Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[McCulloch]

There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Actually there are relatively very few educated scientists who reject that life on earth evolved. Old Earth Creationists, like Hugh Ross, are a small minority among published creationists.

[Provoker]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

Hi Guy:
I think you should change your handle to a more accurate statement: "No evidence, no knowledge." Everyone believes in something for which he has no evidence, but those who believe in events which are naturally impossible, I would say that they are more gullible than faithful:-)
The faith of the bible, is not believing supernatural yarn which men have spun as a form of worship, by giving God the credit/glory for whatever takes place. The faith of the bible is believing in God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise that all nations will be blessed with everlasting world peace, brought about by a great nation of God's faithful, which has everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. Hey, it's not impossible, so it's worth believing:-)

[scourge99]

Everyone believes in something for which he has no evidence,

I agree. For example, if you twll me that your name is John, I'd believe you. I wouldn't require a drivers license, birth certificate, etc.

But if you were selling me a house, i wouldn't just blindly trust you. I'd require lots of proof that you own the property , that you are who you say you are, and that the property is as you represent it.

In general, for claims of no consequence (like your name) we do not set the burden of proof very high. But for claims of consequence, like when buying a house, we require lots of proof, unless we are gullible/credulous.

but those who believe in events which are naturally impossible, I would say that they are more gullible than faithful:-)

How do you determine whether something is "naturally impossible"? If you can imagine it in your head does that make it" possible"? Are flying leprechauns possible? Are married bachelors possible?

The faith of the bible, is not believing supernatural yarn which men have spun as a form of worship, by giving God the credit/glory for whatever takes place. The faith of the bible is believing in God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise that all nations will be blessed with everlasting world peace, brought about by a great nation of God's faithful, which has everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. Hey, it's not impossible, so it's worth believing:-)

Why do you believe the bible? Believing all the stories in the Bible as factual history seems highly consequential. Like buying a house, did you perform do diligence in analyzing whether the claims/stories were true or did you just blindly believe? How so?

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post2960--However, when talking about the physical world, and how it interacts with itself, such things as 'let's see what actually happens' does come into play. That is where scientific method and theory come into place. After all, you enjoy the fruits of that methodology in your life. The very computer you use was designed and created via that 'speculation'.

I agree with this. ol said this earlier, today's sci-fi is tomorrows scientific fact.
Your argument about my usage of science being a significant indicator of anything is an often used argument. Must I be for or against something. Are these the choices.

If a product such as a deodorant or a pill is the pinnacle of an Auschwitz like animal experiment am I an animal hater by using it. If I purchase produce that is cheap because it is produced through third world slavery am I then cruel. This is not what you are saying but it is what your point is stating,,ie if I use a computer I should by default be a lover of science. I do not trust scientific method because this often translates as a means to an end. Look at the surges in scientific progress. They are usually the consequence of conflict or a race towards profit.

There is hypocrisy in every action that we undertake. Religious people explore this through a different process than that undertaken by science. There are bottom end users in everything, hoping for the best and investing their faith in what they instinctively believe to be true. I will not contemplate abiogenesis replication in the outer universe for a myriad of reasons too numerous to mention. Let's start with my question. When I came to this forum you welcomed me, now you disagree with me. Both situations are fine with me. I love the internet for what we do now which is to communicate. That does not mean that I like the insidious influence of T.V. Science produces science that is fit for the purposes of its user, or not for that matter.

An imperfect science is very like a little knowledge, it is a a dangerous thing. This thread's opening posts highlights some of the more fanciful notions of religious thought. What scientific oddity would you like me to mention? Dolly the sheep?
Is she a supernatural being? I had a post directed to me from no evidence no belief and that is why I am still here explaining my position. I had left this discussion to scientifically knowledgeable people on both sides of this debate. I came back because I was called to explain. I am not seeking conversion to something I do not believe in so please do not waste your time on this. Let's just answer the replication of abiogenesis in outer space question first. Is it within the scope of the opening post. Yes or no and why?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

