Determining Reality

[food4thought]

I don't know what "empirical evidence" you are looking for regarding time. I haven't seen you present any empirical evidence that time is a physical property of matter, so it seems odd you would ask this of me. Time dilation doesn't seem to show anything except that time and space are closely related. In a universe without matter, I'm inclined to believe time would still exist. It may still be that time is nothing more than a concept. Your response in post 113 made me think that this point was obvious to you, and yet you've gone on to insist that time is a physical property of matter. I think this link does a good job of explaining time.

What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired Science | Wired.com

Well, first I am not claiming that time is a physical property of matter, but is a physical property of our universe. Although there are some recent rumblings that perhaps 4D space-time is not the best way to descibe reality, there is no widely accepted theory to support this supposition as of yet (at least not that I know of). According to the current accepted understanding of Big Bang Theory all matter, energy, AND 4D space-time were part of the singularity. Hence, the Big Bang did not explode INTO EXISTING SPACE-TIME, but space-time ITSELF expanded. By suggesting that time exists outside our universe, you were implying that space-time existed outside of the Big Bang singularity (whether you admit it, or even realize it, or not), therefore implying that there is indeed something beyond our current expanding universe. The theory of relativity shows that space-time has physical properties as these properties change in gravity and under acceleration, and quantum mechanics also reveals physical properties of space-time with quantum fluctuations producing matter... this strongly suggests that space-time is "something". The existence of space-time outside the Big Bang singularity would make the whole idea of the Big Bang singularity as the uncaused cause of "everything" bunk. Now it seems that you are moving towards the multi-verse theory, which is really more of an idea at this point than a hard scientific theory (even the physicist in your link said as much). Which is it?

Loop quantum gravity theory still has a way to go before it replaces the big bang.

Very true. It is still far from being accepted as the Big Bang is currently.

I understand your point that there is no proof for infinite regress of time for a singularity, but we do have evidence of singularities, we have no proof of god. If I have to choose between two possibilities, an eternal being without proof of existence or an eternal singularity (and there is evidence singularities exist) then its a bit silly to suggest the two options are equally likely.

We have evidence of singularities in space-time... but the Big Bang singularity supposedly was composed of all space-time, matter, and energy. A singularity without space-time to occur in has absolutely no precedent. There is evidence of God, just not evidence you will accept.

WHen I referred to logic and reason I meant that any information should be viewed under the scrutiny of logic and reason before decided the reality of that information. LOL I hope that clears things up.

Your logic and reason is limited by the human condition (timebound, finite, biased, etc). I am quite sure that you will admit that your logic and reason is fallable... and so is everyones (including mine). I am not saying abandon logic and reason, I am asking you to recognize their limitations.

 

[guitarmonster]

We are trying to measure things that are not of this world with worldly logic. As far as the Bible, the fact that there are only very few inconsistencies is actually a miracle, knowing that these books were written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years. Furthermore, has anyone considered the mathematical probability of Jesus actually fulfilling old testament messianic prophecy? For Jesus to fulfill only 48 of the scriptures, you are talking a chance of 1 in 10^154, which in my opinion is a pretty ridiculous probability, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning several times in a row than hitting that. Of course Jesus did not fulfill 48 of the prophecies, but well over 300.

The only problem here in this forum is there are two different groups reading this, the first group being those who have accepted Christ, and those who have not. The ones who have accepted Christ have understanding, but those who have not have no understanding, and here is why:

2 Corinthians 3:14-16 - But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.

If you have not accepted Christ, you WILL NOT achieve understanding of the hidden things of God. I'm sorry to tell everyone but reasoning and logic and pulling up all the evidence you can find will not make a difference here. Even if Jesus himself were to appear physically before those who believe, this would not change anything unless the Holy Spirit is working on them, they would just figure out another logical reason to deny God's existence.

Anatheist - I believe that something inside of you is looking for the truth, because if it wasn't you would not be here. I know you say you like to study these things, but you have to understand that if there were literally no God, you would literally have not even the first amount of interest in any of this, you would be able to find 1000 better things to do, we all would. You are seeking answers because God has instilled a need for him in our hearts, and we will try our hardest to fulfill that need with anything we can.

