The myths of Genesis

[Polymath257]

Your comment is totally irrelevant and immaterial. I was an atheist when I began. The methodology ? Probably way beyond your ability to grasp.

Try us. We have some fairly smart people hanging around.

You claimed to have done a graduate course in GR. Do you at least admit that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

 

[ChristineM]

By stating that God cannot ever be proven or disproven, my Faith is supported in believing this proves he exists. IF, you cannot prove he doesn't exist, he exists.

By stating God cannot ever be proven or disproven, my belief is supported in believing this proves gods non existence. You make the original claim, it therefore falls to you to validate your claim

Of course, my claim is backed up by several proofs ;-), the most obvious one is the one you are part off, proof by exhaustion. Over thousands of years, literally billions of people have failed to prove gods existence. It would only take 1 success to dispel that proof and end atheism at a stroke. Now disprove my proof and make yourself the poster boy of all Abrahamic religion

Funnily enough you are also party of my second proof, e=mc2 shows no god as described in revelation 19:6 kjv can exist in this universe at the same time as mass, and you are mass

 

[ChristineM]

Your comment is totally irrelevant and immaterial. I was an atheist when I began. The methodology ? Probably way beyond your ability to grasp.

You made a claim you refuse to validate it? Why i ask myself?

And then you drop into ad hominem. First mocking disability then this

How that shows the type of person you are, a true Christian perhaps?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So that is what you call evidence? Obviously, we have a disagreement about what constitutes evidence as all I see is your word and to me, that is not evidence.

See my thread delineating the chief reasons evolution is true. Also read an eighth grade biology textbook. Then you might understand the evidence for evolution, even if you still refuse to accept the fact that it is true.

 

[shmogie]

By stating God cannot ever be proven or disproven, my belief is supported in believing this proves gods non existence. You make the original claim, it therefore falls to you to validate your claim

Of course, my claim is backed up by several proofs ;-), the most obvious one is the one you are part off, proof by exhaustion. Over thousands of years, literally billions of people have failed to prove gods existence. It would only take 1 success to dispel that proof and end atheism at a stroke. Now disprove my proof and make yourself the poster boy of all Abrahamic religion

Funnily enough you are also party of my second proof, e=mc2 shows no god as described in revelation 19:6 kjv can exist in this universe at the same time as mass, and you are mass

Do you really think God is bound by the laws he created ? Of course not. Your so called evidence is totally irrelevant..

We have no obligation to prove anything. You cannot prove God doesn't exist, and all of your scientific evidence proves nothing about the fundamental questions of the existence of the universe or how life began. No atheist has even a glimmer of a clue as to why these things happened. "nature doing what nature does" is a pitiful answer, where did nature come from ? Why are there natural laws, where did the laws of physics come from, why are we, we, and not, nothing ? Science primarily describes processes and pontificates about others, but it rarely if ever answer the why.

Now, to having to prove anything. I find many atheists here as eager and frantic to spread their faith as a demented Pentecostal preacher. Even when the OP says, this is for Christians only, they wet themselves to crash in and make their demands and push their world view. NO effort is spared in turning the conversation to their same old BS. Why they think it is so important, escapes me.

We have no need to prove anything to ourselves. WE have no responsibility to prove anything to you, YOU are the anti religionist's in the RELIGIOUS FORUM'S. Your faith and it's evidence singularly fails to impress us, your name calling is rude, and if anything is to be proven YOU must do it. You have totally failed so far. Keep trying, if you choose, and I know you will.

 

[shmogie]

Try us. We have some fairly smart people hanging around.

You claimed to have done a graduate course in GR. Do you at least admit that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old?

I admit that it appears that way. And as I recall, I was responding to a particular person, so don't take it personally.

 

[shmogie]

That sounds like an incredibly irrational and unreasonable way to approach things. For example, what would you say to 'If you can't prove the Higg's boson doesn't exist, it exists!' or 'If you can't prove dark matter isn't made of axions, it is!'?

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. To prove existence, you have to actually *prove existence*. it isn't enough to say the non-existence hasn't been proven. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim.

No, you are leaving out a critical element, faith. In the Bible Faith is described as " the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen." We all exercise faith to a greater or lesser extent. As an example, I have had numerous discussions here with atheists who exercise total faith in abiogenesis, to them, unequivocally, it happened. There is no proof of this, and there are powerful arguments that thoroughly undermine it, yet, they have the faith.

Tell me, how do you know dark matter is made of axions, I try keep up on Cosmology, a strong interest of mine, and I haven't come across this. I would like to read about it.

The proposal re the Higgs boson was based upon extremely strong evidence, even so, the primary researcher on the project at the Hadron collider in Switzerland, said just before the experiment where it was actually seen, " It should be there". Faith again.

There is no burden of any kind on me re my world view and Faith. My obligation as a Christian is to ensure that people are aware of the Gospel, the Good News. Nothing more. I engage in Apologetics because I am an old geezer and the discourse is great for keeping my mind somewhat as it once was. However, I am not trying to convince anyone God exists. Rather, I am trying to point out that there are really only two answers to the question, " why does everything or anything exist ?" Atheists are proud of the scientific answers to these questions, and truly believe they have open minds. They major in minors. Their faith is very strong.So, I hope to make them truly consider God, by showing that their faith is based on many things they really believe are true, that have never been proven, and the scientific basis for their belief has foundations made of sand. Also, I find it enjoyable.

I will though provide proofs, at least strong evidence, but no matter the qualifications both academic and professional, no matter if three PhD.s are held in science, one from Oxford, no matter if one is a scientific faculty member at Harvard, if they believe in ID, they are discounted. Their evidence is of much less value than an atheist believer in abiogenesis/macro evolution, with lesser experience and or academic qualifications. I had one dear soul tell me I must provide evidence from atheistic scientists, because he would not consider anything from one who holds the ID position.

 

[ChristineM]

Do you really think God is bound by the laws he created ? Of course not. Your so called evidence is totally irrelevant..

We have no obligation to prove anything. You cannot prove God doesn't exist, and all of your scientific evidence proves nothing about the fundamental questions of the existence of the universe or how life began. No atheist has even a glimmer of a clue as to why these things happened. "nature doing what nature does" is a pitiful answer, where did nature come from ? Why are there natural laws, where did the laws of physics come from, why are we, we, and not, nothing ? Science primarily describes processes and pontificates about others, but it rarely if ever answer the why.

Now, to having to prove anything. I find many atheists here as eager and frantic to spread their faith as a demented Pentecostal preacher. Even when the OP says, this is for Christians only, they wet themselves to crash in and make their demands and push their world view. NO effort is spared in turning the conversation to their same old BS. Why they think it is so important, escapes me.

We have no need to prove anything to ourselves. WE have no responsibility to prove anything to you, YOU are the anti religionist's in the RELIGIOUS FORUM'S. Your faith and it's evidence singularly fails to impress us, your name calling is rude, and if anything is to be proven YOU must do it. You have totally failed so far. Keep trying, if you choose, and I know you will.

Assuming there is a god, and he at least in part inhabits this universe's what makes you think he would be above the physical laws of that universe while in it? You have evidence? A written statement signed and witnessed? No, thought not

You make the claim for gods existence, you are therefore obliged to prove your claim or have it treated as guess work... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Actually a can prove the any omnipotent god can't exist, the problem is you will not even evaluate the evidence.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you really think God is bound by the laws he created ? Of course not.

So He's a hypocrite?

You cannot prove God doesn't exist

They can prove lots of things, including that certain concepts of the divine don't or can't exist.

It doesn't even take physical experimentation. Just looking at the texts can get rid of lots of silly notions, like God being all-powerful. Clearly He isn't, as beheaded people aren't healed and He can't win against iron chariots. God forbid He should go up against missiles ....

We have no need to prove anything to ourselves.

Sure, not if you don't care about being right.

No, you are leaving out a critical element, faith. In the Bible Faith is described as " the evidence of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen."

The blind leading the blind also forget we are to SEEK so we can FIND.

 

[shmogie]

Assuming there is a god, and he at least in part inhabits this universe's what makes you think he would be above the physical laws of that universe while in it? You have evidence? A written statement signed and witnessed? No, thought not

You make the claim for gods existence, you are therefore obliged to prove your claim or have it treated as guess work... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Actually a can prove the any omnipotent god can't exist, the problem is you will not even evaluate the evidence.

But your side claims the universe created itself from nothing, and life created itself from dead chemicals, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you do not have it. Provide it, or have your claims treated as guess work. Do you have any fossils from that very first organism or itś kin ? No, thought not.

