The best evidence for Creationism

[Guy1]

Now Nails it would seem that God is the defendant here and therefore it is on the part of His accusers to prove that He does not exist.

The burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim.

I already know that He does because I have a relationship with Him.

I once had a relationship with a famous model. She moved far, far away and I refuse to tell you her name because I don't want anyone to bug her about me.

He is a Spirit and those that worship Him MUST worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. He that comes to God must BELIEVE that He is. No other way to get to Him or know Him.

But if your god is real, he'll exist regardless of what anyone believes.

God met the burden of proof for me when I asked Him to come into my life.

You must have set the bar quite low.

The evidence is that my life changed from that day to this and continues to change.

And my life changed the moment I accepted the power of the spiral as the energy that links me and all my fellow spiral brethren to the universe. Are you going to deny that there is such as thing as spiral energy?

This evidence extends to thousands and millions of people all over the world in every walk of life.

So has the evidence in favor of spiral power. What you call "prayer" is actually the subconscious exertion of minute quantities of spiral energy; allowing your desires to become a reality.

There is also much evidence all around us. In the earth, in biology, in science, etc. It all screams there MUST be a Creator... a Designer.

Name one specific example that does not have a more reasonable explanation. If you mention the human eye I will laugh at you and point out far superior eyes in other animals.

Seek and you shall find.

This is what we call a "bias." We try avoiding that in science.

 

[SkyWriting]

Most likely? If you are not sure, say so.

Tell me how this eternal entity of yours is exempts itself from the laws of thermodynamics.

You have that backwards. First tell me how the big bang gets it's mass and energy from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.
Then I'll explain that the mass and energy must have come from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.

Given that intelligence is the only source of intelligence, I'll respond by saying that an all encompassing Creator is the most likely source for our physical and moral laws. I'll back that up with the "silly idea" that anybody claims to have a soul that has any value worth anything.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have that backwards. First tell me how the big bang gets it's mass and energy from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.
Then I'll explain that the mass and energy must have come from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.

So, you can't answer the question. Gotcha.

Given that intelligence is the only source of intelligence, I'll respond by saying that an all encompassing Creator is the most likely source for our physical and moral laws.

Talk about your non sequiturs.

I'll back that up with the "silly idea" that anybody claims to have a soul that has any value worth anything.

I don't think that sentence parses properly

 

[Davian]

You have that backwards. First tell me how the big bang gets it's mass and energy from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.
Then I'll explain that the mass and energy must have come from a place that can't be defined by scientific principals.

By that, you must be sure that the scientific theories supporting the instantiation and initial expansion of the cosmos do not define the scientific principles need to explain the observed mass, energy, and gravity in the universe.

But that is irrelevant.

Tell me how this eternal entity of yours is exempts itself from the laws of thermodynamics.

Given that intelligence is the only source of intelligence, I'll respond by saying that an all encompassing Creator is the most likely source for our physical and moral laws.

Being that it is not a given, this is dismissed.

I'll back that up with the "silly idea" that anybody claims to have a soul that has any value worth anything.

Perhaps a edit here might make this sentence comprehensible.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

You said it's impossible. I gave an exhaustive mechanical explanation as to how, in fact, it's possible.

And I refuted it by showing that it is an ought and ought not to thing. you haven't explained why I would want to help anyone, help anyone survive, or pass genes from an "evolutionary" standpoint.

God explains it, genes don't.

prove how genes command me to pass my genes and help another. and even if genes did, that means they are intelligent, where did that come from? God.

God explains why we ought to have children, because He commands it.

God explains why we ought to help another, because he commands it, and we are made in His image.

You've done nothing of the sort. Your only attempts at science have been to parrot Creationist websites on cosmogony - you haven't even tried to refute evolution. Keep up.

Yes I have. you have yet to even try and show how "macro-evolution" happened when it is mathematically, biologically, and logically proven to not.

You accuse me of not proving such and such - and then turn around and utter something without proof yourself. That is called hypocrisy.

How? because of the fact that our conscious, free will, is how we make choices and dictate what we do?

that is a fact. how is love, morality, altruism dictated by chemicals? I'd like to know because when I for example do something I ought not to do, I know that I ought not to do it. it's all in the mind. the genes just tell our bodies what to do, not our minds. our minds cannot be examined, but it exist.

That 'survival of the fittest' is inaccurate? Take an elementary course in evolution, you'll see for yourself. If you want to claim that SofF is somehow integral to, or an accurate portrayal of, evolution, then you have to prove it.

Yes the "evolution" theory, is all about "survival of the fittest", the "evolutionist" claim the weaker die off and that the fittest survive. how is that not "survival of the fittest"? if you object, show proof.

Ankles used to be sexual in the 1700s. Heaven only knows why. Like I said, people are idiots.

An egotistical assumption isn't proof. prove why.

On the contrary, it does exactly that: we only feel ashamed to be nude because that's what we've always been taught. This is proven positive by the existence of cultures where, without that cultural education, no such shame exists.

saying that we always have been taught that doesn't explain why it's always been that way.

why has it's always been that way? God, The Bible explains why public nudity is shameful.

there is no other explanation to why public nudity would be shameful. if you have a coherent explanation, then explain.

If you're not going to bother reading my posts, I'm not going to bother writing them. I just explained how the nature of human gestation explains why we have intimate, pair-bonding sexuality.

"Why does sex involve intimacy and pair-bonding? Because humans have a long gestational period, as well as a long child-rearing period. This makes having children resource-intensive - unlike some species, we can't mate, give birth, and leave them to it. We need to care for our young for a long time in order to properly procreate - and this requires the formation of bonds between the parents (as both have a genetic stake in the child), etc."

Sex is intimate because it cements bonds between two prospective parents, helping ensuring their mutual cooperation when procreation does occur. There are hard, mechanical benefits to having intimate, pair-bonding sex in a species which has such resource-intensive childrearing.

procreation doesn't have to occur for sex to be intimate. so that still doesn't answer why.

how would we even know to form bonds? or to even survive, these coincidences don't logically add up.

sex is intimate because you are sharing something personal, and sacred with another who you already have cemented a bond with. sex is the culmination of a relationship between a man and woman. when a man and woman get married, they don't cement a bond on their wedding night, they already have cemented it when they said, "I do".

the bond is cemented when the relationship starts, that is what makes sex intimate.

and you have yet to reply to my argument how the sexual reproduction system came about. I'll repost.

"evolution" cannot explain our reproductive organs, sorry but it all fits perfectly and is intelligently designed. you mean to tell me that it's a coincidence that there is only man or woman and not any other "species", and that when man and woman bond that they could procreate. that would be 2 coincidences in a row. I'm tired of the coincidence excuses.

it is obviously and logically no coincidence, it was intelligently and purposefully designed.

God explains sex and procreation, Genesis 1:28, 2:24.

On the contrary, if you have infinite steps, you can get there. In an eternal universe, we already have an infinity of finite steps to get to the present - remember, in an eternal universe, we haven't walked 'from infinity ago' to the present. That's not how an eternal universe works - but by assuming it anyway, you run into all sorts of mathematical paradoxes. Not because the eternal universe is illogical, but because of your naive understanding of infinity. Go read the Wikipedia article on it.

Prove how this is an "eternal universe".

most scientist agree, the universe has a beginning, and added with the other evidence it proves that the first uncaused cause is God.

No, it's impossible to count. That doesn't make it impossible. Infinity is a lot more complicated than you realise. Set theory differentiates between countable and uncountable sets, but both are perfectly valid concepts - that one is uncountable doesn't make it impossible.

Show me some evidence on how I'd get to the present with an infinite past, logically and proven with no contradiction or error.

"There is a beginning, thus time is linear". Err, OK, where's your proof?