Also speaking on miracles. I recently was in some real serious financial trouble, my company was going under and I was about to be thrown out of my home. I was very deep in debt, I was literally in a place where i thought there was no way out. I then finally gave in and gave these problems up to God. When I say I gave my problems up to God, the only way to do this is to give them over to him, then to take your hands off of the problem! If you don't take your hands off of it, he will not put his hands on it. So I guess you say I gave up. Then the phone rings, its the CEO of a very large internet and mobile marketing company, a guy who has personally worked with people like Tony Robbins and Donald Trump. He said he wanted to meet with me to do some business. We meet together and next thing you know we enter into a joint venture together. Days before I was going to be thrown out, the first big check came in. As I was praying I said "God, your gonna bring in exactly how much money I need to the penny, just to be funny aren't you?" After the check was deposited and ALL of my bills were paid off, my bank balance was 1 penny (which is my interpretation of God's sense of humor). The amazing thing is we never signed any contracts, everything has been on a handshake. The CEO said to me in our first meeting "i'm doing this because for some reason, I have a feeling about this." Weeks later after a sales seminar me, him and his attorney were talking. His attorney said "it's a good thing that we all came together" and the CEO said "no it's a good thing that Jesus brought us together." I never said anything to prompt this, he came upon this on his own. How do two companies enter into a large deal without even signing anything, how do they do it on faith alone, it's completely unheard of. Yet it is working out well for both of us, we are both making good money and best of all we are putting people back to work.

To all the Christians out there - Please stop preaching condemnation of sin to the lost, it will not work because there is a veil over their eyes, therefore preaching anything in regards to the Biblical laws will get you nowhere. There is only one message for the lost, and that is the need for salvation through Jesus Christ. I happen to know personally that many people turn Atheist (I know a few myself) because of how us Christians go around preaching fire and brimstone and telling people their going to hell. Remember when Jesus said "you brood of vipers!" and "woe to you, teachers of the law, hypocrites"?

 

[DCJazz]

To all the Christians out there - Please stop preaching condemnation of sin to the lost, it will not work because there is a veil over their eyes, therefore preaching anything in regards to the Biblical laws will get you nowhere. There is only one message for the lost, and that is the need for salvation through Jesus Christ. I happen to know personally that many people turn Atheist (I know a few myself) because of how us Christians go around preaching fire and brimstone and telling people their going to hell. Remember when Jesus said "you brood of vipers!" and "woe to you, teachers of the law, hypocrites"?

While I agree we must go about it in a loving manner, you cannot fully comprehend what the good news means to you if you do not even know the bad news. The only way to even say there is a NEED for salvation is to realize that your sin is what separates/condemns you in the eyes of God, and that if that sin remains unforgiven to the point of death, that person is going to hell.

I will not sugarcoat it. This is not your preschool-age Sunday School.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry Anatheist, I missed this response since it was on the following page to a previous post you made responding to the same post of mine.



Limited by our being trapped in space-time logic. The rest is a matter of worldviews. You hold a materialistic worldview that looks at the universe and says, "What an incredibly complex place we live in, how wonderfull that all this just happens to be." I hold a theistic worldview that looks at the universe and says, "What an incredibly complex place we live in, how wonderfull is our God that created it all." You see the natural processes as the cause of everything, I see natural processes as a creation of my God, who designed our universe. I have no doubt that there are various laws that govern the creation outside our universe, and if we were to somehow discover some of those laws, it would not harm my faith in the least. Those things that lie exclusively within our universe may indeed one day be accessable to human understanding, but the concept of timelessness is currently, and perhaps forever, outside our natural human capacity to fully comprehend.



One comes to mind... I was praying with two other men from my church, and as we were praying in my minds eye I had a vision of the two brothers in front of me, not as they appeared normally, but stripped of their bodies and all I saw was their souls. They appeared as somewhat human in shape but they were completely light... that is the only way I can describe them to you. To accept this as supernatural will be difficult for you, since you yourself did not experience the vision and do not understand the difference between what I saw then and what I normally see when my mind visualizes something or someone... the quality and clarity of this vision was different... completely better in every way than my own visualization processes ever have been before or since. I did not try to conjure this image, it came to me fully formed and powerful without any attempt on my part to bring it up.



Well, obviously we disagree here. I see where the disagreement between you and Raze came from now. My definition of soul is the Biblical one. The Hebrew term translated as "soul" is nephesh, which is attributed to all animal creatures as that which animates them, or gives them life/vitality... man's soul is created in God's image, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. I have no desire to debate the existence of the soul with you, since I am only peripherally aware of the science surrounding the materialistic understanding of human vitality and life. I simply say that I believe that the soul exists based upon the Bible and my vision.



All I can tell you is that something in me was dead before I came to Jesus, and now I am alive in a way I was not before that. I have been given gifts that I did not possess before, and I have experienced the pressense of the Spirit of God.

