How to prove God exists.

[DogmaHunter]

If life doesn't continue on earth(either along with death or not) then the welfare of humanity is a moot point.

Not to the people who are actually alive.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The courts use the standard beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt since there is a presumption of innocence. You are doing the inverse selectively. They, the ancients, are effectively guilty until proven innocent. Even if they are multiple compiled.

Wow, no...

The presumption of innocence is essentially the null hypothesis; the default position.
To be convinced of a claim, one needs to be given sufficient evidence to be moved from the default position towards accepting the claim.

In the case of biblical claims... the default position is NOT that they are true.

The one "inversing" that here, is you.

 

[dmmesdale]

Wow, no...

The presumption of innocence is essentially the null hypothesis; the default position.

Folks are assumed to be innocent in progressive societies and assumed to be guilty in regressive societies. Legal standing not equal to null hypo nor is the presumption of innocence a default position. If we go to court we are positionally not guilty until proven otherwise, not the inverse which is what hyper critics apply to the Bible. They are regressive from the get go.

To be convinced of a claim, one needs to be given sufficient evidence to be moved from the default position towards accepting the claim.

The claim is evidence and if it is repeated then there is muliple claims for the same event. It is multiple claims compiled. It is all positive evidence in the form of testimony for the same event. The evidence can be direct or inferred. Like the Jephthah battle depicted in Judges where the Exodus is treated as history. They fight battles over land based on the Exodus of Israel from Egypt which is assumed to be historical, not mythical or made up.

In the case of biblical claims... the default position is NOT that they are true.

Right they are fiction which is the same as guilty until proven innocent and regressive.

The one "inversing" that here, is you.

If you go to court and the same principals you apply against the claims of the Bible are applied against you then you would need to prove your innocence. The Bible is provided a presumption of innocence. Not guilt.

 

[quatona]

If you go to court and the same principals you apply against the claims of the Bible are applied against you then you would need to prove your innocence. The Bible is provided a presumption of innocence. Not guilt.

Once we start transferring the legal principle to the epistemological approach, we all will be left with a whole lot of wild and absurd claims to be disproved. So no, nobody wants to go there, not even you - unless, of course, the subject happens to be your personal belief system.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If life doesn't continue on earth(either along with death or not) then the welfare of humanity is a moot point.

Exactly. The primary good for the welfare of humanity is for humanity to continue.

The logic and reason behind what I'm saying is obvious.

But not addressing the question.

I can't think of any demonstration that could be absolutely objective. Can you?

Demonstration of what? I was asking for a reasoned argument.

 

[dmmesdale]

Heroic or martyred figures have often been mythologised through history.

So? Ehrman says Jesus was crucified via Pilate as historical. Just like to Gospels attest.

The Gospels were written some time after the events; it's no big stretch to suggest they documented this process.

I don't know what you mean. All historical accounts are after the events. Sources would have preceded the writings in the first place. Besides Acts is prior to AD60 and Luke prior to that, Mark prior to that. None of it documents the killing of James the brother of Jesus (AD62) Paul, Peter, (68?) or the seige and fall of Jerusalem. Absence of these big time events means they happened after the writings were in circulation.

Reading comprehension fail. He isn't comparing mythicism, Holocaust deniers, birthers and six-day creationists, he's criticising the 'problematic' society that produces them (a society that also produced him).

Ehrman is saying Jesus mythers and holocaust deniers are symptoms of a problem society. Just like a cough or runny nose are symptoms of a cold. I don't know how you can read it any different.

 

[Chriliman]

Exactly. The primary good for the welfare of humanity is for humanity to continue.

To continue living and dying, forever? Don't you think it would be good to figure out why people suffer and die and possibly stop it from happening?

Demonstration of what? I was asking for a reasoned argument.

The reasoned argument is that its not good that humanity continue living and dying and suffering forever or until all die forever. Rather, it'd be truly good if death and suffering were done away with and life continues apart from it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Don't you think it would be good to figure out why people suffer and die and possibly stop it from happening?

