About the existence of some kind of god or creator
-
How large!! :p JoeSox wrote: Unless you can prove what causes a photon to rotate, I suggest you still believe in a God. I don't know if a photon rotates or not. So I don't have to prove it :) JoeSox wrote: I would say nature is much, much more powerful than man, and that man should never become nature. just my 2 cents, you asked. Surely, nature created us. But you said nature, not god. Do you mean nature is god? :D "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
Sebastián Benítez wrote: I don't know if a photon rotates or not. Now you do. ;P
**"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation..." -- Isaiah 2:4a
-
John Carson wrote: The relevant question is not the absolute numbers but the percentages. Even if they were a small minority, and they were correct, would it matter? John Carson wrote: the large number of fossil finds since Darwin's time has added a great deal of strength to the case. There is not even close to enough evidence to prove that animals slowly evolved over time from a single ancestor. I challenge you to find a document that traces all the links of the evolutionary lineage of even one vertebrate species back to its invertebrate ancestors without any missing links, for example - and there are tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of species on the earth. John Carson wrote: The scientific community is no longer Christian nor Creationist simply because the evolutionists won the argument. Both parts of your statement are incorrect. Creationists are indeed a large minority (rather than a majority) among scientists, mostly due to the fact that so many college professors are atheistic (and I'm not just talking about biologists), but it is a large minority, and a minority is not necessarily incorrect just because it is a minority. Besides, the ranks of creation scientists are growing quickly as the claims of evolutionists are being refuted. Furthermore, as for the National Academy of Science, it has an un-defenable but blatant rejection of Creationism. When Dr. Frank Press, the president of the NAS, was asked more than once in writing to prove the truth of his statements that he in the periodical Physics Today, he simply ignored it. The poll you cited dealt only with scientists from the NAS, which is reknowned for its intolerance of creationism, and does not reflect the position of the average scientist with a degree and respect in the scientific community. John Carson wrote: Also telling is the trend of belief from 1914 to 1998 showing a clear decline in religious faith. The full results of the Gallup poll show that a majority (58%) of average citizens believe in special creation, which is up from the 40% that it was around 1920. John Carson wrote: The world's best biologists almost unanimously reject creationism. The supporters of creationism are overwhelmingly religiously motivated amateurs. That is incorrect. There are a number of well known and respected biologists w
jdunlap wrote: I notice that you're getting off on statistics of scientists' beliefs and avoiding the real issues and the facts of science. I am not getting off on statistics of scientists' beliefs. That is where I have been from the start. Creationism is decisively rejected by the experts. You wriggle and squirm and claim that black is white on this point (much of the poll evidence I cited was not restricted to the NAS) but it remains a fact. Creationism has no credibility among the people in the best position to know. Yes, it is possible for a minority to be right, but when they became a minority (having previously been a majority) because their arguments were so weak, the chances of them turning out to be right are minimal. It is true that there is strong support for creationism among the general public. The fact that scientists depart so radically from opinions of the community to which they belong and which funds them is unusual and is accounted for by the strength of the case for evolution. It is my strongly held view that, when the scientific community has a nearly unanimous view on a subject, having considered at length and rejected an alternative, laypeople who are convinced that they know better than the scientific community are both arrogant and foolish. If a position has been decisively rejected by the scientific community, then the rest of us should generally not even bother to consider it (unless perhaps for historical interest or to better understand the thoughts of some foolish people with whom we interact). You may wish to characterise this as an ad hominen argument, but there are some positions so lacking in credibility, yet so doggedly adhered to, that there is nothing left but to analyse the motivations of those so tenaciously in error. jdunlap wrote: The full results of the Gallup poll show that a majority (58%) of average citizens believe in special creation, which is up from the 40% that it was around 1920. My comment on the change referred to the NAS scientists, which seemed most relevant for your claim that creationism was gaining ground among scientists. As for the various creationist arguments that you proffer, you have no doubt heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. He was not believed the third time. The creationists have cried wolf at least hundreds and probably thousands of times. They have been shown wrong time and time again. It reaches a point where their rubbish is just not worth discuss
-
