On Sun, 13 May 2007 21:39:41 -0400, insaner wrote:
>
>>> i would point to the design of everything
>>
>> There is no evidence of design or a designer.
>
>no evidence of design?
None at all.
>you mean this world we live in, and everything in
>nature, shows no "design"?
You are getting it.
>nothing shows purpose?
No.
>like that it all fits
>in perfectly each in function and form?
>
It all fit nicely, yes.
>
>>> and the fact that its all degenerating
>>
>> Then it couldn't have been well designed
>
>actually, its a result of what christians call "sin" which entered and
>affected all of creation.
So where did this "sin" come from, and what is it?
>but if its all degenerating, that means
>nothing new or better is..
Define "better".
>oh wait i wrote that below..
>
>>
>>> (ie, its not improving, nothing new and better is arising,
According to whom?
>>>and hence it
>>> can be deduced that it all began in a perfectly flawless state.. )
>>
>> Not a logical conclusion at all. You do not need to start from perfection
>> for things to be getting worse.
>
>but you do have to start at a "better" point, not a "worse" one..
>
I have already asked you to define "better", so while you are at it,
define "worse", and then tell us; In who's opinion is it better, or
worse?
>>
>>> but again, you reject intelligent design
>>
>> Because there is no evidence for it
Even if there were evidence of design, "intelligent", is not the word
I would use to accompany it.
>
>if you walked into the british library (which is huge by the way) and
>you saw all those books, all organized and stacked, all packed with
>information, assembled into single units (books) of organized encoded
>information (words in chapters and paragraphs) would you say there was
>no evidence of it having been "intelligently designed"?
>
No.
But then books, and shelves, and libraries, are not self replicating.
They do not breed, and mutate.
They do not live, grow, and die.
In short, they are not alive.
snip
>>
>>> i would point to the countless lives (including my own)
>>> that have changed which cannot be attributed to anything
>>> other than the hand of God.
Why does there need to be a deliberate cause, beyond your own actions?
Or for that matter, instead of your own actions, and/or chance?
>>
>> You mean that you have not attributed to anything else .. not that cannot
>> be.
>>
>>> peoples lives changing for the better.
>>
>> And countless millions who suffer and die whose lifes change to the worse.
>
>as a result of what again?
The usual things, war, famine, disease, accident, old age.
Unless we believe you, in which case, all that misery is directly
attributable to your god.
>
>>
>> That something can happen that makes things better for you does not mean
>> there is a god or a creator
>
>thats true, but wasnt the question a personally directed one? as in,
>what personal evidence do _i_ have (for myself) to believe?
More to the point: What evidence do you have, to convince us?
>>
>>> because you think im a liar
>>
>> No .. because it is not proof
Proof, is irrelevant. There is no empirical evidence.
>>
>>> and anyone else who believes in God is a liar too
>>
>> No .. because it is not proof
>>
As above.
>>> so all first-hand testimony is inadmissible.
>>
>> Yes. Because it is purely subjective opinion.
>
>tell that to the judge.. eyewitness testimony is quite admissible in a
>real court of law..
Only as a last resort, and even then, there has to be some empirical
evidence to support the witness testimony
>opinion or not, subjective or not..
Wrong
>
>>
>>> i would point to the bible
>>
>> And I'd say "so what"
>>
>>> and the instances where God made Himself physically known.
>>
>> Not proof .. the bible is just stories and hearsay
>>
>>> but again, its a religious book, and hence inadmissible.
>>
>> That it is religious is not the issue. It is not verifiable, and is a
>> collection of stories and hearsay
>
>as with ALL history books and texts..
The difference being that what is taught as historical fact, is
verifiable.
With the bible, nothing is verifiable.
The Israeli government used to be very keen on archeology, as a means
of proving that they really did have a God given right to the land.
But a few years ago, they blocked almost all archeological research .
Why?
Because the evidence that was being found, far from supporting the
bible stories, was proving them wrong.
One of the things which came out of it, was that the Hebrews, WERE the
ancient Canaanites, that the bible says the Hebrews conquered.
>do you reject those? no.. why not?
Because they have supporting evidence.
