Tired of Defending.

[Mr Strawberry]

And don't forget that Alan Turing was faaaabulous!

Don't mean to get too far off topic, but I just thought I'd mention that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be playing Turing in a new film about him called The Imitation Game based on the book Alan Turing:The Enigma.

(One of my favourite Stephen Fry stories is when he asked Steve Jobs if the Apple logo was a tribute to Turing. Jobs replied "God, we wish it were.")

 

[Old Ned]

It's hard to find a thread with many entries that DOESN'T have someone saying if you reject evolution then why are you using a computer; as if all of technology was dependent on molecules-to-man. Evolutionists have stated that the rejection of evolution is the rejection of all science.

This is your misinterpretation.
No one says Evolution is responsible for Computers.
But if you deny Evolution then you are denying the Method used to Build the understanding of it.
The Scientific Method.
If you deny the Scientific Method then you have no right to use a Computer, nor use modern medicine, in fact if you deny Scientific Method then next time you get sick... Pray... instead of going to a Doctor.
If you deny Scientific Method yet go to see a doctor or use a computer or drive a car, use a pencil, drink from a tap, cook on a stove, watch TV... then you are the demonstrating the height of Hypocrisy.

Why? Because ALL of these things were created using the very same method that built the understanding of Evolution.

Argue it all you like, this is Fact.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Very funny since computers, medicine, cars, pencils, stoves and TVs are all intelligent design and based on mathematics while evolution is mostly story telling with little or no mathematics at all.

Incorrect, lots of math in evolution.

 

[NickCamp]

Why is the onus always on us to provide evidence for Evolution etc? We provide evidence that gets ignored, and more evidence is asked for. Yet when we ask for Evidence of god, all we get is scripture. We make an assertion, we get asked to offer explanations and evidence. We do exactly this and then it gets ignored. The Transitional Fossil argument is a good example, a question that is infinite. But easily counter-argued. We've asked for evidence of God and we get scripture. We also are constantly explaining that Evolution does not have a conciousness or plan... this also gets ignored. So... I ask 2 questions. 1: What is god's "End Game"? What does god plan the end result of his creation to be and what is to become of it? 2: I would like someone to offer up some form of evidence that does NOT centre around the Bible. Quotes from the Bible will not be accepted as an answer. We offer a scientific paper and get asked for a different one to back it up. Therefore if one book of science is not enough evidence for you, then one book from religion is not enough for us. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. I'm asking the same thing, there's one book that everyone uses to "Prove god" , well I'm asking... Challenging, anyone to offer up something that is NOT from this book and is evidence without simple hearsay. Anyone?

You're joking right? When we hand the opposing side logic, reason and science y'all brush it off and then go on talking. :/ btw I'm christian and believe in evolution, bam! Just blew your mind didn't I?

Have a nice day!

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -- Heywood Broun

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners. --Jonathon Miller

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis

There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt. --Mignon McLaughlin

A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous. --C.S. Lewis

 

[Shemjaza]

You're joking right? When we hand the opposing side logic, reason and science y'all brush it off and then go on talking. :/ btw I'm christian and believe in evolution, bam! Just blew your mind didn't I?

Have a nice day!

Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. -- Heywood Broun

In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners. --Jonathon Miller

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis

There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt. --Mignon McLaughlin

A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and stratagems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous. --C.S. Lewis

Yep... who better then believers to tell us how atheists think. It's not like we ever try to actually explain our positions or reasons.

 

[NickCamp]

Yep... who better then believers to tell us how atheists think. It's not like we ever try to actually explain our positions or reasons.

It's funny that you say that while you're registered, logged in and have posted 1,082 times on Christian forums. Emphasis on Christian. But what do I know?

The problem is, neither side is going to change their minds unless the individual themselves makes the choice to do so. How do I know that? Personal experience, which cannot be used as evidence, but makes a world of difference. I used to be Atheist, I used to do the same thing you're doing right now, and unless there's just conversation between the two, a debate does nothing. In fact, if I was trying to convert you, debating would do nothing for me, you know what it would do? It would cause you to strengthen your position, just as you strengthen faith through debates for Christians.

Atheists and Christians are both doing the opposite of what they desire. One side because of denial and pride and the other because it's what their doctrine asks them to do when somebody inquires.

It's easy to have faith in God, but I must say, it's getting harder to have faith in humanity.

 

[NickCamp]

Yep... who better then believers to tell us how atheists think. It's not like we ever try to actually explain our positions or reasons.

