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?

[no evidence no belief]

[Replying to post 2509 by iamtaka]

This "uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated than an RNA molecule" is not the god of Christianity. Christian theism adheres to a doctrine of divine simplicity.

I am sorry, but "divine simplicity" is just a fancy way of declaring that God is logically impossible.

If you wish to assert that an entity capable of creating the universe in all its trillions of stars is not complex, then you have a lot of explaining and justifying to do.

Seriously.

The God of the Bible, if it existed, would be capable at any instant to monitor and alter at will the random movement of any of the trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions (continue writing "of trillions" about a trillion trillion times) of atoms in the universe. The computational power necessary to accomplish such a feat is so beyond the complexity of anything we could possibly imagine to exist in the universe, that to call such an entity "simple" is so beyond preposterous, so beyond ridiculous, so beyond absurd, that only the desensitization to basic common sense that comes with dogmatic faith could make it possible for it to gain any traction whatsoever.

Yet the odds of life just randomly occurring by blind chance is one in trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions...

That is factually incorrect.

The complexity of life does NOT happen by chance but by natural selection - the very opposite of chance.

I hope this is clear. Evolution does NOT happen by chance. Please confirm that you understand this, because it's one of the most common misunderstandings about evolution. Survival of the fittest is the exact opposite of random survival of some and random death of others for no reason whatsoever.

What is the chance that a burglar manages to randomly guess the correct 20-digit combination to a safe he's trying to break into? Very very small. But what if when he got the first digit right the safe's door opened up just a tiny little bit, and then when he got the second digit right it opened a little bit more, and so on? In that case it would NOt be difficult for the burglar to open the safe right?

Small cumulative processes are a NON-RANDOM way of achieving what would otherwise be extremely unlikely.

I strongly recommend you read Chapter 4 of the God Delusion by Dawkins. It spells out this argument in great detail and more eloquently than I could.

[no evidence no belief]

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.

They were not written contemporaneously but probably within about 30 years from the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not necessarily a good basis to reject them on.

The reason to reject the story of the flying corpse in the Bible is the same as for rejecting the story of the flying reindeer in Santa mythology: These fairy tales are directly contradicted by everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics.

Actually the author of the gospels are known...they are named after each author.

Factually incorrect.

Written to support an argument?? That is your opinion.

It's a very valid opinion based on empirical evidenc and scholarly consensus.

Now stories that require the suspension of natural laws is your best one...you need to go with it even though I think that what you refer to as natural laws may only apply to our 3 dimensional view of things. Doesn't physics allow for the existence of more than our 3 dimensions? Maybe there are things that go on in these dimensions that we can't understand? I know that I can't understand some of the miracles of Jesus but I recognize that I am a finite imperfect creature with limitations....and so are you.

Argument from ignorance. You are saying "I do not know for sure that X is impossible, therefore I believe that X happened".

That argument is a disgracefully bad argument no matter what claim you apply it to.

"I don't know for sure that resurrections are impossible, therefore I believe the resurrection happened"

"I do not know for sure that Mohammed's ascension into heaven on a winged horse is impossible, therefore I believe in Mohammed's ascension"

"I do not know for sure that Santa bringing presents to every home in one night is impossible, therefore I believe in Santa"

Wow you really are behind times aren't you? Like I said I have moved on...I got an idea why don't you reply to my recent posts? just saying....

Getting to them. I was unable to participate in the debate for a few days. Still, I am confused. Do you no longer hold the beliefs that you outlined a few days ago?

[olavisjo]

.

What is the chance that a burglar manages to randomly guess the correct 20-digit combination to a safe he's trying to break into? Very very small. But what if when he got the first digit right the safe's door opened up just a tiny little bit, and then when he got the second digit right it opened a little bit more, and so on? In that case it would NOt be difficult for the burglar to open the safe right?

Small cumulative processes are a NON-RANDOM way of achieving what would otherwise be extremely unlikely.

I strongly recommend you read Chapter 4 of the God Delusion by Dawkins. It spells out this argument in great detail and more eloquently than I could.

The problem is that neither safes nor life work this way, I strongly recommend that you read Chapter 3 Verse 1-47 of the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

[no evidence no belief]

.......which, btw, is why science should not deal with the religious field, and religion shouldn't mess with science. They are entirely different, with radically different goals and systems.

Yet religion makes scientific claims all the time.

"There were horses in the Americas prior to Columbus". That's a scientific claim made in the Book of Mormon, and subject to scientific scrutiny

"Planet Earth halted in its orbit around the sun for a few hours and then resumed its orbit". That's a scientific claim in the Old Testament.

"Mary got pregnant without a human sperm cell fertilizing one of her eggs". That's a scientific claim in the NT.

"When you whisper a few latin words over a cracker it literally becomes the carcass of a carpenter". That's a scientific claim of Catholic mythology.

Strip religion of all its scientific claims, as per your notion that religion should have nothing to do with science, and what is left?

[no evidence no belief]

re no evidence no belief Post1--Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

This you applies to all people who profess supernatural beliefs. It challenges the person involved to provide evidence. My favourite one on the list is a radio active spider..Sir Hamilton and I contend that we all appeal to authority and when this is the case we are all burdened with the preposterous conclusions that logically and theologically emerge from our individual pursuits, be they science or religion.