>because you dont care about those.. not because they are somehow
>impervious to error or revisionism.. but religious texts somehow become
>completely inadmissible because of their religious content (the likes of
>which you dont agree with)
>
>>
>>> i would point to the fact that dna does not spontaneously autocreate
>>> itself from scratch and can only replicate and mutate or merge.. hence
>>> needing something/someone to create it.
>>
>> It needs a process to create it .. not a something or sometone
>
>a process is a something..
Only in abstraction, it is not an object, or entity.
>
>>
>>> and its complexity equivalent to how many hundreds of encyclopaedias?
>>
>> Irrelevant
>
>hahahahaha.. of COURSE its irrelevant..
Yes, that is how it is, with vague, meaningless, questions.
>it might lend some (tons) of
>weight to my position..
>
And pigs might fly.
>>
>>> but again, thats inadmissible, because
>>
>> It is not proof
>>
>>> .. i said it, and therefore it must be a lie,
Awww. Are you having an "Everybody hates xtians", day?
>>
>> If you think you are a liar, then yes
>>
>>> even though science backs me up on this one
>>
>> Backs you up on what .. the it is impossible for DNA to exists?
>
> self-create..
>
>
>>
>>> but, you wouldnt be an atheist if you accepted evidence from a moron
>>> theist liar like me, right?
We will accept *evidence* from anyone.
We will accept subjectives, and hearsay, from no one.
>>
>> If you presented something that actually could be considered evidence, then
>> I don't care who presents it.
>
>ahh.. and here comes the question ive been posing then, so, what exactly
>would you consider proof enough to believe in a creator God..
Not our problem.
It is your god, and it is you and/or it, that wishes to convince us.
If this god of yours is all knowing, then it knows what it will take
to convince us: Why not ask *it.
...But perhaps the easiest thing would be for it to simply switch our
faith back on, and make us all xtians.
I doubt that any of us would be able to argue with that.
>i argue that there is enough proof just by opening our eyes and looking around,
How is incredulity, proof of anything except incredulity?
>but for you, what would you deem sufficient.. it could be anything. so
>tell me..
>
You could start by showing us something which was NOT created, so that
we might make a comparison.
>>
>> To be useful evidence it needs to be verifiable and objective (not a
>> feeling, or a story) and it needs to be something that cannot be explained
>> by a competing theory. Ie it needs to be something that cannot be explained
>> other than by the existence of a god.
>
>but wait wait, you said it cant have competing theories.. does this
>apply to everything or just the existence of God?
Dishonest semantics.
If the claim is for divine intervention, as in, " It must have been
created, because it is too complicated, or whatever, to have happened
by chance", then you must show that it could *only be divine
intervention.
An alternative theory, is *not* divine intervention.
> like, is the existence
>of a competing theory to explain any other scientific fact today would
>render all proof support it as inadmissible?
>
>>
>> There is no such evidence.
>>
>>> you are. some people are ignorant of the truth, ie, they just dont know.
>>> others dont care to know. others, know and reject it, and prefer to
>>> believe something else they are more comfortable with something that lets
>>> them do whatever the hell they want without responsibility for their
>>> actions.. well.. go ahead then. (you can call me a moron again, by the
>>> way.)
>>
>> Well, moron, you seem to be describing theism.
>
>thanks for that, by the way. to answer your response, its actually only
>theists that believe in responsibility for their actions, because you
>forget (at least in the abrahamic religions)
The xtian part of it, anyway.
>we believe we will face our
>creator in a final judgment..
You also believe that if you are sorry, it will forgive you, no matter
who you have harmed/wronged/whatever.
So no worries there; Eh?
But what about the people that you have harmed?
What if they DON'T forgive you.
Oh yes, now I remember; They will go to hell.
>which is the epitome of responsibility..
Bullshit.
Your Jesus, according to xtian myth, died to pay for your "sins", so
you have no fear of judgment.
>not that we demonstrate it, but that we know we will eventually be held
>accountable..
Mmm.
Of course, not believing, is also a "sin"; Or didn't Jesus wash that
one away?
>whereas if you dont believe in a creator God who will
>judge you for your misdeeds, then you dont have to worry about anything,
>you can have as cauterized a conscience as you wish, and always find
>that, hey, no matter how bad a life you led, no matter how many millions
>you led to the slaughter, when you die, thats it.. its not like you have
>to answer to anyone!