jdunlap wrote: The Bible speaks of the Israelites living in Egypt as forced laborers, and then exiting from it in a series of miraculous events. Did this actually take place? There is lots of evidence to support this. Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. jdunlap wrote: For example, the pyramids were built by forced laborers at the time when they would have been forced laborers. The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. Morover, there is a tremendous amount of physical evidence that the pyramids were NOT built by forced laborers, but by volunteers (among other things, where these workers lived has been excavated.) jdunlap wrote: Where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah once were, there is now the Dead Sea (an extremely salty sea!). Mass graves and human skulls have been found in the area. The scriptures do not record where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were. Furthermore, the Dead Sea predates the existance of Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, no mass graves have been found in the area. jdunlap wrote: The existance of a worldwide Flood also has widespread evidence to support it. There is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood and plenty of evidence against it. Not to mention the absurd claim that Noah placed every animal aboard an ark--even assuming Noah was able to travel the world to collect the billions of species required, the size of the ark would have to have been immense. jdunlap wrote: Furthermore, marine fossils have been found in the most unlikely places - such as the top of Mt Everest! You do understand plate tectonics, right? jdunlap wrote: Many of the genealogies in the Bible, especially those of the Israelite kings, have been proven to be accurate. Competely untrue. First, it is difficult to establish accuracy with even modern genealogies, let alone genealogies thousands of years old. Second, there is actually very little physical evidence proving most the kings recorded in the old testament even lived. You'd think we'd have solid evidence David and Solomon existed. Alas, we don't. jdunlap wrote: Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 and Psalm 22, for instance, record specific details about death by crucifixion hundreds of years before this terrible form of execution was
Joe Woodbury wrote: You do understand plate tectonics, right? I am not only talking about Mt Everest - there are hundreds of places that are far from any ocean, but still have fossils of sea-dwelling animals in places where it is highly unlikely that there was previously a sea. Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Archaeological evidences for Israelite presence in Egypt - http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/egypt.html Is there evidence that the Israelites once lived in Egypt as the Bible says? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html Has Joseph's Tomb Been Found in Egypt? - http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph.html Granted, the evidence is not as yet totally conclusive, but it is very likely to be accurate. But even if it turned out that this evidence did not lead to proof of the Israelites living in Egypt, lack of evidence is not contrarary evidence, especially when the area in question has not been fully investigated! Joe Woodbury wrote: The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. OK, since I mentioned this, I've read lots of evidence - both more evidence for this, and more evidence against it - including two separate theories that contradict both each other and the theory that they were built by the Hebrews. (Plus a really wierd one that says that they couldn't have been built by anyone but aliens! :rolleyes: ) The Bible is does not say anything either way on this point, but they could very well have been built by the Israelites even so. But the Bible does say that the Israelites built the cities of Pithom and Rameses: Excerpt from Exodus 1: 7 But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. 10 "Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land." 11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied
-
Eric Astor wrote: Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Deductive reasoning is based on just that - reasoning. Granted, there is some faith involved, but that faith is rooted on the natural outcomes/consequences of known facts. There is a remote chance that the outcomes/consequences of those facts may differ somewhat from what is naturally expected - therefore, any good reasoning is based on more than one such deductive proof - and in this case, there are hundreds. Also see my response below. Eric Astor wrote: Remember the size of the universe? How many planetary systems are likely to be present in that big a volume, even given the observed relatively-low density? How many of those would be around the right kind of star? The fact is that even counting that in, the odds are so high that it would not occur that even given the huge size of the universe, it is still totally impossible for such a thing to occur. Lets take a closer look here: < Paraphrased from this article[^] > The French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. 1 There are about this many atoms in/on planet earth. But suppose we set an even tougher standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. We'll establish that limit in the following way: Since there are 10^84 sub-atomic particles in the known physical cosmos, and Since there are a maximum of 10^20 interactions (oscilations/cycles) per second between any two of those sub-atomic particles, and Since there are 10^17 seconds in the supposed age of the cosmos (15 bill.yrs), . . . if we mulitply the above three numbers out, we get the number 10^121. ----So, 10^121 equals the total number of physical atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang") ... we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of 10^125 has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in a
One very important thing to point out about your refutation posts... By responding to (and more importantly quoting) only small sections, you often take them out of context, setting up a "straw man" that's easier to attack, as it's often said. I'll assume for the moment that this is unintentional. If so, could you please avoid this for the future? I understand that this is an easier structure for an argument, but it's easier simply because it's impossible to make points with any amount of complexity if your opponent insists on being able to take sections out of any relations they have, regardless of how important those relations are to the point. Also, this tends to make it easier for you to contradict yourself, so changing your style like this would benefit you as well.