Linear time, there is a beginning and there is an end. past, present, future. causality. Newton.

where is your proof that time is circular?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

If the universe was created by the uncaused cause, it could thereafter cease to exist. Once the universe exists, whether or not the uncaused cause continues to exists is irrelevant. Thus, it is illogical to assume that the uncaused cause does, indeed, continue to exist - if there is such a cause, and it does cease to exist (perhaps as a function of creating the universe in the first place), that also fits the criteria of an uncaused cause..

From Dr. William Lane Craig, ReasonableFaith.com:

Wow, Cyrus, that is quite a mouthful! While a few of these objections strike me as misconceived, many of them raise substantive questions which merit a response. In order for me to get through them all, my responses are going to have to be very terse.

It’s important to take these objections in a different order than you present them, since my arguments build upon one another. For example, one of my arguments for the cause’s being personal is its timelessness and immateriality, so one must consider those properties before one looks at the arguments for the personhood of the cause. So we need to consider the objections in the proper logical order.

But before we do, let’s note what you do not dispute: that there is a cause of the beginning of the universe and that this cause is itself uncaused, beginningless, and enormously powerful. That much we agree on.

So, first, is this first uncaused cause changeless? The answer is “Yes,” if my arguments against the possibility of an infinite regress of events are sound. Since you don’t dispute those arguments, we can agree that there is an absolutely first event. Since a change is an event, the cause of the first event must therefore be changeless.

To this you object:

"3.When God created the universe, a change occurred from a timeless state of affairs to a spatio-temporal state of affairs, which shows that timelessness does not imply changelessness."

I agree that God changed in creating the universe. But that only proves that He’s not immutable. Don’t confuse changelessness with immutability. A timeless being must be changeless, but that doesn’t entail it is immutable (incapable of change). You’re confusing a de facto property with a modal property. God can be changeless but mutable sans the universe.

So now we know that the cause of the universe is changeless sans the universe. A couple of important properties follow. First, its immateriality. Anything material is constantly changing, at least on the molecular and atomic levels. So we’re dealing with an immaterial being here. Second, its timelessness. On a relational view of time, time does not exist in the utter absence of events. So a changeless state must be a timeless state. Even on a non-relational view of time, time could at best be an undifferentiated time in which literally nothing happened; no change occurs. Third, its spacelessness. Anything that exists in space must be temporal, as it undergoes at least extrinsic change in relation to the things around it. So our cause must transcend space and time, at least sans the universe.

This immediately disqualifies your objection:

"2. The cause could have existed in other regions of space-time outside of the universe."

For they are not characterized by changelessness, immateriality, timelessness, and spacelessness. Moreover, this speculation was already undermined by the arguments against an infinite regress of events (including in other regions of spacetime) and rendered improbable in light of our discussion of multiverse scenarios.

So we’ve got an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful cause of the universe. Already, there’s nothing like this in a naturalistic worldview, but it fits right in with classical theism. But there’s more! Consider now whether this cause is personal. I give three arguments for the personhood of the first cause.

First, the argument, inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination, that only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause. (See the exposition of the argument in either the Blackwell Companion, pp. 193-4 or in Reasonable Faith [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008], pp. 153-4.)

You object:

"6. We parsimoniously should accept by Occam's Razor the initial big bang singularity as the cause of the universe rather than extending the causal chain further to God."

This rejoinder is futile because if the initial cosmological singularity is a physical state of affairs, as you think, then it is the first state of the universe (its initial boundary point) and, hence, began to exist a finite time ago. It cannot have come into being out of nothing, as you agree. So there must be a transcendent cause of the first state of the universe. Here my second argument, borrowed from Swinburne, for the personhood of the first cause becomes relevant. As I explain,

there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. . . . Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation (Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 192-3).

Ockham’s Razor has nothing to do with it. The question is whether everything that begins to exist has a cause.

On the other hand, of course, if the singularity is just a mathematical idealization, then it does not exist and, hence, cannot be the cause of anything. Your response that mathematical objects are viewed by some philosophers as real objects evinces a misunderstanding about the nature of idealizations in science. Idealizations, like a point at infinity at which two parallel lines meet, are taken to be non-existent; that’s the very point of calling them idealizations. They’re useful fictions.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, what it requires is the finitude of the past, not that the singularity was a physical state. I think you’re confusing Penrose’s defense of what he calls the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis with the validity of the Second Law. Plenty of cosmologists accept the validity of the Second Law without accepting Penrose’s claim that the initial singularity explains the Second Law.

You say that I “use the principle of determination to explain why the universe began to exist 13 billion years ago rather earlier or later.” This surprised me, since I thought my position has always been that that question is meaningless, since I hold to a relational view of time. In the passage you cite, the point was to prove precisely that the big bang did not occur in a super dense pellet existing from eternity! Time (and space) came into being with the big bang, and so it’s meaningless to ask why it didn’t happen earlier. Thus, everything you say about Newtonian time prior to creation is not at all representative of my view.

Finally, your appeal to “an indeterministic, impersonal cause or something else entirely that no one else has thought of yet” simply has no merit as an alternative explanation because we don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. If the cause of the origin of the universe is not a personal, indeterministic cause, then it has to be an impersonal, indeterministic cause, that is also uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. But what is that? What you’ve offered is not an alternative explanation but just empty words.

Note that if this sort of reasoning were allowed to undercut a proffered explanation, science would be paralyzed, for when confronted with any explanation one could always appeal to some unknown “something” as the real cause. I’m sure you would agree that would be crazy.

So I think this argument is a very powerful reason to think that the uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful cause of the universe is also a free agent.

More recently, my work on abstract objects convinced me that there is a much quicker and more direct argument in support of the personhood of the first cause of the universe. I came to realize that the description “uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful” is, except for the last property, a description that also characterizes abstract objects like numbers. Moreover, I’m not aware of anything other than a mind or an abstract object that philosophers have considered to possess the properties of being uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. Since abstract objects are essentially causally effete, however, it follows that the cause of the universe must be a mind.




Instead I’ve given an argument, which, if sound, proves that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful cause of the universe. The only thing that fits that description is an unembodied mind. Now it’s up to you to show that that’s incoherent if you think so.

Second, you say, “I think there is evidence that an unembodied mind is impossible.” Ah, now we’re getting somewhere! So what’s your evidence? “Every example of a mind we've ever seen is spatio-temporal and constrained to a body, so on inductive grounds alone, we are justified in rejecting the existence of an unembodied mind.” This is very weak, Cyrus! You’re supposed to give a reason that an unembodied mind is incoherent and therefore impossible. Your evidence doesn’t do anything to show that. Indeed, if you’re a dualist who thinks that human beings are composed of mind and body, then the mind is a substance distinct from, even if conjoined with the body, and the question of even human survival after death of the body becomes a live issue, not to speak of whether there may be minds that are never conjoined to bodies. What evidence is there that minds are not immaterial substances that can exist apart from bodies?

You ask, “Why posit something that literally goes against all of our prior experience?” Well, for the three reasons I’ve given for why the cause of the universe is plausibly personal. In effect, I’ve given three arguments for the existence of at least one unembodied mind. Now it’s your turn to say why that cannot be the case.

Finally, you say, “we can understand minds only in temporal and spatial terms; loving, deciding, acting, and creating are all spatio-temporal phenomena, so a timeless, spaceless mind could not possibly have created the universe.” Now here at last we have an argument for the incoherence of my conclusion. Problem is: I’ve already refuted it. See the relevant chapters in Time and Eternity (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), pp. 77-86 or in God, Time, and Eternity (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001, pp. 43-55, on whether the notion of a timeless person is coherent.