Sure, but that's a different proposition.

The reasoned argument is that its not good that humanity continue living and dying and suffering forever or until all die forever.

No, that's an unsupported assertion.

Rather, it'd be truly good if death and suffering were done away with and life continues apart from it.

Why? what's your reasoned argument in support of that assertion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So? Ehrman says Jesus was crucified via Pilate as historical. Just like to Gospels attest.

I'm not disputing that; like I said, there may have been more than one Jesus crucified, it was a fairly common name back then. That's not the issue.

I don't know what you mean. All historical accounts are after the events. Sources would have preceded the writings in the first place.

The mythologising of heroes, martyrs, rebels, etc., doesn't take long. Easily enough time for the gospels to be based on mythical events. It's clearly a possibility to be considered.

Ehrman is saying Jesus mythers and holocaust deniers are symptoms of a problem society. Just like a cough or runny nose are symptoms of a cold. I don't know how you can read it any different.

That's how I read it; like I said, he's not comparing those groups, just like calling a cough and runny nose symptoms of a cold is not comparing a cough with a runny nose.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If natural processes produce bacteria then by the same standard, natural processes can produce cars.

Equivalent statement using the same logic: If I can bake a cake and eat it, then I can bake a car and eat it. Natural processes can't produce literally everything, so unless the process by which two items created naturally is directly comparable (such as cell division in dogs being compared to cell division in humans), how one process works is entirely irrelevant to the other.

Cars, what they are made of and how they function, is entirely different to a living organism. That carbon based life can form naturally doesn't mean that, say, lead based life could form under the same physical rules and chemical properties that we observe.

If you say natural processes can produce bacteria but cannot produce cars then there is a contradiction since both are highly complex.

Since complexity is entirely irrelevant to whether or not something is created (highly complex items can be natural OR created, very simple items can be natural OR created), your suggestion is simply incorrect.

Contradictions do not exist in reality. If nature cannot produce cars then nature cannot produce bacteria.

Since the process by which cars are created is not the same as the process by which bacteria form and develop, that nature cannot produce cars is irrelevant to whether or not nature can produce bacteria.

That means the first cause of bacteria is a living source extrinsic of nature. Garbage. It is not reasonably possible, never observed, violates all we know about life which requires prior existing life.

No, no, and no, I linked you to a source, did you even look at it?

That just moves it back since early universe was incompatible with life everywhere.

Irrelevant conjecture. Also, how are you not moving it back by making the source "nature defying"? Where did the living deity come from?

If the source of life here is life elsewhere within the universe then it would have to start and evolve enuf to plant life here. Either way ET is more plasuable than life from nonlife only because ET satisfies biogenesis defined as life from prior life. If ET planted life here then its source would still be living and extrinsic of the universe.

-_- that just pushes it back, because at some point, whatever designer you claim to exist, had to have an origin.

Bio life is the evidence just like a car is evidence of a factory and intelligent designers. A suit is evidence of a tailor.

Neither statement is true; not all suits had tailors directly work on them, and unless they leave some maker's mark behind, you wouldn't be able to tell much about the tailor that may or may not be involved. There is no maker's mark on life.

If living beings is the effect then a living source is the cause.

By that logic, cars made cars, since their creator would share traits with them.

That is followiing the evidence as opposed to manufacturing scenarios with no evidential basis or precedent. That is inferred to the best explanation. No different then inferring a volcano eruption in the past as the cause of an ash layer in the present.

Volcanic ash layers are quite distinct; name some other process that produces the exact same effect.
Furthermore, the precedent is the successful abiogenesis experiments you seem to feel like ignoring. There's no precedent for deities even existing, let alone creating life.

If it is living, (Bacteria) its cause is living. If bio life had a start then it had a living cause. That means we have a purpose. There was a reason, we are not accidents nor can we be reduced to chemical reactions alone.

