The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think that there is no basis for a perfect homo sapien couple or sufficient couple that devolve or cause a worldwide much less  a universal corruption such as Paul presents.

again, i'm not sure what you'd be looking for in the way of that universal corruption.  What exactly would you expect to find if in fact such an event did happen.

On another note, there is geneological evidence that the human race started with a first homosapien couple that originated somewhere (I can't remember exactly where) in the east, northeast section of Africa.  In fact, there was a special on.... discovery??? nat. geo??? can't remember and they traced sample groups back to that same location and likely couple and mapped out the migration patterns of these people's ancestors to explain their heritage and how it came to be from one source.  Very informative.

I don't see a universal corruption or corruotion for that matter. I think that is Christology that is built upon a Fall that requires it and is therefore false. All I see is a gradual evolution. The couple is actuallly just the Mother  r the Mitochondrial Eve some 200,000 year ago from which all humans share the same mitochondria. ( from East Africa).  There were humans before that it is simple that this became the dominate genetic strain.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess we can discuss how positing a god  as first cause would simplify.

Scientifically the unknowns and illogicals of The Big Bang theory (e.g. how some scientific laws would have to have been broken in order for it to happen as theorized) seem to get explained..  The complexity of DNA is more logical and the fact that there aren't more errors in its replication makes more sense if there was a creator behind it in my opinion.  The efficiency of the universe in the way that energy is neither created nor destroyed makes more sense.  it's a smart design.  The complexity of consciousness is comprehendable spiritually (your consciousness is spiritual)  doesn't explain it, but clarifies it's possibility.  Signalless communication makes no sense scientifically and only makes sense with the possibility of another means of communication e.g. metaphysical or spiritual.  

That's just the science part.  Beyond that, so many times people ask why.  I'm not saying all the answers will come, but many why's would be answered with the rule of a God behind it.  Unknown reasons, though not understood would be accepted as possible.  I could go on.

TGBaker wrote:

I look at it as we can not determine the state prior to existence ( that is Being) thus we have a dialectic of theism/ non-theism. Empirically we can sustain the hypothesis of non-theism with lots of evidence but not so with theism.

Be it that we are physical and have concentrated on studying the physical and non-theism requires nothing outside the physical that makes a lot of sense.

TGBaker wrote:

It takes the presuppostion of one looking for it and 2 a motivation derived either from believed revelation or inspiration. Your statement, "Likelihood and odds ultimately go way up for results that otherwise would be deemed impossible by science though they happened anyway..." really defends what Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions presents a shift from a paradigm in which science can not see a possibility to one that explains the non-fitting evidence that is discovered. A panentheism is even more plausible than a theism.  It would accomadate an absolute consciousness that is non-personal but is both the external potentiality of reality and the body of actualization in existence with existence subject to Being. We certainly can move this to our discussion area.

Which is I think why Einstein supported that perspective.  First things first though, we'd have to agree on the plausibility of a metaphysical existence before discussing the likelihood of either.  a panentheism can't exist if metaphysics is false.

I have tried editing this post and have lost two posts. I will try this last time.

I don't see a universal corruption or corruption for that matter. I think that is Christology that is built upon a Fall that requires it and is therefore false. All I see is a gradual evolution. The couple is actuallly just the Mother  r the Mitochondrial Eve some 200,000 year ago from which all humans share the same mitochondria. ( from East Africa).  There were humans before that This lineage became the dominate genetic strain. Consciousness is simply a physical process. Information is not a menatal process but a physical one which gets exploited by mental processes. But information is all of the universe. Communication is between two entities and idea of signal requires the idea of purpose and/or intent.

There are no scientific laws broken of which i know for the big bang!!!!  What are the illogicals of the BIg Bang?  DNA starts off so simple that it is not DNA. And before DNA there was RNA. It is the evolution of DNA that is its complexity as it presently exists.  The complexification of DNA was a naturally occurring event. I do not think it takes us looking out side of existence. There is not a lot of drift in DNA replication( errors).  It varies more by sexual reproduction as DNA is combined.

http://www.theophoretos.hostmatrix.org/1/thermhch6d222.html

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

"DNA is not a code.  Ok, yes it is… sort of.

There’s been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things.  The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.

As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly.  A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings.  It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things.  The alphabet I’m using to write this blog is a code.  There’s nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning.  They don’t do anything in and of themselves.  By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school.  By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code “English” and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts symbolized by the various letters.

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code.  The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code.  DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.   There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.  These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them.  We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.  Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the “blueprints” or “code” which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein.  In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the “code” which determines the qualities of the life that will be built.

The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings.  In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process.  When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.”   Crystals grow based on such a code.  Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code.

All DNA is, to the chagrin of creationists, is a very, very complicated organic molecule that can react in a staggeringly large number of ways with other organic molecules.  Unlike an explosion or a crystal, which can be described mathematically with a few simple formulas, the process of building a living thing is several orders of magnitude more complicated.  It takes perhaps 10 billion bits to convey all the necessary information needed to build a human, and the process is never really finished until the human dies, so we’re talking about a very, very long process by comparison with an explosion, and billions more unique steps than the formation of a crystal.

Yet, it’s the same process.  This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule.  It’s just chemistry.

The thing is, we humans recognize the complexity of the chemical process we call life, and we notice that it is not completely dissimilar from the process by which we build a skyscraper or a watch.  We have a set of instructions, and we refer back to them throughout the whole process of putting materials together in very specific ways, until we have a finished product.  We like to argue that messenger RNA is “referring to the instructions” to figure out which protein to build in the same way, but it’s not.  Neither DNA nor RNA is sentient.  They are both just doing what chemicals do.  DNA is more akin to a catalyst than a set of instructions.  That is, the DNA stays essentially the same throughout the building process, but it is facilitating chemical reactions the whole time it is part of a living thing.

So, here is the ultimate problem with this particular theist argument.  DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend.  It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.  DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.

Sure, it seems magical that something as simple as four little nucleotides could be responsible for all the diverse life on the planet, but our sense of wonder at the versatility of carbon shouldn’t woo us into the false belief that incredible versatility is equivalent to design.  DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word.  We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.

That’s it.  When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides, we can recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein.  This is no different from looking at a few grams of sodium or potassium and recognizing that in the presence of water, they will react in very specific ways to produce a violent exothermic reaction.  If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe.  It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature.  This, in the presence of that, will do the other.

So no, DNA is not a code.  It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the “genetic code,” but in the end, we’re just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid.  Sorry, theists, but you fail on this one, too."

I do not see anything intelligent in the laws of thermodynamics. That would simply be the case of any limited system. What happens the energy is neither created or destroyed since it IS ALL THERE IS. What happens is that energy or information becomes less and less assessable ( entropy) and so the energy becomes less usable until it becomes a flat timespace and then it big bangs again.

Einstein did not really beleive ina pantheism or a panentheism. His language was metaphorical something like the force ( Star Wars) is what we'd use today. Panentheism does not require a metaphysic. Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.  Show me a working metaphysic. I have a friend who is one of the top Christian philosophers in the USA and he admits though he is a Christian that there is no known working metaphysic. I certainly have found none. If you got one I sure would love to see it.

 If there is no physical evidence then show me what metaphysical evidence looks like so that when you show me metaphysical evidence I can see it. I really do not understand what metaphysical evidence would be. help me out here.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I can state my logical reasoning, cap. Where's yours? I do believe people have asked and you haven't given it (not even to TG who's been putting forth a yeoman's effort).

