Life From Dirt?

[shunyadragon]

Ah yes, you are aware.......

Dan Brown wrote a book on it too.

Perfectly put, the prophecies are unfulfilled and incomplete.

Prophecies are prophecies and actually it is very subjective and vastly contradictory that they are fulfilled complete or incomplete, or fulfilled at all.

Funny how that is, they wrote the prophecies and yet do not side with christianity on the topic of jesus.

I do wonder how it is allowed to have TV shows on the Jewish programs suggesting the jewish jesus or Christian Jews.

Though Jews do not deny the existence of Jesus, but all but a very small minority of 'Christian Jews?' believe he fulfilled any prophecies. I believe the title Christian Jews? is a contradiction. Of course some Jews became Christians at the time of Jesus up until today, but the numbers are small. At the time of Jesus the Jews that became Christians had an apocalyptic view of Christianity. In the immediate history after the death of Jesus, the the educated Hellenist Jews of the Levant and Asia Minor and gentiles taught by Paul were dominant in the early centuries of Christianity and possible contributed to the compilation of the Gospels and letters or did the final compilation of the gospels and letters. By about 400-500 AD there were very very few Jews that converted to Christianity.

 

[Bthoth]

Prophecies are prophecies and actually it is very subjective and vastly contradictory that they are fulfilled complete or incomplete, or fulfilled at all.

I agree to that point of interpretations.

Though Jews do not deny the existence of Jesus, but all but a very small minority of 'Christian Jews?' believe he fulfilled any prophecies.

I understand that

I believe the title Christian Jews? is a contradiction.

Practically an oxymoron in terms.

Of course some Jews became Christians at the time of Jesus up until today, but the numbers are small. At the time of Jesus the Jews that became Christians had an apocalyptic view of Christianity. In the immediate history after the death of Jesus, the the educated Hellenist Jews of the Levant and Asia Minor and gentiles taught by Paul were dominant in the early centuries of Christianity and possible contributed to the compilation of the Gospels and letters or did the final compilation of the gospels and letters. By about 400-500 AD there were very very few Jews that converted to Christianity.

Makes sense. I enjoyed the fair assessment.
Thank You.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So have you got a way to determine if things in nature are designed or not?
I just assume design because that is what it looks like. How do you do it?
I did not say scientists are making an argument from incredulity. Where did you get that idea from?

I did not make any claims about design existing or not. That is why I asked. And it appears that you cannot support your claims at all.

In the sciences one has to be willing and able to define the terms that one uses. Creationists cannot do that. That is why I asked "what design". The burden of proof is upon those claiming that something is designed. There is no need to refute claims that have not been properly supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting presumption or faith.

That is not "presumption". You should have asked "Why there?" If you did not understand.

What would evidence for ID involve?
What would evidence against ID involve?

And this shows a lack of understanding of the burden of proof. It is up to believers in ID to develop a proper hypothesis for it. Otherwise there cannot be any evidence by definition either way. There is no burden of proof upon those that do not believe the concept. And doubly so since ID is not properly defined by those that claim to believe it. Are you aware that Behe, the man that first proposed this idea for a very short time had a proper scientific hypothesis of it? Do you know why he changed it? His original concept could be tested. It could be falsified and was. I do not think that his new version fits the form of a scientific hypothesis. But you could always show me to be wrong by finding a version that was testable. I can only say that I know how the first version failed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it can be known in some areas if science is continually getting more and more accurate.

Perhaps some are not, but I do not know of any myself. As to the basic ideas that are debated here all of them appear to be getting more and more accurate as time goes by. Which ones do you have a problem with?

 

[Brian2]

They are not mere "opinions". Just like germ theory of desease, atomic theory, general relativity, plate tectonics, etc are not "mere" opinions.



Only because gods are unfalsifiable things which are indistinguishable from imagination.
Science can't tell us either wheter graviton pixies are directly involved in gravity.
But that doesn't add any credibility to the claim of such pixies in your mind, does it?