Not at all; even if I humor you and demand that some creator of life be necessary, said creator need not be alive. Furthermore, we literally can reduce cells down to their chemical reactions. Literally everything that happens within a cell has chemistry to it. Proteins are chemicals, organelles are collections of chemicals, cells are collections of organelles. The cell is the smallest unit of life, but that doesn't mean that the independent parts can't exist, that these chemicals can only be produced within a cell. That idea was disproven in 1828 when urea was produced not only artificially, but using inorganic materials in the reaction. Literally everything your cells produce can be produced outside of a cell, often occurring naturally.

The whole idea of all life here from exclusive nonlife sources has no basis in reality or anything we know about living things and their origins.

Don't be silly, most life that has ever existed on this planet was produced via biogenesis. There's just strong evidence that the very first living organisms on this planet may not have been produced this way.

It has never been observed and there is no known precedent.

Except the abiogenesis experiment I linked you to that you apparently are just going to consider invalid.

It is an inferior explanation to get around the obvious. I have no control over you taking it personally. I read your link and am somewhat familiar with Szostak and Panda Bear which is stacked with pro evos. Lets take a look at the first paragraph.

Origin of life researcher and Nobel Prize winner Jack Szostak has made an important step towards creating a prebiotically plausible protocell (prebiotic implies that it did not originate from pre-existing forms of life, but its components could have self-assembled from raw materials available under physical and chemical conditions of the early earth). The protocell is a fatty acid vesicle, which is a simpler form of a cell membrane, in which RNA replication occurs autonomously without the help of enzymes. The results have been published in Science Nov 29 2013.

I don't take it personally. Your tone is hardly welcoming, but I don't care enough about the opinions of random people on the internet to actually be offended by them. However, insults are the mark of a poor debate strategy. I prefer more of a challenge than this. And yes, all scientific publications use "could have" and "might have" types of language, as every hypothesis and every theory has the capacity to be disproven. It actually says nothing about certainty, though it's not as if certainty makes a person more likely to be right anyways.

They are guessing and super complicate things do not self assembly under any conditions. It takes intelligence. All we are witnessing here is blind faith.

No, the reason why he says that they could have self assembled is because it happened in lab. The protocell mentioned occurred within the experimental conditions. Also, that "Panda" site was linked by me because it made for an EASIER read, the article's material is better, but most people wouldn't be able to get it because of the biology jargon and the blandness of scientific articles.

Also, the deity conclusion (or creator, if you will) is not the "obvious" choice, given the lack of evidence for said creator.

Most consider life to be much more than chemistry and simplistic materialistic explanations ''chemistry becomes biology'' are about as satisifying as laws of internal combustion explains a car.

I don't see "personal satisfaction guaranteed" in science. No one cares that you personally don't like the explanation. "Oh nos, all evidence suggests that car engines utilize internal combustion to run, but I find that explanation so unsatisfactory compared to invisible goblin wizards." That's what you sound like right now.

We all know there is far more to cars and there is far more to life.

Ha, cars are pretty basic vehicles. In all honesty, it sounds like you think cars and cells are comparable, which they aren't considering that:
1. they don't consist of the same materials.
2. they don't function via the same reactions.
3. cells are dynamic and change as a normal part of their existence, whereas cars remain much the same and only deviate upon malfunction or collision.
4. You don't even think they have the same creator, and only cars have qualities that demand an intelligent creator (it's not their complexity, but rather that they demand manufacture with welding and such, which doesn't occur naturally).

There is consciousness relationships and purpose for a few and materialism fails to adequately explain.
---------------------

-_- consciousness is a byproduct of our brains, which is why head injuries can leave people unconscious. Furthermore, even if we were created by some deity or other being, that implies no actual specific purpose to our existence. Heck, life could have been created on a whim, and has since been entirely forgotten by this hypothetical creator.

‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.”
Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

Define "information". If you type in "Jesus" and make a save file, and then make a separate file in which you type in "Tgosd", you'll notice that the two save files have the same number of bits, yet one is a meaningful name and the other is random letters. Yet, the "information" between the two is exactly the same. Furthermore, what was the standard by which this bit comparison was made? The number of molecules in a cell?

