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

[Mark Quayle]

Why do you assume that the "material" of creation ex materia must be self existing?

I think I just showed the opposite. That it cannot be. Therefore ex materia is self-defeating. the "god" used in the hypothesis is not God, since something else made the materia.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not my lists, but very good:


Empiricism itself being very limited:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

And science, while very useful, cannot be the sum-total explanation of reality, due to the greater fact that:

- You cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.

(my (MQ) note here: The above things are "non-falsifiable")


* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."

These facts are irrefutable.

Thus, you need to think rationally from outside your little box.

 

[Speedwell]

I think I just showed the opposite. That it cannot be. Therefore ex materia is self-defeating. the "god" used in the hypothesis is not God, since something else made the materia.

Yes, that's the assumption I meant. Why are you making it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not my lists, but very good:


Empiricism itself being very limited:

1. Empiricism cannot resolve Is/Ought dilemma.
2. Empiricism reduces law of causality to a question-begging fallacy.
3. Empiricism cannot be accounted for empirically.
4. Empiricism cannot resolve Problem of Induction.

And science, while very useful, cannot be the sum-total explanation of reality, due to the greater fact that:

- You cannot scientifically demonstrate logic.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate math.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate morals.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate ethics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate metaphysics*
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate aesthetics.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate science itself.
- You cannot scientifically demonstrate uniformitarianism.

(my (MQ) note here: The above things are "non-falsifiable")


* Such as the metaphysical claim known as "scientism."

These facts are irrefutable.

Thus, you need to think rationally from outside your little box.

First, I disagree that these are "facts".

Second, for the sake of argument I'll grant them all.
Even then, empirical study is still the best we got to find out how the world works.

If you think there is a better method, by all means share it. And don't forget to demonstrate how it is superior to empiricism to getting accurate answers.

 

[the iconoclast]

Obviously that is the case, as demonstrated every day by every non-psychopath.

Hey hey tmonster wow you and i seem to be on cf at the same times.

So you believe human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.


What or who is your moral authority?

I have no more reasons to believe in gods, then I have to believe in leprechauns or unicorns. Why do you reject the hundreds, thousands even, of religions that you don't believe in?

I see unicorns and leprechauns are not real therefore so mist be God?

Dude how about i give you my testimony.

Lucky for you, i record most of our conversations, i have it on file - so to speak.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good! Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief.

I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly. Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2. There was fire everywhere.

It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen. Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'.

The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

I was given a result by following the Christian formula. I had an undeniable experience that effected me to my core.

What would you do if that happened to you?

What say you?

Things work the way they do and not the way they don't.

My dear you and i have debated many times to know a vague answer when it occurs such as this one. Is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?

If you jump from the Eiffel tower, gravity will make you fall down at 9.81 meters per second per second in a vaccuum. Every. Single. Time.

That sounds like a set figure which is consistent. Is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?

For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas.

What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence - it would only be fair for you to give me yours?

Or that there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder.

Lets have some fun. Show me how you arrived at this conclusion?

The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing.

My dear if i were to give you this answer that explains nothing, you would not accept it either. Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?
Or do know not how to answer?

The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses.

Icon - "Why would you expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"

Tmonster - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses."

Icon - "Why would you expect human psychological weaknesses to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"

On the count of them being imaginary.....

Please do not continue to disappoint me, it makes me sad. that was my second smiley in all these years on cf.

Imaginary beings, can't be shown to being real. Since they are imaginary. If you could show them real, they wouldn't be imaginary now would they?

Do you want to find out if God is real?

Again.... on the count of them being imaginary + human psychology.

What is it about human psychology that make expect all these things? Dont be shy, give me more detail?

The stuff I just told you in the post you are replying to. You should read with a bit more attention.....

Please do not be disingenuous my dear. You have not.

You have not shown or given any observations besides a remake about human psychology which is so far a statement.

What have you observed that makes this assumption correct?