-
One very important thing to point out about your refutation posts... By responding to (and more importantly quoting) only small sections, you often take them out of context, setting up a "straw man" that's easier to attack, as it's often said. I'll assume for the moment that this is unintentional. If so, could you please avoid this for the future? I understand that this is an easier structure for an argument, but it's easier simply because it's impossible to make points with any amount of complexity if your opponent insists on being able to take sections out of any relations they have, regardless of how important those relations are to the point. Also, this tends to make it easier for you to contradict yourself, so changing your style like this would benefit you as well.
Actually, I meant my replies to be to the paragraph as a whole. For example: You said: Ok... The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Even so, I just want to question some points of your argument that have been debated many times before. I quoted: Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. I replied: Deductive reasoning is based on just that - reasoning. Granted, there is some faith involved, but that faith is rooted on the natural outcomes/consequences of known facts. There is a remote chance that the outcomes/consequences of those facts may differ somewhat from what is naturally expected - therefore, much good reasoning is based on more than one such deductive proof - and in this case, there are hundreds. Also see my response below. and later: 1) When multiple separate examples of fundamental reasoning come together, it is much more valid than if you only had one or two. 2) Fundamental reasoning is the closest we can get to understanding the truth. Beyond that, we might as well just forget the whole idea of debate and reasoning altogether. But if we throw out the idea of reasoning on the basis of some more reasoning - or indeed if we throw out reason at all - we might as well admit ourselves to the madhouse. As you can see, the reply was to the entire paragraph, and the same with #1 and #2 (#3 I answered in two separate sections). ;) I was trying to conserve space that way, as that post is already 6 pages long. If you'd like, I can go through and put the full quotes in, as I can see how other "3rd parties" could misunderstand what you said because of the method of quoting. Now #4 is a bit more fragmented, because you've got some tightly packed points. Maybe I can reply to it as a whole and then reply to each part of it. Plus, I didn't fully cover one of the points. As for your very last point: This is only a small piece of the many arguments that can be put forward... Again, though, I think we should all try to remember that all conclusions are ba
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: You do understand plate tectonics, right? I am not only talking about Mt Everest - there are hundreds of places that are far from any ocean, but still have fossils of sea-dwelling animals in places where it is highly unlikely that there was previously a sea. Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Archaeological evidences for Israelite presence in Egypt - http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/egypt.html Is there evidence that the Israelites once lived in Egypt as the Bible says? - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html Has Joseph's Tomb Been Found in Egypt? - http://www.levitt.com/essays/joseph.html Granted, the evidence is not as yet totally conclusive, but it is very likely to be accurate. But even if it turned out that this evidence did not lead to proof of the Israelites living in Egypt, lack of evidence is not contrarary evidence, especially when the area in question has not been fully investigated! Joe Woodbury wrote: The pyramids were not built at the same time as when the Hebrews were claimed to be held in bondage. OK, since I mentioned this, I've read lots of evidence - both more evidence for this, and more evidence against it - including two separate theories that contradict both each other and the theory that they were built by the Hebrews. (Plus a really wierd one that says that they couldn't have been built by anyone but aliens! :rolleyes: ) The Bible is does not say anything either way on this point, but they could very well have been built by the Israelites even so. But the Bible does say that the Israelites built the cities of Pithom and Rameses: Excerpt from Exodus 1: 7 But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them. 8 Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9He said to his people, "Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. 10 "Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land." 11 So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied
jdunlap wrote: I am not only talking about Mt Everest - there are hundreds of places that are far from any ocean, but still have fossils of sea-dwelling animals in places where it is highly unlikely that there was previously a sea. Sigh. Plate Tectonics. jdunlap wrote: _Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, there is no evidence a large population of Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. Archaeological evidences for Israelite presence in Egypt - http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/egypt.html_ The key word is "large population." There was a small population living in the upper delta, but it did not have a fraction of the population described in the Old Testament. The Hyskos were likely of Palestinian origin, but they were not Hebrews. The time lines do not mesh. Moreover, once the Hyskos were overthrown, the attendent population was also ejected from Egypt. The Egyptians build fortifications throughout their northern frontier and into Palestine. They kept very good records, but never recorded a mass migration of people leaving Egypt, let alone non-Egyptians. The articles you pointed to are largely bogus. The authors are simply making stuff up and ignoring actual archaelogical evidence. The article on the tomb of Joseph has been thoroughly debunked by actual archaelogists (which the author most definitely isn't.) The pyramids were not build by the Hebrews. Period. The great pyramids of Giza were built over 500 years before Abraham was claimed to have been born. The archaelogical evidence that the pyramids were built by artisans, not slaves of any kind, is overwhelming. Pithom and Ramses were discovered, but they were not large enough to sustain the populations claimed. Moreover, whoever wrote the Old Testament would have clearly known about these cities. (The cities also date to several hundred years AFTER the alleged exodus.) The lack of evidence IS a valid indicator a large population of Hebrews never lived in Egypt. You simply cannot have populations of several hundred thousand people living in place for hundreds of years without leaving physical evidence. jdunlap wrote: It clearly says: "That He was cut off out of the land of the living". (Isaiah 53:8) I could ramble on about the mistranslation of this and the actual meaning, but you would reject it. Basically the problem lies with tense. Note that Isaiah uses the past tense in these versions, not the future. The best explanation I've heard is when coupled with I
-
CillyMe wrote: Do we have any proof at all? Of what? The existance of God? Step outside... look up. Watch carefully for a few hours. Step inside... look in a mirror. Consider how what you observe came to be. With a given set of assumptions, proof of God's existance is evident. But why are you looking for proof? God exists, whether a proof acceptable to you exists or not. A proof cannot make you believe. Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: proof of God's existance is evident. Ehm, it is?, actually I think that wanting to believe is a prerequisite for that statement, but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Shog9 wrote: A proof cannot make you believe. Yes it could, if (a) God appeared hovering over the major Cities and clearly stated his/her basic plans for the world, AND I was there to watch first hand, then I certainly would believe. Regretably, the Gods of all the major religions seems a bit shy and choose to speak through, surprise, people. Shog9 wrote: Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Why not, that would be a very reasonable thing to do? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Sebastián Benítez wrote: but I've turned to believe in nothing but what I can see, feel and can be proven. Well, it can't be proven in a direct way, as God is hidden from us. But one way we can know that something exists is by its effects - this is called deductive evidence *, and is widely used in courtrooms, debates, and other places where evidence is presented. One of the effects of the existance of God is the world that He created.
