Discussion on the how it all started

[Godistruth1]

The point is that the physical evidence is consistent with what we would expect from the theory of evolution.

And what is the evidence?

And there is no justification for why a Creator would build a series of animals over history, replacing them with slightly different versions... unless they were both not all knowing and being deliberately deceptive.

Any justification is not necessarily a correct justification. I can make up stuff and call that justification. Logically there are multiple possibilities for how it all started. What we can do is reduce the number of possibilities based on logical evidence. Unless there is proof to disprove something logically we cannot rule out the possibility

 

[NBB]

Then it’s also possible for the universe to have no cause. Otherwise you are engaging in a logical fallacy called ‘special pleading’.

Its not special pleading the nature of God and the universe are different, and good complex things just don't come alone, someone needs to intervene/build/put intelligence to them to happen, i'm pretty sure things like these doesn't build themselves. God is the source of all things.

 

[Shemjaza]

And what is the evidence?

Fossils, the pattern of genetic relatedness, small scale evolution in the modern day.

Nothing is 100% certain, it could all be a ruse by a cosmic trickster... but the evidence is clear.

Any justification is not necessarily a correct justification. I can make up stuff and call that justification. Logically there are multiple possibilities for how it all started. What we can do is reduce the number of possibilities based on logical evidence. Unless there is proof to disprove something logically we cannot rule out the possibility

A logical inconsistency is a universe with life that looks evolved over billions of years and the recent creation by an honest Creator.

Given that life does look like it evolved over billions of years... what does that say about its recent creation?

 

[Larniavc]

Since u cant prove there is an actual link between the earlier specie and prove even the existence of earlier specie also u the fact u agree the theory can be wrong, we can agree to disagree

Which would make your conclusion incorrect.

 

[Larniavc]

Just because TOE explains some things does not mean its true which u agree to. God is also an explanation then. Both are similar unless we can be very sure and have very good evidence.

We can be sure ToE has very good evidence.

What evidence do you have for creation?

 

[Larniavc]

and good complex things just don't come alone, someone needs to intervene/build/put intelligence to them to happen,

Apart from God. That is special pleading.

Saying “everything needs to be created; apart from God” is special pleading.

 

[disciple Clint]

The writers of that "book" do not understand the concept of evidence.

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/about-fr-spitzer/
The author is Fr. Spitzer Ph.D. who was President of Gonzaga University from 1998 to 2009. He has Written an online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith which responds to questions about the evidence for God, Creation, and the transmateriality of human consciousness as well as questions concerning the historicity of Jesus. His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary big bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularly the theory of time and philosophy of God, He has made many TV appearances including: Larry King Live (debating Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow) Please explain why you say that he does not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

About Fr. Spitzer | Credible Catholic
The author is Fr. Spitzer Ph.D. who was President of Gonzaga University from 1998 to 2009. He has Written an online Encyclopedia of Reason and Faith which responds to questions about the evidence for God, Creation, and the transmateriality of human consciousness as well as questions concerning the historicity of Jesus. His academic specialties are (1) Philosophy of Science, particularly space-time theory and transcendent implications of contemporary big bang cosmology, (2) metaphysics, particularly the theory of time and philosophy of God, He has made many TV appearances including: Larry King Live (debating Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow) Please explain why you say that he does not understand the concept of evidence.

So you are saying that the author of that book is a liar then.

 

[Larniavc]

No i can also claim to have evidence.

What evidence do you have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am ready to learn and i hope u can also learn some logic when looking at difference between a guess and a fact.

Your statement indicates that you are not going to be honest. Please don't make comments of this sort.

No i can also claim to have evidence. Its a different thing to prove it. U blindly believe it as evidence when u yourself say it can be wrong. U cannot claim it to be true and it the same time claim it to be wrong.

You can claim to have evidence, but you need to be able to show that you have any. We are discussing science. And please do not make false claims about others that you cannot support. Not only is that against the rules here, you also just broke the Ninth Commandment and as a Christian that should worry you. Tue fact is that you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not understand what evidence is in the sciences.

Im not debating any definitions here. U understand my question and u are yet to prove your evidence. Your evidence no longer remained evidence the moment u said it can be wrong.

Whoa! Watch it, you just claimed to have lied here. But since you do not understand the concept of evidence it in reality was a laughable error.

And there is no debate about the definition of evidence. You don't get to make up your own definition. Are you done making posts that make you look ignorant? What do you say that we begin

U need to double check your evidence. Next time be sure to back up your claim as true evidence and not be unsure.

Oh my, still confused I see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is saying that it is a waste of time to try to correct those who have no desire to change

That is most likely because you have no corrections. Only logical fallacies and nonsense. You posted a link to a very poor source and pretended to have answered me.

Here is what you should have done, you should have taken the best argument that they had and posted it here and see if it held water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many faiths and presuppositions based on philosophical development of society and you are not so naive not to know that, right?

