Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[earendil]

I will give a short overview outlining the steps in explanation.

1. Show how Scientific methodology can be used correctly in the investigation of paranormal claims.
2. From this it follows that you can show that the human soul exists.
3. From this it can be shown that God exists.

No need to put it all in one post. How about just substantiating one of these steps? If I grant you that scientific methodology can be correctly used in the investigation of paranormal claims (which I find doubtful), how do you get from there to showing the human soul exists?Or if I grant you the human soul exists, how do you get form that to that God exists?

Can you give us even a surface level explanation of either of those steps, through science or logic, without resorting to religious texts and circular reasoning?

Typically if an experiment is performed a number of times, the results of the experiment are considered valid. So let's say we have an experiment that was done by three groups, each consisting of 4 researchers. They all came up with the same results within a certain range of error.

Now the idea is that if anyone should set up the same experiment, they would observe similar results. However ****unless you actually perform the experiment yourself, you are relying on the testimony of others*****, so testimony is an important thing in science. Of course there needs to be corroboration, so in this case we have 12 witnesses and 3 independent sets of observations.

Now let's say you have 12 independent observations of a paranormal event where all the observations match within a reasonable range of error. Why should these observations be ignored? How are these observations of any less value than others? Because the current paradigm claims that what they observed is impossible? But in science the current paradigm is based on observations in the first place. Why accept some, but not others? It is only because of bias.

(I cover this in detail in the book and discuss the specific statistics in relation to testimony)

It is not enough to claim that the soul exists. It also needs to be defined in some way, because if it exists, what is it?
My book then discusses four types of observations which support the existence of a consciousness external to the body. The observations indicate an external consciousness that has various characteristics. Besides being able to exit the body, it also exists before and after the life of the body. It can perceive environments that are not seen by physical observation.

Given this, how could such a consciousness exist outside the process of physical evolution? In other words which is the greater miracle? Does inanimate matter simple rise up out of nowhere and create consciousnes...or does consciousness create matter? Why both are extraordinary, it is obvious that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe....therefore God.

(I then discuss a number of relevant topics.)

[Jolly_Penguin]

You start by pointing at science, but then you go back to mere observation. Science is more than mere observations. Science requires testing a prediction and often the manipulation of something. Mass delusion is possible as is common stories. UFO abduction lore comes to mind here. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad.

You then say that there are four observations that prove consciousness outside the body? What are they? Are you talking about those light at the end of a tunnel type near death experiences? These can and have been reproduced in labs with particular drugs acting on a particular part of the brain. Is there other evidence I am not aware of? It would be fascinating to look at it. I am not aware of any such evidence and I have read a lot of neurology studies.

Does inanimate matter simple rise up out of nowhere and create consciousnes...or does consciousness create matter? Why both are extraordinary, it is obvious that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe....therefore God.

As near as we can tell, yes, life arose form inanimate matter and that forms consciousness. We are not fully clear on how it happened. Why do you declare it didn't? Why is it so "obvious" that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe? And if that is so, why does that imply a God?

[Zzyzx]

.

You’re not yet convinced of the deity of Jesus?

Heck no. I haven't encountered any credible, verifiable evidence that Jesus was anything more than a wandering preacher – only stories, testimonials, conjectures, opinions – none of which are convincing to me. People tell tales for many reasons and they are not necessarily true or accurate.

What has been presented to show Jesus was "divine"?

Please remember the two thieves that were crucified beside Him.

That is an example of an unverified story told by religion promoters decades or generations after the supposed event. Who, EXACTLY, was a witness to hear those supposed words?

The repentant thief had all the proof he needed.

Some people are easily impressed with promises.

Please also remember when Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Jesus responded, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.� The deity of Jesus was spiritually revealed to Peter, the thief, and to us.

Keep in mind that Bible quotations are not proof of truth in these debates – and are likely to be meaningless or insignificant to Non-Christians. Those who wish to duel with scriptures are encouraged to use the Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums.

Are you guys satisfied now?

Not in the least. You have only quoted unverified tales. Try presenting actual evidence.

What more can I say?

What do you have that doesn't require taking someone's word that supernatural entities and events occurred?