(I wonder if part of the problem here is that when I assert that the cause of the universe is either a mind or an abstract object, non-philosophers think that I am asserting the actual existence of such things. No, no, I’m only asserting that these are the known candidates for something that could fit the description. That I’m not assuming that such things actually exist is evident from the fact that I am strongly inclined to think that abstract objects do not, in fact, exist. But I include them as a candidate because they would largely fit the description.)

That brings us to objection

"5. The cause of the universe could be an abstract object."

Concerning your point about dilemmas, my argument is logically valid, even if the alternatives are not contradictories: A or B; not B; therefore, A. You contest the second premiss, maintaining that abstract objects perhaps can stand in causal relations.

Cyrus, you need to appreciate how desperate this objection is. It is virtually universally acknowledged among metaphysicians that causal impotence is characteristic of and even definitive for abstract objects. If this is the line you take, then your desperation to refute the argument at any cost will become evident to all.

You state, “the second law of thermodynamics and the law of the excluded middle are abstract objects, yet they cause the universe to increase in entropy and bar propositions from being both true and false.” Cyrus, please! The Second Law itself doesn’t cause anything; it’s the physical reality described by the Second Law that has causal effects. The logical relations between propositions, like implication, contradiction, and so on, are not causal relations. The Law of Excluded Middle doesn’t stand in a causal relation to propositions to prevent them from somehow taking contradictory truth values.

As for the quotation from Alexander Pruss, I’ll repeat what I said about Alex in Question of the Week 109: Alex is a very free thinker who delights in throwing arguments against the wall and seeing if they stick. In this case, the argument doesn’t stick. Plato’s Forms are very different from what contemporary theorists mean by abstract objects. One of the problems that bedevils Plato’s view is the famous “third man” argument of explaining how the Forms even could be related, as he claimed, to concrete, physical objects. Furthermore, it should be clear by now that I agree with Pruss that non-spatio-temporality does not imply acausality. The problem with abstract objects is not just that they are beyond space and time, but that they are not agents and therefore literally can’t do anything. They have no powers or ability to act. As for the epistemological argument, ironically, this is widely considered to be the most powerful argument against the reality of abstract objects! (See my Creation out of Nothing [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], p. 171.) Nobody thinks that this proves that abstract objects are causally related to us; rather this is taken to prove that they don’t exist!

Now I agree with you that this argument alone gives us only a mind which created the universe, not a self-conscious mind or person. But this is already far beyond anything atheism or naturalism could contemplate. When supplemented by my other arguments, it is part of a powerful cumulative case for the personhood of the first cause of the universe.

Finally, we have objection

"4. The argument doesn’t prove that monotheism is true."

I concede the point. I’ve never claimed that the argument proves that there is exactly one Personal Creator of the universe. But as you note, Ockham’s Razor enjoins that we not multiply causes beyond necessity. We are warranted in postulating only such causes as are necessary to explain the effect. All that is required in this case is one Personal Creator. To postulate more would be unwarranted.

As for your illustration about the children, I have to confess that I don’t understand you. To say that (2&#8242 is more probable than (1) requires some background information against which the probability is assessed. For example, if you are native Chinese, then given China’s one-child policy, (1) is more probable than (2&#8242. Similarly, when you say that it’s more probable that the universe have many Personal Creators rather than exactly one, I can only wonder what background information would justify such a strange conclusion.

If I were asked to justify monotheism, I would do so by appeal to other evidence, such as the ontological argument and Jesus of Nazareth’s endorsement of Jewish monotheism.

Again, in discussing such matters we have left atheism far behind. When I see you pressing these last objections, Cyrus, I’m puzzled because you seem more interested in finding an escape from the argument than in finding the truth. You can always find an escape from any argument, if you’re willing to pay a high enough price. But you should look into your own heart and ask yourself, “Why am I so intent on avoiding the conclusion of this argument at any cost? What is driving me to such an end?” I hope that your mind is really as open as you claim.



,Basically, the first uncaused cause is Changeless, Eternal, All powerful, not bound by space, time or matter. Creator of everything.

that fits God's description well. The first uncaused cause is God.

you can accept the truth or be delusional about it, deny it and look for other excuses that go against all rationality, logic and evidence. won't change the evidence that's staring you in the face.

The first uncaused cause is God. and that is just using the first uncaused cause argument alone. add it up with the other evidence for God, and you are without excuse.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Once again, where's your logic? You say that the universe had to be caused by the greatest thing ever, the thing from which no greater thing can be imagined. Prove it.

The first uncaused cause is what caused everything to exist. if the first uncaused cause wasn't eternal, and wasn't greater than the universe then it wouldn't be uncaused and the universe wouldn't exist.

also, you have yet to give an example of an intelligent irreducible complex design that requires no designer, and came about by accident, random, and from nothing.

And I'll ignore it.

Another excuse. you could post others work I'll still refute, no problem. it doesn't matter if it's from me, or someone else, as long as I get the point across is all that matters. you don't have to reply, your choice, you could reply, or ignore and lose the argument.

Use your own words, SBC. Pick an example, and let's discuss it.

The Design in the ear, and Inner ear.

Err, no. You're posting massive walls of text, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through someone else's work. I'm happy to talk to you, but not via proxy. It's not that copy-and-paste automatically invalidates the words, but that I have no interest in debating by proxy against entire essays at a time.

Stop with the excuses. if you won't reply, your showing you can't refute, thus losing the argument, doesn't matter how long it is or who it's from. you can choose to do what ever you want, reply or ignore and lose the argument.

Ah, you're referring to the so-called 'Bible code'. You realise, don't you, that the same techniques to extract 'predictions' from the Bible also yielded historical data from Moby Dick and the like? That professional mathematicians have calculated a 1 in 2 chance that any given algorithm will yield meaningful (but random) data? The Bible code is a mathematical joke, an inevitability when you take a basically random assortment of characters, pull an enourmous number of strings out, and then literally tune it match words and phrases.

Long story short, the fallacy of the Bible code is to find patterns in random noise and equate it with something meaningful. Even shorter, it's a fantastic example of confirmation bias.

Prove how, show evidence. word of mouth isn't evidence.

Allegedly. The assumption of the counter-argument is that, if Jesus' resurrection were false, the disciples would know it and would have knowingly died for a lie. This assumption is unwarranted.

How? logically I don't see how anyone would die for a lie, 11 of the 12 Apostles died for the truth. they would not die for a lie. the only logical reason as to why they died for it because The Resurrection happened.

For what? You need evidence that someone can be right about some things and wrong about others? OK:

1. I, Wiccan_Child, assert that it never rains, anywhere, ever.
2. I, Wiccan_Child, assert that 1 + 1 = 2

Right there, I'm right about some things, wrong about others. Did you really need evidence for that most trivial of facts?


Remember, the point is that Lewis' dichotomy excludes valid alternatives (such as, "Jesus lied about some stuff, was a lunatic about others, etc"), simply to make the logic work. That's fallacious. Whether or not you think Jesus lied or was mistaken about some things is irrelevant: Lewis' dichotomy simply doesn't work.

If He was lying about some stuff, that goes back to liar, which he cannot be a liar because 1, liars do not make great moral teachers, 2, the teachings were not false, if they were lies they wouldn't be great teachings 3, He taught not to bear false witness. so the liar option is null and void.

If He was a lunatic about somethings then that leads back to, lunatic, and he cannot be a lunatic because 1, lunatics do not make great moral teachers and His teachings would be wrong and inaccurate, which they weren't, so the lunatic option is null and void.

It's one of the 3, liar and lunatic are null and void, so we are left with one and only one logical option, Lord.

So the only logical explanation is that Jesus Christ is The Lord, The Son of God. add that with The Resurrection, Historical Accuracy of The Bible, old Testament prophecies about Christ, extra Biblical sources, Christian martyrs and Jesus Christ is in fact The Lord,

God exist.

Indeed, but it does mean you can't talk about having lots of eye-witnesses when, in fact, you don't.

