6399 replies to this topic

[38542788]

No, there's actually plenty of evidence for both. The fact that, generally speaking, everything in the universe works so flawlessly points to a creator. And for the rest of your questions? The state of someone's life is subjective. It's doubtful that they see their lives as being horrible. I don't know which God truly exists, I personally believe in the Abrahamic God. And no, I can't tell you that everyone who isn't a Christian is going to hell. I don't know that. God doesn't "create" people to be gay, there's actually another debate in this forum that argues whether or not homosexuality is something you're born with, or something that happens due to environmental circumstances. I take it you'd take the side that says you're born with it. And I'm not going to bother touching the "who created God?" thing. If you aren't satisfied with the answer you've already been given to that, then give it up.

We already went through the anthropic bias the last page, I'll probably run out of quotes if I try to quote myself, so here's the two biggest chunks:http://www.dgemu.com...a...t&p=4381237http://www.dgemu.com...a...t&p=4381774To answer it in your terms; flawlessness must be based off a norm, of course if you find this universe to be subjectively good, than its operation may be near flawless, if you find it to be bad, than it would not be near flawless. Our existence tilts ours judgment towards "good", since if the universe does not operate as it does, we would not exist and that would be "bad", however, examined objectively neither scenario is truly preferable to the other.I'm going to start bolding instead, don't really feel like double posting once I run out of quotes.

When you spend years walking with Jesus and enduring the persecution for it, then you can have that same chance.I'm an apostate, years have been "spent", however you may define persecution (are you enduring it right now?). Not to mention that the two are situations are not comparable at all, the disciples followed because they were shown proof, you ask that of me in spite of it.Besides it's quite easy to determine the truth of this claim of yours on its face. When have you touched the original stigmata? When have you given or received corporeal resurrection?My mistake, you must not have been the one that gave that example. But a Yazidi couple didn't adopt that child, a Christian couple did.I'll rephrase the question for you since you seem reluctant to answer it: Is this account that you gave something that would have been impossible had the parents not been Christian?I didn't say that your interpretation made no sense, go ahead and try to find a quote on that one. And I didn't say "it's metaphorical, lol". I said that I wasn't certain of how literally the passage was meant to be taken, which means it could be metaphorical. The point is, I'm not sure. Enough about the bears.No, this is yet another example of where you fail to take a stand. Is you belief so brittle that you dare not expose it even when you face is hidden?You cannot go through life acting as if things are in a fluid state, where it may be one or the other. When you act, that determines the truth of things. You say that you believe in god, but you fail to present me with any evidence, giving it up beforehand, saying "38542788 won't believe this, why bother". Am I to believe that you truly believe in god, or am I to conclude that you are aware of you rationalizations and wish to hind it those who can see through it?Kent Vonce might be (to put it simply) an idiot. However, I have no cause to doubt that he does indeed believe in the incredibly idiot things that he's posting.When you're asked to take a stand though, you become evasive and melt away, "I wasn't certain of how literally the passage was meant to be take".I'd be willing to argue that not everyone uses parsimony, but generally speaking, that's true. But there are more possibilities than just "I forgot to put it in my pocket". There's "Perhaps there's a hole in my pocket", or "Did someone by chance pick my pocket?". The hole in the pocket one would be easily solved as true or false simply by reaching into your pocket and checking for a hole, but if someone picked your pocket and your assumption, based on parsimony, was that you forgot to put it in your pocket in the morning, then parsimony would have failed you. Good luck correcting the damage of stolen identity.No, parsimony is only as good as the evidence that is already present. The point is that it eliminates what is superfluous, and allows for a testable conclusion. If you lost your wallet (and no one found it and did anything to it), then you cannot tell if whether you just lost it somewhere or whether invisible gremlins took it and is keeping it locked up in their secret lair, the point is that the two scenarios are exactly the same operationally, in both cases you're missing a wallet and you don't know what happened to it, however, parsimony allows you to eliminate the gremlins option; it eliminates what is superfluous because "I lost my wallet" describes the scenario in the best way. If you lost your wallet and you found it, that additional information allows you to modify your conclusion, let's say you found it at home, you can then conclude that you forgot about it and you left it there, instead of perhaps, invisible gremlins stole it from me and then took it home. If you don't find it and instead sees a large credit card bill next month, you can then conclude that it was stolen from you, instead of, invisible gremlins stole it from me and used my credit card. In each case, the superfluous is eliminated, while the simplest explanation based on the available information stands.I'm still waiting for the proof of these self contradictory accounts that aren't taken out of context. Have you read the Bible? According to the Bible, man was created first, and dry land "rose" from the waters.Incorrect.In genesis 1 the creation of man and women was simultaneous, in genesis 2 the creation of women followed that of man. This is not a minor point; in fact, in the Jewish faith, the two women are different characters, with the first being named as Lilith in certain apocrypha, while the second is the better know Eve.In genesis 1, the land rose from the waters, in genesis 2 water rose from under the dry earth.You're suggesting that statistical anomalies are proof of evolution? These mutations occur because of adaptation. As far as I can see, humans are the only reason that plants and animals can become domesticated. Which, I suppose, would suggest that evolution, if it exists at all, is artificial, not natural. There's no proof that under natural circumstances, with absolutely no human testing or interference in any way, evolution, or even mutation, occurs. Animals mutated due to selective breeding, i.e. humans forced them to breed a certain way to get the desired results.No, like I said it's ridiculously easy to create a new species. I'll illustrate with the case of wheat.Trisomy 21 is a relatively common instance of a chromosomal abnormality, people who survive with this condition have what is commonly know as down syndrome. Most such abnormalities are fatal, trisomy 21 is an instance where the person in question have three copies of chromosome 21 instead of the normal pair, most such conceptions do not survive to birth, but this is an error in chromosomal replication that can be lived with.In certain plants, such replication errors can be more easily survived, especially since many plants already live through their own diploid and haploid life cycles.Domesticated wheat actually consist of several species. Wild wheat is diploid, like humans, the chromosomes come in pairs. Another species is tetraploid, it occurred before domestication; basically it received double the number of chromosomes from the parent plant, making it a completely new species in one generation. Domesticated wheat is hexaploid, it crossed the tetraploid strain with rye, resulting in a six chromosome bundle, and yet another species made in one generation.So you're suggesting that because all living things contain mitochondria, all living things sprang from the same life form? All cars contain an engine, but not all cars are made by Mitsubishi. Come on man, seriously.Did you even read what I posted?I don't even know what to say, so I'll draw it for you instead.chicken:___________2___________7_______________7________rat:_______\\______----------------------------`----------------chimpanzee:____0________===-------------------------------------------human:___3_______6_===-------------------------\\\---------------Note that the sequence has nothing to do with the function of the mitochondria, the mutations are always recorded in the non-coding portions, since otherwise the creature would die.If the mitochondria does the same thing (and it does), the idea behind creation would be that god either randomized the non-coding portions of the DNA, or gave everything the same copy.Instead we see that in creatures that supposed to have diverged more recently (humans and chimpanzees for example), the record on the mitochondria is more similar, and creatures that are supposed to have diverged at an earlier age, the record in the mitochondria is shown to have changed more.

