What would refute creationism?

[Brian2]

Oh just told us that you read the Bible, but that you did not understand it.

What year does Matthew have the birth of Christ? Please quote the verse and explain why. I will then quote the verse and explain why there is such a difference in Luke.

You really should actually study the Bible some day.

To save time I will post an articles which answers the question of Luke's mention of Quirinius.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs
It is an interesting article but probably from page 7 to page 11 on is the most important part.

 

[Brian2]

How so? I do not think that you understand the "personal incredulity" logical fallacy. You need to clarify, you can't just claim "logical fallacy". Like any other accusation or charge you must be ready to support it.

Then you should ask Skeptic Thinker to support that claim also.

 

[Brian2]

Then perhaps you should ask yourself why the things you think you are explaining don't seem to make sense to anybody else, when held up to scrutiny and questioning.

I have not had complaints from most others. Why do you say "anybody else"?

 

[Brian2]

It certainly is not. As an atheist I say, "I haven't seen any good evidence indicating god(s) exist, so I don't have any good reason to believe in god(s)."
That's it. It's not a claim. It's not an argument. It's simply a lack of belief in a claim someone else is making. Same as your lack of belief in universe-spitting pixies - we share that one, most likely.

I have seen good reasons to believe God exists and part of it is an awe with what I see in the creation.
So why does that have to an argument from incredulity and not just a rational reasoning about what I see and a decision that a God did it?
It is not as if it has been shown that the universe happened all by itself or that this is even possible.
Give me the evidence and I'll accept the no God hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you say so.

"I" don't say so.
The definition of words, says so.
Reason, says so.

I already know it is rationally justified without verifiable evidence.

Yes, it's the root problem with people who share beliefs such as you.
You assume to know what is rational and sensible even before asking the question.
You don't have the evidence that shows it rational, yet you assume it is rational.

I have a faith in God and am proud of it. You have no faith in God and want to drag me down to your level.
I know I have a faith and cannot prove it (even though it is rationally justified.)

Not "drag you down". Rather "pull you up".

But more importantly, you didn't answer my question. In fact you completely and utterly ignored it.
Could it perhaps be because answering the question honestly will expose that I am correct and that you hold a double standard when it comes to judging claims of your religion vs all other claims?

Why is it fine to believe in "no or subjective evidence" when it comes to gods, but not when it comes to cancer diagnoses?

If evidence for the Bible stories does not exist or if conflicting evidence exists that does not show that the Bible stories are false.

It does.

For example.... The literal flood story predicts a MASSIVE universal genetic bottleneck in all species, which should all date to the same period just a couple thousand years ago.
We've sequenced the DNA of many species by now. Such a genetic bottleneck does not exist. Not even remotely. Hence, story as written: falsified.

False. Disproven. Inaccurate.

Doing that shows bias against the Bible stories.

No. Doing the opposite shows emotional attachment to wanting to believe it is true.
When a story makes predictions and the predictions don't check out and are even shown to be false, then the story is false.

Adam and Eve have not been falsified even by Genetics.

Except that they have.
Human population NEVER consisted of just 2 people. Ever.
The smallest it has ever been, was a couple thousand individuals during a bottleneck around the time of the Toba volcano eruption, some 70.000 years ago.

The Exodus has not been falsified except by people who interpret the Bible and the archaeology wrongly.

No evidence of slaves in Egypt
No evidence of hundreds of thousands of slaves walking out of egypt overnigh
No evidence of them wondering through the desert for 40 years

LOTS of evidence that ancient israelites are just canaanites that reinvented their own history with some mythology lore. Just like the Romans did. And just about every other society, for that matter.

The flood has been confirmed to be a large local flood and it even has verification in the writings of surrounding cultures.

That's not what the bible says.
And local floods don't require impossible boats to flee, nor does it require loading up pairs of animals.
Instead, you can just move to higher ground.

You can attack the YEC ideas about the flood but not the Bible. Science helps us see what God meant in His word.

I just go by what the bible says.

 

[Brian2]

Again, those are the claims, not the evidence. They are stories in a book.

Yes that is strong historical evidence. Jesus enemies even called Him a miracle worker.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, it's the root problem with people who share beliefs such as you.
You assume to know what is rational and sensible even before asking the question.
You don't have the evidence that shows it rational, yet you assume it is rational.

And you assume to know what is not rational and sensible without looking at all the evidence. You don't have evidence to show God is irrational yet you assume it is irrational.

Why is it fine to believe in "no or subjective evidence" when it comes to gods, but not when it comes to cancer diagnoses?