Also, yeah I know a little bit about how atheists think. Like I said, I was atheist. For 80% of my life so far actually. But hey, who better than Atheists to decide what knowledge one holds while knowing nothing about that person. I tip my hat to you on your excellent statement.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Also, yeah I know a little bit about how atheists think. Like I said, I was atheist. For 80% of my life so far actually. But hey, who better than Atheists to decide what knowledge one holds while knowing nothing about that person. I tip my hat to you on your excellent statement.

Interesting, what inspired you to convert?

 

[Shemjaza]

Also, yeah I know a little bit about how atheists think. Like I said, I was atheist. For 80% of my life so far actually. But hey, who better than Atheists to decide what knowledge one holds while knowing nothing about that person. I tip my hat to you on your excellent statement.

Sure, and I was a Christian. You made a comment on my post count, I do post on this forum to hear what Christians think... and I don't post here to tell them what they think.

We can discuss our thoughts and beliefs. Assigning motivations and attitudes to others is foolishness when we can have a pleasant conversation and explain.

 

[NickCamp]

Sure, and I was a Christian. You made a comment on my post count, I do post on this forum to hear what Christians think... and I don't post here to tell them what they think. We can discuss our thoughts and beliefs. Assigning motivations and attitudes to others is foolishness when we can have a pleasant conversation and explain.

Given the evidence that I have regarding your posts which is your initial response to my post, I question this statement you've just made, in essence doubting your validly and honestly giving me no desire to converse with you. Though if you're truly curious about why I'm a convert, you can message me sometime and I'll consider the response. I'll be getting off of work in about 20 minutes, but won't be able to respond until tomorrow evening, assuming my timing is correct for the events I have in order.

Though a short summary of why I'm a convert;
(If we do talk I would be interested to hear your story, as well)

I found God through classical logic, personal experience, reason and science that matched the premise of the bible in ways that most Christians fail to see it, which is basically that they've taken it out of context, literally or just let personal bias take over. That being said, I was generally conflicted with Christianity because of science and how it didn't match up with what I believed scientifically, which, to say the least was wrong on my part because of lack of knowledge.

 

[NickCamp]

Sure, and I was a Christian. You made a comment on my post count, I do post on this forum to hear what Christians think... and I don't post here to tell them what they think. We can discuss our thoughts and beliefs. Assigning motivations and attitudes to others is foolishness when we can have a pleasant conversation and explain.

I do want to add, that the chances of your disappointment are very high. Since personal experiences cannot be recorded as evidence when they occur and also because belief in the bible is faith, I can almost guarantee you won't be satisfied, as non are when hearing opposing sides.

 

[Shemjaza]

Given the evidence that I have regarding your posts which is your initial response to my post, I question this statement you've just made, in essence doubting your validly and honestly giving me no desire to converse with you. Though if you're truly curious about why I'm a convert, you can message me sometime and I'll consider the response. I'll be getting off of work in about 20 minutes, but won't be able to respond until tomorrow evening, assuming my timing is correct for the events I have in order.

My terse little response came from me not appreciating your use of opinions of believers to describe atheists. It's just rude, and I think that needs to be pointed out.

Though a short summary of why I'm a convert;
(If we do talk I would be interested to hear your story, as well)

I found God through classical logic, personal experience, reason and science that matched the premise of the bible in ways that most Christians fail to see it, which is basically that they've taken it out of context, literally or just let personal bias take over. That being said, I was generally conflicted with Christianity because of science and how it didn't match up with what I believed scientifically, which, to say the least was wrong on my part because of lack of knowledge.

Interesting.

My knowledge of science left me with an impersonal god at best, but when I looked at the scope of the universe and examined my own belief in a soul and or afterlife I saw no reason to accept it.

I'm an atheist in the literal sense, I don't believe in any god, but I don't have faith in their non-existence. If I had evidence, possibly even subjective evidence, I'd change my mind.

 

[Shemjaza]

Please, feel free to elaborate on the following..."My terse little response came from me not appreciating your use of opinions of believers to describe atheists. It's just rude, and I think that needs to be pointed out." I really didn't want to come off as rude, I just respond in the way in which i'm approached, its a difficult quality of my condition that I'm working on.

I've looked back over your quotes and they are not especially rude, so I appologise if I came across as particularly aggressive.

It's a particular argument technique that happens all too often in discussions between the religious and non religious. The motives and attitudes of atheists are called into question often with insulting insinuations: "You really believe in God, you just love your sin too much to admit it." or "You atheists are so arrogant that you can't accept not being your own master."