Right, which means we don't have the eye-witness accounts - if any such accounts ever existed. You say you have eye-witnesses. Where are they?

Yes we do, the eye-witnesses that we already know of, The Apostles, and The Early Christians who witnessed Christ Resurrection died for it. they are also mentioned in extra Biblical sources. that is enough witnesses in court of law for something to be proven true. thus there were hundreds of witnesses to Jesus Christ Resurrection. add up the rest of the evidence it adds up, Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross, and Resurrected from the dead on the third day.

First, don't tell me what I do or do not know. That's a one-way ticket to the ignore list.

Second, you're confusing the 1978 analysis with later, more thorough analyses. The former couldn't find evidence in the manufacture of the cloth, but the latter demonstrated that it dates to the Middle Ages at the earliest, that the 'imprint' is nothing more than a Gothic piece of art (as evidenced by the unnatural proportions of the forehead, arms, legs, etc), etc. The most criticism of these analyses is that the samples taken aren't indicative of the whole - but even when one assumes this to be the case, the margin of error only increases by two centuries - still well after Jesus' alleged death.

HuffingtonPost.com:

A series of experiments conducted by Italian researchers indicate the Shroud of Turin is likely authentic, but the team has not yet reached a definite conclusion.

Decades of research on Jesus' proposed burial cloth have revealed an array of conflicting ideas surrounding the shroud's authenticity. However, researchers from Italy's National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development believe their findings undermine previous theories that the shroud was faked in the medieval period, the Telegraph reports. The new claim seems to be stirring controversy again, as many point to previous research to the contrary.

Last year scientists were able to replicate marks on the cloth using highly advanced ultraviolet techniques that weren't available 2,000 years ago -- or during the medieval times, for that matter.

Research in the 1980s suggests the image was "forged" on the cloth between 1260 and 1390, but scientists have determined the hypothesis was based on testing material from a patch likely used to to repair the cloth after a fire, the BBC reports.

Since the shroud and "all its facets" still cannot be replicated using today's top-notch technology, researchers suggest it is impossible that the original image could have been created in either period.

However, scientists are willing to point out the flaw in their findings. The Vatican Insider reports:

This inability to repeat (and therefore falsify) the image on the Shroud makes it impossible to formulate a reliable hypothesis on how the impression was made.
Still, lead researcher professor Manuela Marinelli estimates the cloth is at least 95 percent authentic, the Voice of Russia points out. "Nobody can give 100 percent guarantees 2,000 years after it had been found."

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I addressed that in the next post. Let's review. The Bible mentions rape three times in Deuteronomy: the rape of a betrothed woman in the city (Deut. 22:23-24), the rape of a betrothed woman in the country (Deut. 22:25-27), and the rape of an unbetrothed woman (Deut. 22:28-29). The context of the verses makes it clear: it's outlining what happens when a man rapes a woman in all three possibilities.

You say that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 isn't about rape, because it doesn't mention rape.

"If a man comes upon a virgin in town, a girl who is engaged to another man, and sleeps with her, take both of them to the town gate and stone them until they die—the girl because she didn't yell out for help in the town and the man because he raped her, violating the fiancée of his neighbor. You must purge the evil from among you."

As for punishments, in the first two instances, the man is killed, but not for the savagery of the act, but because he violated another man's property ("because he violated another man’s wife"). And in the event she isn't married, well, the law simply forces her to marry her rapist. Think about that. She is forced to marry her rapist.

Lets go through several translations of Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and not pick and choose just 1 mistranslation that suits what you want to hear.

English Standard Version

23 If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

No mentioning of rape. that is adultery.

25 But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

rape mentioned and condemned.



New International Version

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.


No rape, that is adultery.

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

rape mentioned, and condemned.


New King James Version

23 If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

No rape mentioned, that is adultery.


25 But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.

rape mentioned, and condemned.

New Living Translation


23 Suppose a man meets a young woman, a virgin who is engaged to be married, and he has sexual intercourse with her. If this happens within a town, 24 you must take both of them to the gates of that town and stone them to death. The woman is guilty because she did not scream for help. The man must die because he violated another man’s wife. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.

no rape mentioned, it is adultery.


25 But if the man meets the engaged woman out in the country, and he rapes her, then only the man must die. 26 Do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no crime worthy of death. She is as innocent as a murder victim. 27 Since the man raped her out in the country, it must be assumed that she screamed, but there was no one to rescue her.

rape mentioned, and condemned.


King James Version

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

no rape mentioned, it's adultery.


25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.


rape mentioned, and condemned.


New Century Version

Deuteronomy 22:23-24

23 If a man meets a virgin in a city and has sexual relations with her, but she is engaged to another man,24 you must take both of them to the city gate and put them to death by throwing stones at them. Kill the girl, because she was in a city and did not scream for help. And kill the man for having sexual relations with another man's wife. You must get rid of the evil among you.

again, it's adultery not rape.

25 But if a man meets an engaged girl out in the country and forces her to have sexual relations with him, only the man who had sexual relations with her must be put to death.26 Don't do anything to the girl, because she has not done a sin worthy of death. This is like the person who attacks and murders a neighbor;27 the man found the engaged girl in the country and she screamed, but no one was there to save her.

rape mentioned, and condemned.


GOD’S WORD Translation


23 This is what you must do when a man has sexual intercourse with a virgin who is engaged to another man. If this happens in a city, 24 take them to the gate of the city and stone them to death. The girl must die because she was in a city and didn’t scream for help. The man must die because he had sex with another man’s wife. You must get rid of this evil.

no rape, it's again, adultery.


25 But if a man rapes an engaged girl out in the country, then only the man must die. 26 Don’t do anything to the girl. She has not committed a sin for which she deserves to die. This is like the case of someone who attacks and murders another person. 27 The man found the girl out in the country. She may have screamed for help, but no one was there to rescue her.

rape mentioned, and condemned.



Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition


23 If a man have espoused a damsel that is a virgin, and some one find her in the city, and lie with her,
24 Thou shalt bring them both out to the gate of that city, and they shall be stoned: the damsel, because she cried not out, being in the city: the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife. And thou shalt take away the evil from the midst of thee.

no rape mentioned. adultery is implied.

25 But if a man find a damsel that is betrothed, in the field, and taking hold of her, lie with her, he alone shall die:
26 The damsel shall suffer nothing, neither is she guilty of death : for as a robber riseth against his brother, and taketh away his life, so also did the damsel suffer:
27 She was alone in the field: she cried, and there was no man to help her.

rape mentioned and condemned.

American Standard version.

23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

No rape mentioned.

25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;

27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

rape mentioned and condemned.


Contemporary English Version

23-24 If a man is caught in town having sex with an engaged woman who isn’t screaming for help, they both must be put to death. The man is guilty of having sex with a married woman. And the woman is guilty because she didn’t call for help, even though she was inside a town and people were nearby. Take them both to the town gate and stone them to death. You must get rid of the evil they brought into your community.

no rape mentioned. that is adultery.

25 If an engaged woman is raped out in the country, only the man will be put to death. 26 Do not punish the woman at all; she has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving death. This crime is like murder, 27 because the woman was alone out in the country when the man attacked her. She screamed, but there was no one to help her.

rape mentioned and condemned.


Complete Jewish Bible

23 If a girl who is a virgin is engaged to a man, and another man comes upon her in the town and has sexual relations with her; 24 you are to bring them both out to the gate of the city and stone them to death — the girl because she didn’t cry out for help, there in the city, and the man because he has humiliated his neighbor’s wife. In this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you.

no rape mentioned, that is adultery.


25 But if the man comes upon the engaged girl out in the countryside, and the man grabs her and has sexual relations with her, then only the man who had intercourse with her is to die. 26 You will do nothing to the girl, because she has done nothing deserving of death. The situation is like the case of the man who attacks his neighbor and kills him. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

rape mentioned and condemned.