Cap, you're the second person who has asked me if I'm all right because I took a more direct tone and (most importantly) didn't agree with their views. The first I excuse because he has been a good friend for 35 years and he might actually be concerned for my welfare. You aren't even close so cut the crap.

I may not have known you for 35 years, nor are we even friends let alone close friends, but that doesn't mean I can't be concerned about your welfare.  A friend of 35 years would know you best and if they're even asking then obviously something's changed, and it's not a more direct approach be it that when you were making an effort, I felt that you were being more direct than you are now.

I can state my logical reasoning and I have and you know it, but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site.  So redundant because it has yet to be addressed by those who seem to think they're being more direct with me.

oh, and i'm not looking for a focus like "god"... that's not a focus.  I'm looking for something more like; "I haven't seen you explain your logical reasoning for god scientifically considering an X point of view or Y focus in science"... basically I'm looking for you to tell me literally and clearly what exactly you need to hear from me.  You say you're being more direct... show me. Bring it.

You mean the evidence that you know that you and God haven't been able to provide? Where has this metaphysical being you believe in interacted with the natural world? It has to be an interaction that can't have a possible natural explanation. What has happened in the natural world that can be attributed to God and only God? If you are going to say that he interacts with the natural world in a metaphysical way (i.e., a way that can't be detected by the natural world) then how does he differ from no god?

Direct enough for you?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.

Weak attempt at shifting the theist's burden of proof.

The classic definitions of god are always special pleading fallacies.

The 'Immaterial Brain' is just 1 of the many non sequiturs, that is used as a definition of what constitutes "God".

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

 

caposkia wrote:
..  think teapot.

See Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage"

 

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
The sun was not a god, and your god is fictional too.

 that's an associative conclusion without basis.

Patently false.

Thousands of god 'legends' from antiquity have been debunked and now reside alongside Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Your 'argument' that is without basis is a logical fallacy, that is beyond sophomoric.

caposkia wrote:
I may not have known you for 35 years, nor are we even friends let alone close friends, but that doesn't mean I can't be concerned about your welfare.

What, like if he's being 'moral'?

caposkia wrote:
I can state my logical reasoning and I have and you know it

You and I tried that with a '1 on 1', and there was simply nothing intriguing in your 'reasons'.

If you'd like to claim otherwise, then introduce 1 remotely compelling 'logical reasoning' in this thread, and impress the entire forum...

caposkia wrote:
but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

Your whole thread was about how weak the 'argument' was from the RRS in the debate with Ray Ray the "Banana Man" and Kirk the "Crocoduck" logician.

 

You have yet to demonstrate that you have anything remotely intriguing to 'argue', or 'difficult' to overcome.

At least the guys with the Modal Arguments exercise our brains.

caposkia wrote:
So redundant because it has yet to be addressed by those who seem to think they're being more direct with me.

I was direct with you, and gave you every opportunity to 'showcase' your 'story'.

There are so many 'gaps' in your spiritual 'journey', that it's like reading a book with pages missing.

caposkia wrote:
oh, and i'm not looking for a focus like "god"... that's not a focus.  I'm looking for something more like; "I haven't seen you explain your logical reasoning for god scientifically considering an X point of view or Y focus in science"... basically I'm looking for you to tell me literally and clearly what exactly you need to hear from me.  You say you're being more direct... show me. Bring it.

Sure.

Here it is:

I understand that you believe that God is not merely a myth, and that he exists. But why should I believe it's not a myth (like all the other 'Gods' of antiquity), and that a God exists, as well?
 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

You missed my point, you don't believe in the claims mentioned, or at least don't think they're accurate as they claim to have the true path but you think you do. Why are you so sure that they're wrong and you're right?

I'm guessing it's the same reason why you believe you're right and I'm wrong.  The evidences you've seen and accepted as reasonable and rational for the subject in question.

Joker wrote:

Assuming then, Cap, that your deity isn't just the result of the telephone game played with myths about some person or 'metaphysical being' how do you differentiate? I mean I doubt you think that any of those faiths are correct, so are you henothiest? If you're not familiar with the term it means that there are many deities or deific beings but that either they have spheres and areas of influence or that there is some hierarchy among these beings. If so, then what proof do you have? I mean I have no more proof for your deity than I do of say those in the Hindu pantheon or the Norse pantheon, so what do you have to prove yours is better than theres let alone correct and/or accurate.

Well, the Bible paints that picture very well with the story of the alter built for the false god then the one built for our God among other stories in different books.  I have a theory that those other gods are fallen angels trying to deceive people.  

Everyone asks me what proof I have.  Too much to just reply in one post.  What exactly would you be looking for.  If it's rational, I'll see if that means of proof exists.  If it's not, I'll explain to you why I feel it's not by a rational and common sense means.  

Some of the reasoning I have to following my angle is that I know the source of the other followings. e.g. Muslims have the one sole person who was privileged enough to get the writings of Allah which is suspect to me that either this person was deceived or is a deceiver.  Confucianism was started by faithful followers of Confucius and was never intended to be a following by the alleged founder.  I could go on for quite a few more.  

let's stick with what you're looking for

The reasoning would have to be rational. But the thing is this Cap, you keep talking about your holy book as part of your proof, your holy book can't be used to prove itself, as otherwise I can prove that any religion is true or that the magic sandwich will cure all diseases or any other bizarre/nonsensical thing. You also imply that you studied the religion you follow, then you would know that the Egyptians have no records of the plagues that you say were visited on them, which is a rather large omission for them. Not to mention that the many myths that make up the five books of Moses, the Pentetudes(sp?) are easily linked to earlier myths of polytheistic belief systems.

The thing is this Cap, if it were just people believing odd things I could accept that and I wouldn't do much other than facepalm periodically. The problem is that you have dangerous and toxic beliefs in your faith, even if you yourself don't believe all that others do, the ones who use their alleged holy book as an excuse to harm others, marginalize people, restrict the rights of others or justify atrocities. You have children believing that if they don't follow this belief properly they will burn forever in torment and that the same is true for those around them. You have people trying to retard the advances of science because they're afraid that it contradicts their superstitions and because it might mean that they aren't right so instead they do what they can to spread ignorance and distrust for people who do real research. You have people who, in the name of their deity, commit acts of terrorism on others, bombing medical clinics, murdering those that they see as 'the enemy' and while I recognize that you yourself might not believe this and might even condemn such behavior their beliefs helped shape them to that point.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.

redneF wrote: Weak attempt at shifting the theist's burden of proof.

The classic definitions of god are always special pleading fallacies.

The 'Immaterial Brain' is just 1 of the many non sequiturs, that is used as a definition of what constitutes "God".

Well cap I can take a section of the brain and poke it with a hot iron and you will function the same but not recognize faces (prosopagnosia).  Read the man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.  Consciousness will be divided if one cuts the bridge between two hemispheres.  The right side of one woman liked a dress while her left side hated the dress.  Neither side was a ware of the other when tested separately. Even though the bridge is separated since the stream to the pre-frontal lobe is dorsel the two opposing "consciousnesses"  combine when both eyes are allowed to see indicating the process went to the V1 ( primary visual cortex) in the back of the brain, returned up through the dorsel stream through the thalamus and limbic complex to the prefrontal lobe again when vision is combined. ( The test is done by allowing sight in only one eye causing to go to one hemisphere).  Blindsight is a phenomena when sight is arrested to the conscious processing of the brain. The retina, optic nerve and V! is intact somewhere along the line of the return from the rear visual processing the signal is interrupted. The patient when asked to catch a ball will do so even though blind because the perception is occurring on a preconscious level. Such patients will reach for a cup when offered in the right direction. 