Cancer diagnoses is a question of science and an objective evidence is obtainable for it.
That seems to be the root problem with people like you you turn everything into a science question. But no, not everything, but belief in a God you do. Why do you do that when you already know before you begin that there is no scientific evidence for God.

It does.

For example.... The literal flood story predicts a MASSIVE universal genetic bottleneck in all species, which should all date to the same period just a couple thousand years ago.
We've sequenced the DNA of many species by now. Such a genetic bottleneck does not exist. Not even remotely. Hence, story as written: falsified.

False. Disproven. Inaccurate.

It just shows that the flood was not a world wide flood.

Except that they have.
Human population NEVER consisted of just 2 people. Ever.
The smallest it has ever been, was a couple thousand individuals during a bottleneck around the time of the Toba volcano eruption, some 70.000 years ago.

Bible believers who believe the science also have a number of possible answers to the problem. I have not decided which to go with but it does not mean that the Bible is not true.

No evidence of slaves in Egypt
No evidence of hundreds of thousands of slaves walking out of egypt overnigh
No evidence of them wondering through the desert for 40 years

LOTS of evidence that ancient israelites are just canaanites that reinvented their own history with some mythology lore. Just like the Romans did. And just about every other society, for that matter.

There is plenty of evidence for the conquest story of Canaan. There is evidence for Israel in Egypt and for Semitic slaves. There is evidence of big disaster in Egypt (but of course that is not given as part of any official Egyptian record) There is evidence that the translation of the numbers in the Bible is too big.
The dating of the exodus by most scholars is wrong and unbiblical and archaeological evidence needs to be looked for a couple of hundred years earlier. With seemingly no evidence a lot of non conquest hypotheses have been invented.

That's not what the bible says.
And local floods don't require impossible boats to flee, nor does it require loading up pairs of animals.
Instead, you can just move to higher ground.

A very big local flood probably needed a big boat to take animals that lived on the land so it could be refilled fairly fast. An alternative suggestion about what God could have done is no more than an alternative suggestion.

I just go by what the bible says.

Meaning, you just go with the easiest interpretation/translation to attack.

 

[Brian2]

No. I don't "choose" my beliefs. My beliefs are a compulsion based on reasoning and evidence.
I can't "choose" to sincerely believe anything if I'm not honestly convinced by it.

Well no, you can't choose to believe something that you cannot believe. We just believe different things based on different thinking and acceptance of different evidence.

Like I suspected - you don't understand what the argument from incredulity actually is.

First, I don't hold positive beliefs in claims about god, so I am not the one who's believing anything here - that's you.

I have no verifiable evidence of X, so I don't believe X. That's not a fallacy. That's a rational position.

So you don't believe X because of your lack of credulity based on your belief in the need for verifiable scientific type evidence for a God that is non verifiable. That is what the fallacy of incredulity is. It is an appeal to common sense (only believe in things with verifiable evidence) and that contradicts you personal beliefs about evidence and what is acceptable of not.
I'm not the one who does not believe here, that is you. I have beliefs based on rational justification and faith. and I don't see why I should believe that the universe came to be as it is all by itself when there is no verifiable evidence for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you should ask Skeptic Thinker to support that claim also.

No. If he points out a logical fallacy of yours you could always ask him to support it. Others will not do that for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is strong historical evidence. Jesus enemies even called Him a miracle worker.

I don't think those works qualify as historical. By the way, what translations do you have of that? Why haven't you linked it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well no, you can't choose to believe something that you cannot believe. We just believe different things based on different thinking and acceptance of different evidence.



So you don't believe X because of your lack of credulity based on your belief in the need for verifiable scientific type evidence for a God that is non verifiable. That is what the fallacy of incredulity is. It is an appeal to common sense (only believe in things with verifiable evidence) and that contradicts you personal beliefs about evidence and what is acceptable of not.
I'm not the one who does not believe here, that is you. I have beliefs based on rational justification and faith. and I don't see why I should believe that the universe came to be as it is all by itself when there is no verifiable evidence for that.

No. That is not the argument from incredulity fallacy is:

Argument from Incredulity: When We Dismiss Concepts We Don't Understand - Fallacy In Logic

It is when one says that the other is wrong because of something that he does not believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To save time I will post an articles which answers the question of Luke's mention of Quirinius.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs
It is an interesting article but probably from page 7 to page 11 on is the most important part.

