>>>> 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.
so, just to make sure, once more, you are stating that all of creation
(ie, everything that exists) shows no "organization or structure of
formal elements" or "combination of details or features" or "intention,
purpose or end"??
>> like that it all fits
>> in perfectly each in function and form?
>>
>
> It all fit nicely, yes.
ah but i guess you meant "it shows no design, because if i say it does,
you will inevitably say that therefore there must be a designer.. and i
cant give you even the slightest foothold, no matter what the
intellectual/honesty cost"..
>>>> 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?
sin comes from our decision to do the bad things that we do that
separate us from God.. sin is the bad things that we do that separate us
from God
>> 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?
well, contradict me with an example if i am wrong.
>>>> 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?
for example, if we use entropy, "better" would mean "more organized" in
another context "better" could mean "more stable" in yet another it
could mean "more peaceful" or "more pleasant".. in biology it could be
"more apt to survive" or "able to survive longer"...
one example of why things are worse, is the extinction of soo many
species.. and yet no rise of any new ones..
>>>> 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.
well, thats another issue completely, and given the standards i have
observed here for what qualifies as intelligent, the design would have
to be atheist to be even eligible.. (since ive been called a moron and
countless other terms challenging my own intelligence for the simple
fact that i believe in a loving creator God.. i guess newton was a moron
too.. as were the great majority of the compilers of the information we
have today that we refer to as "science")
>> 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.
and while DNA does, it does not self create.. it is incapable of it..
not even all the random chemistry in more than billions of years could
create it.. but yet, it contains huge amounts of information, someone
once described it as more than several complete encyclopaedias.. and DNA
is not intelligent, it only knows how to replicate.. and not even.. that
process is highly complex and is controlled by external agents (specific
enzymes all working perfectly in conjunction to accomplish this)
even simply the odds of amino acids coming together in an unaided
fashion to be useful towards the eventual existence of DNA is about 10
to 20 times greater than the age of the earth!! and we still dont have
DNA at that point yet!!
>
> 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?
if it had been my own actions, dont you think i could have done
something about it earlier? as opposed to wait to be able to "think God
was responsible for the change"?? you forget, (or maybe i didnt mention
it) but i did NOT like the way things were turning out.. i wanted to end
my life.. and i did not want to go on that way.. if i _could_ have done
something of my own choice, i would already have.. and pinning it on
chance is only convenient if you are an atheist.. but chance could very
likely have played a chance much much earlier to make a difference, but
chance never did.. it was only when i sought God that any difference
occurred, and thats only the major example.. i continue to see this
being the case in my daily life.. where things only actually change for
the better when i seek God to solve them.. after as many "coincidences"
or "chance" that this occurs this way, you start to lose the possibility
that it is chance at all
>
>>> 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.
and by "indirectly attributable" you mean in the same way that medicine
and doctors are "indirectly attributable" to death and disease when
people disregard these? its like blaming cough medicine for not healing
your cough when you dont take it.. makes no sense..
death and suffering exist as a result of us turning away from God (what
we refer to as "sin")..
>
>>> 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?
to convince you? none! i cant convince you!! it would be a ridiculous
endeavor to prove that light exists to a man who refuses to open his
eyes! if you refuse to accept any proof or evidence i offer, no matter
how valid it is, i will never be able to "convince" you of anything..
why even try? i can offer the evidence and proof i have, but its upto
you what you do with it.. much like it is with anything..
>>>> because you think im a liar
>>> No .. because it is not proof
>
> Proof, is irrelevant. There is no empirical evidence.
to be honest, i am not really sure what the difference between proof and
evidence is in your usage.
>>>> 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
not really, sometimes its just based on the testimony..
>
>> opinion or not, subjective or not..
>
> Wrong
actually, saying "wrong" demonstrates how little you know about the
justice system.. opinions and subjective accounts are what eye witness
testimony are all about.. there is no such thing as an objective
account, since not everybody sees the same thing.. (not everybody
concentrates on the same details of an event.. someone may remember the
perpetrators facial features while another only his attire.. etc..)
obviously by subjective we are not talking about the distinction between
subjective and objective where subjective talks about "feelings"..
from these subjective accounts is from which the jury forms a picture of
the actual events, and decide what the truth is.. the only inadmissible
thing is "hearsay".. where a person states something they heard "about"
the events, as opposed to what they personally experienced themselves..
>>>> 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.
how? by travelling in time?
>
> With the bible, nothing is verifiable.