I’m sorry for the assertions I made about the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens without pointing to the material I read to back me up. If you care, I can point you to the material. Layered erosion similar to that seen in the Grand Canyon that supposedly occurred millions of years was found to have formed very quickly in other places such as Mr. St. Helens.

Remember, I have actually studied the Grand Canyon academically and in person. It is unlikely that amateur opinions based on non-study will be convincing. Fanciful tales may seem convincing in church or creationist websites; however, they don't work well in the real world or in rational debate.

But as long as there is war between the creation based and the secular worldviews, so is there a geology war.

Science attempts to understand the real world. Theism attempts to fit observations into whatever dogma / literature it favors.

Was the Bible authored by fallible man and God a figment of imagination?

I have encountered nothing that indicates that the Bible was authored by anything OTHER than fallible men – most of whom are of unknown identity according to Christian scholars and theologians.

Kindly cite any evidence that the Bible was NOT written (authored) by humans or that God was involved.

You want neither to be true. Yes, I mean you!

Are you omniscient, a seer, a mind reader? If not what you say about the thinking of others is speculation. Rather than tell people what THEY think it would be prudent to ask rather than tell – and to seek information before reaching conclusions (though that may be contrary to theistic patterns).

Do you want hope beyond the woes of this life untrue?

I do not NEED any "hope" because my life does not consist of "woes" – but is and has been for seventy-five years interesting, fulfilling, successful, pleasant.

Perhaps if I was beset with problems, worries, anxieties I might be susceptible to promises made by those who promote "hope in the afterlife" – that they cannot show to be anything other than imaginary.

That idea may be more appealing to those who are needy or downtrodden.

What are you to do with 1 Corinthians 15:17-19? Don’t you want a trusted standard for truth without which the words of none of us would mean anything? Is it a man-made myth that you and I will die as the Bible said?

Bible stories and statements carry absolutely no weight with me (and are not authoritative in these debates according to Forum Rules and Guidelines).

Both of you testify of dangerous situations of which you narrowly escaped. You have only testified that God was with you as He was with me. I’m sure that you are not unthankful for His mercy in keeping you.

I owe no "thankfulness" to any "gods" for anything that happens in my life.

Do those who "thank God" for good things that happen to them hold God accountable for "bad" things? Or is that a one-way street?

As for Adolf Hitler’s survival from the assassination attempt, it was not yet time for him to die. God is in the affairs of all man.

Sure enough, the catch-all, "it wasn't time". Who sets the time and how can we verify that?

Israel today and events surrounding Israel are very prominent examples of prophecy coming to pass. Please check out its history since 1948.

I am well aware of the history of Israel since it was established by the victors of WWII.

WHAT exactly is proved by that history?

I know you guys by the fact that you and I personally communicate, not by our joining some kind of religion or hearing religionists talk.

It appears as though you overestimate your knowledge based on very limited communication

We also know God by personal communication. Please don’t think I should prove what you can prove for yourself, you lil turkeys! You have the proof!

Are you the "big turkey"?

I am open to direct personal communication from ANY of the "gods" and have been for many decades. However, I do not make up "communication" in my head.

Who can anyone trust if he can’t trust God?

If I trust anyone it is a real person, not an invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural entity that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

Thousands of proposed "gods" are worshiped, loved, feared, fought over by those convinced that they have chosen the "right one" – with a half-a-percent chance of picking the right one even if such things exist.

Who is left other than self?

What is needed beyond the self and the life we construct for ourselves (including significant people with whom we associate)?

Does self know everything? Is self able to do everything, 100% trustworthy, and is totally independent?

Is knowing "everything" important in life? I am quite willing to say "I don't know" – and have no inclination to make up stories pretending to know what I do not.

Deceivers are waiting to fill the trust vacuum by clever methods of making themselves appear genuine.

EXACTLY – the deceivers often claim to have knowledge of supernatural entities and events but when asked to provide evidence that they actually possess such knowledge all they can supply is "take my word for it (or his or this book)" and make excuses or engage in word play.

[Zzyzx]

.

Typically if an experiment is performed a number of times, the results of the experiment are considered valid. So let's say we have an experiment that was done by three groups, each consisting of 4 researchers. They all came up with the same results within a certain range of error.

