinion, and view, so therefore it's not about evidence. No amount of evidence matters because you have made up your mind to reject it in favor of your opinions and views.

    Again, your views and opinions may be interfering with how open-minded you are, but I totally understand, that we see things differently, so if you don't see evidence, I can appreciate that. I do.

    I didn't say that, and I really hate when you do that - place words in my mouth that I never said. That really irks me.
    You are not even remotely close to the argument I presented.

    That aside... Okay, why don't you explain to me what design is.
     
  9. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,956
    Ratings:
    +2,961
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    And for the nth time, where n is a large integer, you don't answer any of the questions about your position.

    Which underlines the point: evolution is a fact, as you acknowledge, and it's explained by the theory of evolution, which you don't acknowledge.

    But you can present no coherent alternative to the theory of evolution. Therefore while evolution science continues to explore, describe and explain the structure of biological reality, to the satisfaction of people who accept reasoned evidence-based argument, including the great majority of Christians, you can't explain anything ─ not how the first sloth (or any other species, genus, family or kingdom) came into being, not the what, how or why of your invisible designer, not even the reality of God, whom you mention.

    Nor does your constant evasion of the questions do you any credit. If you don't know the answer to a question, the honest reply is "I don't know" ─ even for Christians, at least the ones I'm acquainted with.

    If you think any of that is unfair, then just give clearly stated answers to the questions. Here they are yet again:

    how did the first sloth come into being,

    how does magic work,

    when you say 'designer', do you mean 'God',

    and

    what's the definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine objectively whether it were God or not?
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Where did I say that biologists are not scientists? Where did you read that?
    Do you think the world will suddenly eject all Christians, because a consensus exist among biologist about the theory of evolution?
    Do you think if all American states legalized gay marriage, all Christians will be flung off the face of the earth?
    I think the earth would stop spinning first.

    I understand you prefer your opinions to facts, but I don't mind. It give me pleasure to share the facts in these cases.
    All (A) = 100% (O)
    The majority (M) = 97% (N)
    M is not equal to A. Therefore M is not equal to O.
    Your statement is false... again.

    Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.

    There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection.

    If only 87% agree on natural processes, what do the other 10% believe?
     
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    It does not matter how many times you keep parroting your questions. It brings back memories.
    If you are interested in your questions only, and ignore mine, feel free to believe whatever you want.

    The majority of people believe in a supernatural being.
    The reason evolution will have no competitor, is due to it's leverage.
    We don't need naturalistic science to evaluate evidence of the supernatural, but we do have evidence of intelligent design, rejected or not.
     
  12. viole

    viole Metaphysical Naturalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages:
    9,229
    Ratings:
    +4,223
    Religion:
    Gnostic Atheism
    Of course not. For the simple reason that virtually all Christians here accept evolution and more and more churches, including my ex official lutheran church of Sweden, happily perform gay weddings.
    So, the same adaptation will happen there probably.


    I said biologists. However, 97% ain’t bad either.


    Who can say? Jesus, Allah, the great Juju or some alien driving the process, maybe?

    Does that mean that you are ready to accept some sort of evolution from a common descent driven by some divinity? If not, then I am not sure why you get all excited about that 10%.

    Ciao

    - viole
     
    #292 viole, Nov 20, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2018
  13. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,956
    Ratings:
    +2,961
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I shouldn't have to. Wouldn't ordinary manners, let alone the usual forms of debate, suggest you should either have answered them, or said, "I don't know", as soon as they were posed?.
    Are supernatural beings real or imaginary?
    Its leverage is scientific method, reasoning honestly from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment, and using an objective test for truth.

    Do you have a difficulty with that?
    I'll know more when you tell me whether supernatural beings are real or imaginary. If you say they're real, what objective test will distinguish them from the imaginary?
    And just as certainly we have evidence that pigs have wings, rejected or not.

    Oh, and why is it a secret whether God is your 'intelligent designer' or not? Because of the Dover judgment?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    You yourself said it. What does that say about you?
     