So you found your error. I can tell from your sources address that it is not a reliable one. You need something a lot stronger than liars for Jesus. Modern Biblical scholars are pretty unanimous on the screwing of the pooch in Luke.

I read your source and it only seemed to give "solutions" that it admits were failed. How did that help you at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you assume to know what is not rational and sensible without looking at all the evidence. You don't have evidence to show God is irrational yet you assume it is irrational.

I challenge you to quote me where I said that.

What I actually said, was that belief in god is irrational. And the reason is because there is no rational evidence to support it.



You seem desperate to pin your own sins on me.

Cancer diagnoses is a question of science and an objective evidence is obtainable for it.
That seems to be the root problem with people like you you turn everything into a science question. But no, not everything, but belief in a God you do. Why do you do that when you already know before you begin that there is no scientific evidence for God.

It's not my fault that god is defined in such a way that it is unfalsifiable.
Unfalsifiable models can't have any evidence by definition.

The real question is: why believe it?
Why the double standard?
Why will you accept some models without evidence and others not?

It doesn't matter if the model is defined as unfalsifiable.
For me, the reason not to believe is the lack of evidence.
A falsifiable model without evidence, is the same in terms of merit as an unfalsifiable model that can't have evidence.

They both have equal evidence in support of them: none.

It just shows that the flood was not a world wide flood.

So a story that says it was a world wide flood, is incorrect, falsified, disproven.

Bible believers who believe the science also have a number of possible answers to the problem.

They don't. At best, they have more unsupported bare claims that also fly in the face of evidence.
Or some version of last thursdayism.

Both are laughable.

I have not decided which to go with but it does not mean that the Bible is not true.

It does. Humans sharing ancestry with other species = genetic fact.
There is no version of "humans were created" distinct from other species that does not fly in the face of evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for the conquest story of Canaan. There is evidence for Israel in Egypt and for Semitic slaves. There is evidence of big disaster in Egypt (but of course that is not given as part of any official Egyptian record) There is evidence that the translation of the numbers in the Bible is too big.
The dating of the exodus by most scholars is wrong and unbiblical and archaeological evidence needs to be looked for a couple of hundred years earlier. With seemingly no evidence a lot of non conquest hypotheses have been invented.

Literally everything you said here is incorrect and flies in the face of mainstream archeology.

You might want to read up from unbiased sources.

Meaning, you just go with the easiest interpretation/translation to attack.

No. The version that is in the bible.

Btw: did you know that geology as a field actually was kickstarted by bible believers who set out to find evidence of the flood? Instead, what they found was that it never happened and in the process, the field of geology was born.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you don't believe X because of your lack of credulity

No.

Dear lord, why is this so hard for you to understand.

The reason I don't believe X is having no evidence to convince me X is true.

It has nothing to do with incredulity.

based on your belief in the need for verifiable scientific type evidence for a God that is non verifiable.

That's not a belief. That's a standard of evidence.
I don't consider anecdotes, hearsay and alike (which are just claims) to be evidence for those anecdotes and hearsay - that is circular reasoning.

For me evidence must be verifiable or I don't consider it valid evidence. At best, it would be bad evidence.

That is what the fallacy of incredulity is.

It's not.

It is an appeal to common sense (only believe in things with verifiable evidence) and that contradicts you personal beliefs about evidence and what is acceptable of not.

That's not what common sense is either...............................................

I'm not the one who does not believe here, that is you.

Indeed, I do NOT believe in claims that have no evidence.
So how could that ever be an fallacy of incredulity?

"I don't believe in evolution because i don't understand it" - that's an argument from incredulity.

I have beliefs based on rational justification and faith.

No, just on faith.
Rational justification requires rational evidence. Rational evidence, is verifiable evidence.

and I don't see why I should believe that the universe came to be as it is all by itself when there is no verifiable evidence for that.

And another strawman, coupled with a false dichotomy.

Want to add more fallacies?
I don't think you tried the ad populum fallacy or the appeal to authority. I'm sure you can sneak them in if you try hard enough.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have not had complaints from most others. Why do you say "anybody else"?

From the people arguing with you on this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have seen good reasons to believe God exists and part of it is an awe with what I see in the creation.

Which means, what?

So why does that have to an argument from incredulity and not just a rational reasoning about what I see and a decision that a God did it?

Because your argument boils down to "I cannot imagine how all of this happened so God did it." Or, "we don't know how this happened so God must have done it."
Without realizing you have all your work ahead of you when making such a claim to actually demonstrate that some God did it.

The limitations of your imagination or understanding of scientific matters have no bearing on whether or not a thing is true.

