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?

[iamtaka]

tldr; TotN engages in a strawman argument and mocks others.

Ok, so you did understand it. But I still don't see how the last (bolded) sentence follows.

He doesn't think that the Christian God as presented qualifies as simple. How else is he supposed to make the argument that God isn't simple, other than to explain in what ways he's not?

His response accomplish more than a simple statement of his opinion. It include emotive language which is poorly veiled mockery and ridicule.

Uh, the whole point of a debate is arguing why the other side's perspective is wrong. If Christians think God is a married bachelor, they're wrong. If Christians say God is "simple" and claim that God has attribute set X, then if TofN makes an argument that attribute set X indicates that God is not simple, Christians better be ready to defend against that argument.

I understand your point. This is one aspect of his post to me. I have understood this aspect of the post from the beginning. However, I am not addressing this aspect. I am addressing a different aspect.

99percentatheism (99pa) posted a response to the original post by no evidence no belief. Within 99pa's post, he suggests that materialists believe 'something can come from nothing' and challenges the materialists to provide evidence. This provoked a response from Dantalion accusing 99pa of a strawman argument. 99pa objected and restates his claim about materialists. Then, Tired of the Nonsense (TotN) responsed to 99pa. In TotN's response, he answered 99pa's request for evidence.

Among the various things that observational analysis has informed us of, is that we are composed of "non thinking stuff." We are in fact composed of the very same "non thinking stuff" as rocks or trees, or pretty much anything else composed of matter. The very same "non thinking stuff" you find in an RNA molecule. An RNA molecule is not intelligent. In fact it's not even biologically alive. It does have the ability to replicate itself however, which is, admittedly, pretty damned remarkable. Did it create itself? It's not even intelligent. Or was it's origin an accident of chemistry? Something which occurred spontaneously as a result of ongoing chemical processes, a vast amount of time, and the fact that such a molecule with the ability to replicate itself is not only possible but, given enough time, perhaps even inevitable? Too hard to believe? It does undeniably exist.

To this point, things are not particularly interesting. It's what follows which caught my interest.

Your contention of course is that it must have been created by an intelligent designer. If your contention is true, then this intelligent designer MUST itself have been created by an intelligent designer. You can't assume a fact to be true, and then immediately break the rules. If your intelligent designer, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, simply "just exists" in your mind, without the need or necessity of prior intelligent design, then how much vastly more likely would it have been for a very simple RNA molecule to have arisen spontaneously as a result of the ongoing chemistry processes that were occurring on the early Earth?

From the initial post by 99pa cited above, he has made no arguments or claims about an intelligent designer. It is possible that 99pa made such an argument further back in the thread and/or in other threads, but within the immediate context no such claims were made. Thus, one can reasonably conclude the 'your' in "your contention" is a generic you. This mean 'your' does not refer specifically to 99pa, but it refers to an unspecified person or persons. Given that 99pa is a Christian, it is reasonable to conclude the generic you is referring to Christians. The internal textual evidence of "intelligent designer," "omnipotent," "omniscient," "omnipresent," and so forth further support this notion. Hence, the contention being described is a Christian contention or Christian argument. This is all important because it provides the context for the next statement.

Your contention of course is that it must have been created by an intelligent designer. If your contention is true, then this intelligent designer MUST itself have been created by an intelligent designer. You can't assume a fact to be true, and then immediately break the rules. If your intelligent designer, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, simply "just exists" in your mind, without the need or necessity of prior intelligent design, then how much vastly more likely would it have been for a very simple RNA molecule to have arisen spontaneously as a result of the ongoing chemistry processes that were occurring on the early Earth?

This statement is unclear. What does he mean by "your contention" in the if-clause? We look to the result-clasue to discover the answer. The intelligent designer "must" have an intelligent designer? This does not mesh with any design argument with which I am familiar. In fact, within Christianity, God is viewed as eternal or not caused. Thus, we need more information on what he means by "your contention" in the if-clause. This comes later in the thread.

Danmark responded to TotN response above. TotN responds with a restatement of his formulation of the Christian contention. This response provides some clarity.

It seems to me that I have made it quite clear that I am no fan of nonsense. And the proposition that something like an RNA molecule is too complicated to exist without the necessity of an intelligent designer, and so it therefore MUST be the result of an uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated then an RNA molecule certainly qualifies as nonsense. Even if by some convoluted quirk of mathematical improbability this should prove to be the case, it certainly IS NOT logical. Common experience indicates overwhelmingly that claims such as this which defy all possible logic tend overwhelmingly to be pure and utter nonsense. Nonsense on this scale is like an old stinky diaper; put it behind you and move on as quickly as possible.