There's also no proven evidence of evolution. The "evidence" for God is the complexity (which suggests intelligent design) of what you apparently believe happened by accident. The ones coming to your door I expect are Jehovah's Witnesses. That's a small sect of "Christians" considered by most other sects of Christianity to be a cult. I can't help that a lot of "Christians" only claim to be such for a false sense of superiority in "earning" a place in heaven. Sadly, they'll probably be the ones in hell (if it exists). Plenty of arguments have already been made about the whole "if God existed, the world would be perfect" thing, and that boils down to God's choice to not infringe on free will. There may be some Christians that are unhappy with their lives, but you'll find people in any religion, or lack thereof, that aren't satisfied with their condition. They need to learn to count their blessings. And I didn't say that homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) was a "choice", consciously speaking. The argument is that it's a result of a combination of environmental circumstances during early childhood. And I'm going to say again: If you haven't been satisfied with the answers you've received in the past, you're probably not going to be satisfied with any answer. But to humor you:The idea is that God is not restricted to time like we are. God has no beginning, nor will He have an end. He always has been, and He always will be. And why doesn't He kill the devil? That one's rather simple. The devil challenged God, and while God could just wipe the slate and start from scratch, that wouldn't prove anything. The challenge is basically that the devil doesn't believe that men can remain faithful to God in light of extreme oppression, and apparently endless "evidence" that God either doesn't exist, or that He won't help them.