So, basically your belief of the supernatural comes from something you imagined in your "mind's eye" while you were praying? You're right. It's not evidence.

ALso, if this thing you imagined and the bible are your entire basis for the existence of the soul, then I wouldn't want to debate its existence with me either. THat said, its a bit silly to bring it up as "evidence" of the supernatural if you aren't willing to debate it.

You're right in saying that my wonder in the natural world and its processes is based on observational knowledge. HOwever, this isn't equal to your belief in a god. I understand you believe it was all created, but why not by many gods? Why not interdimensional magical unicorns? When your belief holds no more evidence than those ideas, what makes you think your belief is superior?

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Hello, this may seem like an overly simple question, but I would like to know how Christians determine reality? How do you decide fact from fiction? How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?

I know this may seem a very vague question, but I am interested. Although the question is addressed to Christians, any faith or religion may answer. Thank you.

I think that one of the things needing to be considered here is the state of a person. Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." A person's viewpoint is contingent on what he wants to live like. Does he want to be foolish and live in sin? Does he want to live under his own rules? If he believes in God, then he will have to change his life. So instead of changing his life, he changes his authority figures. There is far more evidence that God created the universe than that chance did. The fool wants to believe in evolution because he can continue to be a fool.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that one of the things needing to be considered here is the state of a person. Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." A person's viewpoint is contingent on what he wants to live like. Does he want to be foolish and live in sin? Does he want to live under his own rules? If he believes in God, then he will have to change his life. So instead of changing his life, he changes his authority figures. There is far more evidence that God created the universe than that chance did. The fool wants to believe in evolution because he can continue to be a fool.

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
I've heard this one many times before...but consider the source. If following the bible were foolish, would the bible tell you so? Probably not. Let's look at the data...
Times Higher Education - High IQ turns academics into atheists

Here you can see one of the studies that finds (surprise!) the more intelligent you are, the less likely you will believe in god. Shouldn't the bible then say, "The wise man says in his heart, "There is no god."?

As for atheists deciding not to believe in god so that they can lead more sinful lives, I would imagine we would find a higher proportion of atheists in prison. That is, unless they get caught less because they're smarter than the Christian criminal. Let's look...

Percentage of atheists - FreeThoughtPedia

Now, since the most recent numbers (I could find) suggest as much as 19% of the population is atheist...you would expect 19% of prisoners to be atheist if religious thought weren't a factor. Since you believe atheists choose atheism so they can live in sin, you might think its even higher. Turns out that less than 1% of prisoners are atheist though...so judging by the evidence, we are far more morally inclined.

It's nice that you said there is evidence that god created the universe, but not surprising that you didn't present any. If you have any evidence, present it, and I'll be happy to discuss.

Thanks for posting btw! I forgot all about this thread!

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

]"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
I've heard this one many times before...but consider the source. If following the bible were foolish, would the bible tell you so? Probably not. Let's look at the data...
Times Higher Education - High IQ turns academics into atheists

Here you can see one of the studies that finds (surprise!) the more intelligent you are, the less likely you will believe in god. Shouldn't the bible then say, "The wise man says in his heart, "There is no god."?

Here is an article that questions standard IQ tests:

Problems With Iq Tests | LIVESTRONG.COM

As for university degrees, a portion of it, especially in the humanities, is considered by people in private enterprise as impractical and actually stupifying compared to life experience.

They hijacked the humanities, then my canoe - The Globe and Mail

As for atheists deciding not to believe in god so that they can lead more sinful lives, I would imagine we would find a higher proportion of atheists in prison. That is, unless they get caught less because they're smarter than the Christian criminal. Let's look...

Percentage of atheists - FreeThoughtPedia

Now, since the most recent numbers (I could find) suggest as much as 19% of the population is atheist...you would expect 19% of prisoners to be atheist if religious thought weren't a factor. Since you believe atheists choose atheism so they can live in sin, you might think its even higher. Turns out that less than 1% of prisoners are atheist though...so judging by the evidence, we are far more morally inclined.

There are crimes that are easily labled as crimes which, when punished, will lead to conviction and remorse. Abortion and adultery are not criminalized so many will engage in these activities and never feel a punishment in this lifetime for such things. Prisoners tend to believe in God because they are experiencing a punishment for some kind of wrong-doing and realize that God's hand is in the situation. As well, life is not going so well for them and there are few atheists in foxholes.

It's nice that you said there is evidence that god created the universe, but not surprising that you didn't present any. If you have any evidence, present it, and I'll be happy to discuss.

