As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[46AND2]

Hello my friend and Thank you for clarifying your position.

So we need to test which belief may produce a result. How would you as an atheist test either proposition?

Lets say there is no doubt in your mind and you are 100% certain but we want to be sure and methodical.
What method did you use to verify and acheive this conclusively?When you likened this remarkable leprechaun to God, how would you argue that it was not a category error and not a bad comparison?
Please show me some of your high standard of education and provide some detail my dear.

You have so far given me some form of explanation yet have not supplied justification for your conclusion? This is becoming more and more interesting

Cheers my dear i like you

I'm sorry, I don't know how to elaborate any further than I already have. You still seem to be asking questions which indicate you don't really grasp my point.

The lepricorn example was intended to be a worthless argument. It was also intended to be analogous to the other person's argument about a logic defying god. Which means that it is my position that the logic defying god example is ALSO a worthless argument. Because of, and this is key, the type of argument it is...tautological.

In fact, all I did was directly change the subject of the argument (from god to lepricorn), and the ability of the subject (from logic defying, to creationist blinding). They are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same argument.

Now, if you think that my reasoning is flawed in some way, you are welcome to explain why, but I promise you, that you won't be able guide the discussion in the way that you seem to want to...that is, getting me to argue for a creature I clearly, and admittedly, made up for a purpose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I don't agree. If a person asserts something without supportive evidence, even though it may be true they have no way of knowing that it is true, therefore it is not valid for them to accept the assertion as true. The most that the person can do is to treat the assertion as a possibility, not as something that can be validly accepted as a truth.

Knowing that one is correct, and believing that one is correct, may be two different things, yet functionally they may be identical. I agree knowing is preferable.

But the fact is that knowing can happen without the kind of empiricism we claim we have in science. The confidence, if it is indeed in truth rather than delusion, is very good and useful confidence. If poorly defined, it is difficult to use in science, and even in philosophy, but nevertheless can steer a person in useful ways.

I have, for example, confidence --I KNOW-- that the Self-existent Creator does indeed exist, because that makes more sense to me than even that I should exist. But more than that, because I have watched him work. I know (have total confidence) that he is real. I, on the other hand, may be just a joke he is telling --what do I know? This is very useful to know, if for no other reason than it frees me up to stop thinking it all depends on me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't like labels.
But I guess it'ld be secular humanism



Why is that relevant?




Imaginary and real, aren't the same thing.
I don't know why I have to explain this.

What can and can't happen in reality is restricted by nature (physics, chemistry, etc).
What can and can't happen in your imagination, is only restricted by the extent of your imagination.



The data of the world is completely consistent with gods being imaginary.
If I assume that gods are imaginary, then from the perspective of human psychological weaknesses, I would expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods. I would expect none of these gods to being demonstrably real. I would expect no evidence in support of any of these gods. I would expect all those believes to be based on "faith" instead of evidence. I would expect fallacious apologetics.

In short: the assumption of Gods being imaginary, is completely consistent with what I observer in the world. While nothing I observe in the world, is consistent with one religion being correct.

Then there's the idea that of all religions ever invented by mankind, at best only one can be correct. But since they all make the same kind of claims (faith based supernatural / superstitious claims) and are supported by the same kind of non-evidence and fallacious arguments, it is infinitly more likely that they are all wrong.


In summary: not only do I have no reason whatsoever to believe any religion - I have many reasons not to.

Yet, the data available to us, including and maybe specially, empirical data, is in fact altogether supportive of Self-Existent First Cause. aka God. (no, not a god, but God)

Forget religion. Even the best of us falls short of comprehension of what "God" implies, but we all try, some of us even semi-honestly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet, the data available to us, including and maybe specially, empirical data, is in fact altogether supportive of Self-Existent First Cause. aka God. (no, not a god, but God)

There is no empirical data at all that points to such a thing afaik.
If you think there is, you are welcome to share it.

Forget religion

Even the best of us falls short of comprehension of what "God" implies

Then what are you doing making claims about it?

, but we all try, some of us even semi-honestly.

I have no reason to try. The point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Knowing that one is correct, and believing that one is correct, may be two different things, yet functionally they may be identical.

Astrophile just explained to you how that is not correct.

But the fact is that knowing can happen without the kind of empiricism we claim we have in science.

Really?
Explain how...

The confidence, if it is indeed in truth rather than delusion, is very good and useful confidence.

Confidence must be based on something tangible. Like an empirical track record.

When I say that I have "confidence my son can run a marathon", I'm basing that confidence on his previous demonstration of his running abilities.

If my son were a fat kid who sat down all day playing video games and barely getting up to go get a new pack of chips or suggar-overdosed soda, then I would not have such confidence.

See?