Those with superficial "understanding" of scientific methods overlook the requirement that data, methodology and conclusions be published and open to evaluation by anyone interested and motivated. And, it is not claimed that "we know all about this" – but conclusions are provisional and are modified, improved, replaced as new and more accurate information becomes available.

Now the idea is that if anyone should set up the same experiment, they would observe similar results. However ****unless you actually perform the experiment yourself, you are relying on the testimony of others*****, so testimony is an important thing in science. Of course there needs to be corroboration, so in this case we have 12 witnesses and 3 independent sets of observations.

In peer reviewed scientific studies the information is available to anyone who cares to investigate. It is NOT unconditionally accepted on the basis of limited testing.

Now let's say you have 12 independent observations of a paranormal event where all the observations match within a reasonable range of error.

Are the observations made by people trained to evaluate what occurs – people such as James Randi for example?

Most of us are aware that illusionists can fool many people with very convincing (though false) performance of "supernatural ability".

Why should these observations be ignored?

They shouldn't be ignored – they should be verified.

How are these observations of any less value than others?

Observations and conclusions by untrained or gullible people should NOT be valued as highly as those of trained observers.

Because the current paradigm claims that what they observed is impossible?

No, it is because they cannot be verified by anyone interested.

But in science the current paradigm is based on observations in the first place. Why accept some, but not others? It is only because of bias.

Would the observations and conclusions of an experienced aircraft accident investigator be more credible than those of a bystander?

(I cover this in detail in the book and discuss the specific statistics in relation to testimony)

It is not enough to claim that the soul exists. It also needs to be defined in some way, because if it exists, what is it?

What you cover in your book is immaterial in these debates. "Read my book" is NOT debate. It is self-aggrandizement.

[earendil]

What you cover in your book is immaterial in these debates. "Read my book" is NOT debate. It is self-aggrandizement.

Strange. How is it self-aggrandizement?
I was simply answering a question by another poster who was reasonable.
He realized that I could not type an entire book into the forum, so simply asked for some key points related to the argument.

[Zzyzx]

.

What you cover in your book is immaterial in these debates. "Read my book" is NOT debate. It is self-aggrandizement.

Strange. How is it self-aggrandizement?

If someone mentions once or twice having written a book that may not be self-aggrandizement; however, if they inject such mention in most of their posts it is.

Again the bold above -- and excuses don't count.

[earendil]

You start by pointing at science, but then you go back to mere observation. Science is more than mere observations. Science requires testing a prediction and often the manipulation of something.

No, ultimately science is observation. You manipulate things to set up an observation. That is all there is to it. Furthermore, there are observations which cannot be set up by manipulations, meteors for example. In such cases, the scientist has to wait until nature provides him with another opportunity to make an observation. And yet such things have been accepted. So the fact that you cannot manipulate things to create a paranormal observation is not an excuse to ignore legitimate observation.

Mass delusion is possible as is common stories. UFO abduction lore comes to mind here.

If you actually seriously studied the UFO phenomenon, you would find quite quickly that the evidence is overwelmingly in favor of it being a genuine physical reality (no spiritual aspect at all). And most likely of alien origin. But again, because of irrational bias and an inability to correctly apply the principles of science, another important subject is ignored.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad.

This is a common propaganda talking point used by the true believers that wish to dismiss testimony.

They did an experiment where they put some lights onto a balloon at night as a UFO hoax and sure enough there were a bunch of UFO reports. HOWEVER, when they interviewed the witnesses and asked them to describe SPECIFICALLY what they saw, it turned out that they consistantly described it very accurately. True, they interpreted it to be more, but they actually described what they saw (when properly interrogated).

You then say that there are four observations that prove consciousness outside the body? What are they? Are you talking about those light at the end of a tunnel type near death experiences? These can and have been reproduced in labs with particular drugs acting on a particular part of the brain. Is there other evidence I am not aware of? It would be fascinating to look at it. I am not aware of any such evidence and I have read a lot of neurology studies.

There is quite a lot. Look up Out-of-body-experience, Near-death experience, and investigations of reincarnation. I argue a fourth based on human behavior and volition.

Does inanimate matter simple rise up out of nowhere and create consciousnes...or does consciousness create matter? Why both are extraordinary, it is obvious that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe....therefore God.