Faith that the physical world is real.
Faith that the physical world is well represented by chemical processes in your brain.
Faith that the chemical processes in your brain are always working properly.
Faith that other people (and their experiments) exist (the problem of other minds).
Faith in the philosophical development chain rationalism - empirism - positivism.
Faith, that we are not dreaming.
Faith that we are not insane.
Faith that there is continuity of things and that the world is same today as it was yesterday (faith in the continuity of physical laws and in the validity of past experiments).
Faith that we are not intentionally misled.

And for you specifically - faith that atheism is a better system than Christianity to explain the reality of our existence and of our experiences.

Sorry, you are not using a consistent definition of "faith". Your whole post is an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

U both accept evolution to be true and also accept it to be possibly wrong. If u are not sure on what to believe then how are u different than a theist?

No, the evidence for evolution would be there if we accepted reality or not. Evidence exists regardless. But then you do not understand the concept and insist on making false claims about others. This is why understanding what is and what is not evidence is so important.

 

[solid_core]

Sorry, you are not using a consistent definition of "faith". Your whole post is an equivocation fallacy.

Heh, do you really think you just shook it all off just by saying this?

Atheism is a foolish and too complex system of various beliefs and you know it.

Atheism cannot offer a consistent, simple and elegant answer to various evidence we have about our reality, life after death, about our experiences and other things. Agnosticism is much more credible and honest. An agnostic at least wait with conclusion until he will have more evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heh, do you really think you just shook it all off just by saying this?

Atheism is a foolish and too complex system of various beliefs and you know it.

Atheism cannot offer a consistent, simple and elegant answer to various evidence we have about our reality, life after death, about our experiences and other things. Agnosticism is much more credible and honest.

It was such a poor post that was all it took to refute it.

And yes, there are many different sorts of atheists. And some of them may even be faith based. But that does not change the fact that your post was an utter failure for the simple reason that I gave to you.

Lastly you should try to understand what you are arguing against. Helpful hint: Most agnostics are atheists too.

And there is no reliable evidence of life after death that I have ever seen, or any other evidence for a deity.

 

[Speedwell]

There are many faiths and presuppositions based on philosophical development of society and you are not so naive not to know that, right?

Faith that the physical world is real.
Faith that the physical world is well represented by chemical processes in your brain.
Faith that the chemical processes in your brain are always working properly.
Faith that other people (and their experiments) exist (the problem of other minds).
Faith in the philosophical development chain rationalism - empirism - positivism.
Faith, that we are not dreaming.
Faith that we are not insane.
Faith that there is continuity of things and that the world is same today as it was yesterday (faith in the continuity of physical laws and in the validity of past experiments).
Faith that we are not intentionally misled.

And for you specifically - faith that atheism is a better system than Christianity to explain the reality of our existence and of our experiences.

And for you, specifically, faith that a superficial interpretation of an ancient text trumps any of the other faiths you listed.

 

[renniks]

That is only because you purposefully keep yourself ignorant of the sciences. For the most part you have been corrected It is only when you go out of your way to attack others that you get the same in return. If you can be polite and honest others will be polite to you. And look at you, once again you try to insult others. You don't see Christians attacking you for "make believe". People have respected your religious beliefs. It is when you try to apply your religious views to science, views which were refuted over a hundred years ago, that you get a bit of flack.

No, I have not kept myself ignorant of the sciences. You just can't help being condescending can you?
I have read plenty on all the topics being discussed. Just because I see them in a different light or from a different angle doesn't make me ignorant. Thanks for providing a good illustration of the kind of "I'm just smarter than you" attitude I was talking about.

 

[renniks]

No you did not. You said you don’t believe in ToE.

Which bit?

I assert that you will not answer because you do not know which specific part of ToE is wrong and will unable to provide evidence to support that.

Further, I assert that this is because you have not taken taken the time to learn what the ToE actually predicts.

I did say. I do not believe that one kind of animal makes the genetic leap to another kind. I can observe adaptation, I can't observe a squirrel becoming a toad. It does not happen in the natural world, so why should I believe what I can't see?

 

[renniks]

You have been told this before, theories explain facts. Is gravity a fact? There is the fact of gravity and the theory that explains it. The same applies to evolution. We can see that life evolved both in the present and the past. The theory of evolution explains those facts.

No, that's an interpretation of what is observed. But, there is an enormous amount of error in the interpretation. How often do the "facts" change? What you accept as facts are in fact, theories. "Animals exist and adapt, therefore all life must have been derived from a single-celled organism?" Not a fact.

 

[renniks]

Can you explain what you mean?

Deep time requires no miracles, just an acceptance of the evidence of billions of years of history.

My point is that very small individual changes and adaptations, (which I thought you accepted), will eventually add up to larger scale changes. If there's a logical issue with this, can you point it out?

The mutations to the genetic code are usually not beneficial. But even beneficial mutations can not add enough to the genetic code to turn a reptile into a bird or a frog into a prince. That's the simple version. I have studied all this, but it's been a while.