Thanks for posting btw! I forgot all about this thread!

[/QUOTE]

If I were a tour guide of car factory, I would certainly be expected to use the term "car designers" (meaning humans) and to even name a few. If I were to point to a rabbit in a cage and say, "This rabbit designed that Porche," I would be considered certifiable and would make the car factory a laughing stock. Nevertheless, saying a rabbit designed a car is far more believable than saying chance did so.

Apologetics Press - God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

According to wikipedia, Einstein believed in a god. He could not believe in evolution because he saw design in creation. There are many scientists who are Christian and believe in God and reconcile this belief to the world around them. If I am a Christian I will most likely try to find scientists who are Christian. If I am a Moslem, I will try to find Moslem scientists. If I am an atheist, I will try to find atheistic scientists and hence my bias is strengthened, not challenged. Here is a website by Christian scientists that provides great evidence but again, if one is not a Christian, this is probably a useless website:

Creation Versus Evolution

Here is an article which shows the laws of chance as making evolution impossible:

Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by Dr. James F. Coppedge

When you see a car or a building, you do say, don't you, that a car designer or an architect designed such things? You would never say that chance designed a skyscraper. Then why say that chance designed the human body which is far, far more complex than a skyscraper? Where is the evidence that evolution is true?

 

[AlexBP]

SInce your link is based on the work of Jeffrey Burton Russel, let's take a look and see if he thinks there is any chance that medieval people believed in a flat earth shall we?

" c, if they thought about it at all. Since almost all uneducated Europeans in the Middle Ages lived restricted lives in small regions, they could have had little interest in geography"

Pointless Asteroid Scare

Now, you may scoff at works of fiction when discerning the opinions of people throughout history, but even if you consider it weak evidence its more evidence than you have presented.

I've pointed out to you that every piece of "evidence" supporting your claim about what people believed in Columbus' time comes from a work of fiction. In response, rather than admitting that it's silly to believe that works of fiction are facts, you instead double down on insisting that your "facts" must be true because a few works of fiction say so? Why don't you take a deep breath, look at this from an outside perspective, and realize how silly it is? I've read many works of fiction about elves, dragons, hobbits, and the like. Would you claim that such things must exist because they're reported in works of fiction? Don't you think it would be a little bit silly to treat a work of fiction about elves as "evidence" for the reality of elves, or that it gives us insight into how the common man thinks about elves? Yet the argument you're making is precisely analogous to that.

Also, since YOUR source agrees with me that the uneducated of that time may well have believed in a flat earth, I'm considering the matter closed until you can present evidence otherwise.

What on earth are you talking about? You quoted Jeffrey Burton Russell as saying that uneducated people in medieval times may have believed that the earth was flat, but even someone as ill-informed as yourself surely knows that Columbus did not sail to the Americas during medieval times. Russell says nothing that would justify your claim that the uneducated of Columbus' time may have believed in a flat earth. You're wrong once again.

In any case, you're only focusing on the question of what uneducated people believed in Columbus' time as a red herring to distract attention from the failure of your original argument. You brought up Christopher Columbus, in post #81, as an example designed to shows the fallacy of argument from authority. According to that post, Columbus was going against authority by believing that the earth was round. Even if a few uneducated folks believed the earth was flat at the time, it would have no relevance to the content of your argument. I then showed you, with abundant documentation, that what you believed was the opposite of the truth. By thinking the earth to be round, Columbus was in full agreement with the authorities. As I said earlier:

Columbus only sailed westward across the Atlantic because he believed the authorities. If he had insisted on being a juvenile punk constantly thumping his chest about his contempt for "argument from authority" then he wouldn't have done so. The same can be said of really anyone who advanced knowledge in any field throughout human history.
​

This is the important point that demolishes your argument. Not surprisingly, you haven't been able to make any response to this.

P.S. don't worry, in spite of your sad attempt to pull one quote from that link I gave you showing Stark's complete failure as a historian, no one who actually read the article would be fooled. I can (and will when I get time) refute all your historical mistakes.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not holding my breath.

By the way, have you actually read Dr. Stark's book, or are you in the habit of passing judgment on books without reading them?

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

This is the important point that demolishes your argument. Not surprisingly, you haven't been able to make any response to this.

The probability of one protein molecule forming is "1 in 10 to the power of 300. "The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 are thought of as "zero probability").

Even greater than believing that chance was in charge of evolutionary decisions is believing that chance created everything in the first place. That takes a greater faith than anything a religious person has. Belief in evolution is a religion of its own with its own code of ethics and faith etc.