"nothing" is a pretty bold word to use here.. especially considering
that most of it is.. (if not all, in the case where you are not
rejecting the proof supporting supernatural aspects too)
>
> 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.
hmm, never heard any of this, can you state your sources so i can go
check it out? the closest i heard was that some of it was proving and
supporting the christian take on a lot of things.. like with some texts
found written by the essenes, and some other stuff..
>
>> do you reject those? no.. why not?
>
> Because they have supporting evidence.
for many historical characters you would be surprized how little
supporting evidence there is.. and yet nobody questions them.. most
historical figures are known due to one or two lines in one or two texts
that say "this guy wrote this" or "that guy did that".. and not much
more.. but since those guys didnt claim to be God (tho theres even some
who did) we dont care.. but somehow we now need more proof that the
historical Jesus existed? we need His bones (which if He indeed rose
from the dead, we will never find) and DNA analysis (compared to what?)
to prove there really was a historical Jesus?? thats ridiculous! if i
started denying that there really was a plato, you would be scarce for
evidence to prove he really existed, and is not just some greek
fabrication.. but i find there no relevance to question his existence
since whether he existed or not does not change my eternal destination..
>> 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.
still a something, abstract or not.
>
>>>> 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.
the complexity of DNA is quite relevant, especially when directed at an
evolutionist, since how complex DNA is affects the probability of its
existence, and especially when attributed to randomness..
>
>> it might lend some (tons) of
>> weight to my position..
>>
>
> And pigs might fly.
if you ever saw a pig fly, you wouldnt think it so crazy.. (you might
think yourself crazy and deny it though.. heh)
>>>> 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?
awww.. are you having a "lets be patronizing instead of listening to the
point being made" existence? please also notice how many times i was
being called a liar in the original post (as well as countless others
here) before you drop a stinker like that one..
>>> 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.
i disagree, i propose that you would question the validity of evidence
coming from a different (especially if "opposing") camp.
>
> We will accept subjectives, and hearsay, from no one.
i disagree again, especially when those subjectives come from your
clergy (eg dawkins..)
>
>>> 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.
EXACTLY!! He knows what it will take to convince you.. or rather.. He
knows that you will not be convinced by anything since your heart is
solid and cold, so.. why bother?? if there was anything that could
convince you, He would have already shown it to you.. and He does, ive
seen it happen with several atheist/agnostic friends of mine.. as soon
as they sought Him out, He showed Himself with power and love to them..
what did He show them? well, whatever was enough for each individual..
> ...But perhaps the easiest thing would be for it to simply switch our
> faith back on, and make us all xtians.
haha, exactly, it would be the easiest way.. but then that would muzzle
our free will and all that, and He loves us too much to make us
robots/slaves.. so He leaves it upto us to choose or reject Him, as much
as He would love for all of us to seek Him.
>
> 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?
i dont know, you tell me.. and while youre at it, tell me what that has
to do with what i wrote to which you were replying?
>
>> 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.
well, what if everything that exists came into existence by having been
created (except God, obviously, in case you were going to go there), and
therefore everything we have is either created or a derivative work of it?
>
>>> 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.
ok ok, i get what you mean.. so then: DNA?
so far it has yet to be shown how it could have come about from the "raw
ingredients" scientist propose the earth contained before life.. or
anything else for that matter.. amino acids? sure.. but they were all
the wrong orientation to have even matched the orientation for life as
we know it. and we still dont have DNA.. not even by an aided process
>
>> 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.
no, pretty much all religions (even non-abrahamic ones) believe we will
all be judged for our actions by some higher authority..
>
>
>> 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.
well, not "sorry".. if anything you mean "repent" which means to "change
your ways from bad to good" (from sin to God).. which means essentially
you have to give up doing the bad stuff.. and even then, you are still
not judged as innocent, you are still found guilty.. its just through
the punishment for those sins endured by Jesus that we are liberated
from enduring it ourselves.
>
> So no worries there; Eh?
>
> But what about the people that you have harmed?
>
> What if they DON'T forgive you.
forgiveness is for the forgiver.. when you forgive someone for what they
have done to you, it is YOU yourself who is freed from the torment of
what they caused.. as one who has forgiven, i should know.
>
> Oh yes, now I remember; They will go to hell.
only God has authority to determine who goes to heaven or not.. i dont
make that call..
>
>
>> 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.
we still go through judgment, and i assure you, i will be declared
guilty for what i have done, i just wont get punished because Jesus
already paid for those sins.. but the only way to receive that
forgiveness, is to repent, which means that i only become a christian, i
am only saved, when i choose to change my life around AWAY from that
sin, AWAY from those bad things i did.. thats the whole point.. if you
keep doing the bad things you did before.. you didnt really repent, did
you? you arent really a christian, are you? you arent really forgiven..
and.. well you get the point..