Everything. And I'm not going to list everything I ever observed.

So my dear you would prefer that i take your word for. You said it is, therefore it must be so, you do not need prove what you say. You want me to accept it with no question?

The burden of proof is not on me. If you wish to argue christianity is accurate, then upto you to come up with evidence to support it. If you don't, then I get to dissmiss your religion without evidence as well.

Lucky for you and i i supplied my testimony - evidence. What say you?

No evidence and the bible contradicts reality.

Would you provide me with an example as to why you believe there is no evidence and the bible contradicts reality?

Budhism is a bit of a special case, since they don't really have a god. I think certain types of budhism believe in reincarnation, no? In the case, I guess they also make some kind of claim for the existence of a "soul".

You previously said

"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."

So this statement has an disclaimer, all religions are not the same or make the same claims? Buddhism is a special case?

Lets ask @ananda. Hey ananda does Christianity and Buddhism make the same claums about the soul? What does Buddhism say about the soul?

That would require me to write several books, which I won't be doing.

My dear I love that reason. "I can do that, i just dont feel like doing it now"

Instead of asking me to list EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that contradicts some religion, perhaps you live upto your own burden of proof and give me your best piece of evidence of the religion you happen to follow (by geographic accident?)

I dont mind being on the defense, you have my testimony. Spool through and get back to me? We have lots to speak about but i will need more from you if you choose to continue. Dont be shy.

My hobbies are playing the drums and reading science books. And Xbox. Lots of Xbox.

Dude i play guitar. how long you been drumming for?

Professionally, I am cofounder of a software start-up with which we create, distribute and maintain a software product for specialised retail stores.

I pray blessing to you and your family.

For example, as a software engineer,

Very good.

I'm a software engineer. By default, I can be expected to know quite a bit about software engineering, but not so much about chemistry.

I have been a christian for over 30 years i can be expected to know quite a bit about how to come to Christ. Cheers my dear i look forward to this discussion.

 

[the iconoclast]

What is there to test?

Hey hey my dear

We must use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use or consideration.

We need to test which belief may produce a result.

We have 2 competing claims, a God that defies logic and - as you said, a worthless agruement - a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)

We can move past the he said she said and prove? How would you test or do you not?

How would you - as an atheist - use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of both propositions?

46and2 - "I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me".

By the definition of a tautological argument, every single test which can be performed will result in affirmation.

Please excuse me. I believe you are sincere but my dear i fear we may have a tautological catastrophe.

A tautology when used in everday speak is a redundancy ie lets go see the sunset this evening or we should unite together.

A logical tautology, the statement is always true because one half of the "or" construction must be so.

Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't rain

You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).

To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?

You have my undivided attention my dear

I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.

It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?

If there is "X" (a god who can defy logic), then "Y" (there is a god that can defy logic). X=Y

Would it not be correct for a tautology to say; a God who can defy logic OR a God who cannot defy logic

If there is "X" (a lepricorn who can blind creationists), then "Y" (there is a lepricorn that can blind creationists). X=Y

Would it not be, a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) OR a Lepricorn (.eg who cannot blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)

If there is "X" (I am holding up two fingers), then "Y" (I am holding up two fingers). X=Y

Iam holding up 2 fingers OR iam not holding up 2 fingers

What test could be performed which falsifies any of these tautologies?

Asking questions and getting to the core of your arguement. What say you? Cheers my dear

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you believe human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or a god.

As demonstrated every single day.

What or who is your moral authority?

Reason.

I see unicorns and leprechauns are not real therefore so mist be God?

No. Rather: there is an equal amount of objective evidential support for unicorns and leprechauns, as there is for gods.

I don't believe in leprechauns and unicorns because of the lack of evidence.
I don't believe in gods, for the exact same reason.

If not having evidence is the reason not to believe in unicorns, then why would not having the evidence result in a different stance on gods?

Dude how about i give you my testimony.