Already replied to the anthropic principle earlier, but I do have to say that the witnesses actually have a more rational and literal interpretation of the bible than most people who call themselves Christians. They are aware of things like the pagan origins of Christmas and Easter for example, and they reject the heresy of an immortal soul and instead believe in corporeal resurrection.

i agree with gerard here. And God is God, nobody created God, because he is God. I want to quote something from the bible if i may, and this is to answer Copperlou.Form James Ch1v2&3 "My friends, consider yourselves fortunate when all kinds of trials come your way, for you know that when your faith succeeds in facing such trials, the result is the ability to endure. "GNB"Also it is not that God does not help us it is just that he cannot help us directly. When God gave Lucifer Dominion over Earth he did so on the promise that neither he(God) nor the Devil(Lucifer) would directly interfere in our lives.If God does not exist then explain this to me."CAPE TOWNDo You Believe This???A girl went to her friends house and she ended up staying longer thanplanned, and had to walk home alone. She wasn't afraid because it was asmall COMMUNITY and she lived only a few blocks away.As she walked along under the bike trail Diane asked,'God to keep her safe from harm and danger'.When she reached the alley, which was a shortcut to her house,she decided to take it. However, halfway down the alley shenoticed a man standing at the end as though he were waiting for her.She became uneasy and began to pray, asking for 'God's protection'.Instantly a comforting feeling of quietness and securitywrapped around her,she felt as though someone was walking with her.When she reached the end of the alley, she walkedright past the man and arrived home safely.T he following day, she read in the newspaper thata young girl had been raped,in the same alley just twenty minutes after she had been there.Feeling overwhelmed by this tragedy and the factthat it could have been her, she began to weep.Thanking the Lord for her safety and to help this young woman,she decided to go to the police station.She felt she could recognize the man, so she told them her story.The police asked her if she would be willing to look ata lineup to see if she could identify him.She agreed and immediately pointed out the manshe had seen in the alley the night before.When the man was told he had been identified,he immediately broke down and confessed.The officer thanked Diane for her bravery andasked if there was anything they could do for her.She asked if they would ask the man one question.Diane was curious as to why he had not attacked her.When the policeman asked him, he answered,'Because she wasn't alone'.She had two tall men walking on either side of her.'"Sorry about long post.

This is so idiotic.Are you to have me believe that the infidel women related to in this story is deserving of being raped? If not, than what is the conclusion that I'm supposed to reach from this?

dude it's not in the Bible.

Hence the need to verify the source behind this supposed event.

Edited by 38542788, 06 November 2008 - 11:22 PM.

[38542788]

I'm not talking about anthropic bias. Despite whatever universe could have been created, the universe we live in is the one that was created (whether by God or by the big bang or what have you). And this resulting universe works flawlessly. The positioning of planets, stars, etc., the way life works (reproduction, immune systems, etc.)...everything works flawlessly (generally speaking). Even if humans did not exist, the rest of the universe would still function just as flawlessly.

No, establishing a flaw is impossible without establishing a purpose.If there is no purpose, there can be no flaw. A diamond with a crack going through it not inherently flawed, it's just a rock, there's no purpose to it, if you attempt to use it as a jewel however, it would be greatly flawed.Under the anthropic principle the purpose would be "support human life". For which we can measure how well suited the universe is.

I'm not even going to reply to everything you said. I don't have the time, and most of it I've already replied to.

What are you talking about? I haven't even asked those questions before. I'm asking outright whether you have witnessed or performed miracles.

years have been "spent" doing what? Walking with Jesus? I doubt you're 2000 years old. And yes, they are comparable. The disciples (particularly the apostles) hadn't seen undeniable proof when they first started walking with Jesus. They gave up their lives and livelihoods to follow this man. For that second part, I'm gonna throw out a wtf? What are you talking about? What claim?

Neither were the apostles while they lived. And they were supposedly witness to many miracles and signs.I mean I'd settle for anything better than this: http://wcco.com/loca...d.2.684930.html

Wow, you really love hypotheticals. Let's go with the literal. The child was taken in by Christian parents. Many other potential parents had passed her up because of her inability to perform basic functions. Yes, what happened is possible without Christian parents. But the parents were Christian. That's the point.

Have you attempted to convert others using this story before, and if so, what's the rate of success?If point of a miracle is that it is supernatural in order (don't try to argue with this, please, I'm tired of quoting a freaking dictionary for you, but I'll do it again if you insist). There is no such supernatural element to this account that you gave.