>> 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?
not sure what you meant here
>
>
>> 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.
well, that sounds really fine and good, but its not really a burden if
you think what you are doing is fine, or you dont care.. or if your
conscience is cauterized.. or if you allow nobody to tell you whats
right and wrong and you are the one who decides this.. trust me, you are
no saints, you dont have the pure souls you think you do.. your misdeeds
causing a burden on your selves, well, that would only be the case if
your conscience were pure and based on what is righteous.. any straying
and it invalidates the whole premise
and the whole not having a God to forgive you, well.. thats your own
damn fault, aint it?
>
> 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.
and yet, look at the results it yields!! here you are, mocking my
beliefs, calling my loving creator God derogatory names, and you claim
you have the harder task, and your conscience is tormented and
what-not.. holey crap, man.. CRY ME A FRIGGIN RIVER! you are
ridiculous.. what a friggin joke..
>>>> 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?
and lets say that same guy worked for all those days.. and on the day he
was going to buy his sweet new briefcase, he gets mugged, and they take
all his money.. or, even before that, say for whatever reason he HADNT
been able to work those extra hours for whatever reason, maybe he had an
accident, and was unable to work at all.. any number of things.. God
isnt just a vending machine, he helps out in your efforts, that you may
achieve those goals you strive for as well.. sometimes He does
supernatural things.. but most of the time, its just aligning the
everyday things to get us to be able to have that sweet new briefcase..
or a beautiful loving wife (as is the case with me).. you atheist place
such huge unrealistic demands of God that nothing will ever be enough
for you to see His hands in everyday things.. most theists dont have
that problem, we enjoy all the little things He gives us too, and we
also enjoy sharing that joy with others, as did your evangelizing loon
with you..
>
>> (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.
um.. only if you are reading anton laveys bible.. my bible (you know,
the one most christians use, with the first part being also the one most
jews use...) says nothing even remotely similar.. a promise is only
broken if a promise is made.. you cant make promises on behalf of God,
and therefore God is in no way bound to give you all you pray for.. what
the bible DOES say, is that if you pray according to His will, THAT is
when you will see things being given to you.. but i cant for example
pray against God's will, so.. sorry, no prayer that sounds similar to
"dear God, please kill bobby, cuz hes a jerk" will ever be conceded.. it
might be answered (ie, you go the next day to read the bible and it says
"thou shalt not kill" for example.. and you realize your prayer was not
according to God's will.. ) but not conceded..
>
> 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?
did you see the wind being created? have you seen the wind? does the
wind exist?
have you ever seen your grandpa? did you see him come to existence? do
you believe he exists?
what was the point of your question again?
>
> No metaphors, literally, see it creating anything?
No metaphors, literally, how many people have you seen being born? do
you then also believe that all those other people you didnt see being
born DONT exist? or that they were never born?
>
>> and i have also realized that the universe cannot self create,
>
> Why not?
>
> Your god did.
um no.. if you didnt read it in my other post (i thought it had been in
this thread.. but ill repost it again) self-creation is IMPOSSIBLE.. not
even God can create Himself.. this is a logical impossibility. He is
however infinite and eternal.. and coupled with almighty, makes Him able
to create things
>
>> 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.
but what if you wrongly concluded it was one of the first few options,
and left it at that?
and why does the christian God have to be your last resort? oh yeah,
nevermind.. we know that answer too..
>>>> .. 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.
thats not what i said at all.. i was pointing at the fact that i WAS
being called a liar.. i didnt say you "think" im a liar.. i said that i
was actually being called a liar, and that what i was saying were lies..
but, of course, that would require you to actually observe the evidence
at hand, and then process correctly, and also go through your available
options.. (insanity, wild dreams.. etc) before you could come to the
correct conclusion.. but you didnt make it all the way, and decided to
assume i was being "touchy" and spewing stuff out of my emotions rather
than reality... hah.. no wonder you dont listen to christians, you think
we are all crazy, and ignoring the realities of the matter is not one of
your strengths!
>
> If YOU believe what you are telling us, then for you, it is the truth.
actually, the truth is not relative, it is absolute. there is no such
thing as "for you it is the truth" i might believe its the truth, but if
i am wrong, its not the truth at all.. i would be wrong, and i would
believe something that is wrong, but again, that would not make me a
liar, nor does what i believe in magically make any of it true.. not
even "just for me".. this works both ways, just in case i need to
mention it..
>
> However, just because you believe it, does not mean that we have to.
yeah, i agree. again, it works both ways too, but i nonetheless agree
wholeheartedly