I'm only interested if you have verifiable evidence. I've no use for your personal opinions, beliefs and unverifiable anecdotes.

Lucky for you, i record most of our conversations, i have it on file - so to speak.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good! Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief.

I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly. Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2. There was fire everywhere.

It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen. Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'.

The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

I was given a result by following the Christian formula. I had an undeniable experience that effected me to my core.

What would you do if that happened to you?

What say you?

I say this is a meaningless unverifiable anecdote.

Did you expect this was going to convince me?
If I can't bring myself to "just believe" your religion, why do you think I would "just believe" you and by extension then "just believe" your religion?

"just believe" is exactly the issue I'm having. So giving me even more things that I can only "just believe" (because it lacks evidence to justify reasonable belief), is only going to make it worse. The more things I am expected to "just believe", the more impossible it becomes.

You're just taking bare claims and piling on even more bare claims.
This is not the way to convince me. At all. Au contraire.

My dear you and i have debated many times to know a vague answer when it occurs such as this one. Is nature bound by certain laws that Nature can not break?

Yes. Things work the way they work and not the way the don't work.

Objects with mass are under the influence of gravity, the force of which can be calculated very precisely. We can do this, because things work the way they do and not the way they don't.

What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence -

You made a bunch of claims. That's not evidence. Those are just claims.

it would only be fair for you to give me yours?

I can't give you what I don't have. As I said, I have zero rational reasons to believe in your religion. Zero.

Lets have some fun. Show me how you arrived at this conclusion?

We know what thunder and lightning is. It doesn't require supernatural entities.

My dear if i were to give you this answer that explains nothing, you would not accept it either.

I'm not giving you something that is supposed to explain anything.
The claim that a god exists, is the model that is supposed to explain something.
I'm saying that there isn't any data in the world that suggests such a god exists.
Hence, the "god model" has zero explanatory power.

What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?

I didn't say it proves anything. Stop strawmanning.
I said the data of the world is consistent with the idea of no gods existing.
Just like the data of the world is consistent with the idea that santa or unicorns do not exist.

No data supports these ideas. That means that the data we DO have is, is consistent with a model that does not include these ideas.

I don't know what is so hard for you to comprehend this basic concept.
If you have no data to support X, then by definition the data you DO have is consistent with not-X.

Or do know not how to answer?

I think the problem is rather you not knowing how to deal with a worldview that doesn't include your religious beliefs.

Icon - "Why would you expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"

Tmonster - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to again: human psychological weaknesses."

Icon - "Why would you expect human psychological weaknesses to invent countless mutually exclusive gods?"

Humans have psychological problems with "not knowing" things. To the point that humans will just invent things and pretend them to be the answers to their unanswered questions for their own piece of mind.

Humans are also pattern seeking creatures. We are so obsessed with pattern seeking, that we will also see patterns where there really aren't any.

Humans are also very prone to the cognition error of the "false positive".

All these things together result in humans being very prone to be superstitious. This is why con-men such a sceance readers, tarrot card readers, fortune tellers, psychics, etc have such success. Even today, in just about every magazine you can read your "horoscope", as if the position of the stars and planets affect what will happen to you this week.

All that together and humans are bound to invent religions.
We have even seen this within our lifetime, or the lifetime of our parents at least. Like scientology. Or a bit further back, Mormonism. Or Rastafari.

We have actually very recently observed humans inventing religions. We know for a FACT that humans do that.

Do you want to find out if God is real?

You are more then welcome to provide us with objective verifiable evidence.
But I know you don't have such. Nobody has. If such evidence existed, it would be known by everybody. But after thousands of years, still not a single piece of objective evidence.

So I won't be holding my breath.

So my dear you would prefer that i take your word for.

I would prefer you to read with more attention and to not try and shift the burden of proof.

You said it is, therefore it must be so, you do not need prove what you say. You want me to accept it with no question?

If you think I'm wrong, all you would need to do is to provide us with examples of observations that objectively and verifiably points to gods.