This formulation of the Christian contention includes an important assumption. The assumption is as follow: The existence of something which is complicated necessarily relies on the existence of something even more complicated. If this assumption is correct, then TotN is correct in assuming the intelligent designer would be "more complicated" than that which it created. He would also be correct in stating that such an intelligent designer could not be uncreated. Hence, such an uncreated intelligent designer would be "not logical." Therefore, he declares the design argument is "pure and utter nonsense."

Thus, to this point, it should be evident that I have followed and understand his reasoning. Now, let's turn to my objection.

The Christian believes God is simple. This is reflected in the traditional doctrine of divine simplicity. (To further clarify for help3434, I am aware not all Christians adhere to this. However, it has traditionally been held by the most of the major theologians throughout history even if it can be somewhat contentious within academic circles today.) If Christians adhere to a doctrine of divine simplicity and present the design argument as formulated by TotN, there would appear to be contradiction. How can God be both simple and complicated? That would make no sense, and one would be right in objecting that its illogical. Yet, that is not the case.

The Christian contention is different from TotN's formulation of the Christian contention. The Christian contention includes a simple God. This God requires no creator. TotN's formulation includes a complicated god because he includes an assumption which the Christian contention does not include. Thus, even though TotN's formulation might fail, because the Christian contention is significantly different TotN's formulation's failure has no impact on the Christian contention. The observable difference between TotN's and the Christian's formulations is the complicated god and simple God. This leads to a case where TotN is critiquing an argument not presented by the Christian. Hence, his critique can be properly labeled as a strawman argument.

Until I actually encounter a design argument that doesn't base itself off of God being more complex than his creation, I will tentatively hold my position.

Fair enough.

[iamtaka]

I'm ready to go toe to toe, point by point on the resurrection of Jesus, derived directly from the pages of Scripture, if you are. Only the facts, no mockery or ridicule. While it may be true that I represent the very swine that you have been cautioned against casting your pearls before, you might also notice that there are currently over 65,000 views of this particular thread, and rising. So I am not the ONLY ONE you will be casting your pearls before. I maintain that the story of the empty tomb and missing corpse of Jesus, features of the story which lead directly to the claim that he was resurrected from the dead, can be easily dismissed, even from within the text of your own Holy Book, as actions taken by the living, specifically the disciples of Jesus. As long as the story can clearly be seen to have been a contrivance manufactured by the followers of Jesus, the claim that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and ultimately flew off up into the clouds has no merit whatsoever. If you chose not to argue against this contention, then you apparently recognize this particular flaw in Christian claims yourself. I'm calling you out. Show us that you are not an empty vessel, filled with nothing but air.

You're right. The Christians claims are all deficient. I am an empty vessel. I am filled with nothing but air. I suppose you'll have to debate yourself.

[Star]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Relativity has already shown that the universe has always been. It has shown that time is part of the universe, so there exists no point in time in which the universe has not existed.

So yes, the universe has "always been". This is true regardless of whether the universe extends finitely into the past or infinitely.

How has Relativity shown the universe to always have been? Isn't it all relative anyways? You speak as if Relativity is a god....it is a theory....maybe it is wrong.

Maybe Relativity is wrong, but not likely. Some of its predictions have been experimentally confirmed.

It's true that Relativity doesn't show that the universe has always existed. He is wrong.

We don't know if the universe has always existed or not. In its current form, it certainly hasn't, but elementary particles may have. Unfortunately, anything beyond our universe is also beyond our reach, so we may never know.

Regardless, I see no reason to evoke god.

[Star]

Since we're cutting to real chases, or the nut of the matter - do YOU really care if evidence is presented or not? I see no 'evidence' at all that any explanation, however well defined or presented, will be seriously considered.

How about published peer-reviewed research?

Link us up, or cite authors, date, and name of the paper.

[hmallen]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote;

I have a suggestion. Instead of becoming bogged down in the dreary verbiage of Christian theology, why don't we simply turn to the very core of Christian belief. That would be the story of the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be demonstrated to have occurred to even a reasonable degree of probability, then the musings of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and other Christian theologians are nothing more then baseless assumptions grounded in hot air which is founded on little more then grade A 100% bull droppings. Means the whole thing is abject nonsense. It is overwhelmingly apparent that an empty grave and a missing corpse, ANY empty grave and missing corpse, are VASTLY more likely to have been a result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. Wouldn't you agree? And so if it is possible to discern, even within the pages of the NT, that the story of the resurrection can easily be attributed to actions taken by the living, then the possibility that the corpse came back to life and flew away has no realistic standing at all. Which serves to render all the rest of your argument pointless.