Going through several different translations we can conclude

1, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 mentions no rape at all, it mentions adultery. it says she didn't scream, or call for help that means she consented to it.(adultery)

whereas Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says she screamed which means she did not consent to it.(rape)

2, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 says lies with her, has sexual relations, or sexual intercourse with, does not mention any rape or force.

whereas Deuteronomy 22:25-27 says either rape, forces, grabs. and is condemned.

in conclusion, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 mentions no rape at all, whereas Deuteronomy 22:25-27 mentions rape and condemns rape.

rape is not condoned but condemned by God. you, 1. Pick and chose a mistranslation that suited what you want to hear.

2. slandered

3. took The Bible out of context.

As for punishments, in the first two instances, the man is killed, but not for the savagery of the act, but because he violated another man's property ("because he violated another man’s wife"). And in the event she isn't married, well, the law simply forces her to marry her rapist. Think about that. She is forced to marry her rapist.

Either 1 of 2 things for Deut 22:28-29, #1, Poor translation as shown by 'and they are found' or 'and they are discovered', and it meant pre-martial sex. or #2, it mentions rape, but it still isn't condoned, and nowhere is the victim forced to marry her rapist. it says he must pay her father, and he must marry her, and that he can never divorce her. not the other way around. basically he's her slave. where does it say that she must marry him or that she is forced/obligated to marry him?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

so now,

if #1 happened, which I believe did because Deut. 22:23-24 is talking about adultery, between a man and married woman, Deut. 22:25-27 is talking about rape and is condemned and punished, and Deut. 22:28-29 looks to talk about premartial sex.

From, answering-islam.com by Sam Shamoun:


There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this is citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

taphas -

# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)
Here is one example of how this word is used:

"The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8


shakab -

# 07901
1) to lie down

a) (Qal)
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig)
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid

AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)
As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word chazaq with anah to convey this notion:

"Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

And:

"Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, "Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.(1)

The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:



# 06601
1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
a) (Qal)
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel)
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive
d) (Pual)
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived

AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)
As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

"‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

As the following Study Bible puts it:

22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

Or, as the late renowned Bible expositor John Gill explained it long ago:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed…
That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as (Deuteronomy 22:25) WHERE A DIFFERENT WORD FROM THIS IS THERE USED; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in (Exodus 22:16,17) but not without her consent:

and they be found;
in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; online source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. We prayerfully hope that by the grace of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this short paper will be of great help to those Christians who have been confronted by Muslims with the accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women. Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape.

In the service of our great and eternal triune God forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you, risen Lord of eternal Glory.

Endnote

(1) The word anah is used elsewhere without any notion of rape being attached to it:

"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored (anah) her." Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NIV

The man didn’t humble the captive by raping her since he had to lawfully marry her before he could touch her sexually. Rather, he dishonored her by taking her captive or for letting her go either before marrying her or by divorcing her since all of this would imply that the man found something unbecoming or unfavorable about the woman in question.

Similarly, in the context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 anah is being used to convey the idea that the man has brought humiliation to the maiden because he slept with her without marrying her first, something which would have been considered shameful to do.

but lets assume #2 happened, Deut. 22:28-29 still doesn't condone rape and rape is still punished.

from Gotquestions.org:

Lastly, if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is interpreted as referring to rape, it clearly requires restitution from/punishment for the man who rapes a young woman that is not betrothed. That punishment consisted of two parts: he must pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and he must marry and support the woman for the rest of her life. Fifty shekels of silver was a very substantial fine as at that time a shekel was a measurement of weight and not an actual coin. Some scholars believe it could have represented as much as 10 years of wages for the average person. The fact that a man was in any way punished for rape was revolutionary for that period of time in history. No other ancient legal system punished rape to anywhere near the degree outlined in Deuteronomy 22:22-29. While it is unrealistic to say that because of this command rape never occurred, hopefully the severity of the punishment was a strong deterrent to the exceedingly evil act of rape.

So, back to the question at hand: Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? While that is a possible, perhaps even likely, interpretation of the passage, it is not the only possible interpretation. Even if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does command a rape victim to marry her rapist, it is crucial to remember that such a fate, as difficult as it would be, was, at least for some, much better than the alternatives.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Do you think that's right? Do you think it's good and moral to force a rape victim to marry her rapist?

You have it backwards, twisting up the words again. if #2 is right, then the rapist is slave to the victim not the other way around.

the victim doesn't have to marry.

Exodus 22:16-17

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

The rapist would still be punished. so nice job trying to once again twist up the words and making it seem like the victim is forced to marry.

now see Exodus 22:16-17 brings us back to #1, since in Deut. 22:25-27 only the rapist pays capital punishment, why would Deut. 22:28-29 make the rapist pay for the crime with money, and with Exodus 22:16-17, it just shows that Deut. 22:28-29 is most likely about premartial sex. but if I'm wrong, rape is still condemned and punished either way.

Do you think it's good and moral for a rape victim to be executed, simply because she didn't scream loudly enough?

No rape victim was executed.

1, As I shown above, Deutoromy 22:23-24 isn't talking about rape but, adultery. Deuteromy 22:25-27 speaks of rape, and rape is condemned.

2, where does it say that if a woman doesn't scream loud enough? again twisting up words, it says she didn't scream, or she screamed not. that means she consents to it, otherwise she would scream. add that to the fact that it says lies with her, or sleeps with her, never does it mention force or rape or grab until Deut. 22:25-27 where the rape is, condemned.

see how you take The Bible out of context and fit it into what suits you? for example, you say Deut. 22:23-24 is rape, and I have proved you wrong. then you say if she didn't scream 'loud' enough when it never says that, it actually says if she doesn't scream, which means she would be consenting to the sex.

Deut. 22:23-24 is adultery.

Deut. 22:25-27 is rape and condemns rape.

Deut. 22:28-29 is either rape and still condemns rape or premartial sex.

So not only does God order rape elsewhere in the Bible (Deut. 20, etc), the only time it's condemned is when the woman is engaged to another man - the crime is explicitly given as one of property damage.

Your proof? where is rape, "ordered"? I already know you're lying.

Your only retort seems to be, "Oh, but that was just the culture of the time", and this excuse is hammers home in the exert you cited in post #540. Not only is that a sickeningly wicked response to such a vile law, it completely undermines your other point about morals being objective and not cultural - either they're objective, and single rape victims should always marry their rapists, or they're cultural, in which case they don't. It doesn't excuse the barbarism of the law in the first place, of course.

morals still never changed, rape was still condemned back then. and justice was still served in the best way possible. same morals, different way of rectifying wrongs for the time. rape was wrong then, been wrong, is wrong now, and always will be wrong. morals are objective.

so no matter how you want to spin it into what you want to hear and no matter how much you slander, The Bible, God never condones rape, He condemns it.

So in conclusion, you did 1 of 2 things:

1. Didn't know any better.
or
2. purposefully took The Bible out of context to help you in your argument.

and it is pretty obvious that you didn't do the former, because if you didn't know any better, you would have not pick and chose a mistranslation of Deut. 22:23-24, and ignored all the other translations which show that it was adultery and not rape.

what you did was pure slander.

Well, yea. Do you understand what 'lack of belief' means? It's something you don't have.

And again, you have to justify that with evidence. either provide the evidence or admit you can't and show that "atheism" doesn't exist and that you aren't an "atheist".

I can provide evidence for Christianity, why can't you for "atheism", there is no double standard. "evolution" isn't evidence for "atheism" because even if "macro-evolution" happened, which it did not, then God still exist, it affects nothing.

and "lack" of evidence isn't an excuse because with just 1 piece of evidence for God, "lack" of belief/"atheism" becomes automatically null and void.