This is a semi-Zombie state that is a thought experiment in philosophy and consciousness studies called the philosophical zombie. With the zombie the perceptions are intact as all other functionings but without the experience of qualia or consciousness. A person would not really function in this sense it is a thought experiment but it tells us how consciousness functions and gives light to its purpose. There are a ton of other experiments that demonstrate the NCC ( neural correlate s of consciousness ) that show that consciousness  emerges as a physical phenomena from brain activity. If the right frontal lobe is damaged in a particular area and manner then the victim can not follow through with plans , becomes somewhat anti-social and curses a lot. The rational planning area still functions but the follow through is damaged. Another area has been found that moderates timing. An individual was driving and his perception of the trees being passed became faster and faster. he continued to slow down until he had to stop. His speak is now 3 times as slow as normal. He perceives people as rushing through his experiences ( 3 times faster).  So his thought process and consciousness are effected as far as temporally by a specified area of the brain.  I can take out the Weirnicke area of the brain and you will be able to understand language and read because of Broca's area.  But you will babble or put together nonsense sentences or keep silent.

The specialized sections of the brain present to a global workspace ( of neural activity) experiences, thoughts and ideas which when encountered and connected with various modules such as the speech area, memory, lower vision and emotional areas are made into events of consciousness, feelings, mental objects which represent external ones or internal ones such as thought or memory. Tied with these will be associative aspects in the nexus of experience ( consciousness; a happy feeing with the memory of the dog or an angry feeling with a conscious experience of the co-worker. Consciousness is a brain function that may be irreducible but which causes and functions show it to be emergent from brain processes. By the way Ramachandran gives an example of a man whose right brain was taught to answer yes and no after the split brain operation. When asked if he believed in god the right brain said yes and the left brain said no. Now will the right brain go to heaven and the left to hell?????

 Consciousness is a function of the brain that allows a module of perception to be experienced ( visual apple )by way of associating multiple modules in a global workspace or possible coordination of many NCC's such that the apple is red, looks, tasty, reminds me of when i wa a kid and went into the store and...., might have a worm.  The geometry of the apple is handled by a couple areas prior to the VI. They deal with lines horizontal and vertical and their comparisions. 

With synethesia the area on the left side of the brain in which colors are differentiated is located next to the area where numbers (written) understanding is processed. Sometimes the axions or neurons cross over between these areas. If so a person when s/he looks at the number 5 though in black ink will see it as red.  As with the color blindness test where the pattern does not stick out for one who is color blind a patterned test can be done for this pehenomenon. SInce 2's and 5's are very similar a geometric shape or a word can be written out in fives hidden in teh 2's.  It will take a good while for a normal brain to find the pattern. The person with synethesia will see the pattern immediately which shows a potential evolutionary improvement should our species need to see 5's out of other numbers in order to survive.  ( ha ha). 

If this occurs higher in the brain a person may experience other sensations such as blue is warm or the C# chord is green (as some musicians claim).  Also it has been found that the numbers are typically a linear pattern in the neurons.  However sometimes the neurons get laid out in a U shape or loop. The 3 and 8 may be closer together than 3 and 5 for example.  Such a brain processes mathematical formulas with 3 and 8 faster than 3 and 5.  These all indicate that thought, perception, consciousness and the mind is a physical process of the brain.

 

EDITED ADDITIONS OF MORE EXAMPLES

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Einstein's

Brian37 wrote:

Einstein's "god" was nature, not anything close to a thinking being. He was using it as a metaphor for the gigantic size and gigantic potential and kinetic energy in the universe. He in no way bought into a human like god. AND he rejected the god of his own Jewish background calling the god of the bible "noble but childish", meaning a child's myth.

He believed that god had an intelligence and not just mindless nature.  I never disputed the fact that he rejected the Jewish God.  The focus is intelligence or thinking outside the physical

Brian37 wrote:

Pantheism is as much a joke as metaphysics. You are merely trying to use new age crap and twist Einstein's quotes to try to prop up your Jesus myth.

why is science a joke to you?  most people in this world take it seriously.  metaphysics is a branch of science through the quantum theories.  Quantum physics is a supported science.    

Also, Einstein didn't support my God, so how would I twist Einstein's quotes into supporting him?  

Brian37 wrote:

Your original goal on page one with your original post talked about the Christian god, your super hero Jesus. Everything since has been a back peddle.

Everything since has been following the leads of others like you... so are you saying you're backpeddling?  Are you finally seeing the light?

Brian37 wrote:

Jesus was not a god, or the spawn of a god, because gods do not exist. Anymore than Thor makes lightening. Trying to use new age crap like "metaphysics" wont work. You would not buy your own arguments if a Muslim were trying to use "metaphysics" to sell Allah.

I know nothing will work on you.  I just like messing with you at this point.  You're persistent and redundant.  Your persistence is good, your redundancy is backpeddling and you try to blame me for it.  I've already told you I'd buy a Muslims story using metaphysics so why do you keep saying I won't?  

This kind of sheds light into the Brian belief.  Whatever is right is what I believe and everything else is false because I don't believe it.... Brianism, free pamphlets at http://www.brianism.com 

Brian37 wrote:

You would not buy Vishnu if a Hindu were claiming "metaphysics".

I'd listen to them and discuss with them. 

Brian37 wrote:

You still have yet to take your earth shattering claim of "metaphysics" into an independent lab and have people from all over the world of all labels "observe" this earth shattering discovery. If you could, you would have done so by now and it would be as easy as demonstrating DNA.

I've asked you what you're looking for.  you've asked me to show you the DNA of a dog using an orange.  when you start talking about rational approaches, then we might get somewhere.  Meanwhile, study some Quantum physics and their experiments.  you might appreciate their approach to study be it that there are many lab tests done.

Brian37 wrote:

You have nothing but a dream, nothing but wishful thinking, just like every deity claimant in human history.

Give it up.

 

I will... when someone can give me a rational reason to.  So far, you've only further confirmed my belief.  you paint the picture of a non-believer scripturally very well.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I have tried

TGBaker wrote:

I have tried editing this post and have lost two posts. I will try this last time.

I don't see a universal corruption or corruption for that matter. I think that is Christology that is built upon a Fall that requires it and is therefore false. All I see is a gradual evolution. The couple is actuallly just the Mother  r the Mitochondrial Eve some 200,000 year ago from which all humans share the same mitochondria. ( from East Africa).  There were humans before that This lineage became the dominate genetic strain. Consciousness is simply a physical process. Information is not a menatal process but a physical one which gets exploited by mental processes. But information is all of the universe. Communication is between two entities and idea of signal requires the idea of purpose and/or intent.

I don't believe we have evidence of humans before the mtochondrial Eve.  I will ask the question again, what evidences would you be looking for if a Biblical fall happened?

TGBaker wrote:

There are no scientific laws broken of which i know for the big bang!!!!  What are the illogicals of the BIg Bang?  DNA starts off so simple that it is not DNA. And before DNA there was RNA. It is the evolution of DNA that is its complexity as it presently exists.  The complexification of DNA was a naturally occurring event. I do not think it takes us looking out side of existence. There is not a lot of drift in DNA replication( errors).  It varies more by sexual reproduction as DNA is combined.

I believe it was the 2nd law of thermodynamics that is in question for the Big Bang... I'd have to look it up again.

When you say something is "natural" what is your basis for comparison?

TGBaker wrote:

http://www.theophoretos.hostmatrix.org/1/thermhch6d222.html

http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/

"DNA is not a code.  Ok, yes it is… sort of.

There’s been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things.  The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.

As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly.  A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings.  It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things.  The alphabet I’m using to write this blog is a code.  There’s nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning.  They don’t do anything in and of themselves.  By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school.  By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code “English” and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts symbolized by the various letters.

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code.  The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code.  DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.   There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.  These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them.  We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.  Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the “blueprints” or “code” which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein.  In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the “code” which determines the qualities of the life that will be built.

The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings.  In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process.  When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.”   Crystals grow based on such a code.  Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code.

All DNA is, to the chagrin of creationists, is a very, very complicated organic molecule that can react in a staggeringly large number of ways with other organic molecules.  Unlike an explosion or a crystal, which can be described mathematically with a few simple formulas, the process of building a living thing is several orders of magnitude more complicated.  It takes perhaps 10 billion bits to convey all the necessary information needed to build a human, and the process is never really finished until the human dies, so we’re talking about a very, very long process by comparison with an explosion, and billions more unique steps than the formation of a crystal.

Yet, it’s the same process.  This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule.  It’s just chemistry.

The thing is, we humans recognize the complexity of the chemical process we call life, and we notice that it is not completely dissimilar from the process by which we build a skyscraper or a watch.  We have a set of instructions, and we refer back to them throughout the whole process of putting materials together in very specific ways, until we have a finished product.  We like to argue that messenger RNA is “referring to the instructions” to figure out which protein to build in the same way, but it’s not.  Neither DNA nor RNA is sentient.  They are both just doing what chemicals do.  DNA is more akin to a catalyst than a set of instructions.  That is, the DNA stays essentially the same throughout the building process, but it is facilitating chemical reactions the whole time it is part of a living thing.

So, here is the ultimate problem with this particular theist argument.  DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend.  It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.  DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.

Sure, it seems magical that something as simple as four little nucleotides could be responsible for all the diverse life on the planet, but our sense of wonder at the versatility of carbon shouldn’t woo us into the false belief that incredible versatility is equivalent to design.  DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word.  We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.

That’s it.  When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides, we can recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein.  This is no different from looking at a few grams of sodium or potassium and recognizing that in the presence of water, they will react in very specific ways to produce a violent exothermic reaction.  If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe.  It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature.  This, in the presence of that, will do the other.

So no, DNA is not a code.  It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the “genetic code,” but in the end, we’re just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid.  Sorry, theists, but you fail on this one, too."

I do not see anything intelligent in the laws of thermodynamics. That would simply be the case of any limited system. What happens the energy is neither created or destroyed since it IS ALL THERE IS. What happens is that energy or information becomes less and less assessable ( entropy) and so the energy becomes less usable until it becomes a flat timespace and then it big bangs again.

Einstein did not really beleive ina pantheism or a panentheism. His language was metaphorical something like the force ( Star Wars) is what we'd use today. Panentheism does not require a metaphysic. Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.  Show me a working metaphysic. I have a friend who is one of the top Christian philosophers in the USA and he admits though he is a Christian that there is no known working metaphysic. I certainly have found none. If you got one I sure would love to see it.

 If there is no physical evidence then show me what metaphysical evidence looks like so that when you show me metaphysical evidence I can see it. I really do not understand what metaphysical evidence would be. help me out here.

Just to clear it up, i'll repeat myself.  The terminology behind DNA is not what I question.  Though i can see how a theist would use that terminology and it's a logical approach, the only problem is that we created the terminology, so in other words, it was our doing that decided it was a code... or not... and not so much that we have discovered the code maker.  my take was the complexity within itself and how illogical it seems to have happened naturally and to continue to happen so naturally without much error.

Metaphysics... you want me to show you a working metaphysic... huh?  Show me a working physic.   or do you mean a working metaphysical model.  That's a different story.  metaphysics is physics outside the physical.  Be it that we have very little knowledge of the metaphysical they're hard to come by and we aren't aware of the constants in a metaphysical existence therefore a model again is hard to come by.  At this point i'd say go to a notoriously haunted place and search for an EVP.  It seems to be an empirical model.  

Utlimately for more models, it'd be like me asking you to show me a working model of a black hole, or for me to see a graviton under a microscope.  We can't do it yet.  We don't have the know-how.  

Metaphysical evidence would be a result caused by anything beyond the physical.  Now how do we know the result was caused by something beyond the physical.  Be it that we dont' have a metaphysical detection device, this is hard.  We have to rule out causes by reasoning and logic.  From there, one can conclude.  due to the unknown factor, any skeptic can come in and say it could be something else, but until they can come up with that something else, it's likely to be a metaphysical occurence.  One example might be miracle healings, which have been documented for the past century... or longer I'm not sure by the Vatican.  They have 1000's.  i was skeptical due to my experience with religion at first, but looking into it further, it seems they do their homework and many confirmed 'miracles of God" as they call them took years and years of study and cross reference to conclude.  

This would just be scratching the surface too.  I'm trying to keep it focused


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You mean the

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the evidence that you know that you and God haven't been able to provide?

haven't been able to provide because you refuse to answer the question of what exactly you're looking for??? yea, that's the stuff.

TGBaker wrote:

Where has this metaphysical being you believe in interacted with the natural world?

everywhere be it that he created it all... need to be a little more specific than that as far as what you're looking for.

TGBaker wrote:

It has to be an interaction that can't have a possible natural explanation.

Ok, Look into the 1000's of miracle claims by the Vatican.  I can't vouch for them all, but it seems they do their homework.

TGBaker wrote:

What has happened in the natural world that can be attributed to God and only God?

everything... oh wait, without natural explanation... natural being that of which God created to work on its own.. ok

healings that can't be medically explained...  prophesy... etc.

TGBaker wrote:

If you are going to say that he interacts with the natural world in a metaphysical way (i.e., a way that can't be detected by the natural world) then how does he differ from no god?

Direct enough for you?

 

You're getting there.  To detect something is to suggest you have a mechanism that is specifically designed to detect what's in question... Be it that I have yet to hear of anyone making a God-o-meter or anything of the sort, it is logical to conclude that we can't detect God by natural means.

He differs from no God because things can't happen unless something made them happen.  There are a lot of occurences in this world that have no other explanation.  Those are those occurences that skeptics claim... "there has to be an explanation" and yet none has been found or just refuse to believe actually happened.  Scientifcally they may be considered an outlier or a phenomenon.  Not to mistake God's work though natural means.  just because it can be explained doesn't discount the possiblity of God's intervention.  Timing has a big part to do with God's work.  Those situations are where at the right moment something happened to either cause or prevent something from happening that if it didn't happen right at that moment it would not have worked out in such a way.  Irony right.  Sure.  How much irony can ironically happen before irony no longer constitutes irony?  that is not rhetorical.  

now I have answered you as specifically as your questions were.  I did not ignore any part of what you asked and made clear my explanation.  If I somehow missed something that you want me to answer, then call me on what I missed and ask me again specifically to explain to you what I missed or didn't answer.  dont' accuse me of ignoring, it's only a dodge and deters from the focus.  i have made it clear that i'm not ignoring anything.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:caposkia

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.