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”
– R. C. Wysong

None of that answers my question on what standard by which they derived "information" from cells.

They got no results.

Except for the important protocell that has metabolism and the capacity to reproduce.

If it can 'self assemble' then it can be taken apart. The scenario is bottom up. Goo to bacteria which is the simplest living which replicates.

Sigh, modern bacteria are not as simple as the first living cell was. That's over 3 billion years of development you are arbitrarily deciding isn't important. Cells became more complex over time. The protocell is not a bacterium. It doesn't have to be a bacterium. The first life wasn't bacteria.

Also, bacteria can be taken apart without destroying the function of the organelles (other than the cell wall, which had the function of keeping the cell together). That's actually how we found out what certain organelles do (singling out one cell part, and putting it in a media similar to the internal environment of a cell, and observing what the organelle did).

Chemical or goo alone cannot self assemble to living organisms. No matter the time or circumstances.

Calling it "goo" makes you sound ignorant. Macromolecules self-assemble all the time, within and outside of cells. Also, it happened in abiogenesis experiments, get over it, do an experiment yourself.

Libraries do not self assemble. They are built and furnished by intelligent agents for a purpose. Not for no purpose or accidental.

Irrelevant as libraries aren't cells, nor do they form via the same process or function via the same processes.

If there are two hypos then we go to the most reasonable based on what we know in the present. If the options are nonliving natural or nonliving natural plus the intervention of a living source for the first cause of bio life here then the most reasonalbe is the latter based on what we know about life.

The latter isn't a hypothesis, since it is untestable, and there is no strong evidence that life on this planet was created nor a creator present to test. Yeah, funny thing, even if deities existed, that wouldn't mean that they created anything on this planet, or that they were capable of creating life at all. Basically, you'd need to demonstrate that intelligent life existed prior to life forming on this planet before that latter proposal could even begin to start being tested.

We do not go to identity until cause is estalished.

I have no idea what you mean by that, since the cause of life on Earth isn't established. Only that abiogenesis is plausible.

Bio life requires a living cause. Always and everywhere.

An idea disproven in 2013.

Does SETI know this? If they recieve morse code like signals from outer space and they are decoded depicting assembly instructions for a starship the cause is natural?

Of course not, since the natural "signal" you get from space is static. Sadly, no such signal yet.
I ask you this: what is the difference between hitting random piano keys and playing Moonlight Sonata, if in both cases, the same number of piano keys are hit? It's not complexity, as hitting the same number of keys, randomly or not, makes for an equally complex sound. It's not information either, for the same reason (same number of keys equals same amount of information). So, what's the difference? This isn't a trick question, as there is a key difference (and it ain't intent).

If the
Mackinac Bridge self assembles over time then you may have something. Point being, it did not.

All bridges and known-unnatural constructs are irrelevant, as the process by which they come into being is entirely different from cells.

Ok so your post has a natural nonliving cause.

-_- DNA ain't words, and it messes up all the time. I guarantee you, you have a handful of recessive mutations in your DNA that, if you were homozygous for, you'd have died before now. Your DNA isn't as long now as it was 5 years ago, because every time it divides, our horrifically flawed process of DNA replication fails to replicated the entire lagging strand, making the replicated copy of that strand shorter than it should be (an unnecessary flaw to live, as bacteria do not have it). You have cells in your body turn cancerous every year, and thankfully most will get destroyed before they become a problem. Emphasis on "most". A large portion of the "complexity" in a cell is functions related to making up for the frequent mistakes in all the other processes, with one of those functions being the cell triggering its early demise if it messes up too much. And then those safety functions mess up and you get cancer or an autoimmune disease or allergies and a number of other nasty conditions of various severity.

No it is not. Complexity is objective. A beaver dam or a spider web is living caused. A cave could be either. Your post is not subjectively complex. It is objectively complex.

Define your basis for complexity. If it is an objective measurement, then what are you measuring?