Your double standard is showing again.

Science has no way of knowing whether God (who btw have evidence for His existence) had direct input into the design and making of life forms.
Do you see that it does not matter about graviton pixies or spaghetti monsters or other things with no evidence to support them, and which really do come from your imagination?
Do you see that you are making up a strawman about God being unfalsifiable?
Nobody is out to prove God or say that God has to be proven, so being unfalsifiable is neither here nor there when it comes to belief in God.
Everything it seems is meant to revolve around what skeptics claim is the truth. They say, subjective evidence is not real evidence and it is irrational to believe in things that have no objective evidence and the Bible is not evidence for God etc etc.
Other people however have a different approach which is just as valid since it is God who reveals Himself to people in His own way, and it is usually to people who are willing to believe in Him.

 

[ratiocinator]

Science has no way of knowing whether God (who btw have evidence for His existence)...

Where is this evidence. I have never once see a single scrap of evidence for any god.

Nobody is out to prove God or say that God has to be proven, so being unfalsifiable is neither here nor there when it comes to belief in God.

So you don't understand falsifiability. It has nothing to do with proof. It's all about evidence. A hypothesis cannot have evidence unless it is testable and it cannot be testable unless it is falsifiable. A test has to be able to fail and falsify the hypothesis it is testing.

They say, subjective evidence is not real evidence and it is irrational to believe in things that have no objective evidence and the Bible is not evidence for God etc etc.

That's because it is all true.

Other people however have a different approach which is just as valid since it is God who reveals Himself to people in His own way, and it is usually to people who are willing to believe in Him.

Somebody who is inclined to believe sees or experiences something that seems to confirm what they'd like to believe (but wouldn't convince an objective observer) and so they believe it. That's classic confirmation bias, not something that is 'just as valid'.

 

[Brian2]

You are just repeating your claims instead of explaining them.
HOW can something point to the truth of something, if you can't verify if it actually points to the truth of something???
Stop being vague. Stop simply repeating your claims. Be specific.

I love how you now are simply acknowledging that that which you call "unverifiable evidence" is really no more then the logical fallacies of confirmation bias and argument from ignorance / incredulity.

It's theology for dummies like me. I see things sometimes and can see that it points to the existence of a designer God.
Then intelligent people come along and say, "That's ridiculous, that is a logical fallacy or two and you need to be able to explain it or it is irrational and you should stop believing."

Yeah, it's called biology.

I was referring to irreducible complexity. Sometimes things in biology will not work unless fully functional in a human body.

No, YOU actually said so. See above.

And you have your personal opinion based on your belief in science and answers that it may have come up with, even if those answers are not testable and nobody knows if those answers were what happened. IOW it is educated guesses based on what might be able to happen through natural processes. But hey it's called science so who cares about little details like that when it is more fun to attack people who believe in a creator? We don't want to look silly to our peers. Science, science all the way, even if it might be wrong.
Science can be profoundly wrong when wanting to look into the past however, and because of the nature of science (looking at the physical universe) and the nature of God (a Spirit being) all science can do is find physical answers, and skeptics who have something against faith in God, will gladly have faith in that science that is just educated guesses.

 

[Brian2]

When everything can be evidence of anything, it is evidence of nothing.

It's a matter of personal perception. You have your world view also and what you see is evidence for what you believe. But in your opinion it seems that if others look at the same evidence and don't see what you see then that means that the evidence that you use is evidence for nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's a matter of personal perception.

Evidence is not a matter of personal perception. Evidence is objective facts that are consistent with one hypothesis and not consistent with alternatives. Even better, it can be previously unobserved objective facts that was were predicted by one hypothesis and not alternative.

You have your world view also and what you see is evidence for what you believe.

You really shouldn't assume that everybody thinks like you do.

 

[Brian2]

You keep claiming this...........

