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?

[dianaiad]

In answer to the question, 'What evidence would you expect to see if there were a god or 1000's of gods,' Clownboat is right. It depends on which god one believes in. Gods have been invented for various purposes:
To comfort man in the loss of loved ones.
To explain and attempt to control nature.
As an added assurance of a good harvest.
Gods function like good luck charms.
Gods and the religions that surround them can help authenticate power and
Justify war and taking resources from other tribes.

So I would expect to see a god justified by whether or not he successfully predicts whatever it is he was invented or imagined for.

For most people who believe in a god, they have already determined that all gods are false, all but the one THEY believe in. Which brings us to the chestnut:

"We're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do."

I keep hearing that one, and for many theists, it's an effective counter. At least one theist, though, has a slightly different view: there is only one god, and ALL religions are imperfect attempts to describe Him. The most any of us can do, if we believe in deity, is to look for the belief system that has the most Truth in it...

but how can we, mortals and temporary dwellers upon this planet that we are, possibly know and understand God in His entirety? We may, eventually...in fact, I think we will, but not here and not now. All any of us can do here and now is the best we can.

[dianaiad]

I gave you a list of young earth scientists...why are you still whining? What authority are you appealing to?

Moderator Warning


Please refrain from personal and uncivil comments about the posters.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Goat]

re Goat Post2732-- I find that the so called 'metaphysical pursuits' are fluff and nonsense, filled with wishful thinking. Without any real word data, how can it be other than an exercise in emotional wish full fulfillment?

The mirror image of this exact point was made by Sir Hamilton in the following manner.

re Sir Hamilton Post2590--I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. Humans can not be completely objective when they study data, their preconceived beliefs and views will "leak" into their conclusions.

No, they can not. However, the scientific method DOES provide a methodology to filter out a lot of preconceived beliefs. It does that through testability and falsification. ,as well as peer review to find methodological errors. Testability means being able to make predictions based on a model.

That helps filter out human bias.

[Danmark]

re Goat Post2732-- I find that the so called 'metaphysical pursuits' are fluff and nonsense, filled with wishful thinking. Without any real word data, how can it be other than an exercise in emotional wish full fulfillment?

The mirror image of this exact point was made by Sir Hamilton in the following manner.

re Sir Hamilton Post2590--I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. Humans can not be completely objective when they study data, their preconceived beliefs and views will "leak" into their conclusions.

No, they can not. However, the scientific method DOES provide a methodology to filter out a lot of preconceived beliefs. It does that through testability and falsification. ,as well as peer review to find methodological errors. Testability means being able to make predictions based on a model.

That helps filter out human bias.

Which is exactly why the argument works to support independent science research, and does not work for 'scholars' who work for or otherwise represent Christian organizations. They do not have an unbiased methodology. They set out to try to find answers that fit their presuppositions. An independent scholar with no religious bias would be delighted to to find something that would rock the scientific world whether or not that finding meant 'there is a god' or supported some such conclusion.

Independent researchers in science only seek truth and they know that a Nobel Prize and the adulation of their peers would await them if they found something that proved there was a creator because that would astound the scientific world.

The bias of the Christian researcher does not give him the option of searching for the truth because he thinks he already knows what the truth is; therefore he will only look for answers that fit the preconceptions formed by his religious beliefs.

[Danmark]

In answer to the question, 'What evidence would you expect to see if there were a god or 1000's of gods,' Clownboat is right. It depends on which god one believes in. Gods have been invented for various purposes:
To comfort man in the loss of loved ones.
To explain and attempt to control nature.
As an added assurance of a good harvest.
Gods function like good luck charms.
Gods and the religions that surround them can help authenticate power and
Justify war and taking resources from other tribes.

So I would expect to see a god justified by whether or not he successfully predicts whatever it is he was invented or imagined for.

For most people who believe in a god, they have already determined that all gods are false, all but the one THEY believe in. Which brings us to the chestnut:

"We're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do."

I keep hearing that one, and for many theists, it's an effective counter. At least one theist, though, has a slightly different view: there is only one god, and ALL religions are imperfect attempts to describe Him. The most any of us can do, if we believe in deity, is to look for the belief system that has the most Truth in it...

but how can we, mortals and temporary dwellers upon this planet that we are, possibly know and understand God in His entirety? We may, eventually...in fact, I think we will, but not here and not now. All any of us can do here and now is the best we can.

That's an excellent argument. The only problem with it is that 'god' or 'the gods' has been defined and described in a thousand different ways by different cultures and religions. To the extent that man agrees that god is indefinable or 'beyond definition' your point is valid. To the extent that 'god' is more specifically defined and has supposedly sent us specific scripture such as the Book of Mormon et al., the Bible or the Quran, the point is hopelessly invalid.