>
Except that we, atheists that is, carry the burden(?) of our misdeeds,
our selves, and do not have a convenient god, to forgive us.
If we want forgiveness, we have the harder task, of begging it from
those we have wronged, and people are prone to be a lot less forgiving
that your godonastick.
>>
>>> as though it should be real? you mean because i believe it? why would i
>>> believe in something i dont think is real?
>>
>> You wouldn't .. but then, why do you tihnkn it is real? And doesn't say
>> because I believe it.
>
>why do i think God is real? because i have seen His hand at work.. (ie,
>the things He does)
Such as?
>because lots of things for example that i have
>prayed about God has answered
An interesting thing about God, answering prayers.
I had the misfortune to meet an evangelizing loon, on a train, one
time.
He was telling me about the bible.
He was even getting some of it right.
He told me how Jesus promised to answer prayers, and give us anything
we asked for.
Not exactly what the bible says, but still...
As evidence, he showed be his nice new brief case, which he carried
his bible, and an assortment of tracts, in.
He had asked for it, and had been given it.
It took two hours to get him to admit that his own efforts, the extra
two hours a day, and Saturday mornings, for a month, MIGHT have had
something to do with it, as well... "But it was God's will that he
got it".
How many of *your answered prayers, can be explained by your own
efforts?
>(not always the way i wanted, but answered
>nonetheless)
The bible makes a clear promise
If your prayers are not answered in the exact way you request, then
the promise is broken.
What use, a got that can't keep it's promise.
If you promise to grant your child's birthday wish, and your child
asks for a particular gift, say, a toy, and you give it socks,
because it needed socks: Would you consider your promise, kept?
> i have observed His creation,
Did you actually see it creating?
No metaphors, literally, see it creating anything?
>and i have also realized that the universe cannot self create,
Why not?
Your god did.
>and God is described as the infinite eternal being, which is exactly
>what is necessary to bring about the existence of everything we see.
>that first bit of matter to come into
>existence could not have self-created, and hence it must have been
>created by an external agent.. and with that first action, time got
>created as well.
>
That is a very big assertion; Do you have very big, empirical
evidence, to support it.
In fact, do you have *anything* to support it that is not subjective?
Don't bother, we know the answer.
>>
>>> you wouldnt know God if He hit you over the head
>>
>> If he did, then that's fine (as long as he didn't kill me). Then I'd have
>> some evidence
>
>but honestly, would you believe then? or would you just conclude it was
>somebody else who hit you, and hence you imagined it was God.. and
>therefore it wasnt Him, cuz you only imagined it.. etc..
>
If there was no other possible explanation, then I would have to
believe, but not until.
For example.
If I was sitting in my garden, and my mind had wandered back to my
childhood, and something I lost in a ravine, and that something fell
on my head, I would have very few choices for explanation.
My first choice, of explanation would be that it was a particularly
vivid dream.
That the thing persisted would lead me to the second possible
conclusion; That I was in grave need of hospitalisation, for a serious
mental disorder.
After a few days, when everything else remained normal, but the thing
which I lost, remained, I would have to start looking at the
possibility that it was the result of something I had done.
Not very likely.
Super science?
Little Green Men?
About as probable as doing it my self.
After enough research had been done, and no natural, or technical,
explanation, presented it's self, I would have to conclude that there
might just be reason to look for a supernatural explanation, and
hence, consider a god.
That does not mean that YOUR god would be the one that I would think
of first.
Your god has never been famed for it's sense of humour; I would look
first, to the gods that have.
Which is pretty much ALL the other gods that man has worshiped.
>>
>>> .. or created everything around you, including yourself.
>>
>> There is no evidence that there is any creator though.
>>
>>> i find it incredibly amazing how you continuously regard me as a liar
>>
>> I didn't say you were
>
>then who was it that continuously said everything i was saying was a
>lie?
Touchy, ain't you?
Because we do not believe as you do, and reject what you tell us, does
not mean that we think you are lying.
If YOU believe what you are telling us, then for you, it is the truth.
However, just because you believe it, does not mean that we have to.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