Weak attempt at shifting the theist's burden of proof.

it was a weak case from Brian to begin with.  why make an effort larger then the effort put forth?  Either way, you can't dispute the logic.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

No because I'm not claiming lack of evidence as an excuse for believing either.  I'm endorsing thought.

redneF wrote:

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.  Everything proven to be true at one time was merely a claim.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
The sun was not a god, and your god is fictional too.

 that's an associative conclusion without basis.

Patently false.

Thousands of god 'legends' from antiquity have been debunked and now reside alongside Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Your 'argument' that is without basis is a logical fallacy, that is beyond sophomoric.

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods.  It's like racism on the spiritual level.  Statistics say that African Americans prefer rap music to other genres... therefore by your basis and brains, all African Americans must prefer rap music to other genres.  We know that remark is racist and not at all true, but this is where the "without basis" comes in.  i based my conclusion on a common theme and associated my neighbor who happens to be an African American in the same box despite the fact that he has told me 1000000 times that he is a metal fan.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I can state my logical reasoning and I have and you know it

You and I tried that with a '1 on 1', and there was simply nothing intriguing in your 'reasons'.

Our one on one consisted of you asking me for my background, then ending it due to your own personal conclusions.   No reasoning was stated.

redneF wrote:

If you'd like to claim otherwise, then introduce 1 remotely compelling 'logical reasoning' in this thread, and impress the entire forum...

I'm assuming you're talking about logical reasoning specifically about my God existing.  There's a reason why i ask what you're looking for because each person's logical reasoning is going to be different, so much to your disappointment, the whole forum might not be impressed, but here goes.

There are thousands of miracle claims from around the world.  Research shows that there is no natural explanation for these phenomenon.  The Vatican has recorded many healing miracles and others beyond healing have been reported from every corner of the globe throughout history.  

Now it's your turn to discredit the Vatican which at this point was my only specific reference(not that I don't have more) and I will agree with you that the catholic church is hardly credible, but they do their homework as far as miracles are concerned and so i support their findings on that front.  Beyond that, I'll sit here and watch you ask for a specific miracle only to question its authority and liklelihood of the happening only for me to say it's from a credible source, which is subjective of course regardless  so i will ask for the 100th time... What specifically are you looking for?

Don't cower away either by claiming i ignored your challenge.  I gave you what you asked as specific as you asked it.  If you want something more, ask directly, don't beat around the bush.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

Your whole thread was about how weak the 'argument' was from the RRS in the debate with Ray Ray the "Banana Man" and Kirk the "Crocoduck" logician.

how is my question asking for a focus so that i can answer appropriately strawman?  I'm not making a claim, I'm asking a question.  Yes my thread was about how weak the argument was in that debate.  It's the whole reason why i got on this site in the first place.  

 

redneF wrote:

You have yet to demonstrate that you have anything remotely intriguing to 'argue', or 'difficult' to overcome.

You have yet to be specific enough to discuss anything.  

redneF wrote:

At least the guys with the Modal Arguments exercise our brains.

That's because they're leading the conversation.  I'm letting you lead.  if its weak, you have yourself to blame.  If my god is so obviously false, then you should easily be able to shut me down be it that again, i'm letting you lead the thread

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
So redundant because it has yet to be addressed by those who seem to think they're being more direct with me.

I was direct with you, and gave you every opportunity to 'showcase' your 'story'.

uh.. you asked me for my history then concluded that i dont' have logical reasoning.  Again, i was following your lead.  what opportunity did you give me again?

redneF wrote:

There are so many 'gaps' in your spiritual 'journey', that it's like reading a book with pages missing.

so be specific and ask me to fill in the gaps where you feel they are needed.   I'm waiting.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
oh, and i'm not looking for a focus like "god"... that's not a focus.  I'm looking for something more like; "I haven't seen you explain your logical reasoning for god scientifically considering an X point of view or Y focus in science"... basically I'm looking for you to tell me literally and clearly what exactly you need to hear from me.  You say you're being more direct... show me. Bring it.

Sure.

Here it is:

I understand that you believe that God is not merely a myth, and that he exists. But why should I believe it's not a myth (like all the other 'Gods' of antiquity), and that a God exists, as well?
 

To answer the question as to why you should believe God exists, i would answer because he does exist.  if you want more specifics I will ask yet again, what are you looking for.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the evidence that you know that you and God haven't been able to provide?

haven't been able to provide because you refuse to answer the question of what exactly you're looking for??? yea, that's the stuff.

TGBaker wrote:

Where has this metaphysical being you believe in interacted with the natural world?

everywhere be it that he created it all... need to be a little more specific than that as far as what you're looking for.

TGBaker wrote:

It has to be an interaction that can't have a possible natural explanation.

Ok, Look into the 1000's of miracle claims by the Vatican.  I can't vouch for them all, but it seems they do their homework.

TGBaker wrote:

What has happened in the natural world that can be attributed to God and only God?

everything... oh wait, without natural explanation... natural being that of which God created to work on its own.. ok

healings that can't be medically explained...  prophesy... etc.

TGBaker wrote:

If you are going to say that he interacts with the natural world in a metaphysical way (i.e., a way that can't be detected by the natural world) then how does he differ from no god?

Direct enough for you?

 

You're getting there.  To detect something is to suggest you have a mechanism that is specifically designed to detect what's in question... Be it that I have yet to hear of anyone making a God-o-meter or anything of the sort, it is logical to conclude that we can't detect God by natural means.

He differs from no God because things can't happen unless something made them happen.  There are a lot of occurences in this world that have no other explanation.  Those are those occurences that skeptics claim... "there has to be an explanation" and yet none has been found or just refuse to believe actually happened.  Scientifcally they may be considered an outlier or a phenomenon.  Not to mistake God's work though natural means.  just because it can be explained doesn't discount the possiblity of God's intervention.  Timing has a big part to do with God's work.  Those situations are where at the right moment something happened to either cause or prevent something from happening that if it didn't happen right at that moment it would not have worked out in such a way.  Irony right.  Sure.  How much irony can ironically happen before irony no longer constitutes irony?  that is not rhetorical.  

now I have answered you as specifically as your questions were.  I did not ignore any part of what you asked and made clear my explanation.  If I somehow missed something that you want me to answer, then call me on what I missed and ask me again specifically to explain to you what I missed or didn't answer.  dont' accuse me of ignoring, it's only a dodge and deters from the focus.  i have made it clear that i'm not ignoring anything.  

And now you're back to the argument from ignorance - you don't know how <x> could be done so it must be the God of Israel (and previously of the Canaanites) created 2000 years ago. I'm not saying that you're ignorant - just that you are committing the fallacy.

As for the Vatican's "homework" - it's difficult for me to trust doctors employed by the Church under the condition they support the Church's conclusions. The same goes for prophecy that is either incorrect or is vague enough to have multiple meanings.

The last person who asked for specifics you dismissed because you said that a metaphysical being can't/won't provide that kind of evidence. Now you claim that he has provided all manner of evidence of his interaction in the natural world and those who are trying to find it are just too stupid.

I guess we all can't be like you and stop thinking when we find answers we like. We want to go for answers that are correct as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:The reasoning

Joker wrote:

The reasoning would have to be rational. But the thing is this Cap, you keep talking about your holy book as part of your proof, your holy book can't be used to prove itself, as otherwise I can prove that any religion is true or that the magic sandwich will cure all diseases or any other bizarre/nonsensical thing. You also imply that you studied the religion you follow, then you would know that the Egyptians have no records of the plagues that you say were visited on them, which is a rather large omission for them. Not to mention that the many myths that make up the five books of Moses, the Pentetudes(sp?) are easily linked to earlier myths of polytheistic belief systems.