Why would we bother? The Atheist Experience already does a stand-up job debunking shockofgod and his babbling brook of nonsense.

1, Because if you believed in "atheism" you'd prove it. if you could prove it, then go ahead provide proof and evidence for it, debate Shock. otherwise by default it makes "atheism" nonexistent.

no one has evidence for "atheism" because "atheism" does not exist.

2,The other way around, the "atheist" experience were the ones made to look fools by Shock.

alot of "atheist" on youtube refuse to debate Shock because they know they'll lose. same with guys like Richard Dawkins who, with a lame excuse, cowards his way out of a debate with my fellow Christian Dr. William Lane Craig.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

As the bible does not count, it is not well documented, is it?

Why doesn't it count? please try and provide evidence against approximately 40 different men gave their accounts of God, which has no contradiction, no error, and accurate teachings, predictions and extra Biblical sources. you won't be able to.

by court of law, that is more than enough witnesses/evidence to prove something true.

presupposition isn't evidence. that your personal assumptions.

The shroud of Turin? That was exposed as a fraud. Was that the best you had for the resurrection?

check my previous post to w_child

So ID is dismissed.

By who? a judge who committed Judicial Activism.

It does not show a requirement for a creator, so there is nothing to avoid. And you again failed to answer my question. Do you even understand what you cut and paste into this thread?

As I am feeling sorry for you, I will give you this: The weak anthopic principle merely states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

And again, it doesn't disprove Fine Tuning. The earth is so Fine Tuned that 1 little mistake, 1 hair away and life is over. The weak anthopic principle is an assumption.

Your question is nonsensical. Show me that deities are possible first.

No yours is, since morality is obligated and has authority over all of us, and it is our duty, there is a commander commanding these duties, thus the commander has to have authority over all humans.

since there is a commander who has authority over all of us, then there exist a being that is above us and has authority over us, and that is God. God exist.

here's a question for you, who other than God can be the commander who authorizes morality and has authority over all humans?

No you did not. To reiterate: Demonstrate to me that 1) the universe had a beginning 2) it required a cause 3) deities are possible, and that cause was by necessity a deity of some sort 4) it was your deity. All you have are assertions.

1)Infinite regression is impossible, the universe has a beginning. most scientist, will agree. there is no denial to that.

if you object, provide evidence.

2)The universe has a beginning, thus it is not infinite, it was brought into existence, causality shows that every effect has a cause. thus the first cause of everything must be uncause, otherwise we would keep going back in cause and effect for eternity, and as shown, infinite regression is impossible. so we cannot go infinitely in a past of cause and effect.

thus there is a first uncaused cause.

if you object, provide evidence.

3) 1. Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection shows that God exist.

If you object to that, provide evidence, not presupposition/assumptions.

2.Morality being obligated by an authority over all humanity, only logical explanation to that authority is God. God exist.

if you object to that then please provide evidence as to what/who has the universal authority over all humans. only God explains that.

3.Intelligent design, irreducible complexity. an intelligent irreducible complex design requires a designer. God exist.

if you object to that, provide proof or an example of an intelligently irreducible complex design that has no designer, came from un-intelligence, came randomly, and by accident.

4.Fine Tuning, if you object to that then provide evidence against it, not assumptions.

5. The Bible and extra Biblical sources proves, God exist.

if you object to that, provide evidence against The Bible, not assumptions/presupposition.

I take your continuous nonsensical demands for evidence for atheism as an indication of how weak you feel your other arguments are. If you had strong arguments, and convincing evidence, you would not keep repeating this nonsense.

I take your continuous nonsensical assumptions and accusations as a pathetic excuse to not answer the question. I'll keep asking the question until someone answers the question or refuses to and admits they cannot answer it because there is no evidence for "atheism", since no wants to answer, "atheism" does not exist.

also, you have yet to show how my other argument are weak, provide proof why. your presupposition/assumptions/opinions aren't proof of anything.

Evidence or not, that does not preclude the existence of skeptics or atheists. Are you new here?

Actually it does, by having no evidence for it, shows that they aren't "atheist", and that "atheism" doesn't exist. if it was real, they would without sweat answer the question, but they cannot, because "atheism" doesn't exist.

You just wrote that your insult was aimed at atheism - which would be atheists, by my reckoning. Where do you get your morals from?

I take your assumption and you putting words in my mouth as an insult. I'll say it again, where did I say "atheist"?

I'll say it again because it is the truth, "atheism"(nonsensical claim, nonsensical claim of "lack" of belief, whichever definition) is a clown and it did not know it. where is any individual insulted?

in fact, I showed sympathy for "atheist"'s in post #574, I wrote

the "atheist" who doesn't know the evidence for God I feel sorry for, and my heart goes out to them, hopefully someone shows them the truth in God, but the "atheist" who have the evidence and ignore or delusionally deny it, the people who willingly reject God, they have a problem.

so do not put words in my mouth and hear what you want to hear.

You did, in your reply to me.

Post #575

And it is funny how you would bring up forum rules as if I broke any rule or have insulted anyone when I haven't. if anything, the "atheist" on this site are the ones who should be banned for constantly being disrespectful and constantly slandering The Lord.

Where are you mentioned?

Each post of yours where you talk of this "God" as if it has already been proven to exist.

I gave the evidence that shows, God exist. that's why I can say, God exist, because the evidence backs that up.

Bingo. I am not making a positive or negative claim. I am taking the neutral postion, atheism. More precisely, ignosticism. (not agnosticism)

"atheism" is not a neutral claim, the "atheist" define it as a ""lack" of belief". "lack" of belief does not exist, if it did there would be evidence to support a "lack" of belief. there is none.

"atheism" does not exist.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Evasion noted. Try again. Provide a robust, scientifically testable definition for this "God"; we test it, then I will provide an answer.

what evasion? you want evidence for God, which no greater can be conceived, creator of everything. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

then your evidence is the universe, everything.

science can only observe the natural whether you like it or not, science is bound to nature, it cannot go above it because we possess no power to do so, we are bound to nature. science doesn't disprove anything about God, what science does prove though is that we require an intelligent designer. so even when bound to nature, science proves that God exist.

when using the scientific method, "abiogenesis" is proven false and inaccurate. when using the scientific method, it is proven God exist.


from Unintelligentevolution.com:


Can an Un-intelligent Cosmic Origin Be Challenged in <500 Words?

Why intelligence/un-intelligence? Intelligence is where scientific analysis can begin. Intelligence has a wide range of definitions. We will assume that intelligence is a complex and diverse combination of processes characterized by, but not limited to, perception, reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity, etc. Un-intelligence will be defined as simpler processes such as DNA or evolutionary processes or by a void of process. However, the apparent un-intelligence of a process does not imply that it did not require an intelligent cause. For example, the apparently un-intelligent DNA process of egg development is caused by intelligent human reproduction.

Process: a sequence of actions, changes, or functions, etc., towards an end.

Falsification is the main tool of scientific proof (i.e. tangible testing of predictions in the present). If a hypothesis can't make a tangible, testable predition now in the present, then it is un-falsifiable and non-scientific.

Let's try the scientific method...

Observation: Repeatedly throughout nature there seems to be a pattern of intelligent life emerging from intelligent origins (reproduction) through un-intelligent chemical/genetic processes (single cell [egg] to birth, etc.)

Observation (Atheist/Agnostic): Everything seems to have emerged from random, un-intelligent natural processes.

Question: Where does intelligence come from?

Hypothesis/Prediction (Atheist/Agnostic): If everything emerged from un-intelligence, then your intelligence also came from un-intelligence and thus un-intelligence causes intelligence (i.e. a word like "makes" or "produces" or "causes", etc., is required in order to make a prediction).

