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:
    8,624
    Ratings:
    +3,605
    So this backs up your claim .... how?
     
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,360
    Ratings:
    +2,580
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    No, you misunderstand.

    The correct expression is, "If things were real because you thought of them, if things you dreamed of were real because you dreamed them, if things that you imagined were real because you imagined them, I could see those things, right?"

    And the answer is, things are not real just because you can think, dream, imagine them. But if they were, then they'd be like any real thing ─ they'd have objective existence, and accordingly could be perceived ─ perhaps with the aid of tools like telescopes, microscopes, the LHC &c, but perceived.

    So God is not real, God does not have objective existence, just because you think/dream/imagine God. A real God would be, by virtue of being real / having objective existence / not being imaginary, perceivable.

    Got it?
    Not okay.

    First, the quotes say what they say plainly.

    Second, you again failed to address the question ─ since the cosmology they express is the cosmology of their time and place, why would you expect them to say anything else?

    Your habit of not addressing questions about your position is a great weakness in the way you try to argue.
    That is simply untrue.
    Then you've misunderstood everything I've said from the start.

    If you offer any 'explanation' of the origin of species, you offer the bible. And the bible, in the Garden story in Genesis, says that species were created by magic. It was written by people who believed in magic, so that's no surprise. And since you've adopted it, it's up to you to explain how magic works. Yet asked again and again, you still haven't.

    Nor have you offered an alternative. The history of helium is not an alternative.
    Which brings us back to the question you didn't answer: why would you expect people writing at the times and places the bible was written to describe anything but their own understanding ─ a flat, geocentric earth &c?
    You know that's untrue, so you'd have done better not to say it.

    You know you haven't told me how the first sloth came to be, although I've asked you not just once or twice but repeatedly.

    You know you haven't told me how magic works, yet magic is all you're offering as the alternative to evolution.

    You know you haven't given me a definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine if it were God or not.

    You know you haven't answered my question, Is God the designer?

    You know you haven't told me what test you use to determine whether a statement is true or not.

    And you know you haven't told me why you'd expect the bible to reflect 21st century cosmology instead of the cosmology of the times and places it was written.

    Again I invite you to answer those questions.
     
    #322 blü 2, Nov 22, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2018
  3. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,360
    Ratings:
    +2,580
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Goodness me, there you go again, doing anything to avoid answering questions! This time, @SkepticThinker's.

    YOU used the word 'spirit'. WHY can't you simply state what you intend to denote by that word?

    Don't you know?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Don't send me through this again, please. I've been through several posts of it.
    See the OP.
    You mean, why I took you off ignore, don't you? Let me think about that one.

    I'm not guessing.

    So? However, since you say you have observed, studied, and documented multiple times
    Give me one of those please. Thanks.

    What do they produce?
    Human genetic variation is the genetic differences in and among populations.
    No two humans are genetically identical.

    Frogs with different genes are still frogs. Horses with different genes are still horses. Humans with different genes are still humans. Can you get hybrids? Sure. Can adaptation occur? Of course. So what Jose?


    Some people never keep their word, but from my experience with Jose Fly, there is no way that would surprise me.
    I do not see the words, "in a meaningful way", or "how I want it answered".
    Oh well. You probably had Monopoly money in mint too.
     
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Yes, but it's tiring when persons drill you with questions after questions, and when you give an answer, they don't understand the simplest of answers, and drill you on the same question and cause you to wonder, "How am I supposed to answer?" Case in point.
    Then when you turn around and ask them to explain what they understand, or anything for that matter related to the answer, they go their merry way, and return when they think you probably forgot that they avoided answering the question.
    Gee. There is only so much one can take. Stop playing school master, and things just might go differently.
    Try @Kelly of the Phoenix approach some time.
     
  6. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    The OP states: "According to the Bible, Jehovah Designed All Things". It also states: "Complex machines are built, or constructed. Was it designed? The human body - with its most complex object, is one complicated factory."

    Yet when I concluded that your position is that "complexity = design" you objected and said "My argument is not that complexity equals design".

    So I take it then that your "method" for determining that things are "designed" is "because the Bible says so"?

    You don't know? Fascinating.

    So you have absolutely no idea how old the earth is or how long life has existed on it. It could be 2 days or 4 billion years for all you know. Fascinating.

    It means that when we look at the fossil record and see species that don't exist now, it's reasonable to conclude that they arose the same way new species do today....by evolutionary mechanisms.

    CLICK HERE

    Sorry, but you're not making sense.

    Well, I suppose you could have just given "peanut butter and jelly" as your "answer" and technically you would have been just as correct that you did "answer" my questions. But I think you kinda missed the point.
     
  7. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,624
    Ratings:
    +3,605
    I do not accept the supernatural bits because there is no good evidence demonstrating that the supernatural even exists and/or that the supernatural events claimed in the Bible ever took place. It is about evidence. Do you have some? For instance, do you have evidence that demonstrates that corpses can be re-animated, rise up from their graves and walk around?

    Do you accept everything the Qu'ran says? What about the Bhagavad Gita? Why or why not?

    I don't accept it as true, but I don't claim it absolutely isn't true.
    My stance is, 'So you claim this thing happened ... what reason do we have to believe it happened?" I need reason(s) to believe something exists or happened, don't you?

    Please explain to me what it is you do not understand about the burden of proof, because you don't seem to be getting it.

    You make a claim, you back it up. If you can't, then I can dismiss the claim just as easily as you made it. And why shouldn't I? I mean, if we have to believe everything we hear until someone can show that it's wrong, we'd have to believe anything and everything we've ever heard. That would mean that we have to believe that aliens have abducted human beings, taken them up in their ships and performed weird experiments on them. It would mean that we have to believe in demonic possession. It would mean that we have to believe in the Loch Ness monster. It would mean that we have to believe in all the Gods that everyone on the planet believes in, until they could be proven not to exist.

    Much like faith, that's not a great pathway to truth and knowledge.

    You are the one claiming that the universe is designed. If you believe that, don't you think it helps to know what you mean when you use the word "design?" You need to define your terms so everyone knows what you're talking about.

    I guess I missed it then. Obviously there is something wrong with me. ;)

    Or, you didn’t define it.

    Did you define “design” the way you defined “spirit” here? Which is to say, not at all?

    Why would it be pointless to define a term you are repeatedly using in your arguments?

    I don’t need to know how the dictionary is using the term. I want to know how you are using the term.
     
  8. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    8,624
    Ratings:
    +3,605
    I'm asking questions in order to better understand your argument(s). If I don't know what you mean with the terms you are using, how can I possibly understand what you're trying to say?
    This is how discussions work.

    What you stated there doesn't back up your assertion. Hence the reason I asked how you think it does. What did you expect me to say? Next time, provide an answer that backs up your assertion and I won't have to ask that question.

    Sorry, what?

    School master? LOL
     
  9. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I find it interesting that you ask a question like this...
    Then run through an entire post with a subheading "What is design?" and see everything else but that.

    I think that one has the freedom to assume that they are being reasonable in their conclusions. :)
    After all, I do believe I have reached a reasonable conclusion, in this thread - not by assumptions. :D

    However, how do you determine whether these species were original or not, independent or not, existing or not? Remember coelacanths, and others?
    What if you found that these species are not extinct?
    How do you know that your guess is not wrong, and that these differences are not due to Human genetic variation simply through heredity?

    I'm not what? Hmph. See above.
    Oh, by the way, I read one of the links (don't blame me, since I am sure you didn't expect I would read every one, being that I am not crazy), and speciation seem to lead to hybridization, rather than anything more positive.

    I suppose I could have said the alphabet, which seems more fun, I still would have answered.
    However, apparently I did miss the point, since you forgot to sharpen it, but that's history now.
     
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Okay.


    It would certainly help.to know what I mean when I use the word design. Do you know?
    Again, see the OP.

    Can I answer that? [​IMG]


    How can you reason with children who do not understand what you are speaking about? Would it not be wise to first use something they can understand, to make sure they can follow you, and understand what you are speaking about? Not referring to you as a child. Just using an example.

    Really? I understand discussions to be both persons listening and speaking - not at the same time, of course. If however, one person fails to listen, then the discussion is lost.

    I made no assertions. Should I count these?

    Don't worry about that now. However, if you insist. Okay, why don't you explain to me what design is.
    You're welcomed. :D

    Sorry SkepticThinker but I can't help it if ones on these forums have temporary blindness. All I can do is feel sorry for you. Does that help at all?

    Glad you got a tickle out of that. Should I have said mistress. I'm sorry. :)
     
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    As I noted earlier, the OP gives two justifications for concluding that something is "designed": "it's in the Bible" and "complexity = design". You've since said you're not arguing that "complexity = design" so that only leaves "because the Bible says so".

    That's the great thing about the examples I gave; the circumstances involved show conclusively that the newly-evolved species were indeed new.

    Um....you do know that "coelacanth" is not a species, right?

    Irrelevant to the point at hand. The fact remains, new species arise via evolutionary mechanisms. We know this because we've seen it happen several times, with all sorts of taxa.

    But I thought Jehovah's Witnesses were okay with the evolution of species? I thought it was only evolution beyond the family level that you objected to?

    Again, that makes no sense at all.

    You have it precisely backwards.
     
  12. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Those studies were done to show what might happen, not what did happen, and from what I read, hybridization does occur.

    We are not talking of new species as was explained before - a new species of fly is nothing more than a fly, It has not become a bat, or bee, or a baboon.

    There is nothing that says, or shows, or demonstrates that speciation led to one organism evolving to another, nor it descendants.
     
  13. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,799
    Ratings:
    +13,135
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You have only shown that you have no clue about evolution. "Change of kinds" is a creationist strawman. We do not expect to see that with evolution. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    What did I say different to what you have said, apart from your first, second and last statements?
     
  15. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    No, they are documented cases of the evolution of new species. And if you look closely, you'll see that they continued to study the newly evolved species over the ensuing decades after they arose.

    Yes we are....that was my entire point, remember? To refresh your memory, the question at hand is....if evolution has been producing new species for millions of years, exactly how do the new species keep track of their taxonomic status relative to their ancient ancestors, so they don't become a new "kind" (which the JWs here have said is equivalent to the family level)?

    No one has said otherwise.

    No idea what you're talking about here.
     
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,799
    Ratings:
    +13,135
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is where you demonstrated your ignorance:

    "We are not talking of new species as was explained before - a new species of fly is nothing more than a fly, It has not become a bat, or bee, or a baboon."

    If we observed that happening that would refute the theory of evolution.

    For example, you share a common ancestor with other apes, you are still an ape. You never evolved out of being an ape. Do you understand that?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    So tracing that back we are all bacteria, or whatever the universal common ancestor was thought to be, right?
    What does saying that have to do with what happened?
     
  18. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,799
    Ratings:
    +13,135
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Bacteria are modern organisms but yes, the evidence clearly demonstrates that we came from unicellular life. And that only shows that you used a poor argument and cannot admit your error. Since you just complained about someone else not being honest I would suggest that you practice what you preach.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,899
    I honestly think @nPeace is doing the best he can. Kinda sad, but it does explain a lot.
     
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,799
    Ratings:
    +13,135
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I have a 'theory' that creationists cannot afford to let themselves understand evolution, or even the concept of evidence.
     
Loading...