The only reason why a Christian can claim the Bible to support itself is because it's not just 1 book... it's 66 (at this point) different books that are congruent with each other.  The whole reason why the Bible is as is is because the stories through the ages from unrelated authors paint a timeline as well as support each other's claims.  

Egyptians have gaps in their records in many places as well as records that didn't actually happen and conflicting records.  Understanding the mindset of the Ancient Egyptians, it likely was recorded, but also hidden from public view due to the fact that it makes their Pharaoh look bad.  Much of the history that didn't have an ideal outcome was masked by Egyptian scribes and in many cases, alternative histories were written.  The ironic part of this is there's no record of the plagues happening, but as far as we can tell, no alternative history was written in place of it either.  

Joker wrote:

The thing is this Cap, if it were just people believing odd things I could accept that and I wouldn't do much other than facepalm periodically. The problem is that you have dangerous and toxic beliefs in your faith, even if you yourself don't believe all that others do, the ones who use their alleged holy book as an excuse to harm others, marginalize people, restrict the rights of others or justify atrocities. You have children believing that if they don't follow this belief properly they will burn forever in torment and that the same is true for those around them. You have people trying to retard the advances of science because they're afraid that it contradicts their superstitions and because it might mean that they aren't right so instead they do what they can to spread ignorance and distrust for people who do real research. You have people who, in the name of their deity, commit acts of terrorism on others, bombing medical clinics, murdering those that they see as 'the enemy' and while I recognize that you yourself might not believe this and might even condemn such behavior their beliefs helped shape them to that point.

Right, and all that is through ignorance.  Think about it, people... heh people... the government I should say does the same thing with our Constitution, but people do it too. It's what we in politics call "red tape".  the thing is, if you're not educated and read it for yourself with an intelligent mind, then you can make it say anything you want.  The is in reference to not only the Bible but to our constitution, or the Quran or any other authoritative document as well.  Due to the many ways to translate and the translational difficulties of the Bible, it's even easier for people to manipulate what it says because they don't have to reference to the original intent through context... why?  because they don't know it.  We know the original intent, or what logically seems to be the original intent because we educate ourselves not only in the ancient cultures, but the history in general as well and the personality of God.  But hey, a religion where i can make it exactly how I want it and then tell people this is how it is, what a concept.  Ignorance is Bliss and i can get rich off it.  Instead i choose to understand.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.

redneF wrote: Weak attempt at shifting the theist's burden of proof.

The classic definitions of god are always special pleading fallacies.

The 'Immaterial Brain' is just 1 of the many non sequiturs, that is used as a definition of what constitutes "God".

Well cap I can take a section of the brain and poke it with a hot iron and you will function the same but not recognize faces (prosopagnosia).  Read the man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.  Consciousness will be divided if one cuts the bridge between two hemispheres.  The right side of one woman liked a dress while her left side hated the dress.  Neither side was a ware of the other when tested separately. Even though the bridge is separated since the stream to the pre-frontal lobe is dorsel the two opposing "consciousnesses"  combine when both eyes are allowed to see indicating the process went to the V1 ( primary visual cortex) in the back of the brain, returned up through the dorsel stream through the thalamus and limbic complex to the prefrontal lobe again when vision is combined. ( The test is done by allowing sight in only one eye causing to go to one hemisphere).  Blindsight is a phenomena when sight is arrested to the conscious processing of the brain. The retina, optic nerve and V! is intact somewhere along the line of the return from the rear visual processing the signal is interrupted. The patient when asked to catch a ball will do so even though blind because the perception is occurring on a preconscious level. Such patients will reach for a cup when offered in the right direction. 

This is a semi-Zombie state that is a thought experiment in philosophy and consciousness studies called the philosophical zombie. With the zombie the perceptions are intact as all other functionings but without the experience of qualia or consciousness. A person would not really function in this sense it is a thought experiment but it tells us how consciousness functions and gives light to its purpose. There are a ton of other experiments that demonstrate the NCC ( neural correlate s of consciousness ) that show that consciousness  emerges as a physical phenomena from brain activity. If the right frontal lobe is damaged in a particular area and manner then the victim can not follow through with plans , becomes somewhat anti-social and curses a lot. The rational planning area still functions but the follow through is damaged. Another area has been found that moderates timing. An individual was driving and his perception of the trees being passed became faster and faster. he continued to slow down until he had to stop. His speak is now 3 times as slow as normal. He perceives people as rushing through his experiences ( 3 times faster).  So his thought process and consciousness are effected as far as temporally by a specified area of the brain.  I can take out the Weirnicke area of the brain and you will be able to understand language and read because of Broca's area.  But you will babble or put together nonsense sentences or keep silent.

The specialized sections of the brain present to a global workspace ( of neural activity) experiences, thoughts and ideas which when encountered and connected with various modules such as the speech area, memory, lower vision and emotional areas are made into events of consciousness, feelings, mental objects which represent external ones or internal ones such as thought or memory. Tied with these will be associative aspects in the nexus of experience ( consciousness; a happy feeing with the memory of the dog or an angry feeling with a conscious experience of the co-worker. Consciousness is a brain function that may be irreducible but which causes and functions show it to be emergent from brain processes. By the way Ramachandran gives an example of a man whose right brain was taught to answer yes and no after the split brain operation. When asked if he believed in god the right brain said yes and the left brain said no. Now will the right brain go to heaven and the left to hell?????

 Consciousness is a function of the brain that allows a module of perception to be experienced ( visual apple )by way of associating multiple modules in a global workspace or possible coordination of many NCC's such that the apple is red, looks, tasty, reminds me of when i wa a kid and went into the store and...., might have a worm.  The geometry of the apple is handled by a couple areas prior to the VI. They deal with lines horizontal and vertical and their comparisions. 

With synethesia the area on the left side of the brain in which colors are differentiated is located next to the area where numbers (written) understanding is processed. Sometimes the axions or neurons cross over between these areas. If so a person when s/he looks at the number 5 though in black ink will see it as red.  As with the color blindness test where the pattern does not stick out for one who is color blind a patterned test can be done for this pehenomenon. SInce 2's and 5's are very similar a geometric shape or a word can be written out in fives hidden in teh 2's.  It will take a good while for a normal brain to find the pattern. The person with synethesia will see the pattern immediately which shows a potential evolutionary improvement should our species need to see 5's out of other numbers in order to survive.  ( ha ha). 

If this occurs higher in the brain a person may experience other sensations such as blue is warm or the C# chord is green (as some musicians claim).  Also it has been found that the numbers are typically a linear pattern in the neurons.  However sometimes the neurons get laid out in a U shape or loop. The 3 and 8 may be closer together than 3 and 5 for example.  Such a brain processes mathematical formulas with 3 and 8 faster than 3 and 5.  These all indicate that thought, perception, consciousness and the mind is a physical process of the brain.

 

EDITED ADDITIONS OF MORE EXAMPLES

BRIAN! Look at this post carefully.  You know how I've been asking of you to support yourself a little.  WELL THIS IS SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIMS!  Take notes.

 

Anyway, thanks for putting an iron rod to Brians face.  I enjoyed that.  Now for the counter.