Hi Guy:
I think you should change your handle to a more accurate statement: "No evidence, no knowledge." Everyone believes in something for which he has no evidence, but those who believe in events which are naturally impossible, I would say that they are more gullible than faithful:-)
The faith of the bible, is not believing supernatural yarn which men have spun as a form of worship, by giving God the credit/glory for whatever takes place. The faith of the bible is believing in God's everlasting, unconditional, gospel promise that all nations will be blessed with everlasting world peace, brought about by a great nation of God's faithful, which has everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. Hey, it's not impossible, so it's worth believing:-)

Just because something s not impossible, it's not a good reason for believing it's true. One must make reasonable assessments of the likelihood of something being true, by balancing the strength of evidence for and against, before drawing conclusions, and these conclusions should be tentative and subject to revision and modification as new evidence is presented.

It's not impossible that there is an alien space ship behind a comet, which you can teleport to by committing suicide. It's not impossible. But there is a mountain of evidence against the claim, and little to no evidence for it. So we shouldn't believe it.

It certainly laudable to hope for world peace, but if it's ever going to come to pass, it's going to be through the actions of man, not through the promise of an invisible father figure in the sky that bronze age barbarians invented. Besides, if Yahweh exists, and is accurately portrayed in the Bible, he is the most genocidal, infanticidal, perverted maniac to ever exist. His career as a deity allegedly started with the drowning to death of countless babies for no crime at all, and it persevered in its homicidal spree of blood and gore to this day. If a God of such violence, cruelty and perversion, with such a lust for the blood of the living and the eternal cries of agony of the dead souls that dared not warship him exists, then the prospects for world peace are meagre indeed. What use would such a god of Armageddon and eternal judgment and punishment have for a world at peace? If you wish for world peace, you had better hope that Yahweh is just an invention like Batman and Thor, as it indeed is.

If you haven't already, may I suggest you read the Bible? It's a horrible book - a deadly combination of tedious and gruesome - but it will provide some insight into this god character - insight that based on what you wrote, you desperately need.

[no evidence no belief]

re Goat Post2960--However, when talking about the physical world, and how it interacts with itself, such things as 'let's see what actually happens' does come into play. That is where scientific method and theory come into place. After all, you enjoy the fruits of that methodology in your life. The very computer you use was designed and created via that 'speculation'.

I agree with this. ol said this earlier, today's sci-fi is tomorrows scientific fact.
Your argument about my usage of science being a significant indicator of anything is an often used argument. Must I be for or against something. Are these the choices.

If a product such as a deodorant or a pill is the pinnacle of an Auschwitz like animal experiment am I an animal hater by using it. If I purchase produce that is cheap because it is produced through third world slavery am I then cruel. This is not what you are saying but it is what your point is stating,,ie if I use a computer I should by default be a lover of science. I do not trust scientific method because this often translates as a means to an end. Look at the surges in scientific progress. They are usually the consequence of conflict or a race towards profit.

There is hypocrisy in every action that we undertake. Religious people explore this through a different process than that undertaken by science. There are bottom end users in everything, hoping for the best and investing their faith in what they instinctively believe to be true. I will not contemplate abiogenesis replication in the outer universe for a myriad of reasons too numerous to mention. Let's start with my question. When I came to this forum you welcomed me, now you disagree with me. Both situations are fine with me. I love the internet for what we do now which is to communicate. That does not mean that I like the insidious influence of T.V. Science produces science that is fit for the purposes of its user, or not for that matter.

An imperfect science is very like a little knowledge, it is a a dangerous thing. This thread's opening posts highlights some of the more fanciful notions of religious thought. What scientific oddity would you like me to mention? Dolly the sheep?
Is she a supernatural being? I had a post directed to me from no evidence no belief and that is why I am still here explaining my position. I had left this discussion to scientifically knowledgeable people on both sides of this debate. I came back because I was called to explain. I am not seeking conversion to something I do not believe in so please do not waste your time on this. Let's just answer the replication of abiogenesis in outer space question first. Is it within the scope of the opening post. Yes or no and why?

Zero, I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. Can you please state what you believe, and what evidence you have for it? Thanks.

[Star]

Let's just answer the replication of abiogenesis in outer space question first.