I personally think that the state of our heart is the moving definitive aspect of our personality and what determines reality for us. We believe what we want to believe and don't want to listen to anyone else. And we can convince ourselves of evidence for anything.

Another example is feminism. Feminism is a joke and there is no reality to it. It's unreality. It's a concoction, a myth. Nevertheless women carry it on. A new rule in Ontario is that women cannot lift anything over fifty pounds by themselves. The main reason for this is that women are costing the health care system too much money when they have to work hard. Meanwhile men (the average woman has just under 2/3rds the strength of the average man) lift hundreds of pounds all the time.

I work on a labour job where we as men are required to lift/maneuver boxes over 200 pounds on a continual basis. Men do not have equality with other men. We have to prove our worth. If I cannot lift what the other men lift then I can't continue to work on that job. If, after taking into consideration the strength differences of men and women, women would at least lift just under 2/3rds of what we as men lift, and do this on a continual basis without getting sick and accept 2/3rds of the pay, it might satisfy us as men in feeling that working with women is a satisfying experience.

But women (and especially feminists) ignore the strength differences and the resulting pay differences that should occur and demand equality by legislation which is something almost all men despise as being unfair. We as men almost never legislate equality among ourselves. But feminism thinks this is fair and right despite the evidence of nature and natural law and now the laws of governments. And feminists will come up with all kinds of legalese to try to convince themselves of the rightness of this. This is because what they want to believe in their hearts they will believe. They won't believe anything else. And they will continually find others of the same opinion to listen to.

One of the problems with evolutionary belief is that there is a "circle of babble" that goes on. One person quotes another who quotes another and eventually they come back to the original person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I were a tour guide of car factory, I would certainly be expected to use the term "car designers" (meaning humans) and to even name a few. If I were to point to a rabbit in a cage and say, "This rabbit designed that Porche," I would be considered certifiable and would make the car factory a laughing stock. Nevertheless, saying a rabbit designed a car is far more believable than saying chance did so.

Apologetics Press - God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

According to wikipedia, Einstein believed in a god. He could not believe in evolution because he saw design in creation. There are many scientists who are Christian and believe in God and reconcile this belief to the world around them. If I am a Christian I will most likely try to find scientists who are Christian. If I am a Moslem, I will try to find Moslem scientists. If I am an atheist, I will try to find atheistic scientists and hence my bias is strengthened, not challenged. Here is a website by Christian scientists that provides great evidence but again, if one is not a Christian, this is probably a useless website:

Creation Versus Evolution

Here is an article which shows the laws of chance as making evolution impossible:

Evolution: Possible or Impossible? by Dr. James F. Coppedge

When you see a car or a building, you do say, don't you, that a car designer or an architect designed such things? You would never say that chance designed a skyscraper. Then why say that chance designed the human body which is far, far more complex than a skyscraper? Where is the evidence that evolution is true?

" Here is an article that questions standard IQ tests:

Problems With Iq Tests | LIVESTRONG.COM"
I understand that an IQ test is not a perfect standard of measuring intelligence, and I'll gladly admit that each point made by the link you provided is valid. However, that is the point of studying a large sample size, factors that may affect individuals are nullified by using large groups to collect the data. For example, the first factor (possible bias) would be a problem if we took the results of one Christian and one atheist. Gender, race, age could all make one look better/worse than the other. However, if we take results from say 500 Christians and 500 atheists randomly chosen...race, gender, age no longer become relevant. The study has been repeated and the results stand. Sorry.

" Abortion and adultery are not criminalized so many will engage in these activities and never feel a punishment in this lifetime for such things."
Is there some point to this? I used a study of prisoners because they all did things we would agree are immoral. We cannot wade into a "morality of abortion" discussion here without moderators shutting us down so please don't bring it up.

" Prisoners tend to believe in God because they are experiencing a punishment for some kind of wrong-doing and realize that God's hand is in the situation. As well, life is not going so well for them and there are few atheists in foxholes."
I don't buy any of this and without any data to prove it...you're just blowing hot air.

It's not really surprising that you would quote an apologetics page in citing the probability of life randomly occurring. What is surprising is that you thought it would float given that the scientists' quotes are as much as 40years old. Did you think scientific progress ended in the 60's? Here's a much more up to date look at the numbers that might surprise you...
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

"even the worst chance of life beginning naturally he finally figures to be 10^-20, which is well within the realm of the possible"

But regardless of what numbers you pull, let's look at the argument you're making. You're saying that the chances for life occurring are so low that life must have been created...by a god (presumably your Christian god). Even if you could show the chances are too low to happen naturally (and you haven't), why a god? Why not two gods? What not a hundred? A thousand? Why not a magical life creating factory? Why not extra-dimensional unicorns with life creating powers? Your argument has no more validity than any of these. You can't begin on the assumption god exists and then assume he created things...you have to first prove god exists, then you can begin to make a case for creation.