Experiment: Observe un-intelligent things to determine if it is testable that new intelligence emerges without any need of intelligence. Examples: one could observe random chemical or atomic processes, the DNA process, a stream of water, or things like a paper cup or a piece of wood, etc., to see if some new intelligence emerges.

Testable/falsifiable observations: The apparently un-intelligent DNA process has an intelligent origin, i.e. parent(s), and results in intelligent life.

Analysis: 1) Since our origin can never be directly tested, we depend on falsifiable, tangible testing of predictions, now in the present, based on observations of tangible indirect evidence (the same methods scientists use to believe in the "Big Bang"). The hypothesis above is about proving the intelligence/un-intelligence of our origin that caused "everything" (including all natural processes). The intelligence/un-intelligence of ancient natural processes, including natural selection or abiogenesis, etc., that apparently emerged from the origin, may have nothing to do with determining the actual intelligence/un-intelligence of our origin itself. These are two different things. Thus, claiming that our intelligence emerged from an un-intelligent origin because of ancient un-intelligent processes that emerged from the origin, without much actual understanding of the origin, is circular reasoning, or a leap of blind faith. One could also claim evidence of an un-intelligent origin of children because children apparently emerge from un-intelligent development processes in the womb (while being ignorant of the earlier stages of reproduction by intelligent parents). 2) Any test must be repeatable and produce actual results now. Claiming that more time is needed or millions of years are needed to produce a test is not science (i.e. not falsifiable). If un-intelligent things can not actually produce new intelligence now, then the hypothesis fails and is just imaginary.

Circular Reasoning: Abiogenesis/evolution tells us that un-intelligence made intelligent life, un-intelligence made abiogenesis/evolution, thus no need of God. This is like saying, The Bible tells us that God made intelligent life, God made the Bible, thus there is a God.

Conclusion: There is no falsifiable evidence to support the atheist/agnostic hypothesis. In fact, it is predictable that intelligent life will appear to emerge from un-intelligent processes not because of un-intelligence, but because that's the way all intelligent life develops after reproduction by its intelligent parent(s). Thus, intelligent life begetting intelligent life is falsifiable and evolutionary processes and abiogenesis are predicted by it and threfore do not support atheism/agnosticism. For one to think that their intelligence emerged from un-intelligence simply because they don't understand the actual origin of the universe is false reasoning and an unscientific leap of blind faith. Evolutionary processes (and even abiogenesis if it is proved) are a product of our origin and therefore cannot be used to replace what one doesn't understand about the actual origin of the universe. Most scientists already concur that all tangible tests fail to observe any new intelligence spontaneously emerging from any un-intelligent thing or process. In fact, that's not the way we observe things to happen in the real world... We observe intelligent life emerging from the choices and actions of intelligent parents (reproduction) through un-intelligent (DNA) development processes. Thus the fundamental atheist/agnostic point of view, that there is no reason for a Creator or Designer and that there is likely an un-intelligent origin of their intelligence and the whole universe, apparently fails. It seems to depend on logical fallacies and blind faith, fails to make useful predictions, fails all falsifiable tests, lacks common sense, is contradicted by testable evidence, as we will see more of next, and is unsupported by scientific principle, or even Darwin's Origin of Species...

Darwin said: "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" - Origin of Species, p. 188

Can an Intelligent Origin Be Proved?

"...we might expect that the reasoning abilities that natural selection has given us would...not lead us to the wrong conclusions."
- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

Revised Observation: Everything emerged from something that was not entirely un-intelligent.

Same Question: Where does intelligence come from?

New Hypothesis/Prediction: Since we have already falsified that intelligence emerges from, or is caused by, un-intelligence, it is reasonable that an intelligent designer makes intelligence.

Logical Assumption: Mankind's intelligence, creativity, and design abilities, characteristics, and behavior, etc., are a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's processes and laws.

Experiment: Observe mankind's intelligence and design characteristics and behavior to test and determine the intelligent origin of the universe. Testable/falsifiable observations: 1) Designers made artificial intelligence. 2) Designers make processes, like the scientific process, and the printing process, etc. 3) A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their completed design. 4) A designer is present during the design process. 5) A designer cares about their design and watches over it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design. 6) A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it. 7) A designer documents their design and leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes. 8) A designer is born of intelligent parents.

Analysis: 1) Since our origin can never be directly tested, we depend on falsifiable, tangible testing, now, of predictions based on observations of tangible indirect evidence (the same methods scientists use to believe in the "Big Bang"). 2) In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All processes, man-made or natural, such as evolution, or the thinking process/intelligence, or the scientific process, have a common meaning: Processes are a sequence of actions, changes, or functions, etc., towards an end. 3) If no tangible intelligent designer can actually produce new intelligence, then the hypothesis fails or is just imaginary.

Conclusion 1: Testable evidence supports the intelligent Designer hypothesis and apparently contradicts the fundamental atheist/agnostic hypothesis... Intelligent designers made artificial intelligence and intelligent life comes from intelligent life via reproduction and un-intelligent development processes, etc.

Conclusion 2: Testable evidence demonstrates that one can not reasonably use an undetected Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe, because a designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design. We don't intrinsically detect a designer when we are observing their design. Thus, we can predict that a Designer of the universe would not be intrinsically detected when observing nature.

How Could an Intelligent Designer Exist Before Time Began?

Logical Assumption: The beginning of time means the beginning of our "arrow of time" which is unidirectional, moving from past to present and characterized by cause and effect, and limited by Planck time of 10^-43 seconds (quantization). However, many scientists believe that processes may occur within Planck time (e.g. the Planck epoch) or even before the universe began (e.g. string theory), etc. Thus, there could be infinite time that has no limits and not even a beginning. In fact, our experience of limitations on time, etc., leads to the obvious question, how could our time be limited in direction and quantization, etc., if there was nothing to limit? Thus, our physical laws seem to predict or require an unlimited/infinite default version of things such as time, energy, force, space, dimensions, information, etc.

Hypothesis: The laws of nature, and also mathematical infinity, seem to be the most fundamental, rational evidence of something infinite beyond our laws such as the possibility of an infinite Designer/Lawmaker/God.

If God exists, Who Made God?

This is a fallacy of anthropomorphic reasoning. Our "arrow of time" is responsible for our experience of cause and effect. Why would an infinite God who created the arrow of time and other physical laws be subject to our finite arrow of time? Thus, in eternity with no beginning of time there would be no need for cause and effect and thus an infinite Designer/Lawmaker/God would not need a cause.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Testable Evidence Supports a Cosmic Intelligent Designer

Testable Hypothesis 1: One can not reasonably use an undetected Designer to disprove or exclude a Designer of the universe. A designer is not intrinsically detected when observing their design. Reasonable example: Observe any man-made design and you will likely not detect the designer as you observe the design.

Testable Hypothesis 2: An intelligent designer makes intelligence. Reasonable examples: artificial intelligence, human intelligence, etc.

Testable Hypothesis 3: A process is made by a designer. Reasonable examples: scientific process, educational process, printing process, computer programming processes, etc., process of evolution, reproduction, chemical processes, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.

Testable Hypothesis 4: A designer leaves tell-tale signs like assembly instructions and manufacturing processes. Reasonable examples: semiconductor manufacturing processes, DIY kit instructions, DNA/RNA processes, process of evolution, atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc.

Conclusion: There seems to be un-contradicted, testable evidence, that is useful for making predictions, that intelligence and other processes are made by an intelligent Designer. In diverse areas of life, one can confirm that it takes intelligence to make something intelligent, or to increase intelligence or knowledge. And it apparently takes an intelligent designer to make processes. Thus, it is rational to think that there is an intelligent Designer of the universe (and all of its natural processes, etc.).