Evolution vs Creation
Now, many people say that the earth was not created by an intelligent being, but rather that it came into being by a Big Bang, and that the life on it came into being by chance. Lets look at the evidence that that is not true.**
Single-Celled Organisms
Even the simplest single-celled organism is more complex than any machine that man has invented. It uses complex chemical sequences to do things like eating, repairing itself, and reproducing. In order for even the simplest cell to be formed, there must be favorable conditions in the area they are in. One of those things would be correct atmosphere, including the absence of oxygen. There is good proof that there was oxygen in the atmosphere at all times since the earth came into existence. For example, there are oxidized rocks throughout the entire geological record, which could not have happened if there was no oxygen. But, if there *wasn't* oxygen, life could not have been formed because of the lack of an ozone layer to shield the forming life. If there was sunlight, the gasses necessary to support the formation of life would have been destroyed. But if there wasn't sunlight, the environment would be too cold for the formation of life. Furthermore, even in ideal conditions, the probability that a cell would appear from nothing would be astronomical (no pun intended). It would require much more time than even the amount of time the evolutionists say has elapsed from the beginning of the universe until now - supposing that the conditions necessary to support it continued to exist for that stupendous amount of time.
Animal Evolution
**The evolutionary theory says that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, adapting to their surroundings so that they could continue to live as their environment changed. How could the animals have known what characteristics they needed in order to survive? Animal behaviorists can tell you that most animals' behavior is purely due to instincts, and that most anim
jdunlap wrote: Animal Evolution jdunlap wrote: How then could they figure out what they needed in order to survive, when even humans don't fully understand this themselves? This is a common mistake that many people make, the process of adaption is not performed through foresight, the creatures that is alive now are not the ones that suddenly sprouted feathers or fangs, they are simply the ones that didn't die as fast as the ones that didn't have the prerequisites and thus were able to multiply. It is true that major mutations are nearly entirely of the bad sort, and tends to die off very fast, but that is not the case with very small mutations. You have to consider the very long periods where the changes takes effect, look at how different the human species appears from continent to continent, changing the color of the skin is not any less harder than growing fangs or pointy ears. Actually, I remember to have seen the title for an article here at CP on evolutionary algorithms used for eg. solving the travelling salesman problem. Such algorithms are quite common and usefull, and they provide a very firm proof to the power of evolution. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Shog9 wrote: proof of God's existance is evident. Ehm, it is?, actually I think that wanting to believe is a prerequisite for that statement, but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Shog9 wrote: A proof cannot make you believe. Yes it could, if (a) God appeared hovering over the major Cities and clearly stated his/her basic plans for the world, AND I was there to watch first hand, then I certainly would believe. Regretably, the Gods of all the major religions seems a bit shy and choose to speak through, surprise, people. Shog9 wrote: Lack of one should not prevent you from it. Why not, that would be a very reasonable thing to do? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: then I certainly would believe. To paraphrase someone else's sig, with a hypothetical situation, you can prove anything. Kinda like how if pigs flew, i'd get a date with Joey Lauren Adams. jan larsen wrote: but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Thinking out loud, Jan? Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
jan larsen wrote: then I certainly would believe. To paraphrase someone else's sig, with a hypothetical situation, you can prove anything. Kinda like how if pigs flew, i'd get a date with Joey Lauren Adams. jan larsen wrote: but that must be included in the given set of assumptions. Sorry. Thinking out loud, Jan? Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: you can prove anything. Kinda like how if pigs flew Yes, but I wasn't thinking of a hypothetical situation, the situation described, or a similar one, would be proof enough for me, but nothing else can make me believe. A lot of people follows Sai Baba[^], even one of the most successfull businessmen in denmark and a lot of artists. What can make reasonable human beings believe in such a person you could ask?, well, apparently just some plain and simple magic tricks that even the cheapest magicians are able to copy, flavoured with a simple message of love and understanding. This man is doing everything that Jesus were doing, and he even got his own disciples and a whole lot of followers. What is missing is an evil opponent to make him a martyr, and then he's got potential for being a whole new religion competing with Christianity. Allthough that is not very likely, for real success you have to be the first, number two is the first loser... Shog9 wrote: Thinking out loud, Jan? A bad habit :-O "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus