...claims like:
- All species have evolved from simple organism
- Continents really move because convection
- Earth revolves around the sun
- Earth is over 4 billion years old
- Humans have existed over 100 000 years
This thread is the place to provide evidence for these things, or admit that you have none and retract your unsupported assertions.
Only verifiable physical or mathematical evidence is acceptable. And please no great assumptions, I think they are not evidence.
If you are not able to provide evidence for those ordinary claims, I am also pleased if you can say one thing for example that you think have good evidence and tell what the evidence is.
Do you have any evidence for scientific…
Moderator: Moderators
-
Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1261 times
Post #71
Imagine a Muslim said this to you about the Qu'ran. Imagine just how impressed you would be with such a statement. Imagine if this is really the best statement you can come up with for not having to call walking on water magic.
Perhaps you mean, once you understand that the miracles are not real and are just mythical stories, then they become natural. We can call it natural to have magic in mythical stories, right? It does seem to be the norm after all.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #73
[Replying to post 72 by 1213]
How would you define perfect?
As far as we know they are completely consistent repeatable and unbreakable. I can assign those labels to them sure but in what sense would you consider a law of physics perfect? it seems more of an esoteric label to me.
How would you define perfect?
As far as we know they are completely consistent repeatable and unbreakable. I can assign those labels to them sure but in what sense would you consider a law of physics perfect? it seems more of an esoteric label to me.
Post #74
naturalism:
the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
magic:
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
miracle:
an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
Post #75
1213 wrote: Are the laws of physics perfect?
A law is not perfect or imperfect; a law simply IS.
If you are asking if the laws of physics have changed or can change, then I must answer that I don't have any idea. When the bible describes a donkey talking or an iron axe head floating or a boy coming back to life after a wandering prophet lies atop his lifeless body, it is describing a special, miraculous, MAGICAL event that is NOT the norm. Apparently I have to make the same point, again, for the third time: The entire point of the book is to describe magic and to put forth the idea that the magical events are reasons to believe it is special and therefore the magic it describes for the afterlife are true and valid.
Post #76
1213, you need to support this assertion. I don't think this is true. I don't think you think of miracles in the same way you think of snowflakes.All "miracles" in the Bible will become “natural� to you, when you understand them.
Snowflakes are done without Intent, miracles are done (allegedly) with the Intention of a Mind, specifically against the laws of nature this Mind set in place.
In a thread you are asking for an inordinate amount of evidence for well-established facts, you need to offer the same level for your claims.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9861
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #77
[Replying to post 76 by Ooberman]
There is some truth to what 1213 said. To a naturalist like me, everything that exist is natural. If God exist, he is natural; if Jesus changed water into wine in an instant, such an act is naturalistic.
There is some truth to what 1213 said. To a naturalist like me, everything that exist is natural. If God exist, he is natural; if Jesus changed water into wine in an instant, such an act is naturalistic.
Post #78
[Replying to post 77 by Bust Nak]
I disagree. If the universe makes any sense, with or without a God, there are things that happen because of Laws of physics, and things that happen because of Purpose (Intention).
These are, according to the Free Will hypothesis, two VERY different things.
Logically, and philosophically, the two things cannot be the same thing.
Iff (if and only if) everything is caused and directed by God, then this includes Evil. Evil thoughts, contradictory thoughts, logical errors, etc. All things that are NOT part of a Divine Being (as posited by most theists, specifically Christians).
Iff everything is according to the laws of nature, then God cannot Will things to be different. Once the mechanism is started, even God doesn't intervene. This is the view of Deists, and a branch of thinking from Determinists (though without the God as Prime Mover).
I understand your objection, but it can't be true, logically. Whatever we call it, there MUST be two different kinds of acts in a theistic universe.
1213 is trying to equivocate. He's trying to make the term "natural" to mean whatever he needs it to mean, without recognizing this important distinction.
Will is not all that exists. The physical world (under Theism) is not the only thing that exists.
There are two VERY different things here, and to call them "nature" is a very bad practice. It's sloppy thinking and does nothing to support 1213's case.
In fact, it exposes his desire to equivocate on the issue and obfuscate.
Think of it this way. There is God and Creation. They can't be the same thing. There is Good and Evil. They can't be the same thing.
There is Nature... and under Theism "something else".
If we allow theists to blur this important point, we abdicate Reason.
I disagree. If the universe makes any sense, with or without a God, there are things that happen because of Laws of physics, and things that happen because of Purpose (Intention).
These are, according to the Free Will hypothesis, two VERY different things.
Logically, and philosophically, the two things cannot be the same thing.
Iff (if and only if) everything is caused and directed by God, then this includes Evil. Evil thoughts, contradictory thoughts, logical errors, etc. All things that are NOT part of a Divine Being (as posited by most theists, specifically Christians).
Iff everything is according to the laws of nature, then God cannot Will things to be different. Once the mechanism is started, even God doesn't intervene. This is the view of Deists, and a branch of thinking from Determinists (though without the God as Prime Mover).
I understand your objection, but it can't be true, logically. Whatever we call it, there MUST be two different kinds of acts in a theistic universe.
1213 is trying to equivocate. He's trying to make the term "natural" to mean whatever he needs it to mean, without recognizing this important distinction.
Will is not all that exists. The physical world (under Theism) is not the only thing that exists.
There are two VERY different things here, and to call them "nature" is a very bad practice. It's sloppy thinking and does nothing to support 1213's case.
In fact, it exposes his desire to equivocate on the issue and obfuscate.
Think of it this way. There is God and Creation. They can't be the same thing. There is Good and Evil. They can't be the same thing.
There is Nature... and under Theism "something else".
If we allow theists to blur this important point, we abdicate Reason.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