" Then why say that chance designed the human body which is far, far more complex than a skyscraper?"
If complexity denotes a creator than by your logic god needs a creator. He would undeniably be the most complex being in existence thereby also being most in need of a creator. It's circular logic from the very start.

" Where isthe evidence that evolution is true?"
I don't really see what this has to do with god. Proving or disproving evolution doesn't prove or disprove god...but since you asked...
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
There's lots of good evidence on that page...choose your links and get reading

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've pointed out to you that every piece of "evidence" supporting your claim about what people believed in Columbus' time comes from a work of fiction. In response, rather than admitting that it's silly to believe that works of fiction are facts, you instead double down on insisting that your "facts" must be true because a few works of fiction say so? Why don't you take a deep breath, look at this from an outside perspective, and realize how silly it is? I've read many works of fiction about elves, dragons, hobbits, and the like. Would you claim that such things must exist because they're reported in works of fiction? Don't you think it would be a little bit silly to treat a work of fiction about elves as "evidence" for the reality of elves, or that it gives us insight into how the common man thinks about elves? Yet the argument you're making is precisely analogous to that.

What on earth are you talking about? You quoted Jeffrey Burton Russell as saying that uneducated people in medieval times may have believed that the earth was flat, but even someone as ill-informed as yourself surely knows that Columbus did not sail to the Americas during medieval times. Russell says nothing that would justify your claim that the uneducated of Columbus' time may have believed in a flat earth. You're wrong once again.

In any case, you're only focusing on the question of what uneducated people believed in Columbus' time as a red herring to distract attention from the failure of your original argument. You brought up Christopher Columbus, in post #81, as an example designed to shows the fallacy of argument from authority. According to that post, Columbus was going against authority by believing that the earth was round. Even if a few uneducated folks believed the earth was flat at the time, it would have no relevance to the content of your argument. I then showed you, with abundant documentation, that what you believed was the opposite of the truth. By thinking the earth to be round, Columbus was in full agreement with the authorities. As I said earlier:

Columbus only sailed westward across the Atlantic because he believed the authorities. If he had insisted on being a juvenile punk constantly thumping his chest about his contempt for "argument from authority" then he wouldn't have done so. The same can be said of really anyone who advanced knowledge in any field throughout human history.
​

This is the important point that demolishes your argument. Not surprisingly, you haven't been able to make any response to this.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not holding my breath.

By the way, have you actually read Dr. Stark's book, or are you in the habit of passing judgment on books without reading them?

wow...nine months later you're still losing sleep over this aren't you?

I quoted YOUR source. All you have to do is show that in the space of a few hundred years, the vast uneducated masses changed their minds (which is ridiculous).

Seriously, nine months later? I think its time you find yourself another hobby. All you've really done by insisting on carrying on this silly discussion is prove my original point to you, that accepting reality based solely on the testimony of others is an extremely poor idea and can result in a severely distorted view of reality.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

" Here is an article that questions standard IQ tests:

Problems With Iq Tests | LIVESTRONG.COM"
I understand that an IQ test is not a perfect standard of measuring intelligence, and I'll gladly admit that each point made by the link you provided is valid. However, that is the point of studying a large sample size, factors that may affect individuals are nullified by using large groups to collect the data. For example, the first factor (possible bias) would be a problem if we took the results of one Christian and one atheist. Gender, race, age could all make one look better/worse than the other. However, if we take results from say 500 Christians and 500 atheists randomly chosen...race, gender, age no longer become relevant. The study has been repeated and the results stand. Sorry.

You gave a link to a study that did IQ tests on "scholars". Many Christians wouldn't think of gracing public universities with their presence. They consider many aspects of these institutions to be foolish.

" Abortion and adultery are not criminalized so many will engage in these activities and never feel a punishment in this lifetime for such things."
Is there some point to this? I used a study of prisoners because they all did things we would agree are immoral. We cannot wade into a "morality of abortion" discussion here without moderators shutting us down so please don't bring it up.

We have common ground on prisoners, yes. But there is much uncommon ground elsewhere. You seem to think highly of academia but many consider academia to be corrupt. That is not common ground with many on this forum so why bring up that group of people?