... And more importantly . . .

UW 31 - BYU 16

[Sir Hamilton]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

[Sir Hamilton]

From your last paragraph it's easy to see that you're confused about what's real and imaginary. We have written testimony about the virgin birth of Christ, His miracles, and His death and resurrection. This written testimony has existed for over 2000 years. On top of that millions of people all over the world and in all times since the Lord's resurrection have read this testimony and received a witness from the Holy Spirit that the record is true, that God lives and that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God the Father in the flesh, and the savior and redeemer of mankind.

Now what “evidence� do you have that these things are not true? What testimony can you or any other non-believer give – other than “I just don't believe it.�? If you rely on the physical senses and human logic to find truth how are you getting along with quantum physics?

What can we who believe answer - other than the answer Paul gave.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Cor. 2: 12-14

What evidence do you have, other than scripture (appeal to authority), how many people believe it (appeal to popularity), and how old it is (appeal to tradition)? You committed yet another fallacy by shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptic. Tell us what researchers have published their observations of Christian magic in respected and credible science journals, and we'll go from there.

What evidence do you have other than to appeal to the authority of scientists who are nothing more than men interpreting data from their own biased opinion?

[Danmark]

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

The point you miss by a thousand miles is that we are talking about a question of science when it comes to the age of the Earth and evolution.

Your argument is like asking the opinion of of a bunch of fast food workers about what should be done about a dentistry problem or more to the point, how to conduct neurosurgery on the brain.

We don't have a popular vote about how to launch a rocket into space, and we don't ask your average 8th grader about questions of cosmology, geology or evolutionary biology.

[Star]

What evidence do you have other than to appeal to the authority of scientists who are nothing more than men interpreting data from their own biased opinion?

How predictable. What is the problem?

I just finished explaining how an appeal to expertise and scientific consensus is different, and provided a link to information on fallacies for your edification. I also predicted that, regardless, you'd turn around an accuse me of making the same mistake myself anyway, and you did.

At the website I linked to, they explain: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

I then said: "You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go."

Then you, as I predicted, come back with: "What evidence do you have other than to appeal to the authority of scientists..." and "You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man" and "My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact."

I studied in school for a long time, as did many of these other non-believers. We don't just memorize what we're told in school. We understand, problem solve, and apply our knowledge to real world applications. I'm sorry you are not familiar with higher education and much of the subject material we're discussing. You came to debate without first doing your homework.

[Joab]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Are you aware that an overwhelming majority of scientists reject young-Earth creation myths wholeheartedly? There's a reason for that. 93% of members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in a personal god. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution and an old Earth is much higher, above 99.8% (citations at end).

So what if you plagiarized a list of names from a tabloid? I bet none of those scientists even published anything for peer-review, anyway. I've checked my online database of my accredited university, which has a subscription to pretty much every journal, and found no religious fables masquerading as real science.

Can you name one piece of work? Just one, by one creationist scientist? Don't tell me it's my homework, like you had the nerve to do to Goat. This is your homework, I assure you. You have come to debate woefully unprepared and we've already helped you out more than we're obligated to.

Delgado, C. "Finding evolution in medicine", NIH Record 58 (15) 28 July 2006

Larson, E.J. and Witham, L. “Leading scientists still reject God�, Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

I could care less about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Their opinions mean nothing to me. What is this?? some kind of popularity contest?? It is estimated that atheists make up about 2% of the world population. So going by that atheism is backwards and wrong.

Are you here to debate or play games? "I don't care" isn't a valid counter-argument. If anything, it's incredulous and asinine.

I was trying to put into perspective for you just how abysmally small your list of scientists are. You can't avoid forming your own arguments in a debate because you think scientists agree without someone countering that a vast majority of the world's scientists actually don't.

The world's inhabitants aren't all experts, therefore, you are appealing to popularity, a fallacy. Also, you are committing a very similar fallacy, of appealing to the authority of your scientists, because you are not demonstrating a knowledge of their science in your arguments. You'll now accuse me of committing the same fallacies, even though I'm appealing to expertise and scientific consensus (which is much different), and on your silly game will go.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I was putting into perspective how much more abysmally small the group of humans are who are atheist compared to those who are theist. You dismiss about 98 percent of the population of the world in favor of your 2 percent. Then you use the same logic by pointing out 93 percent of "scientists" don't believe in a personal god as a valid reason to not believe the 7 percent that do. You appeal to the authority of scientists that support the beliefs of atheism, abiogenesis, and evolution of man. You haven't made any of these so called discoveries or witnessed any of these discoveries...you just believe them because they claim to be an expert. My whole point is we all appeal to authority and it is amusing that you hate to admit that simple fact.

What is your very specific flavour of religious belief? You dismiss at least 75% of the population.