  15. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Excited? Me? :)
     
  16. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,956
    Ratings:
    +2,961
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    So we're here:

    The theory of evolution in its modern form goes from scientific strength to strength. I don't suggest it's perfect, and as we discussed earlier, there are gaps in some places, and comparatively large amounts of information in others. However, the overall picture of the story of life on earth which it presents is unchallenged.

    As against the theory of evolution, we have the bible as science book. You say it's terrific. I say it's a fair representation of the understanding of the world in the times and places it was written ─ flat earth, geocentry, stars &c attached to a fixed dome going round the earth, pi=3, and so on and so on. As I mentioned in another post recently, Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood kicked off modern creationism in 1961, yet in the intervening 57 years 'creation science' has made not even one not even very tiny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. Considering their avowed hatred of it, we might ask ourselves why not.

    You don't want to admit that the bible god is your designer, for reasons that escape me, but you can't explain to me whether God is real / has objective existence / is not imaginary, nor whether the 'supernatural' is in the same boat.

    I don't understand your insistence on ideas whose most basic outline you haven't so far articulated, apparently because you can't.

    Again, if you think any of that is unfair, just address the questions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Apologes

    Apologes Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2016
    Messages:
    361
    Ratings:
    +143
    Religion:
    Christianity
    Since these are impressions of someone who confessed to not having engaged with the relevant scholarship and is adamant in not doing so I see no reason to think much of them.

    How is this in any way relevant to what I said in that paragraph?

    I literally just said that theology has gone through periods of not just not attempting to prove the existence of God but openly rejecting such attempts with such attitudes still being around today. I also said that there are actual atheists who are theologians. It would be a very peculiar type of atheist that would enter a discipline specifically made to prove God exists.

    Not to mention you've completely ignored the parallel I made with branches of philosophy such as meta-ethics. If we are to follow your logic we would have to give up almost all (if not all) of philosophy and who knows how many other disciplines.

    First, who's "you guys"? I am talking about theology in general and there are different views on miracles and prayer among theologians. Regardless, I am not going to discuss a particular issue in theology with someone who doesn't even understand what theology is. As I said before, theology doesn't need God to exist let alone prayer and miracles to be real in order to remain an academic discipline.

    Really?

    First off, new atheism is a term for a very real cultural movement characterized by many of the same attitudes that you've expressed here and which many respectable atheists scholars of the past and present do not endorse. New Atheism - Wikipedia

    Second, to try to say there even is one thing called atheism is philosophically (let alone culturally) controversial given the many different understandings of the position so you trying to present a particular flavor of atheism as "just the same old" is bafflingly naive and ignorant.

    Third, your attempt to paint new atheism (a fairly recent movement) as a liberation from religious tyranny, presumably referring to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition is a sign of serious ignorance on the issue of the Dark Ages and the nature of Inquisition (it is not the Church, let alone theologians, that roasted anyone) not to mention ignorance on the rich intellectual tradition behind atheism. Atheism neither became freer nor enriched by the new atheists. It only got caricatured through unsophisticated, angry and ultimately naive rhetoric from which respectable atheist scholars wisely distance themselves.

    So you are in favor of abolishing philosophy? Well, good luck with keeping your precious naturalism which is itself a philosophy.

    You're doing a great job digging yourself in an intellectual hole along with your high horse.

    I made a distinction between God and "fictional characters" in that paragraph because I was referring to you comparing God and comic book characters like Superman as having the same status. To play the devil's advocate, I may not know God isn't fictional but I also do not know that God is fictional. We know fictional characters such as Superman are, in fact, fictional because we know that Superman originated from the minds of Jewish writers and was put to paper in Action Comics #1 for the purposes of entertainment and cheap, you guessed it, fiction.

    It is not the case that God and Superman both enjoy the status of having no evidence for their existence, Superman (fictional characters) have undeniable evidence against their existence for we know how, when, and why they were created. We have no such things for the idea of God and the closest thing that comes to it are skeptical theories which themselves have no evidence such as the rather weak one embodied by the quote in your signature. There is a reason we have actual disciplines trying to track the different religious origins down (let us appreciate just how naive it is to even think there can be one origin of religious beliefs) and that have yet to produce conclusive results.