Actually I can prove that that very first organism did not exist, but you refuse to consider the evidence

God is above those physical laws of the universe, because he created them

 

[ChristineM]

But your side claims the universe created itself from nothing, and life created itself from dead chemicals, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you do not have it. Provide it, or have your claims treated as guess work. Do you have any fossils from that very first organism or itś kin ? No, thought not.

Actually I can prove that that very first organism did not exist, but you refuse to consider the evidence

God is above those physical laws of the universe, because he created them

Methinks you need to learn what "the other side" actually says before perjuring yourself

No, my side does not say that, science, as in cosmology and mathematics says it is a possibility that the universe came from nothing. it's only your side that makes definitive statements of the unknown.

As for abiogenesis, science does not claim it as fact although it's more than a possibility, given the known chemicals and conditions then it's a probability.

The evidence that the chemicals involved in producing rna/dna are proven to have existed. The conditions are known fairly precisely from analysis of rocks.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But your side claims the universe created itself from nothing, and life created itself from dead chemicals, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,

Of course, and that's the reason for framing those beliefs in the negative: a-theism. It's a way of semantically avoiding claiming anything, attempting to shift the burden of proof somewhere else.

I can do the exact same thing; label myself an a-naturalist: 'I make no claims that need backing up, I simply don't believe in naturalistic causes for the universe'
(and meanwhile 'default' to the obvious alternative)

But theists generally do not feel any need to do this, because their beliefs can be defended pretty well on their own merits.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But your side claims the universe created itself from nothing

That's one candidate hypothesis. Like the others, it cannot be ruled in or out at this time. My preferred hypothesis is a multiverse that has always existed is the source of the primeval universe, but only because Occams Razor points to it. Like the god hypothesis, it answers the fine tuning argument, but more parsimoniously, since unlike a god, the multiverse need not be conscious or structured. It need not be omnipotent, omniscient, or a moral agent.

and life created itself from dead chemicals

That is one of two candidate hypotheses, the other being a supernatural intelligent designer. At this time, once again, neither can be ruled in or out. And once again, one of these two is much more parsimonious than the other. One only requires that abiogenesis be possible, the other that a god be possible.

Notice that not only is it impossible to declare gods impossible or nonexistent, it isn't necessary to do so, and wouldn't change the course science takes one iota. Saying that the supernatural, if it exists, is beyond the reach of science allows science to treat it as nonexistent without declaring as much.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Except that you got the claims wrong. No evidence is necessary to list all logically possible possibilities, just pure reason.

Also, that is not the theists standard for himself. For the faith based thinker, extraordinary claims only require the desire to make or believe them.

Actually I can prove that that very first organism did not exist, but you refuse to consider the evidence

You must mean the common ancestral cell. What's your proof?

God is above those physical laws of the universe, because he created them

A god couldn't exist if it were not subject to higher laws that keep it intact, without which, its memories and other structure would become disorganized. Whatever method it uses to effect change also needs to transcend the agent that uses the method.Also, a god could not be the author of consciousness, as consciousness would have to exist in a creator before its first creation. Whatever faculties and powers a god might have require a preexisting physics of some sort to maintain its structural and functional integrity and for the god to tap into to act.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Of course, and that's the reason for framing those beliefs in the negative: a-theism. It's a way of semantically avoiding claiming anything, attempting to shift the burden of proof somewhere else.

Atheists have no burden of proof. Nobody ever has a burden of proof except the person making a claim of fact that he wants to be believed. Atheism makes no claim of fact. If the atheist were to make a claim of fact, such as that atheism is the more rational path, then he needs to explain why. If he claims that theists are wrong, then he needs to explain why. But as long as his position is that he simply hasn't been convinced to believe in gods, there is no burden of proof.

I can do the exact same thing; label myself an a-naturalist: 'I make no claims that need backing up, I simply don't believe in naturalistic causes for the universe'
(and meanwhile 'default' to the obvious alternative)

Yes, you can. You have no burden of proof there.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheists have no burden of proof. Nobody ever has a burden of proof except the person making a claim of fact that he wants to be believed. Atheism makes no claim of fact. If the atheist were to make a claim of fact, such as that atheism is the more rational path, then he needs to explain why. If he claims that theists are wrong, then he needs to explain why. But as long as his position is that he simply hasn't been convinced to believe in gods, there is no burden of proof.



Yes, you can. You have no burden of proof there.

Agreed. So we can both frame our beliefs as a disbelief of the alternative, right? point being that this semantic device does nothing to alter what our actual beliefs are, does it? It only serves as a way to avoid acknowledging them

why would you want to do that?