Yes, you've proven that in order for a physical outcome or learned reaction one would have to use their brain.   Notice most of your examples are based off of learned stimuli and not personality in general.  The woman who both hated the dress and liked the same dress, or the man who both believed in God and didn't at the same time, were they 2 different people or were they the same person regardless?  Same person right?  Making a different choice doesn't make you a different person.  The question then for the woman would be why does she have an opinion of the dress in the first place and what is it that she likes and doesn't like and why?  Her reasoning I'm willing to bet is learned and not instinctive or natural by any means, but a process through her up bringing and surrounding culture that has helped her decide those factors. yes in both cases.  Otherwise she would have no opinion or care for the dress in the first place. 

The guy who both believed in God and didn't.  Again why? for both?  If a random person out there you've never met came up to you and said I'm your father, would you believe him?  no.  Of course not.  What if later you told your real dad about the encounter only to find out that your real dad supports the idea that the random guy is your father... do you then believe?  Again, your experience of acceptance in this case is learned.  

You yourself don't believe in God now because through a learned process you have come to that conclusion.  Basically what I'm trying to say is proving the brain is used to manipulate learned processes does not prove that thinking cannot exist or doesn't happen outside the brain.  Look at it this way.  the only way to observe these outcomes is physical.  The brain itself could be viewed as a sort of adapter so that our thoughts can be conveyed physically.  This would explain why certain parts of the brain are used for certain decisions and why certain sections might not agree or might slow down processes.  the disagreement may be mixed signals.  Do you have a link for the disagreement study, I'd like to look at that one closer.  

I'd like to make a note that here I'm not coming up with any excuses because any of this was counter to what i believe.  I'm only making logical perspective claims to the reasoning behind me holding onto the idea that a thought can happen outside a physical brain.  Again Signalless communication comes to mind as far as conveying or transferring the signal to a physical brain.     I don't believe learned decisions no matter how slow or how much in disagreement is in any way reason to believe that without a brain thought can't happen.  This only proves that the brain is key in conveying thought to an observable outcome physically.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:And now

jcgadfly wrote:

And now you're back to the argument from ignorance - you don't know how <x> could be done so it must be the God of Israel (and previously of the Canaanites) created 2000 years ago. I'm not saying that you're ignorant - just that you are committing the fallacy.

to me and other theists it's just as ignorant to factor out the god possibility when an unexplained phenomenon happens.  My point here was not that all must be true, only that all factors should be considered.  Atheists want to take all factors but God into consideration when to me, God is a factor.  

jcgadfly wrote:

As for the Vatican's "homework" - it's difficult for me to trust doctors employed by the Church under the condition they support the Church's conclusions. The same goes for prophecy that is either incorrect or is vague enough to have multiple meanings.

naw, the examples i've looked at are specific to the point where they'd talk about a specific individual who was proven to be paralyzed at the waste down due to X (X being incurable) proof lies in their medical records, then to suddenly get up and walk without any specific medical intervention.  

jcgadfly wrote:

The last person who asked for specifics you dismissed because you said that a metaphysical being can't/won't provide that kind of evidence. Now you claim that he has provided all manner of evidence of his interaction in the natural world and those who are trying to find it are just too stupid.

says you.  I never dismissed a person for asking for specifics, rather maybe what specifically they were looking for that wasn't logical.  That didn't mean they shouldn't try another specific approach.  I'm looking for someone to ask me something that can logically be done be it that it seems it's so obvious that God is not there.  This should be easy, you can't ask me to show you the DNA of a dog using an Apple and you can't ask me to detect God when we have no means of measuring God.  As much as we can say there is dark matter in space (where there is logical reasoning behind it to believe there has to be something that we coined dark matter) the same applies for God.  Can you detect dark matter?  not in our current state we can't, but whatever it is, it is affecting things out there and from what we can see there's nothing there, so rather than believe that nothing is causing something, science has named it.  The same logic applies for God, so I'll ask again, what would you be "LOGICALLY" looking for.

 

I guess we all can't be like you and stop thinking when we find answers we like. We want to go for answers that are correct as well.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Except that the same logic

Except that the same logic doesn't apply to the God of the Bible because he contradicts logic at a whim. Are you worshipping a different God now?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
We have given you PLENTY OF


We have given you PLENTY OF rational reasons WHY there was never a god or god/s of any kind. We keep telling you that your pet claim IS NOT special, no matter how elaborately you have allowed your brain to swallow your fictional super hero claim.

Quote:
I'll ask again, what would you be "LOGICALLY" looking for.

WE KEEP TELLING YOU AND YOU IGNORE IT.

Take your argument to a fucking university science  lab, not a church, not a Jesus fan club, where everyone pats you on the back.

TAKE IT TO A PLACE with plenty of observers no matter what their personal beliefs are, whom all have the same training OUTSIDE your pet claim. Get that lab to independently test and falsify the "data".

Otherwise you are doing nothing but elaborately mentally masturbating with your own wishful thinking.

YOU ARE NOT any different than any Muslim, Jew, or Hindu, and your "metaphysics" crap is just a new agey word you use to make your woo sound different, but you still resort to your ancient book of myth.

PLAY THE FUCKING GAME ON NEUTRAL FIELD WITH NEUTRAL REFS WITH NO HORSE IN THE RACE.

You wont do that because you know you cant. You are merely protecting your own fucking ego, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing with us here.

Go empirically demonstrate "HOW" a thought can arise without a material process. Don't waste your time nakedly asserting "it can happen because I say so.

WE DON'T CARE what you say. Please Cap, go do your own homework and come back to us when you can actually meet our demands. But YOU do not get to decide for us what we would accept.

Get your claims independently tested and falsified. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN TRY TO DO. You won't try because you know damned well you cant.

INVISIBLE FRIENDS are myth. Yours is and so is every other claimed in human history. Otherwise if they had any credibility, you could test it just like DNA.

You believe in Santa for adults, nothing more. Wake up before you waste your entire life on a stupid myth.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I have tried editing this post and have lost two posts. I will try this last time.

I don't see a universal corruption or corruption for that matter. I think that is Christology that is built upon a Fall that requires it and is therefore false. All I see is a gradual evolution. The couple is actuallly just the Mother  r the Mitochondrial Eve some 200,000 year ago from which all humans share the same mitochondria. ( from East Africa).  There were humans before that This lineage became the dominate genetic strain. Consciousness is simply a physical process. Information is not a menatal process but a physical one which gets exploited by mental processes. But information is all of the universe. Communication is between two entities and idea of signal requires the idea of purpose and/or intent.

I don't believe we have evidence of humans before the mtochondrial Eve.  I will ask the question again, what evidences would you be looking for if a Biblical fall happened?

No the human ancestery goes back prior to homo sapiens sapiens to homo erectus, homo habilus etc.;

Common fallacies
 Not the only woman

One of the misconceptions of mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her that she was the only woman alive at the time.[10][11] However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands;[10] there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent to present day people there is at least one male (and men do not pass on their mothers' mitochondrial DNA to their children, so the mitochondrial inheritance chain is broken). By contrast, Eve's lines of descent to each person alive today includes at least one line of descent to each person which is purely matrilineal.
[edit] Not a contemporary of "Adam"

Sometimes mitochondrial Eve is assumed to have lived at the same time as Y-chromosomal Adam, perhaps even meeting and mating with him. Like mitochondrial "Eve", Y-chromosomal "Adam" probably lived in Africa; however, this "Eve" lived much earlier than this "Adam" – perhaps some 50,000 to 80,000 years earlier.[12]
[edit] Not the most recent ancestor shared by all humans
Main article: Most recent common ancestor

Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor, not the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). Since the mtDNA is inherited maternally and recombination is either rare or absent, it is relatively easy to track the ancestry of the lineages back to a MRCA; however this MRCA is valid only when discussing mitochondrial DNA. An approximate sequence from newest to oldest can list various important points in the ancestry of modern human populations:

    The Human MRCA. All humans alive today share a surprisingly recent common ancestor, perhaps even within the last 5,000 years, even for people born on different continents.[13]
    The Identical ancestors point. Just a few thousand years before the most recent single ancestor shared by all living humans comes the time at which all humans who were alive either left no descendants or are common ancestors to all humans alive today. In other words, from this point back in time "each present-day human has exactly the same set of genealogical ancestors". This is far more recent than Mitochondrial Eve.[13]
    "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.