No matter what anybody subjectively thinks it still remains objectively complex and remains so even if we translate it into French or Morse, or binary code. English French Morse or binary, they are all objectively different (even if the message is the same, cannot be understood, or nobody knows about it) if it exists then it is objectively complex. All is needed is decoding by an intelligent agent.

-_- genes don't "decode", and most codons (fundamental units of genes that signal for a specific amino acid to be added to the protein product) are redundant. That is, out of 64 codons, only 2 signal for an amino acid specific to them alone. As a result, a human with the exact same traits as yourself could be artificially made with DNA being the same length, yet their genes would be so different from yours that a genetic test would deem you unrelated to this person.

''If you want to assert that the bacterium, along with all its astounding nanotechnology, its genetic information processing system, and the enormous amount of pre-loaded digitally encoded information are the result of an unguided process then the heavy burden is on you.''

An empty assertion, as DNA changes and can expand over time. It's also not digitally encoded, DNA is a chemical that other chemicals react to. The comparison is erroneous, like when people compare brains to computers. Brains store information by physically changing shape, it is nothing like a computer.

If it is as complicated as an F-15 fighter jet then its origin involves the intervention of a living intelligent source.

The Mammoth cave tunnel system is far more complex than a fighter jet, and yet, it is natural. Note that the cave took a very long time to form. Nature can produce items just as complex as anything artificially created, it just generally takes more time.

Enormous amounts of pre-loaded digitally encoded information is the fingerprint of super intelligence, not natural processes absent intelligence.

Read the language of DNA... oh wait, it's not a language, and a huge portion of DNA in our bodies is foreign. Viral insertions don't even mean that a cell will die, only that it will produce viruses under some conditions (hence why people with herpes don't continuously have sores).

The natural outcome of atheism is nihilism since life has no objective purpose, meaning or value and any value subjectively assigned is fiction.

And so is yours, and whatever your hypothetical creator deemed your purpose. Furthermore, purpose doesn't equate to fulfillment. Let's say you were created with the purpose of dying on a specific day. Nothing more, nothing less, that's all you were made for, to take up space for a given period of time and then die. Or, how about I appeal to your faith? The general purpose of people, as per Christianity, is to love and worship their creator god, and to hell with all that don't. I sincerely don't view that as more fulfilling than not having a purpose. I liken it to being a hammer; even the best, most important hammer, is just pounding nails in.

The fulfillment you get from your life is the connections you make with people, the hobbies you enjoy... if that's praying for you, have at it. Even though I do it plenty, I don't get any response.

You can go thru life contented as a cow and i said as much but you really have no right to preach we have responsibilty to extend life or take care of things since those things have no objective basis in an atheistic universe.

I never said it was my responsibility (or anyone else's) to work towards extending and improving the quality of our lives. Btw, that's a goal that is entirely counter to a theistic universe like Christianity, as I would be actively delaying people going to a better place. If I were Christian, I'd be an abortion doctor to ensure as many souls would go to heaven as possible without the trials and tribulations of having to live and find the "right" religion. I'd save more souls than I could as a preacher (I lack tact), and I can always ask the Lord for forgiveness. For all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord, so if the Lord can't forgive me for performing abortions, it's not forgiving me for petty lies, my internal anger problems, or my lazy thoughts.

If our creator is nature then nature does not obligate us to do anything.

That's a fair conclusion to make; hammers that have to find out what they are good for rather than being presented up front with nails. I see no problem with that.

Then don't be depressed. Don't assume equality and do not assume you have rights to anything.

-_- I assume rights based on the society I live in. If I left this country and entered a different one, my rights would change.

In atheism, you don't and equality is myth.

You do know that the bible blatantly says women are lesser to men, and condones slavery (including in the New Testament)? That book has never preached that people be equal in this life or the next. Our species only calls death "the great equalizer" because no matter how powerful or weak you are, no matter how rich or poor, male or female, all people die.

There is no equality in nature alone. If humans grant each other rights then human can take away those rights and they will.

Yup, and it happens all the time, regardless as to the faith of the leaders that do it.