If you fail to provide us with even just one of such evidences, then the statement that all evidence at our disposal is consistent with no gods existing, is accurate.

Lucky for you and i i supplied my testimony - evidence. What say you?

Unverifiable anecdote that is just piling on bare claims upon bare claims.
Not evidence. Evidence is independently verifiable. Your personal anecdote is not such.

Would you provide me with an example as to why you believe there is no evidence and the bible contradicts reality?

Human population size has never been below several thousand individuals. According to the bible, it was once just 2 and at another time it was reduced to 8.

When the evidence of reality disagrees with a story in a book, then it is the story in the book that is incorrect.

You previously said

"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."

So this statement has an disclaimer, all religions are not the same or make the same claims? Buddhism is a special case? /quote]

I don't really see buddhism as a religion. Buddhism is not theistic. Theism is the belief in a god. There is no god in buddhism.

Lets ask @ananda. Hey ananda does Christianity and Buddhism make the same claums about the soul? What does Buddhism say about the soul?

I'm not sure what budhism has to say about it. I thought certain versions believe in reincarnation. If they believe in reincarnation, that means that they believe that a "person" is something more then just the body and brain. If "you" can reincarnate as some other animal or person, then it implies that there is some "soul like" thing that defines personhood, rather then just the physical body and brain.

I'll call that a "soul".

I dont mind being on the defense, you have my testimony. Spool through and get back to me? We have lots to speak about but i will need more from you if you choose to continue. Dont be shy.

I have nothing to say about your anecdote.
Bring me something that is actually verifiable and doesn't require me to "just believe" you.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey my dear

We must use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use or consideration.

We need to test which belief may produce a result.

We have 2 competing claims, a God that defies logic and - as you said, a worthless agruement - a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)

We can move past the he said she said and prove? How would you test or do you not?

How would you - as an atheist - use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of both propositions?

46and2 - "I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me".



Please excuse me. I believe you are sincere but my dear i fear we may have a tautological catastrophe.

A tautology when used in everday speak is a redundancy ie lets go see the sunset this evening or we should unite together.

A logical tautology, the statement is always true because one half of the "or" construction must be so.

Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't rain

You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).

To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?

You have my undivided attention my dear

I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.

It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?



Would it not be correct for a tautology to say; a God who can defy logic OR a God who cannot defy logic



Would it not be, a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) OR a Lepricorn (.eg who cannot blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)



Iam holding up 2 fingers OR iam not holding up 2 fingers



Asking questions and getting to the core of your arguement. What say you? Cheers my dear

You are still not understanding the point. It is not a comparison of a lepricorn and god, it is an analogy of an argument. The arguments are being compared, not the entities. The point is that LITERALLY anything can be substituted for god, and make this statement true:

"IF a logic-defying god exists, then that god can defy logic."

For example:

IF a logic-defying demon exists...

IF a logic-defying rock exists...

IF a logic-defying ice-cream cone exists...

And because of that fact, we gain absolutely no knowledge from that statement. It is a meaningless, empty statement. It's trivial. And it says absolutely nothing about whether or not that god, or demon, or rock, or ice-cream cone actually exist.

 

[46AND2]

You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).

No, I have not. I have demonstrated that this particular ARGUMENT used for each is comparable.

To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?

No, I don't have to do that to be successful. Even if I were to successfully prove god is made up, the statement made in the argument would still be true.

I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.

I don't care if you can disprove the lepricorn. It's already assumed that it is not real. It doesn't change the fact that the statement I made about it is still true. IF it exists, THEN it can do what I defined it to do. That statement is necessarily true, whether it exists or not.

It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?

Of course, that has been my position all along.

 

[ananda]

Lets ask @ananda. Hey ananda does Christianity and Buddhism make the same claums about the soul? What does Buddhism say about the soul?

Greetings.