Yes it's a set of common beliefs that skeptics/atheists have (about the Bible and evolution and other things) that may even be themselves called evidence that there is no God instead of corrolaries that come from being skeptic/atheist, but which when looked at, do not show that the Bible is wrong or that God does not exist. But they do go hand in hand with skepticism/atheism.
I picked up the idea of corrolaries from a skeptic/atheist I was talking to one day.

 

[Brian2]

Again with the claims of negative evidence.

You can say the exact same thing about general relativity and graviton pixies.

What I am not saying is that since evolution has not been shown to be factual, that therefore God did it. I am saying that since evolution has not been shown to be factual all the way through therefore if you believe that it is factual all the way through, then it is a form of faith that is not justified except in your own imagination and world view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has no way of knowing whether God (who btw have evidence for His existence) had direct input into the design and making of life forms.

You are just repeating your claim. As noted, you can say the same about graviton pixies and gravity.

Do you see that it does not matter about graviton pixies or spaghetti monsters or other things with no evidence to support them, and which really do come from your imagination?

The evidence for them is the exact same as the evidence for gods: humans claiming it.
The only difference is that you don't believe those claims, but you do believe the claims of people concerning gods.
The point exactly. This is the double standard.

Mere claims / anecdotes that match your a priori beliefs you accept. Those that don't you don't accept.
For no other reason that they don't match a priori beliefs. This is your confirmation bias. This is your double standard.

Do you see that you are making up a strawman about God being unfalsifiable?

It's not a strawman. God IS unfalsifiable.
If you disagree, then share with us all which objective independently verifiable test can be done to test your god claim.

Nobody is out to prove God or say that God has to be proven, so being unfalsifiable is neither here nor there when it comes to belief in God.

So you don't know what falsifiability is about....
It doesn't concerning "proving" X. It concerns supporting or disproving X.
Nobody here is demanding "proof".

Everything it seems is meant to revolve around what skeptics claim is the truth.

Au contraire.

They say, subjective evidence is not real evidence and it is irrational to believe in things that have no objective evidence and the Bible is not evidence for God etc etc.

All of which is correct.
Subjective evidence is not independently verifiable, so useless as evidence to properly evaluate a claim.
It is irrational to believe things based on such evidence.
There is no objective evidence for gods.
The bible is a collection of claims that require evidence, so it is not evidence by itself.

All true.

Other people however have a different approach

So far, that approach seems to be limited to things like holding double standards, engaging in confirmation bias and attempts at shifting the burden of proof.

which is just as valid

If it were, you would find graviton pixies just as likely as your god.
You would find scientology, hinduism, voodoo, astrology, crystal healings, alien abduction, etc etc just as likely as christianity.
But you don't, do you?

since it is God who reveals Himself to people in His own way,

Like aliens reveal themselves to alien abductees
Like inner thetans reveal themselves to scientologists.
Like bigfoot reveals himself to bigfoot spotters.

and it is usually to people who are willing to believe in Him.

aka, the gullible

 

[ratiocinator]

I am saying that since evolution has not been shown to be factual all the way through...

What on earth do you mean by "all the way through"?

 

[Brian2]

I don't even understand this question.

I was answering this:
Inuition is like common sense.
It only gets you so far. It can only deal with things you already know and understand. It can't tell you anything about what you don't know and understand.
When improperly applied, it will only result in false beliefs. Like it does in this case.
I was suggesting that you were saying that you believe I am wrong and that there is no designer. Would that be a fair statement?

 

[Brian2]

And round and round the merry goes

So my faith in a creator gives me reason to say that there is a "why".
The enlightenment and the "how" question also seems to have been the result of faith in a God who gave laws that could be understood.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's theology for dummies like me. I see things sometimes and can see that it points to the existence of a designer God.

Through confirmation bias. You have given us nothing else but logic fails.

Then intelligent people come along and say, "That's ridiculous, that is a logical fallacy or two and you need to be able to explain it or it is irrational and you should stop believing."