Observe these two bedfellow posts.

re Danmark Post 2667--Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... s-exist-mi... So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

re dianaiad Post2768--Now, if you were talking to ME, rather than to Danmark, you might have a greater point. Perhaps. Or not...after all, my belief system (Mormon) teaches straight up that there is life elsewhere. A lot of it, on many different planets. Don't think that any of 'em have ever paid a visit here though.



If this is not a match made in the heavens then I fail to see a difference of position that is significant between the two.

How long will I discuss the possible forms of abiogenesis before we will be imagining Mormonic Luciferian Hoards. When we engage in the highly speculative conclusions of our beliefs the demands for proof are a mute point.

Dear Zeromeansnothing. I am having the same problem with you that I have with Assisigirl. I have no idea what you're saying. I am not saying that your posts are bad or stupid or anything. I'm saying that I don't really have any opinion on your posts, because I genuinely cannot understand what you're trying to say. Please make your best effort to argue a specific and predetermined point cogently, and I will do my best to reply to it.

[no evidence no belief]

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?

Overwhelmingly strong empirical medical, biological, chemical and physical evidence. Everything we know about medicine, which allows us to perform heart transplants, everything we know about biology, which allows us to clone animals, everything we know about chemistry, which allows us to create vaccines, everything we know about physics, which allows us to build planes, cell phones and computers, tells us, clearly and unequivocally, that virgin births and flying corpses aren't real.

Corpses don't fly, buddy. We know that based on the law of gravity. The story of the corpse of the carpenter which came back to life and flew into the sky is made up.

Well, that was easy. What's next on the barbecue rack?

[zeromeansnothing]

re no evidence no belief Post2957

I will try and explain my position on this but you may not understand it. The thread has gone into an area of science that I am not competent enough to follow. I had a very straightforward confusion that at least you show a willingness to clarify for me.

I wanted to know if the following quote fell within the scope of your opening post demand for evidence of the supernatural.

re Danmark Post 2667--Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... s-exist-mi... So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

For reasons that are personal to Danmark I did not receive a reply. I warned in advance that I would not accept an explanation----- that because he describes abiogenesis as natural on this planet that he could also describe this same phenomena in the universe as a natural one by definition of the first. This I stated would be the equivalent of my asserting that God is everywhere. This quote by Danmark was indistinguishable to me from dianaiad's Mormon cosmology. My opinion on this may well be incomprehensible to you and that is to be expected. I have no faith in scientific speculation and I have no desire to have one.

[Goat]

. I have no faith in scientific speculation and I have no desire to have one.

And this is where you are doing the logical fallacy of 'equivocation' in trying to equate scientific theories, and the scientific method to 'speculation'. They are vastly different... because of the factors of 'evidence, testability and falsification.

It sounds to me like... 'My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts'. Now, when it comes to another religions beliefs, you don't have the factors of 'evidence, testability and falsification'. You do have different religious assumptions, and quite often a different set of books. That is not subject to anything more than opinion, and belief.

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'.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Goat Post2960-- Now, when it comes to another religions beliefs, you don't have the factors of 'evidence, testability and falsification'


That is a debate for another day and I take your point that science offers me a doorway that is open. The point many have made here is that the entry gradient is too steep. I will very quickly be forced to employ a faith to scientific authority because of two things. My own ineptitude regarding high science and the blatantly obvious gap between the testable evidence and the speculation that this supports. I cannot and will not sell myself to what I would consider for many believers in science to be a faith held belief. Think about this, we did not even get close to questions regarding the ethical reliability of these things. You can look at antiquated religious practices such as the exchange of indulgences for money and at least assess them retrospectively as a crude attempt at fundraising. You do not have to concern yourself too much with this as I am not susceptible to conversion to what I consider the highly dubious doctrines of high science.

[Sir Hamilton]

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.

They were not written contemporaneously but probably within about 30 years from the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is not necessarily a good basis to reject them on.

The reason to reject the story of the flying corpse in the Bible is the same as for rejecting the story of the flying reindeer in Santa mythology: These fairy tales are directly contradicted by everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics.

Actually the author of the gospels are known...they are named after each author.

Factually incorrect.

Written to support an argument?? That is your opinion.

It's a very valid opinion based on empirical evidenc and scholarly consensus.

Now stories that require the suspension of natural laws is your best one...you need to go with it even though I think that what you refer to as natural laws may only apply to our 3 dimensional view of things. Doesn't physics allow for the existence of more than our 3 dimensions? Maybe there are things that go on in these dimensions that we can't understand? I know that I can't understand some of the miracles of Jesus but I recognize that I am a finite imperfect creature with limitations....and so are you.

Argument from ignorance. You are saying "I do not know for sure that X is impossible, therefore I believe that X happened".

That argument is a disgracefully bad argument no matter what claim you apply it to.

"I don't know for sure that resurrections are impossible, therefore I believe the resurrection happened"

"I do not know for sure that Mohammed's ascension into heaven on a winged horse is impossible, therefore I believe in Mohammed's ascension"

"I do not know for sure that Santa bringing presents to every home in one night is impossible, therefore I believe in Santa"

Wow you really are behind times aren't you? Like I said I have moved on...I got an idea why don't you reply to my recent posts? just saying....

Getting to them. I was unable to participate in the debate for a few days. Still, I am confused. Do you no longer hold the beliefs that you outlined a few days ago?

I do but I don't really have the time to squeeze your replies to old posts into my busy schedule...nothing personal.