I find this quote interesting given our debate on the separate forum pertaining to the resurrection. I think your comments are much to sweeping. The Resurrection is grounded in history and has historical evidence supporting it in both the gospels, the letters and the early church life. To sweep it away as baseless or without any historical grounds is for the mouse to stand on its hind legs, place its paws on its hips and begin to give the elephant before it a good dressing down. Your simple psuedo-solutions do not answer the historical voice of the sources. Explain, if you can, in a structured manner the reasons to judge the resurrection narratives as unhistorical and inventory. [/url]

[olavisjo]

.

How about published peer-reviewed research?

Link us up, or cite authors, date, and name of the paper.

Some things are not amenable to peer-reviewed research. What would such peer-reviewed research even look like? Who would be the peers?

For example, I am still convinced that OJ Simpson was guilty of murder. Would you be able to provide peer-reviewed research to convince me that he was innocent?

[Sir Hamilton]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Relativity has already shown that the universe has always been. It has shown that time is part of the universe, so there exists no point in time in which the universe has not existed.

So yes, the universe has "always been". This is true regardless of whether the universe extends finitely into the past or infinitely.

How has Relativity shown the universe to always have been? Isn't it all relative anyways? You speak as if Relativity is a god....it is a theory....maybe it is wrong.

Maybe Relativity is wrong, but not likely. Some of its predictions have been experimentally confirmed.

It's true that Relativity doesn't show that the universe has always existed. He is wrong.

We don't know if the universe has always existed or not. In its current form, it certainly hasn't, but elementary particles may have. Unfortunately, anything beyond our universe is also beyond our reach, so we may never know.

Regardless, I see no reason to evoke god.

uh.....ok.....i don't see any reason to evoke god either.....but now evoking God, that is a different story.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to iamtaka]

You're right. The Christians claims are all deficient. I am an empty vessel. I am filled with nothing but air. I suppose you'll have to debate yourself.

Much as I suspected.

[Danmark]

I find this quote interesting given our debate on the separate forum pertaining to the resurrection. I think your comments are much to sweeping. The Resurrection is grounded in history and has historical evidence supporting it in both the gospels, the letters and the early church life. To sweep it away as baseless or without any historical grounds is for the mouse to stand on its hind legs, place its paws on its hips and begin to give the elephant before it a good dressing down. Your simple psuedo-solutions do not answer the historical voice of the sources. Explain, if you can, in a structured manner the reasons to judge the resurrection narratives as unhistorical and inventory. [/url]

"Inventory?" I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. At any rate this subtopic and others address your question fairly thoroughly. The question isn't whether or not the resurrection is mentioned in ancient documents. The question is, 'How reliable and accurate are those documents, given that they were not recorded contemporaneously, have anonymous authors, were written to support an argument, and contain stories that require the suspension of natural laws.

[Goat]

Tired of the Nonsense wrote;

I have a suggestion. Instead of becoming bogged down in the dreary verbiage of Christian theology, why don't we simply turn to the very core of Christian belief. That would be the story of the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection of Jesus cannot be demonstrated to have occurred to even a reasonable degree of probability, then the musings of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and other Christian theologians are nothing more then baseless assumptions grounded in hot air which is founded on little more then grade A 100% bull droppings. Means the whole thing is abject nonsense. It is overwhelmingly apparent that an empty grave and a missing corpse, ANY empty grave and missing corpse, are VASTLY more likely to have been a result of actions taken by the living, as opposed to actions taken by the corpse. Wouldn't you agree? And so if it is possible to discern, even within the pages of the NT, that the story of the resurrection can easily be attributed to actions taken by the living, then the possibility that the corpse came back to life and flew away has no realistic standing at all. Which serves to render all the rest of your argument pointless.

I find this quote interesting given our debate on the separate forum pertaining to the resurrection. I think your comments are much to sweeping. The Resurrection is grounded in history and has historical evidence supporting it in both the gospels, the letters and the early church life. To sweep it away as baseless or without any historical grounds is for the mouse to stand on its hind legs, place its paws on its hips and begin to give the elephant before it a good dressing down. Your simple psuedo-solutions do not answer the historical voice of the sources. Explain, if you can, in a structured manner the reasons to judge the resurrection narratives as unhistorical and inventory. [/url]

I personally disagree with the idea it is grouned in 'history and has historical evidence'. I see some documents that have religious motivations to claim it, written decades after the fact.. Other documents that have strong evidence of tampering... and lots of unsupported claims. There is a difference between BELIEF in something, and actual evidence the belief is correct. I will say the Gospels are evidence for BELIEF... but that is not to say that the evidence is for the actual resurrection. THere is a difference between the CLAIM.. which is the Gospels, and the evidence for it actually existence.

The gospels are a historical record of belief.. not of the actual occurence. There isn't the convergence of evidence, or independent supporting of it, or any indication it is even physically possible.\