" Prisoners tend to believe in God because they are experiencing a punishment for some kind of wrong-doing and realize that God's hand is in the situation. As well, life is not going so well for them and there are few atheists in foxholes."
I don't buy any of this and without any data to prove it...you're just blowing hot air.

It's not really surprising that you would quote an apologetics page in citing the probability of life randomly occurring. What is surprising is that you thought it would float given that the scientists' quotes are as much as 40years old. Did you think scientific progress ended in the 60's? Here's a much more up to date look at the numbers that might surprise you...
Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

"even the worst chance of life beginning naturally he finally figures to be 10^-20, which is well within the realm of the possible"

But regardless of what numbers you pull, let's look at the argument you're making. You're saying that the chances for life occurring are so low that life must have been created...by a god (presumably your Christian god). Even if you could show the chances are too low to happen naturally (and you haven't), why a god? Why not two gods? What not a hundred? A thousand? Why not a magical life creating factory? Why not extra-dimensional unicorns with life creating powers? Your argument has no more validity than any of these. You can't begin on the assumption god exists and then assume he created things...you have to first prove god exists, then you can begin to make a case for creation.

Aren't you claiming to be an atheist based on all this "evidence"? As for old information your links are full of them. As for trying to prove there is a god, I honestly wasn't trying to prove there is a Christian god, only that belief in no god at all takes much greater faith than belief in some kind of a god or gods.

" Then why say that chance designed the human body which is far, far more complex than a skyscraper?"
If complexity denotes a creator than by your logic god needs a creator. He would undeniably be the most complex being in existence thereby also being most in need of a creator. It's circular logic from the very start.

I find most of the stuff you present to be circular. And as far as complexity, you need to admit that in your eyes the complexity of an IQ test proves the intelligence of those who pass that test with flying colours. I'm sure that a complex man is more attractive to you than a simple man. And by the way, when you meet a complex man, do you not ask yourself who made that man? Or do you conclude that man is self-made? And if so, why not a self-made God or gods?

" Where isthe evidence that evolution is true?"
I don't really see what this has to do with god. Proving or disproving evolution doesn't prove or disprove god...but since you asked...
The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs
There's lots of good evidence on that page...choose your links and get reading [/quote

For one thing, this page speaks about the Piltdown man, a "fact" proven to be a fallacy by others. The point is, you will believe in your reality based on what you want to believe. You think that God, if He were real, should be man enough to stand in front of you and present Himself to you. I highly doubt that would do any good and you might even feel that type of an experience is an invasion of your space. God is standing patiently aside of your life to see if you will seek Him. He's already presented enough evidence. Are you showing any interest in getting to know Him or hims (or hers or at least someone or something greater than yourself)? God is patient and you certainly don't exasperate Him. He loves you but He will not bash you over the head to prove that love. Look at your response to human authorities and try to see your reactions from God's point of view. If God knows how you are "authenticating yourself" in all of these human situations, is He going to step into your life expecting a different type of reaction?

We believe what we want to. 1 Timothy 4:3 says, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires." We want to live our way so we surround ourselves with teachers who affirm our way of life. Gays, for instance, surround themselves with psychologists who say they were born that way. Many homosexuals have changed but that's beside the point to the gays who don't want to change. We all want to find a comfort zone for ourselves. Btw, many Christian scientists want to debate evoluntionists but evolutionists won't engage in debate because they are afraid of the facts. They know there is no missing link etc., etc.

Have you ever considered what it would be like to seek God or gods? If God were to exist and is waiting for you to be serious, what would you have to do to prove to that God or gods you are serious about finding out about Him (or hims, hers etc.)?

I had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome for years (complex condition btw) and regarding certain aspects of it, I had heard from others of cures. I didn't take ahold of those cures at the time I heard about the cures simply because I didn't want to be cured. When the time came and my desire for cure was evident, then I accepted the advice I had heard years before and found healing. I wasn't ready for that information though when I first heard it (sadly). These experiences showed me just how different everyone of us is from the next person and I always try to keep this in mind when I listen to advice.

 

[FtcdatSAPoD]

Seriously, nine months later? I think its time you find yourself another hobby.

Whether or not this applies to the speaker, this advice is good for all of us. I want to make the following points:

1) There are several reasons why we can all be on CF's. A purpose that I have found to be the most satisfactory is to make it my goal to learn how to debate my point of view and in coming on to this website and its threads I have sharpened my skills very much. I highly doubt though that I will get to the level and productivity of Ana the 1st. Ana the 1st is a very good debater from what I can see (this is sincere praise - you are good and I like your conclusions sometimes even though I don't agree with them). [This is the one thing I learned from Larry Crabb - make goals that depend on oneself and that don't involve others to reach.]