There are a few models of how this may have happened, all involving chemical evolution, and none of which we can be certain of, but you are shifting the burden here. We start with a default position of disbelief and go where the evidence takes us. By answering this thread as a Christian apologist, you bear the burden of providing the evidence necessary convince us of your particular beliefs. If you want detailed science lessons, you'd have better luck at a dedicated science message board. Let's try to get back on topic.

What is your evidence, without relying on fallacy and/or scripture, that Jesus is the son of god, or that your god is the one true god?

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post--Zero, I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say.

I am watching The Kings Speech at the moment with my family and I may have become the first person in the world with digital stutter from from from trying to explain myself here through the medium of a keyboard. There is no harm done. Good luck with your thread.

[no evidence no belief]

re Goat Post--So, your entire argument is 'I don't understand it, so it must be dubious'??

My entire inquiry on this matter is not as you state it. I inquire whether or not Danmark's speculation regarding the replication of abiogenesis in the other universe falls within the scope and evidential demands of the opening post. Do you like Catholicism. Let us assume you do not. Why would you try to understand it. It would be dubious to you from your instincts. Advanced scientific hypothesis are this to me and I adopt a hyper mistrust of them. You are correct in stating this fact about my outlook. I am guilty as charged. Now consider my inquiry. If I reject this science it is an argument from ignorance, if I run the other way it is the logical fallacy of 'equivocation'. All that I seek here is the comfort of an exit sign. The first reasoned explanation to my question and I will be out of your hair on this thread.

You are correct to have a 'hyper mistrust of them'. They are nothing more than conclusions drawn by men. Yes educated men but still men with their own preconceived beliefs and biases. There are many educated scientists who have come to the conclusions that abiogenesis and evolution of life from lower forms to more complex forms is absurd.

Yeah don't trust conclusions drawn by men, stick with the fables invented by ignorant men thousands of years ago.

So men who believe that there is a God and that this God created life are 'ignorant'? Instead of calling us 'ignorant' maybe you could be a little more civil and just agree to disagree

He is not calling you ignorant, he is calling the authors of the Bible ignorant.

Ignorance is a comparative measure. One can't be ignorant in the abstract. One is either ignorant of specific information, or one can be said to be ignorant when compared to somebody else who is more knowledgeable. By the latter definition, it's an indisputable fact that the authors of the Bible were ignorant when compared to anybody you've ever met in your life. Anybody who knows that disease is caused by germs, that the moon goes around the earth and the earth around the sun, that our solar system is one of billions in this galaxy which is one of billions in the universe, that has a high school knowledge of calculus or trigonometry, that can conceive of a typewriter or the use of gunpowder, etc, is a GENIUS AND A SCHOLAR compared to the simpletons who scribbled their absurd notions on sheep skin a few thousand years ago. That's just a fact. Any 12 year old today, even one educated in the US as opposed to Europe, could teach the most knowledgeable bronze age nomadic Jew so much stuff that the guy's head would explode.

because after all you have no evidence to prove that we are wrong.

Em, YES WE DO! We have OVERWHELMING evidence to demonstrate that you are wrong.

You believe in zombie invasions and talking donkeys and flying corpses. We have mountains of evidence that these things do not happen. Let me give you an example: THE LAW OF GRAVITY. This law constitutes evidence that corpses can't fly. If you disagree with the law of gravity, try jumping off of any elevated location and get back to me with your findings. NOTE: For the sake of safety, start by jumping from spots that are no more than a few feet off the ground. Safety first

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief

You attempt to explain ignorance to the assembled forum here.
We had a discussion regarding the literacy or not of Jesus. It is a relative term and like ignorance can not be painted with two colours. Take this approximate fact for example.
Many surveys taken reveal the extent of American ignorance about the world. 60% of correspondents could not locate Iraq on a map of the Middle East, 47% could not locate India on a map of Asia, 75% could not locate Israel on a map of the Middle East,

This does not mean that Americans are completely ignorant. Granted it does not help their cause but more to the point is this. The levels of learning in antiquity are breath taking and the stereotypical cave men that you describe who wrote Biblical superstition are a cartoon of your own drawing.