    The whole parity argument that you kept pushing there simply doesn't work because it contains a false premise. All one has to do is look at the literary genres in which the ideas originated (let's ignore that there isn't even one piece of literature in which the idea of the divine originated in the first place).

    Well sure they do, you exaggerated by calling Jesus a myth in your previous post. Here, however, you're on the same page as many liberal Christian and virtually all non-Christian theologians. Glad we cleared that up.

    First, I wonder how you still don't see that the religious particularism expressed by the phrase "they cannot all be true" is a theological view. You yet again, find yourself guilty of doing theology despite insisting you're beyond it.

    Second, it doesn't follow that because they can't all be true, they come from human imagination.

    I am not offended at all by your words. I've already explained why your argument (rather it's not yours, it's a stereotypical fallacy popularized by new atheists) is unsound. One really needs to be out of touch with the scholarship to think that this is the kind of argument that would seal the deal when a sea of ink has been spilled on arguments far more sophisticated than that.

    I don't know if I should laugh or cry at your attitude not only towards theology but academia in general given how lightly you take being a part of it. Given your overall (wilful) ignorance on the issues in question, I see no reason to devote any more of my time to you.

    Perhaps once your project of proving trolls and elves to be as plausible as God in the academia (or the project of abolishing academic disciplines as old as academia itself for that matter) fails, you'll start thinking a bit more critically. One can only hope.
     
  18. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,956
    Ratings:
    +2,961
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The major problem I have with theism is that all its gods appear to be imaginary, to exist only as concepts in the brains of individuals. One strong piece of evidence for this is the lack, anywhere in theology, of a statement of what a real god is, that is, a definition sufficient to allow us to determine whether any real candidate (one with objective existence, not imaginary) is God (or, a god) or not. If I'm in error in thinking there's no such definition, I'd be grateful if you could let me know it.

    In the same vein, I've never found, in theology or elsewhere, a statement expressed in terms of reality as to what quality God has that makes [him] God, as distinct from eg a superscientist. Is there anywhere a concept of godness expressed in clear and meaningful terms?
    Having just scanned the Wikipedia page on Meta-Ethics, I noted the absence of the most obvious explanation of ethics. We know from surveys of societies around the world, and also from the observation of even very small children, that we've evolved with certain genetic tendencies. Some are basic to mammalian breeding, such as child nurture and protection. Some are fitted to our gregarious nature, which means we're tribal but also gives us the advantage of cooperative action ─ dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a feeling of self-worth / virtue through self-denial.

    The rest of our morality is acquired by our upbringing, culture, education and experience and may vary accordingly eg the manners of dining together, the question of whether at a wedding a dowry, or a bride-price, or nothing, is payable, and so on.

    A factual basis for moral discussions is much more useful (better still, often leading to testable / falsifiable statements) than simply hypothesizing, no?
     
    #298 blü 2, Nov 20, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    So, I presented the evidence for God - evidence you are unable to refute - evidence you made a feeble attempt to brush off with baseless statements, and when asked to support, you just change the subject to parrot questions, many of which were already answered.
    I think you are just making a distraction from addressing the evidence which you cannot refute.

    Creating strawman arguments about the Bible, which apparently seem to be pulled off the internet, because they are lame arguments that I am confident you cannot even argue that the Bible teaches any such thing - except one - the Biblical flood.
    That seems to be the best arguments skeptics come up with when faced with real evidence.

    I really would not mind if the arguments against the Bible had substance, sort of like the ones Dell put forward, but these repeated false claims repeatedly debunked are tiring.

    I accept that you cannot support those statements you made earlier, so I don't think there is any more that can be said.
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    5,385
    Ratings:
    +1,521
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    My argument is not that complexity equals design. However, design has various levels of complexity.
    For example, a cardboard box is not as complex as a house, but both certainly are products of design.

    Also, my argument is not about whether the design has a defect or is perfect. Designed things can become defective, damaged, etc. That's not the point.

    The question is, is it a product of design?
    We do see design in the mosquito, don we?
    When an error occurs in our computer's hardware or software, we don't reason that it had no designer, why would we apply that to living things?
     
Loading...