It is not as if it has been shown that the universe happened all by itself or that this is even possible.
Give me the evidence and I'll accept the no God hypothesis.

"Nobody has proven me wrong" isn't an argument against anything. Rather, it's a shifting of your burden of proof. You claim a God did it, now show us this God and how it did anything. Provide an actual explanation.

And for about the fifteenth time, I don't claim "no god." What I say is, "I'm not convinced god(s) exists, therefore I lack belief in god(s)." Which, of course, is not the same thing as say "there is no god." You see the difference, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes that is strong historical evidence. Jesus enemies even called Him a miracle worker.

No, it is not the evidence. It is the claims. Evidence would have to come from somewhere else. I mean, you don't think Spiderman is real because comic books say he lives in New York City, and New York City actually exists, right? Or when historians discovered that the city of Troy actually existed, that didn't mean that Apollo is real, right? Why is it any different for your stories?

There are mundane claims in the Bible that can be easily verified, like the names of people or cities or whatever. But that doesn't make the extraordinary miracles claims riddled throughout the book true, just because they're in the same book. You'd actually have to verify those somehow. And I'm not sure how you'd do that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you assume to know what is not rational and sensible without looking at all the evidence. You don't have evidence to show God is irrational yet you assume it is irrational.

Cancer diagnoses is a question of science and an objective evidence is obtainable for it.
That seems to be the root problem with people like you you turn everything into a science question. But no, not everything, but belief in a God you do. Why do you do that when you already know before you begin that there is no scientific evidence for God.


It just shows that the flood was not a world wide flood.



Bible believers who believe the science also have a number of possible answers to the problem. I have not decided which to go with but it does not mean that the Bible is not true.



There is plenty of evidence for the conquest story of Canaan. There is evidence for Israel in Egypt and for Semitic slaves. There is evidence of big disaster in Egypt (but of course that is not given as part of any official Egyptian record) There is evidence that the translation of the numbers in the Bible is too big.
The dating of the exodus by most scholars is wrong and unbiblical and archaeological evidence needs to be looked for a couple of hundred years earlier. With seemingly no evidence a lot of non conquest hypotheses have been invented.




A very big local flood probably needed a big boat to take animals that lived on the land so it could be refilled fairly fast. An alternative suggestion about what God could have done is no more than an alternative suggestion.




Meaning, you just go with the easiest interpretation/translation to attack.

Somebody should tell the God of the Bible it wasn't a worldwide flood then:

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

 

[Brian2]

From the people arguing with you on this thread.

Yes those arguing with me do find what I am saying wrong.
I do manage to change my views a bit at times also, or become clearer in how I argue.

 

[Brian2]

Which means, what?

To you it would be the fallacy of incredulity. For me it is not thinking, it is intuition, faith.

Because your argument boils down to "I cannot imagine how all of this happened so God did it." Or, "we don't know how this happened so God must have done it."
Without realizing you have all your work ahead of you when making such a claim to actually demonstrate that some God did it.

The limitations of your imagination or understanding of scientific matters have no bearing on whether or not a thing is true.

Who said I have a limitation in that way. I could understand it fully and still believe God had to have created it all. Atheists/skeptics seem to think that once science has worked out some sort of mechanism for how things work, that that eliminates God or the need for God or faith and intuition that it had to have been a creator who did it.
I know that you say you have good evidence and critical thinking but it leads nowhere really except to a point where you say "the gap is not that big, a leap of faith to believe science has found what it has not really found is OK and nobody will notice"
So what you believe about nature and the universe is just like a religious faith and it is really an argument from incredulity. Science has nothing when it comes to creation, you believe it happened naturally, it must be a leap of faith from what is known to what you believe about nature. And this is based on your lack of belief in a God. I can't believe that a God exists who could do that.

"Nobody has proven me wrong" isn't an argument against anything. Rather, it's a shifting of your burden of proof. You claim a God did it, now show us this God and how it did anything. Provide an actual explanation.

And for about the fifteenth time, I don't claim "no god." What I say is, "I'm not convinced god(s) exists, therefore I lack belief in god(s)." Which, of course, is not the same thing as say "there is no god." You see the difference, right?

It is true that I cannot say that nobody has proven me wrong so therefore I am right. That is not what I am doing. That however is the demand of atheists/sceptics. You say, "the burden of proof is on theists, theists have none so we must be right". It does not work like that, sorry. I have faith and you also have faith in what you believe about creation etc.
You just don't like admitting you have faith and no evidence that what you believe is true.