In that case Hitler really only suffered the same fate as his victims. The end result of all his murders of women and children only means they ended up in the same nothingness from whence they came.

Not quite, as Hitler didn't suffer from the starvation, labor, and experimentation of the death camps prior to his death. However, as he was a Christian, would you rather he be in heaven than cease existing?

There is no real justice in nature. No righting of the wrongs, there is just death, but don't be depressed about it.

-_- being depressed about that which I cannot control is an exercise in futility. However, I get the distinct impression that you are trying to make me depressed. I am borderline suicidal man, that's not cool (it's actually the atheism and fear of ceasing to exist that has stayed my hand all these years. It's my autism that drove me to that dark place). Furthermore, hell doesn't "right wrongs", it just produces more wrongs in response for lack of belief. That's the punishable crime, not rape, not murder, but not believing in the correct religion. Unless you are Catholic, in which case, you'd at least view murder and rape as being punished after death regardless of belief. However, even if that were the case, no finite crime deserves infinite punishment. Hell will always be a factory producing greater evils than any of the people within it committed.

However, whether or not the afterlife you believe in is just or not has no bearing on the fact that I don't believe in it, since I don't believe things on the basis of "I like it".

Be happy since you have it better than both parties. Hitler and all his millions of victims who will never have justice. Expectations of justice for victims is also fictions relative to external reality. Nature is indifferent.

-_- you believe most of his victims would go to hell, because they were Jewish, and that Hitler would go to heaven because he was a Christian. Even if you want to assert that "no true Christian would do what Hitler did", that doesn't make the majority of his victims any less Jewish. And yup, I seek to believe as much. The unfairness of it all is just something you have to face either way.

The common understanding of abio is life absent a living first cause. It is fiction. It cannot.

It has occurred in lab, thus, it can. Deal with it.

The first cause of bio life here is God. Absent God we would not exist. We are the fingerprint of God and the closer we get to God the closer we get to ultimate reality. The further we move away from God the further we move away from ultimate reality. Why would anyone want to be alienated from ultimate reality?

-_- Did you forget that I am trying to convert, or do you not believe me on that matter?

Darwin used the present to infer to the past. He did that correctly employing science methods. He made a case which appealed to many for different reasons.

Actually, Darwin avoided publishing his work for a very long time, because of fearing the backlash he would get from the religious. He only published because, by that time, he was getting on in his years, and a more bold, younger scientist was about to publish the same findings (he allowed Darwin to publish instead out of respect for his other work in biology, he wasn't all evolution).

And Darwin got proverbial hell for his work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

<lots of reasoned responses>...And Darwin got proverbial hell for his work.

I applaud your doggedness and focus.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Folks are assumed to be innocent in progressive societies and assumed to be guilty in regressive societies.

When you gave the example of courts, you were talking about those that presume innocence. So that's the analogy I worked with. Don't come back and suddenly turn it around by pointing at corrupt courts in backwards lands where the terms "fair trial" is non-existant - that's very dishonest.

If we go to court we are positionally not guilty until proven otherwise

Exactly. And the reason for that is simply because the subject of the court case is a CLAIM of guilt. That CLAIM needs to be demonstrated sufficiently before it will stand. Until that time, "not guilty" is assumed.

, not the inverse which is what hyper critics apply to the Bible.

No. As explained already: the default position is NOT that the biblical claims are true.

The claim is evidence

What?!?!

and if it is repeated then there is muliple claims for the same event. It is multiple claims compiled

Multiple claims, yes.

It is all positive evidence in the form of testimony for the same event.

No, they are all just claims. Claims are not evidence in support of themselves.
Unless you don't care about employing fallacious circular reasoning, that is.

Like the Jephthah battle depicted in Judges where the Exodus is treated as history.

Or that passage in the Quran where Mohammed rides to heaven on a winged horse.

They fight battles over land based on the Exodus of Israel from Egypt which is assumed to be historical, not mythical or made up.

So?

Right they are fiction which is the same as guilty until proven innocent and regressive.