In particular I dislike when believers defend their lack of objective evidence while saying: "You wouldn't believe anyway."

Subjective evidence would only work if it directly approached you. I could tell my story over and over, but it wouldn't do anything. I truly hope you can have the experience though.

That is the real problem with subjective evidence.

If I did receive a revelation from God, I would still be very concerned that I was in fact suffering from a delusion.

I personally don't think an impersonal God would be possible. Being that there is so much detail in every thing thats on this planet, that takes heart. The beauty of biology, anatomy and not to mention the creativity that can be found in some of the weird animals walking among this earth.

But there's also so much horror and pain. You can see the mindless hand of natural selection in the weird solutions to the problems of life; like parasites, backward facing retinas and stretched giraffe nerves.

 

[NickCamp]

I've looked back over your quotes and they are not especially rude, so I appologise if I came across as particularly aggressive. It's a particular argument technique that happens all too often in discussions between the religious and non religious. The motives and attitudes of atheists are called into question often with insulting insinuations: "You really believe in God, you just love your sin too much to admit it." or "You atheists are so arrogant that you can't accept not being your own master." In particular I dislike when believers defend their lack of objective evidence while saying: "You wouldn't believe anyway." That is the real problem with subjective evidence. If I did receive a revelation from God, I would still be very concerned that I was in fact suffering from a delusion. But there's also so much horror and pain. You can see the mindless hand of natural selection in the weird solutions to the problems of life; like parasites, backward facing retinas and stretched giraffe nerves.

I spent some time trying to find all of my old research the other night to show people, and honestly my validity is out the window. I didn't get an external hard drive until I lost all of my data in the first round. I suppose if I'm on these forums I should re discover them, but it's funny, I don't feel the need to have them any more.

I know exactly what you're talking about when it comes to natural selection, I struggled with a lot of concepts regarding my childhood, situations, the over bearing darkness, and my hatred for human beings. I think that's really why people eventually convert, they hit rock bottom, to the point where they open their mind and blame a God, like I eventually did or just surrender to one, like my mother. There are just so many factors and that's where faith has to step in.

I want to apologize again for coming off as rude, it's really hard to interpret tones when you're reading on the Internet or texts lol, quite frustrating actually. I've heard that I write like I'm stuck up or a snob from my sister, but I'm actually really laid back and don't get angry easily lol.

 

[Doveaman]

Why is the onus always on us to provide evidence for Evolution etc?
We provide evidence that gets ignored, and more evidence is asked for.

We don't just want evidence. We want proof.

Despite your evidence your ideas are still held tentatively. But with proof we can hold your ideas to be true.

Since your ideas can never be proven to be true, your evidence can take a hike.

Yet when we ask for Evidence of god, all we get is scripture.

The universe is evidence of God.

God is the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe is God.

Therefore, the cause of the universe is evidence of God, since God is the cause.

If you can find a cause of the universe other than God, then God would be falsified as the cause.

But remember, we want proof, not just evidence.

 

[mzungu]

We don't just want evidence. We want proof.

Despite your evidence your ideas are still held tentatively. But with proof we can hold your ideas to be true.

Since your ideas can never be proven to be true, your evidence can take a hike.
The universe is evidence of God.

God is the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe is God.

Therefore, the cause of the universe is evidence of God, since God is the cause.

If you can find a cause of the universe other than God, then God would be falsified as the cause.

But remember, we want proof, not just evidence.

Proof? Proof is only for mathematics. Physical science requires evidence! You are dismissing that which you know nothing about! This is tantamount to someone who has never read the Bible and has no idea what Christianity is about, to judge Christianity and dismiss it.

If science can take a hike then what are you doing using sciences' fruits (computer)? You do realise that this is hypocritical? I mean no offence but this has baffled me to no end.

 

[Gracchus]

We don't just want evidence. We want proof.

If you want proof, study mathematics, or get a bottle of whiskey. Of course, even in math, a proof is derived from assumptions and strict reasoning. Still, we can check our deductions against the real world. Science makes observations, asks why we observe what we do, then postulates a reason why we see what we do. Then that proposed explanation is subject to reasoning. If our hypothesis is true then we should observe this. If our hypothesis is false we should see this. Sometimes we can only test one of these things. If the hypothesis is false, we can be sure of it. But if the observation is consistent with the hypothesis, then we still cannot be sure that the hypothesis is true. We can gain some certainty only by repeated testing in as many ways as possible. But if the results don't match the predicted outcome even once, we can be certain that the hypothesis is false.