Please, work on your grammar. The "bear mauling" was most likely a metaphorical passage. I stated that already. I don't know what it may have been a metaphor for, I don't know if it was actually literal, I'm simply saying that because of certain parts of that passage, it's likely that the passage was not meant to be taken literally. That's my stand. I'm not saying the bears were metaphorical. I'm not saying the "children" were metaphorical. I'm saying that said passage was most likely not to be taken literally. The reason I haven't given "proof" is because, as I've already said, there is no hard evidence. That's the only kind of evidence that you're looking for. And I'm not one to waste my time attempting to give someone something that they aren't willing to accept. For me? My proof is in my own life. Certain events, and certain people in my life. Looking at that "proof" from an unbiased standpoint however? Once again, everything can be taken as coincidence. And were I to give even one of my "proofs", you'd simply jump back into your hypothetical interrogations again.

No, of course you have to give support for you claims. Why do you believe that the passage was metaphorical? I'll preempt your answer by stating that my belief it was literal is because it was stated simply, and in the same form as the surrounding chapters.The structure of the story is as follows:Guy went from [town name], got insulted by people, cursed those people, bears killed those [people].Compare to something literal like:Jesus went to [town name] healed people, fed them by multiplying food somehow.As for why you should try to convince me, it's simply the Christian thing to do, you're bound to proselytism, it's your duty as a Christian.

What the hell kind of Bible are you reading? Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."How does that suggest that they were created simultaneously? It doesn't say "He created them at the same time", nor "He created them together". It simply says that He created both male and female humans. In the second chapter, it goes into detail on the creation of man. I don't even know where you got water rising from under dry earth in Genesis 2. Are you talking about the four rivers described? Because it doesn't say anything about them rising from the earth. It describes a river running out of Eden and then forking into four different rivers. Seriously, what translation are you reading? And without proof of your claim about the Jewish faith, that statement is null.

Here: http://en.wikipedia....#Folk_traditionYou'll also find the accounts of the resurrection placing certain events in a particular order, I'll list some of those later if you want, but I'm pretty sure you can find it yourself if you look.In the other thread though, I don't think you've ever answered where you though the Egyptian magicians or the medium who summoned Samuel derived their powers, I'm most interested on you thoughts about this.edit:Oh, getting a reply to my statements about wheat and mitochondrial descent would be nice too.Or am I to assume that I've convinced you to accept the validity of evolution?

Edited by 38542788, 07 November 2008 - 03:17 PM.

[38542788]

Even if this universe was incapable of supporting human life, everything in the universe works flawlessly. The orbit of planets, the distance of the earth from the sun, I could go on, but I don't feel like it. Despite it's ability to support human life, everything in this universe functions flawlessly (generally speaking).

I don't really mind repeating myself, so her I go:Again, the concept of a flaw is meaningless without applying some sort of judgment to it. Even the qualities that you list hint at this, what does the orbit of the planets or the distance of Earth from the sun matter if there's no life?I had already given this example in my previous posts, but I'll put it here again:universe 0: solar system sol with no planetsuniverse 1: solar system sol with planets orbiting the sunHow is universe 0 "flawed"? Why would universe 1 be preferable if there is not first a stated purpose (universe supports human life).I don't know if you've even read the posts that I've linked, but the anthropic bias has already been discussed. I'll even quote the relevant parts for you if you want:

You're displaying anthropic bias, it assumes that there is a particular result, without considering the parameters involved and the without fully evaluating the result itself.For example, let's say the parameters are tunable to produce two scenarios:scenario 0: DementedDragon existsscenario 1: DementedDragon does not existIn scenario 0 DementedDragon observes that the universe exists and that he lives (much like in our universe). He extrapolates that the parameters for universe creation were fine tuned by god to create DementedDragon and asks 38542788 "hey, the chances of me existing is vanishingly small, god must have created me, don't you agree?"In scenario 1 DementedDragon does not exist and no one misses him, 38542788 and the rest of the world lives their lives with almost no change.What makes scenario 0 preferable so that it should be assumed to the scenario that is executed to the detriment (non-existence) of scenario 1? Let me put it in another way, since you're assuming a probability involved in this, you are assuming that the parameters can be changed. This means that the question you're asking is completely meaningless, the onus is now on you to prove that this particular universe should be the result of fine tuning. Of course an observer such as you or me might prefer this universe since it's the only one we can actually observe, thus the bias part of anthropic bias.The question answers itself, if you assume that the parameters are malleable, than it's no less likely than any other outcome (keeping in mind that there's nothing inherently "wrong" with the other possible universes), if it's not, than the answer is simply 1 to 1.