No.

First, let me remind you that when a court is not convinced of someone's guilt, they are NOT rulling the defendant "innocent". Instead, they are ruling him "NOT GUILTY". They are NOT the same thing.

In exactly the same way, claims (biblical or otherwise) are by default not regarded as true.
Which is NOT THE SAME as saying that they are false.

A defendant is either guilty or innocent - true.
However, in a court, only the question of guilt is addressed.

The bible holds claims. Those claims aren't true by default. To be accepted as true, they need to be shown to be true.

And the exact same goes for them beingt false. To be accepted as false, they need to be shown false.

If you go to court and the same principals you apply against the claims of the Bible are applied against you then you would need to prove your innocence.

No. The same principles DO apply: someone takes me to court claiming I'm guilty of something. It is upto that person to demonstrate my guilt. Failing to do so, will result in the ruling "not (shown to be) guilty".

In context of the bible... that translates to theists making biblical claims. It is upto those people to demonstrate those claims. Failing to do so, will result in the claims not being sufficiently supported and thus the ruling will be "not (shown to be) true".

The Bible is provided a presumption of innocence. Not guilt.

What you are really saying is that you feel the bible should be regarded as true by default and that the burden of proof somehow is not on the biblical claims.

Tough luck - it doesn't work that way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

To continue living and dying, forever? Don't you think it would be good to figure out why people suffer and die and possibly stop it from happening?

Not at all.

First "suffering" is important, because pain is how we sense danger and "emotional suffering" is how we contrast hapiness.

"feeling good" is meaningless if "feeling bad" isn't possible.

Having said that, the medical sciences do nothing but their best to reduce unecessary suffering to a bear minimum.

As for dieing, I don't see how it could be a good thing to stop that from happening. We'll end up with an overpopulated planet that will all "not die" from hunger.

Also, I'ld dare say that the only reason why life is valuable - is because it ends.
Things that don't end have far less value then things that end.

Basic economics. If you there is an infinite amount of gold - all that gold will be worthless.

The reasoned argument is that its not good that humanity continue living and dying and suffering forever or until all die forever. Rather, it'd be truly good if death and suffering were done away with and life continues apart from it.

That's a practical impossibility.

 

[Chriliman]

Not at all.

First "suffering" is important, because pain is how we sense danger and "emotional suffering" is how we contrast hapiness.

"feeling good" is meaningless if "feeling bad" isn't possible.

Having said that, the medical sciences do nothing but their best to reduce unecessary suffering to a bear minimum.

As for dieing, I don't see how it could be a good thing to stop that from happening. We'll end up with an overpopulated planet that will all "not die" from hunger.

Also, I'ld dare say that the only reason why life is valuable - is because it ends.
Things that don't end have far less value then things that end.

Basic economics. If you there is an infinite amount of gold - all that gold will be worthless.



That's a practical impossibility.

Obviously, it's important to have contrast between good and bad, my point is that when you realize the contrast, you logically should only desire the good, not the bad. The bad can go away, keeping only the good.

In this case the bad is death and the good is life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Obviously, it's important to have contrast between good and bad, my point is that when you realize the contrast, you logically should only desire the good, not the bad.

And we all do.
We all have an instinctive urge to stay alive (just like all other living things). We all do our very best to avoid suffering, pain, desease, etc. But right there, lies a conflict.

A human does its best to avoid being eaten by lions. But lions are living things as well and they don't like being hungry. Nore do they have a death wish.

The bad can go away, keeping only the good.

It can not. You can not do away with all suffering nore can you do away with all death.
In fact, I'm not even on board with calling "all suffering" a bad thing.

Lots of types of suffering are absolutely necessary as it alerts you of iminent danger.
Suppose a serious desease wouldn't cause me to feel bad... that would be a really bad thing, as now this desease will remain undetected and not treated. It will eventually kill me.

Pain is also a type of suffering. Suppose you don't experience pain... You could be asleep in a bed that is on fire and you wouldn't notice it at all.