Let's see what the Bible had to say 2000 years ago about observing, testing, and understanding reality: 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things..., 1 Peter 3:15 ...give [a] reason..., Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [i.e. science], so that men are without excuse. - NIV. So, let's use real science, like the Bible says, based on observing, testing, reasoning, and understanding "what has been made", not basing ones point of view on imagination or blind faith or assumptions.

What is an Intelligent Designer of the Universe Like?

"...all physical theories...break down at the beginning of the universe."
- Stephen Hawking.

su-per-nat-u-ral: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; - Dictionary.com

Logical Assumption: Mathematical infinity, singularities, the "Big Bang", extra dimensions, and parallel universes are not able to be directly tested and are beyond and unexplainable by the laws of nature, yet scientists believe these are possible, showing that super-natural qualities, like a God's infinite nature, can exist. This is not proof. It's simply enabling the possibility of a super-natural God.

Logical Assumption: Since by definition a law or rule implies a law maker/enforcer, then it is logical to think that the laws of nature have a cosmic law maker/enforcer.

Testable Hypothesis 5: A designer is present during the design process.

Testable Hypothesis 6: A designer cares about their design and jealously watches over and protects it and may also have other agents caring for and watching over their design.

Testable Hypothesis 7: A designer makes themselves available at some point to demonstrate their design or answer questions about it.

Testable Hypothesis 8: A designer is born of intelligent parents.

Conclusion: It would be rational that a Designer of the universe who could design atomic and sub-atomic processes, etc., and cause our arrow of time, would be super-natural and able to operate outside of our laws of nature including our "arrow of time" (see more below). Our time is unidirectional with limited time slices called Planck time. These limitations could have been imposed by a cosmic Designer at the point we call the beginning of time while a cosmic Designer's time could be bidirectional, etc., with no limitations. Since human designers make themselves available, it would also make sense that a Cosmic designer would make themselves available to mankind. There is written evidence of people observing such a designer. In the Bible, the Designer of the universe was present during the design (Genesis 1), was called a jealous God who jealously cares about his design and watches over it, and also has agents caring for and watching over the design (i.e. angels), has made himself visibly available, in the form of Jesus Christ who reportedly commanded the weather, walked on water, and raised the dead, instantly appeared and disappeared, etc., in front of many witnesses. Jesus also claimed to be born of super-natural parents and then later was born of a human mother in order to be present on the earth in human form, making himself available to be questioned and proved. The Bible says that Jesus created all things and that he was born of the Spirit and the Father making a super-natural Trinity: Colossians 1:15-18 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... John 3:6,35 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit...The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. Hebrews 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

What Else Can Be Understood?

Logical Assumption: Mankind's law making and law enforcing abilities, characteristics and behavior, etc., are also a product of our origin and can be tested just like anything else to determine the intelligent origin of the universe and it's laws.

Law: the observed regularity of nature - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Logical Assumption: In order to prevent an equivocation fallacy, there needs to be a common definition: All laws, man-made or otherwise, are all part of nature and have a common meaning: Laws cause physical regularity.

"A law of physics is a pattern that nature obeys without exception." - Sean Carroll, California Institute of Technology

Logical Assumption: Man is fallible, and human lawmakers and law enforcers can't enforce laws perfectly. The fact that the laws of nature are followed perfectly and "without exception" by every particle in the universe seems to be evidence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, perfect God.

Testable Hypothesis 9: A human lawmaker creates laws and human law enforcers or man-made mechanisms then enforce the laws. Thus, it is reasonable that the laws of nature have a Law Maker and Law Enforcer.

Testable Hypothesis 10: An intelligent human being creates effects and forces. Thus, it is reasonable that magnetism, nuclear forces, gravity, or any other natural forces, or stored forces contained in inertia and nuclear and chemical processes, are ultimately caused directly or indirectly by an intelligent Being (Law Maker or Law Enforcer).

Testable Hypothesis 11: A human being creates, senses, processes, and stores information. Thus, it is reasonable that any information discovered, stored, or processed in nature was ultimately caused by an intelligent Being.

Testable Hypothesis 12: Intelligent human designers, lawmakers, and scientists are applauded for their intelligence if they can develop the most "elegant" or simple process, design, or law to accomplish a complex solution or outcome. Thus, it is reasonable that a cosmic Lawmaker or Designer would make the most simple and elegant laws or processes to accomplish a complex outcome, i.e. the simpler the process, relative to the complexity of the outcome, the more intelligent the designer. Therefore, the process of evolution would be evidence of an intelligent Designer, not any evidence against one.

Testable Hypothesis 13: Laws are generally a limitation on something and a reduction in complexity in order to form "physical regularity", such as speed limits, roads and tunnels, etc. Thus, because of this apparent dependency, it seems reasonable that the laws of nature may be proof that the super-natural does exist. There may be unlimited speeds infinitely faster than the speed of light, unlimited distances infinitely smaller than the Planck distance, bi-directional, infinite time, and a super-natural Designer/Law Maker..

Conclusion:Laws apparently imply a reduction in complexity. For example, our arrow of time is only unidirectional and apparently has a minimum time slice (i.e. Planck time = 10^-43 seconds). Thus, whatever is making/enforcing our laws of nature likely can operate between Planck time and Planck distances and would therefore likely be more complex than we are. One can try to imagine an intelligence that could operate infinitely faster than the speed of light, in infinitely small time increments bi-directionally (i.e. no beginning and no end), and think in infinite dimensions of time. In fact, information, like math and other forms of communication, and also our thought processes, seem to be able to represent or describe perfection and infinity. The ability to conceptualize in our minds and then communicate infinity and perfection may be the fundamental characteristics that differentiate humans from other life, making us self-aware and conscious, etc., feeling like we can imagine things outside of our finite existence. These qualities could also motivate our creativity as we seek to make things better than what they are and feel that we can reach beyond the natural.

These testable principles have apparently never been contradicted, apply universally, and are always useful for making predictions.

Thus, since intelligence, laws and processes are found in the universe, and we don't detect a Designer, it is logical and predictable that there is an intelligent Creator. And a super-natural Creator/Lawmaker/Enforcer would apparently be necessary to limit and maintain our natural space-time and cause the laws of nature to exist. By definition, random chance cannot create a single reasonable pattern without intelligently applied laws or limitations.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that a Creator was not needed to make evolution or natural processes or the laws of nature, etc. In fact, testable evidence and predictions apparently completely contradict atheism/agnosticism. Therefore, confidence in atheism/agnosticism seems to be blind faith with no scientific basis. A plethora of diverse, uncontradicted, testable evidence, useful for making predictions, demonstrates that God is logical and based on science and his son Jesus Christ is responsible for the laws of nature and creation of the universe. In addition, the Bible contains the only scientifically accurate creation account (see Bible Integrity). It seems that we should thank God for creating us and our universe, and seek to find out what he wants us to do and to serve Him daily. In the Bible, John 3:16 seems like the best place to start: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. - NIV


"abiogenesis" is impossible, "atheism" is automatically null and void.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Dear Mr. Copy Pasta,

The Bible is full of errors, fabrications, contradictions and flat out lies.

Sorry.

 

[CabVet]

Seriously, how do you find the time to write these walls of text? All within minutes from one another? Almost looks like it's copied and pasted stuff...

 

[Guy1]

Seriously, how do you find the time to write these walls of text? All within minutes from one another? Almost looks like it's copied and pasted stuff...

How dare you imply that our fellow poster is stupid enough to copy/paste entire walls of text and act as though they prove something?!

 

[CabVet]

How dare you imply that our fellow poster is stupid enough to copy/paste entire walls of text and act as though they prove something?!

This one strikes me as remarkably similar:

Unintelligent Evolution & Intelligent Design. Testable Evidence of God.

 

[Belk]

Wall of text falls, everyone dies. I see school is out early this year.