As near as we can tell, yes, life arose form inanimate matter and that forms consciousness. We are not fully clear on how it happened. Why do you declare it didn't? Why is it so "obvious" that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe? And if that is so, why does that imply a God?

Evolution works by natural selection, but the disembodied consciousness exits fully formed and apparently beyond the typical physical processes of nature. In otherwords there is no physical path known by which this consiousness could evolve or for that matter any evidence of an evolution at all.

The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.

[earendil]

.

What you cover in your book is immaterial in these debates. "Read my book" is NOT debate. It is self-aggrandizement.

Strange. How is it self-aggrandizement?

If someone mentions once or twice having written a book that may not be self-aggrandizement; however, if they inject such mention in most of their posts it is.

Again the bold above -- and excuses don't count.

The poster asked about the book therefore the book was mentioned.
But regardless, even if I mentioned the book in every single post, why would that be self-aggrandizement?

if they inject such mention in most of their posts

BTW are you implying that I did this?

[Zzyzx]

.

You start by pointing at science, but then you go back to mere observation. Science is more than mere observations. Science requires testing a prediction and often the manipulation of something.

No, ultimately science is observation.

That is a very simplistic statement regarding science. The emphasis is upon systematic study

One can observe "sunrise" repeatedly without learning anything significant about its true nature. However, an astronomer (scientist) can make the same observations and LEARN from them.

You manipulate things to set up an observation. That is all there is to it.

What "manipulation" is required in the sunrise observation mentioned above?

What "manipulation" is required for me to observe mineral crystals in an igneous rock?

Furthermore, there are observations which cannot be set up by manipulations, meteors for example. In such cases, the scientist has to wait until nature provides him with another opportunity to make an observation.

Agreed. The astronomer must wait approximately 24 hours between observations. Some events occur less often or less regularly. So what?

And yet such things have been accepted. So the fact that you cannot manipulate things to create a paranormal observation is not an excuse to ignore legitimate observation.

Okay. HOW, exactly, can "paranormal" stories be verified – shown to be true and accurate?

Shall we just take the word of whoever makes claims?

Mass delusion is possible as is common stories. UFO abduction lore comes to mind here.

If you actually seriously studied the UFO phenomenon, you would find quite quickly that the evidence is overwelmingly in favor of it being a genuine physical reality (no spiritual aspect at all). And most likely of alien origin.

I do not disagree – and emphasize "no gods required".

But again, because of irrational bias and an inability to correctly apply the principles of science, another important subject is ignored.

By whom is the UFO question ignored? Here are references to sources that indicate that the subject is NOT ignored.

http://www.webwiki.com/ufoevidence.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1296963?seq ... b_contents
http://www.cufos.org/
http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/l ... n%20E..pdf

http://files.ncas.org/condon/
http://www.cufos.org/Condon_The_Scienti ... _UFOss.pdf
http://www.ufoevidence.org/

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad.

This is a common propaganda talking point used by the true believers that wish to dismiss testimony.

Correction: The unreliability of eyewitnesses is well known to people who study such things:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitn ... liable.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-have-it/
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/e ... emory.html
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/05/ ... -testimon/
http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychol ... itness.htm
http://theweek.com/articles/480511/eyew ... able-trust
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitn ... imony.html
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20 ... versky.htm
http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/ ... iable.html

They did an experiment where they put some lights onto a balloon at night as a UFO hoax and sure enough there were a bunch of UFO reports.

WHO are "they" to whom you refer? Where is the study published?

Anonymous "they say" claims are unlikely to be convincing to those who apply critical / analytical thinking to discussions or debate – and those who read either.

HOWEVER, when they interviewed the witnesses and asked them to describe SPECIFICALLY what they saw, it turned out that they consistantly described it very accurately.

Witnesses of the sunrise also may consistently describe it very accurately. So what?

True, they interpreted it to be more, but they actually described what they saw (when properly interrogated).

Exactly. Some observers of the sunrise "interpret" it to be the sun orbiting the Earth. Others "interpret" it to mean that the Earth is rotating.

Scientific study / investigation of the observations leads to understanding cause-and-effect relationships.