If our hypothesis is that event "A" causes event "B" and we always see that "B" follows "A" our hypothesis is not proved but our hypothesis remains credible. But if we ever observe "A" and no "B" then we have actually proved our hypothesis false.

If an omnipotent, omniscient god makes mistakes or changes his mind, then he is obviously not omniscient or not omnipotent. And if a book tells us that an omnipotent, omniscient deity makes mistakes and changes his mind, the book must be in error.

Despite your evidence your ideas are still held tentatively. But with proof we can hold your ideas to be true.

As I have just explained, only in pure mathematics can things be proven true. But even then, you must test your deductions against reality, because your premises, your assumptions, may be wrong. In fact, one of the most useful methods of proof is "reductio ad absurdum". This is when by strict logic you derive from your assumptions a result that is obviously contrary to fact. You have then dis-proven at least one of your assumptions.

Since your ideas can never be proven to be true, your evidence can take a hike.

Well, actually, all you have to do is disprove the ideas, as I have explained above. And before you tell the evidence to take a hike, you might want to remember that the evidence is the observation, the evidence is the fact, the evidence is the reality. (See, I can use bold-face too!) And if God is real, you have just told God to take a hike, and you can keep AV1611VET company as God walks away.

The universe is evidence of God.
God is the cause of the universe. The cause of the universe is God.
Therefore, the cause of the universe is evidence of God, since God is the cause.

You have no reason to use "Therefore". All you have done is re-state your first premise four times. What you have done is state: If God is the cause of the the universe, then the universe is caused by God. Therefore the universe is caused by God.
I think you should eliminate the word "therefore" from your vocabulary until you understand what it means.

If you can find a cause of the universe other than God, then God would be falsified as the cause.

No. All that would have been shown would be that there might be an alternative cause of the universe. your premise would be falsified if we could demonstrate that there is no god. Just as the premise, "The flying spaghetti monster is the cause of the universe.", would be falsified only if we could show there was no flying spaghetti monster, and we still had a universe.

But remember, we want proof, not just evidence.

You want! You want! You want a lollipop. You want a teddy bear. Why don't you go ask your god for what you want? Surely an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent deity, who loves you and knows exactly what you need, will change his mind because, you, his "special" child will beg and whine and grovel. Maybe he will give you a mind that is capable of finding truth that isn't handed to you by a bunch of con-men trying to control you and take your money. But maybe he will give you a lollipop, and a teddy bear, and a box of crayons, and a coloring book, and ...

 

[Doveaman]

Proof? Proof is only for mathematics.

Proof also determines what is true and what isn’t.

Physical science requires evidence!

Truth requires proof.

You are dismissing that which you know nothing about! This is tantamount to someone who has never read the Bible and has no idea what Christianity is about, to judge Christianity and dismiss it.

Both the Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true. We do not hold our faith tentatively like you guys hold theories.

*As for God, His way is perfect; The word of the LORD is proven* – (2 Sam 22:31).

If science can take a hike then what are you doing using sciences' fruits (computer)? You do realise that this is hypocritical? I mean no offence but this has baffled me to no end.

Science is fine. Evidence can take a hike. Proof is all that matters. If science can prove it, then I'm fine with it.

I can prove my computer exist, and I can prove it does what I want. That’s why I use it.

 

[Doveaman]

If an omnipotent, omniscient god makes mistakes or changes his mind, then he is obviously not omniscient or not omnipotent. And if a book tells us that an omnipotent, omniscient deity makes mistakes and changes his mind, the book must be in error.

I agree.

All you have done is re-state your first premise four times. What you have done is state: If God is the cause of the the universe, then the universe is caused by God. Therefore the universe is caused by God.

Nope.

If God is the cause of the universe, then the universe is caused by God. Therefore, the cause of the universe is evidence of God. Find the cause of the universe and you will find God.

All that would have been shown would be that there might be an alternative cause of the universe.

If you can find an alternative cause of the universe, then God as the cause would be falsified.

Good luck.



__________________

 

[bhsmte]

Proof also determines what is true and what isn’t.
Truth requires proof.
Both the Bible and Christianity have been proven to be true. We do not hold our faith tentatively like you guys hold theories.

*As for God, His way is perfect;The word of the LORD is proven* – (2 Sam 22:31).
Science is fine. Evidence can take a hike. Proof is all that matters. If science can prove it, then I'm fine with it.

I can prove my computer exist, and I can prove it does what I want. That’s why I use it.

What is your "proof" that Christianity and the bible are true?