[qutoe]
I have, for example, confidence --I KNOW-- that the Self-existent Creator does indeed exist, [/quote]

No. You believe. And you just call it "confidence" and "knowing". But what you mean is mere belief.

because that makes more sense to me than even that I should exist.

It also makes more sense to me that the flow of time is a constant, no matter what speeds objects are travelling at and wheter I'm observing said objects are find myself in them.
Nevertheless, time is relative and what I find more sensible has no bearing on reality. It only shows that my particular brain has difficulty processing the relativity of time.

You don't know what is sensible in advance.

But more than that, because I have watched him work.

You did not.
You saw things that you just attributed to this god. No because you observed this god doing things, but because you already believed in this god (on faith) before you even started.
It's called confirmation bias.

I know (have total confidence) that he is real.

Translation: you really really believe it.

I, on the other hand, may be just a joke he is telling --what do I know? This is very useful to know, if for no other reason than it frees me up to stop thinking it all depends on me.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

When I say that I have "confidence my son can run a marathon", I'm basing that confidence on his previous demonstration of his running abilities.

If my son were a fat kid who sat down all day playing video games and barely getting up to go get a new pack of chips or suggar-overdosed soda, then I would not have such confidence.

See?

exactly why one should have no confidence in evolution.

every single story that was once claimed as fact has within 20 years been shown to be wrong....

What has shown to be correct is all fossils remain the same from the oldest to the youngest for that type of creature. E coli remain E coli no matter how many times they mutate them. Fruit flies remain fruit flies no matter how many times they mutate them.....

What you should have confidence in as the observations have never failed, is that evolution is a farce.....

 

[Astrophile]

But the fact is that knowing can happen without the kind of empiricism we claim we have in science. The confidence, if it is indeed in truth rather than delusion, is very good and useful confidence. If poorly defined, it is difficult to use in science, and even in philosophy, but nevertheless can steer a person in useful ways.

I have, for example, confidence --I KNOW-- that the Self-existent Creator does indeed exist, because that makes more sense to me than even that I should exist. But more than that, because I have watched him work. I know (have total confidence) that he is real. I, on the other hand, may be just a joke he is telling --what do I know? This is very useful to know, if for no other reason than it frees me up to stop thinking it all depends on me.

How do you know that what you have confidence in is truth rather than delusion? In 1997, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult had confidence that they would board a spacecraft that was trailing Comet Hale-Bopp. There were even photographs of the supposed spacecraft (although it turned out to be an ordinary star), so the members of Heaven's Gate had some reason for confidence in its reality. For most of us, though, the whole business was the result of an insane and tragic delusion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no empirical data at all that points to such a thing afaik.
If you think there is, you are welcome to share it.







Then what are you doing making claims about it?



I have no reason to try. The point.

I already have shared it. Everything that has been shown scientifically, also points to First Cause, just as existence itself does. You say it doesn't. I say it does. If First Cause exists, then everything points at him since it came from him. Or can you see somehow it may point some other direction besides First Cause, if First Cause exists? That would be something to see.

You seem to have some kind of block against First Cause because you have a bias against Christianity and religion. But what is your rational reason against First Cause? Only that you deem it less likely, than that everything came about on its own, somehow?

I make claims about First Cause because like it or not, the "theory", if you will, is cogent and rational, even though it is deeper than any of us can fathom.

I actually meant, those that believe in Self-existent First Cause try to understand. But as a matter of fact, even you seem intent on isolating what God means.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Astrophile just explained to you how that is not correct.

Yes, he tried. But he was wrong. Functionally, believing something is true that is indeed true, can have the same result as knowing something is true.

Really?
Explain how...

You seem to think truth depends on our knowing it, maybe even seeing it or studying it. I keep hearing this return to empiricism, while maybe even most things we believe in are out of habit or laziness or not enough time to complete the study before a choice must be made. You sound like the modern media, who seem to think a thing doesn't happen unless they say it happened. "Due to recent studies, lightning can now have up to a million volts."

Confidence must be based on something tangible. Like an empirical track record.

When I say that I have "confidence my son can run a marathon", I'm basing that confidence on his previous demonstration of his running abilities.

If my son were a fat kid who sat down all day playing video games and barely getting up to go get a new pack of chips or suggar-overdosed soda, then I would not have such confidence.

See?

See above. Do you KNOW you exist? Do you KNOW you even have a son? You believe so, based on evidence. I also have evidence enough for what I believe, that I have more confidence God exists, than even that I exist. But we've been through this.

It also makes more sense to me that the flow of time is a constant, no matter what speeds objects are travelling at and wheter I'm observing said objects are find myself in them.
Nevertheless, time is relative and what I find more sensible has no bearing on reality. It only shows that my particular brain has difficulty processing the relativity of time.

You don't know what is sensible in advance.

Then how does science make predictions?

You did not.
You saw things that you just attributed to this god. No because you observed this god doing things, but because you already believed in this god (on faith) before you even started.
It's called confirmation bias.