Then there's emotional suffering as well... how could I ever be happy, if I wouldn't be capable of being unhappy?

In this case the bad is death and the good is life.

Death is a necessary requirement for life.
Death occurs everytime an organism eats something organic.
Even vegan food implies death. Plants live too, you know.

 

[Chriliman]

And we all do.
We all have an instinctive urge to stay alive (just like all other living things). We all do our very best to avoid suffering, pain, desease, etc. But right there, lies a conflict.

A human does its best to avoid being eaten by lions. But lions are living things as well and they don't like being hungry. Nore do they have a death wish.



It can not. You can not do away with all suffering nore can you do away with all death.
In fact, I'm not even on board with calling "all suffering" a bad thing.

Lots of types of suffering are absolutely necessary as it alerts you of iminent danger.
Suppose a serious desease wouldn't cause me to feel bad... that would be a really bad thing, as now this desease will remain undetected and not treated. It will eventually kill me.

Pain is also a type of suffering. Suppose you don't experience pain... You could be asleep in a bed that is on fire and you wouldn't notice it at all.

Then there's emotional suffering as well... how could I ever be happy, if I wouldn't be capable of being unhappy?



Death is a necessary requirement for life.
Death occurs everytime an organism eats something organic.
Even vegan food implies death. Plants live too, you know.

I agree that suffering isn't a bad thing, rather a result of bad things. Plants don't suffer, which is why it's okay to eat them and cause them to die.

Your thinking that it's impossible to remove all bad things and thereby insure pure goodness forever, is faulty because you can't ever know it's impossible to remove all bad things(to know this would mean you'd have to exist for all time, but we know you haven't).

You're welcome to believe it's impossible, but it's good to avoid believing things that can never be verified.

This is all I have for you at this time, if you don't accept it, it's either because you don't understand what I'm saying or just don't want to agree.

 

[Radrook]

If God exist, why would that remove the reason for faith?

If faith is understood as being blind faith-then providing logical reasons for it would undermine its very foundation-fallacious reasoning.

 

[Kylie]

If faith is understood as being blind faith-then providing logical reasons for it would undermine its very foundation-fallacious reasoning.

If God has given us the ability to use reason and logic (and let's face it, they have proven themselves to be remarkably powerful tools - look at all we have gained from them!), then why would he make the most important conclusion we could ever reach impossible to make by this most powerful tool?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree that suffering isn't a bad thing, rather a result of bad things. Plants don't suffer, which is why it's okay to eat them and cause them to die.

Anatomically, plenty of creatures simply can't survive on only plant life.
Even for humans, this is problematic... There's a reason why vegans regurarly need a boatload of supplements to stay healthy / strong.

Your thinking that it's impossible to remove all bad things and thereby insure pure goodness forever

Yes, that is indeed what I think.
Without "bad", "good" has no meaning (and vice versa)

, is faulty because you can't ever know it's impossible to remove all bad things(to know this would mean you'd have to exist for all time, but we know you haven't).

As said, "bad" is essential for "good" to exist, even only by contrast.

You're welcome to believe it's impossible

I don't "believe" that. I don't "believe" anything, actually.
I reasoned my way to that conclusion.
If "bad" isn't part of existance, then what does "good" mean?

It seems to me that you can't have one without the other.

but it's good to avoid believing things that can never be verified.

lol... Says the guy who holds unfalsifiable faith-based beliefs.

This is all I have for you at this time, if you don't accept it, it's either because you don't understand what I'm saying or just don't want to agree.

Right, right.... there couldn't POSSIBLY be any reason other then me being dishonest or just dumb, if I don't agree with you, ha....

I think you just gave me a good reason to ignore you in the future.
If this is how you discuss things with people........

"ow, you don't agree with me??? well, you MUST be dishonest or dumb in that case!"

For crying out loud...

 

[Gene2memE]

Equivalent statement using the same logic: If I can bake a cake and eat it, then I can bake a car and eat it. Natural processes can't produce literally everything, so unless the process by which ....

Bravo madam! Bravo!