I don't think you need to be particularly extra intelligent to be able to spot things like confirmation bias etc.
You are very capable of seeing flaws in claims and claimed evidence. You do it all the time. It's why you are not a scientologist.
Ask your self why you are not a scientologist. And think further then "because I'm already a christian".
Take a step back, limit it to the claims of scientology alone, regardless of your christian beliefs and really think about why you don't consider it convincing.

When you properly answer that, you'll know why I don't believe in your religion. It's the same reason.

I was referring to irreducible complexity.

There is no such thing. That ridiculous concept has been shown to be nothing but quack a long long time ago.
Every example the quacks that invented it gave, has been shown to be bs.

At the very heart of IC, btw, also lies the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
"I don't know / understand how this could be simpler, therefor it can't be."

Sometimes things in biology will not work unless fully functional in a human body.

Especially when one ignores the evolutionary history of the human body.
Again: the IC quacks have never been able to give an actual example of such.
And there's still also the pesky issue of the entire idea literally being rooted in a blatant argument from ignorance.

And you have your personal opinion based on your belief in science

Science is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of verifiable evidence.

and answers that it may have come up with, even if those answers are not testable

Answers that aren't testable, aren't science.
Testability is requirement number 1 for any scientific proposition.

IOW it is educated guesses based on what might be able to happen through natural processes. But hey it's called science so who cares about little details like that when it is more fun to attack people who believe in a creator?

Your strawman is noted. See above. You started with a false premise. Science is testable. If it's not testable, it's not science.

We don't want to look silly to our peers. Science, science all the way, even if it might be wrong.

Anything can be wrong. The question is: how would you ever find out if it's wrong, if it's not testable?
This is why testable science is superior to mere faith in unfalsifiable propositions.
Through testability, science has literally built-in tools for self-correction.
This is why science can make, and does make, progress. Meanwhile as a science-denying religious believer, you just sit there dwelling in perpetual willful ignorance.

Science can be profoundly wrong when wanting to look into the past however

And because it is testable, you actually have ways and mechanisms to find out if that is the case.
Anything, including religion, can be "profoundly wrong". But without some proper form of testability, how would you find out if it is?

Also, I would also posit that no theory in science will turn out to be "profoundly" wrong.
Not completely accurate or incomplete - sure.
But "profoundly" wrong? Very very unlikely.

, and because of the nature of science (looking at the physical universe) and the nature of God (a Spirit being) all science can do is find physical answers, and skeptics who have something against faith in God, will gladly have faith in that science that is just educated guesses.

You don't need faith when you have evidence.
Faith is what you need to believe things when you have no evidence or can't have evidence.

I don't do faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was answering this:
Inuition is like common sense.
It only gets you so far. It can only deal with things you already know and understand. It can't tell you anything about what you don't know and understand.
When improperly applied, it will only result in false beliefs. Like it does in this case.
I was suggesting that you were saying that you believe I am wrong and that there is no designer. Would that be a fair statement?

I am saying that there is no reason to believe there is a designer. There is no evidence of such.
And the evidence we do have, all points to a natural process with no need for a designer.

This is why I continue to bring up graviton pixies.
Can we prove no designer / graviton pixies are involved in evolution / gravity? No.
Is there evidence that such are involved? No.

So there is no reason to even suggest them, let alone believe it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So my faith in a creator gives me reason to say that there is a "why".

No. That there is a why is part of your belief / faith. That's not the same thing.
It doesn't lead you to believe that. It's part of your belief that there is a why.

The enlightenment and the "how" question also seems to have been the result of faith in a God who gave laws that could be understood.

Disagree. There is no reason at all to start with such premise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it's a set of common beliefs that skeptics/atheists have (about the Bible and evolution and other things) that may even be themselves called evidence that there is no God instead of corrolaries that come from being skeptic/atheist, but which when looked at, do not show that the Bible is wrong or that God does not exist. But they do go hand in hand with skepticism/atheism.
I picked up the idea of corrolaries from a skeptic/atheist I was talking to one day.

I have explained ad nauseum how this is a misrepresentation.