Attributed to WHAT god? I'm talking about the rational idea of Self-existent First Cause. What god are you talking about? To repeat: IF he exists, this is all evidence of that fact.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

Yes, I suppose you don't. It is very useful to know that Self-existent First Cause is real, because that frees me up to see that this life is not about me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know that what you have confidence in is truth rather than delusion? In 1997, the members of the Heaven's Gate cult had confidence that they would board a spacecraft that was trailing Comet Hale-Bopp. There were even photographs of the supposed spacecraft (although it turned out to be an ordinary star), so the members of Heaven's Gate had some reason for confidence in its reality. For most of us, though, the whole business was the result of an insane and tragic delusion.

Have you considered for yourself what I am talking about? Not God as I define it, but First Cause --logically necessarily Self-existent. Although those few words come nowhere close to defining such a being, still, the existence of such a being makes more sense than anything else does, otherwise, how is anything existing? I can find no other possibility that makes sense.

 

[Speedwell]

Have you considered for yourself what I am talking about? Not God as I define it, but First Cause --logically necessarily Self-existent. Although those few words come nowhere close to defining such a being, still, the existence of such a being makes more sense than anything else does, otherwise, how is anything existing? I can find no other possibility that makes sense.

The other possibility is that something has always existed in some form--mass/energy, for instance, or the quantum vacuum, etc.

The problem is, that neither one is a falsifiable proposition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The other possibility is that something has always existed in some form--mass/energy, for instance, or the quantum vacuum, etc.

The problem is, that neither one is a falsifiable proposition.

What sort of thing? What you seem to appeal to is a mechanical quantity, or perhaps as some protest, a living thing, which each thing is a part of, or other such ideas. So far, none of them make sense.

First Cause cannot be merely mechanical --to be so requires being subject to fact, not creator of fact.

First Cause cannot be its own creation. It was not created.

 

[Speedwell]

What sort of thing? What you seem to appeal to is a mechanical quantity, or perhaps as some protest, a living thing, which each thing is a part of, or other such ideas. So far, none of them make sense.

First Cause cannot be merely mechanical --to be so requires being subject to fact, not creator of fact.

First Cause cannot be its own creation. It was not created.

I don't understand your post. The reason mass/energy comes up is, so far as we can tell, it can neither be created nor destroyed. Could it have always existed?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't understand your post. The reason mass/energy comes up is, so far as we can tell, it can neither be created nor destroyed. Could it have always existed?

This deals with the very meaning of Creator.

Your only explanation for it existing is, "it just is". No intent, and in fact, no cause, except that it is subject to its own effects. Round and round and round. Infinite regression comes to mind.

 

[Speedwell]

This deals with the very meaning of Creator.

Your only explanation for it existing is, "it just is". No intent, and in fact, no cause, except that it is subject to its own effects. Round and round and round. Infinite regression comes to mind.

How do you know that? Have you never considered ex materia creation?

 

[Tinker Grey]

How do you know that? Have you never considered ex materia creation?

As a Christian, I found Ex Deo intriguing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you know that? Have you never considered ex materia creation?

Ex materia never made sense to me. How does inanimate create? It may produce, but create?

But worse, it is subject to what it produces. It must follow laws and principles, and can only do whatever it does; it must behave according to program, not according to will. This does not sound like First Cause.

If you consider instead of First Cause, a circular production, cause being the effect of its own effects, etc etc etc, round and round, well..... it still behaves according to program, and there is no origination. The mental construct falls flat. (To me, anyway, it is absurd.)

I have heard these drawn out by more formal debate, and to be honest, they fall even harder in that arena. I can try to find some of those and link to them if you wish.

 

[Speedwell]

Ex materia never made sense to me. How does inanimate create? It may produce, but create?

Ex materia means that God created out of some pre-existing (eternally co-existing?) "stuff." Not that the stuff created itself.

But worse, it is subject to what it produces. It must follow laws and principles, and can only do whatever it does; it must behave according to program, not according to will. This does not sound like First Cause.

No, it doesn't. Something which has always existed does not need a cause.

If you consider instead of First Cause, a circular production, cause being the effect of its own effects, etc etc etc, round and round, well..... it still behaves according to program, and there is no origination. The mental construct falls flat. (To me, anyway, it is absurd.)

Continuous, not circular.

 

[Speedwell]

As a Christian, I found Ex Deo intriguing.

It makes a nice metaphor for the Incarnation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ex materia means that God created out of some pre-existing (eternally co-existing?) "stuff." Not that the stuff created itself.

Pardon me, but it comes to the same thing. Nothing pre-exists Creation, but the Creator. If it does, then it pre-exists the Creator, which is a logical contradiction. You suppose somehow it exists, Creator-irrelevant. Hence my post.