2) Another reason to be on CF's is to make a voice for truth. There are many different opinions on this forum and if Christians don't voice their opiinions, there may be no Christian opinions voiced.

3) A third reason to be on these forums is to "minister". I gave up on this a long time ago. Many on these forums are not even the sex they say they are. This doesn't make debating with them not worthwhile though.

4) The "cult of victimization" is alive and healthy on this forum. Threads are shut down because someone's feelings got hurt. Not all moderators bring the discipline and accountability they should to this responsibility. C'est la vie.

5) And there are external forces to be considered. Lawsuits can ensue if there are too many charges of racism. Pc is very much alive and well on this forum but again we have to consider the world that we live in.

I don't rush home everyday to get on to CF's anymore. I use it now for specific purposes and feel more and more that my time is better spent off the internet than on.

 

[razeontherock]

Bumping this up, not because it;s the best of your threads for it, but the OP and I have butted heads on the meaning and usage of the word "faith" quite a bit. We both know what the dictionary says, but the biblical meaning and usage is rather different. Here's a take that is better than what I proffered before:

"I sum life up as a dressing room where we prepare our hearts to enjoy Him, which requires active cultivation. An acquired taste, you might say. A conscious choice. And this is a far better descriptor of "Faith," as the Bible uses it, than what we normally see atheists here define it as."

 

[PureDose]

Hello, this may seem like an overly simple question, but I would like to know how Christians determine reality? How do you decide fact from fiction? How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?

I know this may seem a very vague question, but I am interested. Although the question is addressed to Christians, any faith or religion may answer. Thank you.

They saying "seeing is believing", but if you were to see something astounding, no one would believe you. You could get camera evidence. You could get video evidence. It does not matter.

People believe what they want to believe based on their preferences.

For whatever reason, this is what people want: they want this life to be it. They are satisfied without immortality or being like God. They do not want to live forever. They want food and sex and money and prestige.

To tell them there is more, they will not believe it.

They never find, because they never seek.


Those who want more, they seek, and they find.


The seeking is made difficult by God. This is part of the construct of life. God has made it so that it is impossible for man, by his own spirit, to find. The things of the Spirit are not the things of the flesh, so the flesh has no interest in these things.

Why this is "part of the construct of life" because God is a real being, a real person, and to be in his presence is to know that there is no boasting, such as the flesh craves to do.

That realm is not one of selfishness and ego.


In a sense, the material world and the spiritual world might be said to be separated "as if by an abyss" by the very natures of the two realities. The spiritual reality is a dynamic one, whereas the material one is static.

So, speaking of "how do you know reality" in the material world is an easier to answer question then "how do you know reality" for the spiritual world... because to mankind a consensual delusion or false reality has been given to them to grow up in. It has some degree of permanence, but like the very nature of "reality", it is not really real.


This deeply puts mankind at a disadvantage to the spiritual realm, because those of the spiritual realm have far more power to make reality as they will. So, they can confuse mankind very easily, if they wish to. Or, they can break through their false, weaker reality and show them how what they consider to be "real" is not.

These things can be useful to open their minds and get them to finally question what they see and hear. Something man is very accustomed to not doing.


This is also very disorienting for man, because man is in a singular form, but spirits are not this way.

For a spirit, if the walls and floors are removed, it does not matter to them, but for a man to have the walls and floor removed is horrifying to them. They become scared they will fall or can never again find the food they need. And other such material worries.


Consider, of course, what even atheists know (someway... somehow... I do not know how..........) that the physical body is not like a spiritual body, that a physical body is a solid, singular form whereas a spiritual body is like the body of a ghost.

A "ghost" is like a spirit without a home. The body is a home. This reality, creation, God has constructed for us is a world surrounding that home.

The metaphors for these things are all around society, for instance, in our fiction. They are also as the world we have when we dream at night.

So people are not absolutely clueless of these things.


But it can be a little difficult to get them to consider the reality of such a thing. To get them to notice the commonalities, when the commonalities, unlike this world, are not so static, but are dynamic.

It is a foreign place therefore. We are born and raised with our feet on the ground.

It is hard to really understand, like a foreign, exotic country, unless one either goes there or truly and sensitively try and understand from people from there what it is like.


People tend to be barbarians, in a sense, with those from other countries. Heaven is another reality entirely, like another country. It is a dynamic reality higher then this semi-static reality.