Why ... (2)

[CabVet]

Are you saying that you don't agree that the universe looks designed?

No, it does not look designed.

Such as?

There are as many claims of miracles from other religions as there are from Christianity. Similarly, many people die as martyrs for their religion, this is not exclusive to Christianity. Why do you need specific examples?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Either gravitons or spacetime. The EM force is mediated by photons. The weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons.

And what do these elementary elements consist of?

Such as?

Are you denying the fact that the universe appears designed?

If it isn't evidence why shouldn't we deny it?

Should we deny the common ancestor?

Actually, there is a lot of scientific research demonstrating that natural forces are responsible for the design, such as evolution being responsible for the nested hierarchy.

So you accept that the universe appears to be designed albeit in your opinion naturally?

Who would be here to notice if it weren't?

That doesn't change the fact.

Where was Jesus proven to be true?

There is historical evidence for Jesus.

The only reason we can see mass is due to mass acting on photons. When we feel an object it is the electromagnetic force that we are experiencing. The forces are all a full part of the material world.

I didn't say they weren't. The force is not the object.

 

[CabVet]

There is historical evidence for Jesus.

There is no historical evidence for his supernatural powers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it does not look designed.

Well other secular scientists disagree.

There are as many claims of miracles from other religions as there are from Christianity. Similarly, many people die as martyrs for their religion, this is not exclusive to Christianity. Why do you need specific examples?

One must look at each religion and determine if they are self refuting.

 

[singpeace]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why ..."

YES, EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN THEORY.... STILL JUST ATHEORY.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

YES, EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN THEORY.... STILL JUST ATHEORY.

Like the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no historical evidence for his supernatural powers.

Actually there is, Celsus who was a very big critic of Christianity and used sarcasm about it in his writings did speak of his miracles and claimed they were sorcery.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To us they are. You could keep asking what an atom really is but in the end an atom is the properties it displays, same with an electron or light or virtual particles. Their material existence is the effects they have on each other.

So what is your evidence that it is a material existence? We know the effects of them, but what are they?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are projecting. I have had several epiphanies over the last 10 years that have seriously altered my worldview. I kind of look forward to the next occurrence.

Really? Care to share?

As mentioned by others, those are particularly bad examples of "immaterial".

Gravity I don't think is a bad example. I said myself that wind was. Why are you laughing?

To date all I have seen you do is build a straw man of others' worldviews.

How is it a straw man?

You have just described your god as non-existent.

I don't see how?

So now you *do* have material evidence. Where is it?

Yes.

I am here to explore, but it would seem at this time you are expending your energies on the rationale and viewpoint of these straw-man "materialists" and the worldview that you think they have. The point of my question was to bring up your evasiveness in substantiating your own rationale and viewpoint.

I don't think I am being evasive at all. I just don't think it is necessary for me to provide evidence when the same is not necessary for materialists.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

So what is your evidence that it is a material existence? We know the effects of them, but what are they?

As far as I'm concerned they are what they do. An electron is a set of regular interactions in certain ways. If it doesn't do those things it's not an electron. I'm afraid that's the best I can do with the "but what is it really?" tyle questions. I would define material things as those which interact in measurable, observable and testable ways. For that definition what they really can remain unknown and in fact irrelevant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As far as I'm concerned they are what they do. An electron is a set of regular interactions in certain ways. If it doesn't do those things it's not an electron. I'm afraid that's the best I can do with the "but what is it really?" tyle questions. I would define material things as those which interact in measurable, observable and testable ways. For that definition what they really can remain unknown and in fact irrelevant.

So, we are just suppose to let you have a free ride? It just is because we say it is, is not a valid argument and most certainly not evidence in the way you are requiring of me.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

So, we are just suppose to let you have a free ride? It just is because we say it is, is not a valid argument and most certainly not evidence in the way you are requiring of me.

If there's good measurable, observable, testable evidence for something then it's material by my definition. Do you have a different definition of material? If so we could discuss it and see if it's more useful than mine.

 

[Davian]

Really? Care to share?

Sure, but I would like to take this thread a bit further first.

Gravity I don't think is a bad example. I said myself that wind was. Why are you laughing?

I find your "throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks" discussion technique to be... amusing.

Nothing personal, I assure you.

How is it a straw man?

It is not accurate. It does not actually reflect anyone's worldview, you just think it does.

I don't see how?

Where is "outside of the material world"?

Yes.

Where is this evidence, and can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

Did you ever respond to these posts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7771588-87/#post64150989

http://www.christianforums.com/t7771549-75/#post64122001

I don't think I am being evasive at all. I just don't think it is necessary for me to provide evidence when the same is not necessary for materialists.

Can you provide an example where a "materialist" claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory?

 

[Davian]

What are gravitons consist of?

Dunno. Tiny little gods?

Is this your argument?

Seriously, do you expect anything more that what you will find at wiki?

Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about deities on that page as far as I see.

Are you saying that you don't agree that the universe looks designed?

I cannot see how one can form an opinion until they have been given access to other universes for comparison purposes, and develop some testable criteria. How about you?

Such as?

Such as what? Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well I disagree.





No, it makes the material world testable. God is outside of that. We can use different "tests" that support His existence. We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence. You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.

There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.

That is problematic for a being that supposedly wants to have a relationship with us.

 

[selfinflikted]

Gravity I don't think is a bad example. I said myself that wind was. Why are you laughing?

Why do you think wind is immaterial? Just because you can't see wind with your naked eyes, doesn't mean it isn't tangible.

ETA: I think I'll leave the double negative

 

[Loudmouth]

And what do these elementary elements consist of?

Material.

Are you denying the fact that the universe appears designed?

I am saying that it appears to have been designed by natural processes without needing to invoke a deity.

Should we deny the common ancestor?

Can you show how the mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry are not empirical or not scientific? If you want to reject the science in preference for your religious beliefs that is your choice.

That doesn't change the fact.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a built in confirmation bias.

There is historical evidence for Jesus.

There is historical evidence for the Halle-Bopp comet and the Heaven's Gate cult. Does that mean that they really are riding around in the spaceship that was inside of the comet?

 

[OllieFranz]

Why do you think wind is immaterial? Just because you can't see wind with your naked eyes, doesn't mean it isn't tangible.

ETA: I think I'll leave the double negative

There is no double negative in your sentence. There are three independent single negatives all doing their assigned jobs. A double negative is when two negatives modify the same word. In most languages, it intensifies the negation and is the equivalent of such phrases as "in no way," and "absolutely not." About 150 years ago, some English grammarians decided that, as in formal logic, every negative must negate separately, and so double negatives, in effect, canceled each other out, rendering the sentence as nonsense. American schoolteachers quickly followed suit. So for over 100 years, American schoolchildren have been given failing grades for bad grammar when there wasn't never nothing wrong with what they said.

 

[selfinflikted]

There is no double negative in your sentence. There are three independent single negatives all doing their assigned jobs. A double negative is when two negatives modify the same word. In most languages, it intensifies the negation and is the equivalent of such phrases as "in no way," and "absolutely not." About 150 years ago, some English grammarians decided that, as in formal logic, every negative must negate separately, and so double negatives, in effect, canceled each other out, rendering the sentence as nonsense. American schoolteachers quickly followed suit. So for over 100 years, American schoolchildren have been given failing grades for bad grammar when there wasn't never nothing wrong with what they said.

Ha! You rock. Reps!

 

[Loudmouth]

So, we are just suppose to let you have a free ride? It just is because we say it is, is not a valid argument and most certainly not evidence in the way you are requiring of me.

And yet, that is exactly your argument.

Why would God create separate species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy? Because you say so. That's it.