You're still asking the wrong question. There must be something about our current scenario that must be preferable to others for it to be selected, if you believe that selection is involved.Can you name that?If you can't I'll do it for you (I'm sure you won't disagree with this): our scenario have humansNow what about that is preferable to a universe with no humans?The answer is that our universe is preferable only to us:in scenario 0 there are humans, humans see their existence as proof of design because human life is a preferred scenario for human mindsin scenario 1 there are silicon sapients (lets call them ss), ss see their existence as preferable because ss life is a preferred scenario for ss mindsin scenario 2 there is no intelligent life, there is no observer to express a preference.The unifying theme of this is that there is no objectively preferable universe that would be selected.You are displaying bias when you say that "god must have created us because human existence is unlikely but also a very good idea". The second part is where it breaks down, there's nothing special or preferable about human existence, just as there is nothing special or preferable about a universe where DementedDragon exists (this is from an objective standpoint of course, to DementedDragon, a universe without DementedDragon would suck, but no one would cry about it in those alternate universes).

Some of your questions were merely reiterations of other questions you've asked before. And the apostles weren't what, 2000? Of course not, they lived during Jesus time. My point was that you didn't. And I obviously haven't witnessed any of Jesus' miracles, I'm also not 2000 years old. And I agree, that bit about the girl that died because her parents were retarded is bogus.

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect here between the two accounts.As for asking the same questions, of course I'll do that when I do not receive an answer.

No, I got that thing about the girl that spent the first 7-ish years of her life virtually void of any human contact from someone else on this site, so I haven't used it to try to prove anything. You seem to miss the point that the people that adopted her were Christian. F*** hypotheticals, they were Christian.

Correct, the point is that that account proves nothing. You are acting as though similar acts of generosity and empathy cannot be displayed by people of other faiths. I don't think you agree with that, so what exactly is the point of the story?

Again, work on your grammar. And I've gotten tired of quoting dictionaries for you as well, but you seem to have a low reading comprehension level, considering you somehow came to the conclusion that Genesis 1 suggested that man and woman were created simultaneously, and that Genesis 2 stated that water sprang up from the ground (neither of which were illustrated in those two chapters). But no, I'm not arguing the definition of a miracle. And I'm not suggesting that said account was due to a miracle.

I gave you plenty of evidence, do you really think Jewish scholars who read those verses in Hebrew somehow all messed up and they concluded that genesis had two accounts of the creation of women for no reason?I wouldn't be one to attack another on their reading comprehension if were on to meaningless redefine terms like "conclusive evidence".

The passage used the number 42, a number that is only used metaphorically in the Bible. I'd also be willing to bet that the fact that there were 2 bears, and they were both female, has some sort of metaphorical purpose as well. Even if the surrounding chapters were literal, there are dozens of metaphorical passages littering otherwise literal chapters throughout the Bible. Take the prodigal son, or the mustard seed, or the beast and the harlot.

I'm quite sure that it was, that doesn't mean that the message conveyed was not supposed to be literal, both Saul and David were said to rule for forty year. Taking such liberties with numbers doesn't detract from the story. Do you mean to say that the donkey jaw Samson used also somehow supposed to be metaphorical?

Wow, because wikipedia is such a reliable source. Coincidentally, that page of wikipedia describes a folk tale, and is neither in the Bible, nor the Torah.

You apparently didn't read very far, it was discussing how Lilith was inserted into the story of genesis, but the idea of a predecessor to Eve was much older.

I forgot to say something about your comment of the Witnesses. I'm surprised you think their "interpretation" is even the Bible. They took out parts that they didn't agree with. And if you're looking for a religion with inconsistencies, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a perfect place to start. I know exactly what they preach; I used to be one. Admittedly, the last time I claimed the name was when I was 14. I'll take just one of their teachings though. They believe that in the beginning, God (Jehovah) created Jesus (as Michael the archangel), endowed him with a portion of His power, and then told Jesus how to go about creating the universe. They don't believe that Jesus was God, however their Bible (just like any other Bible) states that it was God who created the heavens and the earth. Talk about an inconsistency.

The account of creation in John is actually suggestive of that, the logos was a pagan Greek concept that was adopted, it was described as a creative force that the demiurge used, and it was also obviously meant to be Iseu.I happen to agree that the conclusions that the reach are utterly absurd, but unlike you I happen to realize that that is the fault of the source they are attempting to base their beliefs upon, because there is no true objective exegesis of the bible.

Edited by 38542788, 09 November 2008 - 02:52 AM.