IMO Buddhism teaches that there does exist a gestalt that many would identify as a "soul", e.g. consciousness, mind, will, volition, etc. However, in contrast to most other religions, we observe that this "soul" is something that is not eternal, and is therefore seen more as a "lifestream" than a "being".

(If the soul is eternal, then it would not be subject to change; however, consciousness/mind/etc. does change, therefore it cannot be considered eternal.)

 

[tas8831]

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

Please provide 10 unequivocal examples.
Or retract the lie.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

Data can't support anything that is not measurable. God is not measurable.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey my dear

We must use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use or consideration.

We need to test which belief may produce a result.

We have 2 competing claims, a God that defies logic and - as you said, a worthless agruement - a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)

We can move past the he said she said and prove? How would you test or do you not?

How would you - as an atheist - use a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of both propositions?

46and2 - "I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me".



Please excuse me. I believe you are sincere but my dear i fear we may have a tautological catastrophe.

A tautology when used in everday speak is a redundancy ie lets go see the sunset this evening or we should unite together.

A logical tautology, the statement is always true because one half of the "or" construction must be so.

Either it will rain tomorrow, or it won't rain

You have made a category error and assume a creature you admittedly invented is comparable to God (who is experienced by many).

To be succesful you would have to prove God was made up, do you wish to disprove the existance of God to me or can tou prove he is man-made(.eg made up)?

You have my undivided attention my dear

I can disprove your creature ie Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) You made it up recently and acknowledge it is a worthless argument.

It has no real value or use. What say you my sincere friend?



Would it not be correct for a tautology to say; a God who can defy logic OR a God who cannot defy logic



Would it not be, a Lepricorn (.eg who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.) OR a Lepricorn (.eg who cannot blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.)



Iam holding up 2 fingers OR iam not holding up 2 fingers



Asking questions and getting to the core of your arguement. What say you? Cheers my dear

The argument does not include, directly, any claim about IF there is NOT one of these beings. If there is NOT one of these beings, then the first part of the argument is not fulfilled, so the second part is irrelevant, since it makes no statement about that.

In other words, if it is shown that one of these beings does not exist, it doesn't falsify the statement, the statement simply doesn't apply. Or, more accurately, the implied contraposition applies.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Data can't support anything that is not measurable. God is not measurable.

His handiwork is.....

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So the Bible says those things not measurable of God are clearly seen when you understand the creation..... to the point where all excuses are removed....

 

[Mark Quayle]

Data can't support anything that is not measurable. God is not measurable.

Whether a thing is measurable or not, if it has effects, its existence is supported by those effects. Many, if not most, things are not measurable, except in the unfulfilled hopes of those who suppose them to be measurable. The Universe is not measurable. Gravity's effects are measurable, but gravity? We don't even know what it is, yet.

 

[the iconoclast]

Greetings.

IMO Buddhism teaches that there does exist a gestalt that many would identify as a "soul", e.g. consciousness, mind, will, volition, etc. However, in contrast to most other religions, we observe that this "soul" is something that is not eternal, and is therefore seen more as a "lifestream" than a "being".

(If the soul is eternal, then it would not be subject to change; however, consciousness/mind/etc. does change, therefore it cannot be considered eternal.)

Hello ananda

Thank you for replying and I hope all.is well

 

[Tayla]

I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs

Yes, of course it does. Is there any controversy about this question?

 

[ananda]

Hello ananda

Thank you for replying and I hope all.is well

Hello, thank you, yes and likewise!

 

[pitabread]

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)

The idea of a "first cause" implies classical causality. If the origin of the universe involves a situation where such causality doesn't apply, then the very idea of the universe requiring a cause becomes moot.

The idea of using classical physics to support the idea of a supernatural creator of the entire universe seems a bit trite.

 

[xianghua]

As a matter of fact.... a dog giving birth to a cat, would also falsify biblical creationism.

so you agree that creationism is science because we can falsify it? and can you give me the calculation for why it will be impossible to change a cat into a dog in a single step?