You then say that there are four observations that prove consciousness outside the body? What are they? Are you talking about those light at the end of a tunnel type near death experiences? These can and have been reproduced in labs with particular drugs acting on a particular part of the brain. Is there other evidence I am not aware of? It would be fascinating to look at it. I am not aware of any such evidence and I have read a lot of neurology studies.

There is quite a lot. Look up Out-of-body-experience, Near-death experience, and investigations of reincarnation. I argue a fourth based on human behavior and volition.

Rather than saying "look it up", in reasoned debate one presents evidence that their statements are truthful and accurate – preferably citing multiple, credible, disconnected sources.

Does inanimate matter simple rise up out of nowhere and create consciousnes...or does consciousness create matter? Why both are extraordinary, it is obvious that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe....therefore God.

That is an example of personal opinion and conjecture presented as though it was factual.

As near as we can tell, yes, life arose form inanimate matter and that forms consciousness. We are not fully clear on how it happened. Why do you declare it didn't? Why is it so "obvious" that consciousness must actually be the foundation of the universe? And if that is so, why does that imply a God?

Evolution works by natural selection,

How do you know that?

but the disembodied consciousness exits fully formed and apparently beyond the typical physical processes of nature.

Kindly demonstrate that "the disembodied consciousness exists fully formed".

In otherwords there is no physical path known by which this consiousness could evolve

This is an example of the logical blunder known as "Argument from ignorance" – (assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary)

or for that matter any evidence of an evolution at all.

Evidence of evolution is presented each time a microbe becomes antibiotic resistant. Evolution is defined by biologists (who study such matters) as "genetic change through generations" – NOT as defined by Theists / Creationists / Preachers who do NOT study such matters but base conclusions on theology.

The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply.

[arian]

The fundamental consciousness, because it is consciousness, can be thus identified as a being, which we then can name God, or any other suitable name.

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply.

Wow Z, it's been a while that I read your posts, but I have to admit you are truly amazing. And earendil, you can't go wrong debating here before you publish your book, .. if you live through the scrutiny, especially by Z here, and still decide to publish it, it'll be a best seller for sure, .. or you'll go into your office, pull a gun to your mouth and, .. just kidding, well let's hope not anyways.

Z, you said;

One can speculate and imagine whatever they wish. Demonstrating that their speculations are true and accurate is another matter – which seems to be in rather short supply

And this comes from someone who believes that a quantum speck of "we don't yet know what", popped out of, .. or has always resided in nothing, in a point in space in nothing before space existed, getting hotter and denser (and a bunch of other things which they'll know for sure once they Big-bang a parallel universe into our own in the LHC) at a time before time existed, and kept getting quantum-er by the second (remember these precious seconds are before time existed), .. and when it could no longer pull itself together (its logical to assume that universes pull themselves together, or crunch, .. and Big-bang all the time - bubble in a bubble), it exploded with a 'sudden expansion' that made a Big-Bang as it continued to expand (how something can reside in 'nothing' is a mystery, so is how sound could travels in nothing), .. not from the outside, (because Professor Lawrence Krauss specifically said there is NO outside of the universe) .. but from the inside, creating time and space as it expanded into itself (that's why there is no 'edge' of the universe), where this quantum speck of God-particle spread out, and broke up into so many bigger particles that over another time and space which it created within itself as it grew, .. it evolved all the stars and planets in the universe, AND have enough left over to keep expanding 23 times the speed of light, stretching out a fine fabric of Spacetime as it goes!
(I don't know, but I find a lot of black-holes in this story)

The other story Z swears by is the Evolution thriller, .. but I was told that's completely another bed-time story which has nothing to do with the Big-bang. Another words I was told it was two completely unrelated stories. Now I don't understand how and why they are not related, so I assume it is because the One, (the BB) was received from the supernatural realm through divination from a Jesuit/Catholic Priest praying his rosary, and the other, a bird watcher who envisioned islands separating in the oceans (obviously Darwin didn't know that under the water the islands are connected by land/valleys, just like those above the water are) which the poor unsuspecting short beaked finches didn't even realize until it was too late, they became separated from their family where they had no choice but evolve (quick jump in evolution) long beaks before they went extinct.

Thanks Z.