As to what evidence would I need for the Biblical Fall.  Pretty simple correspondence to the Biblical story. The plants made before the sun, stars and moon (typical myth of the period); No animals living for millions of years prior to the alleged Fall.  No fall those animals should not have suffered and dies since sin had not entered the world. Since they did god tortured them if he was real.  Look there is simply no evidence of a fall because one did not happen, The story is simply a myth that does not correspond to evolution, the origins of the universe, of man or anything else.

 

TGBaker wrote:

There are no scientific laws broken of which i know for the big bang!!!!  What are the illogicals of the BIg Bang?  DNA starts off so simple that it is not DNA. And before DNA there was RNA. It is the evolution of DNA that is its complexity as it presently exists.  The complexification of DNA was a naturally occurring event. I do not think it takes us looking out side of existence. There is not a lot of drift in DNA replication( errors).  It varies more by sexual reproduction as DNA is combined.

CAP: I believe it was the 2nd law of thermodynamics that is in question for the Big Bang... I'd have to look it up again.

When you say something is "natural" what is your basis for comparison?

The 2nd law is a law it does not break laws. And far from entropic states, dissipative structures most every star runs locally the opposite of entropy.  Complexification or emergence  in the cooling of entropy can be understood like a freezing process.  From the one thing of expansion the cooling began as it expanded and gravity froze off from the strong electromagnetis weak force. From that eletromagnetic forces froze off from the strong and weak forces as they separated. It is as things cool down that matter becomes more complex. In other words it takes the 2nd law to have things in the universe. It is like crystals forming.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Einstein did not really beleive ina pantheism or a panentheism. His language was metaphorical something like the force ( Star Wars) is what we'd use today. Panentheism does not require a metaphysic. Consciousness is a physical phenomenon.  Show me a working metaphysic. I have a friend who is one of the top Christian philosophers in the USA and he admits though he is a Christian that there is no known working metaphysic. I certainly have found none. If you got one I sure would love to see it.

 If there is no physical evidence then show me what metaphysical evidence looks like so that when you show me metaphysical evidence I can see it. I really do not understand what metaphysical evidence would be. help me out here.

CAP: Just to clear it up, i'll repeat myself.  The terminology behind DNA is not what I question.  Though i can see how a theist would use that terminology and it's a logical approach, the only problem is that we created the terminology, so in other words, it was our doing that decided it was a code... or not... and not so much that we have discovered the code maker.  my take was the complexity within itself and how illogical it seems to have happened naturally and to continue to happen so naturally without much error.

To call it code as the article states is more of a metaphor.

CAP: Metaphysics... you want me to show you a working metaphysic... huh?  Show me a working physic.   or do you mean a working metaphysical model.  That's a different story.  metaphysics is physics outside the physical.  Be it that we have very little knowledge of the metaphysical they're hard to come by and we aren't aware of the constants in a metaphysical existence therefore a model again is hard to come by.  At this point i'd say go to a notoriously haunted place and search for an EVP.  It seems to be an empirical model.  

Utlimately for more models, it'd be like me asking you to show me a working model of a black hole, or for me to see a graviton under a microscope.  We can't do it yet.  We don't have the know-how.  

I can show you the evidence for a black hole. Show me some evidence of metaphysical existence.

CAP: Metaphysical evidence would be a result caused by anything beyond the physical.  Now how do we know the result was caused by something beyond the physical.  Be it that we dont' have a metaphysical detection device, this is hard.  We have to rule out causes by reasoning and logic.  From there, one can conclude.  due to the unknown factor, any skeptic can come in and say it could be something else, but until they can come up with that something else, it's likely to be a metaphysical occurence.  One example might be miracle healings, which have been documented for the past century... or longer I'm not sure by the Vatican.  They have 1000's.  i was skeptical due to my experience with religion at first, but looking into it further, it seems they do their homework and many confirmed 'miracles of God" as they call them took years and years of study and cross reference to conclude.  

This would just be scratching the surface too.  I'm trying to keep it focused

None of the Vatican stuff or things you have mentioned have panned out. Why? Because we would have them as evidence and people would have a general acceptance that they are real. But science can regularly supply evidence for its propositions of reality. None have been demonstrated for metaphysic.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

You mean the evidence that you know that you and God haven't been able to provide?

haven't been able to provide because you refuse to answer the question of what exactly you're looking for??? yea, that's the stuff.

TGBaker wrote:

Where has this metaphysical being you believe in interacted with the natural world?

everywhere be it that he created it all... need to be a little more specific than that as far as what you're looking for.

Show me an event that is provable like an event where say Lincoln interacted with the world

TGBaker wrote:

It has to be an interaction that can't have a possible natural explanation.

Ok, Look into the 1000's of miracle claims by the Vatican.  I can't vouch for them all, but it seems they do their homework.

You sure can't because none of them have ever stood up scientifically.

TGBaker wrote:

What has happened in the natural world that can be attributed to God and only God?

everything... oh wait, without natural explanation... natural being that of which God created to work on its own.. ok

healings that can't be medically explained...  prophesy... etc.

Documented evidence PLEASE!!!!!

TGBaker wrote:

If you are going to say that he interacts with the natural world in a metaphysical way (i.e., a way that can't be detected by the natural world) then how does he differ from no god?

Direct enough for you?

 

You're getting there.  To detect something is to suggest you have a mechanism that is specifically designed to detect what's in question... Be it that I have yet to hear of anyone making a God-o-meter or anything of the sort, it is logical to conclude that we can't detect God by natural means.

He differs from no God because things can't happen unless something made them happen.  There are a lot of occurences in this world that have no other explanation.  Those are those occurences that skeptics claim... "there has to be an explanation" and yet none has been found or just refuse to believe actually happened.  Scientifcally they may be considered an outlier or a phenomenon.  Not to mistake God's work though natural means.  just because it can be explained doesn't discount the possiblity of God's intervention.  Timing has a big part to do with God's work.  Those situations are where at the right moment something happened to either cause or prevent something from happening that if it didn't happen right at that moment it would not have worked out in such a way.  Irony right.  Sure.  How much irony can ironically happen before irony no longer constitutes irony?  that is not rhetorical.  

now I have answered you as specifically as your questions were.  I did not ignore any part of what you asked and made clear my explanation.  If I somehow missed something that you want me to answer, then call me on what I missed and ask me again specifically to explain to you what I missed or didn't answer.  dont' accuse me of ignoring, it's only a dodge and deters from the focus.  i have made it clear that i'm not ignoring anything.  

Give me good evidence and documentation of things that have happened in this world with no explanation. I have chased these things for years and found nothing.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

 

Yes, you've proven that in order for a physical outcome or learned reaction one would have to use their brain.   Notice most of your examples are based off of learned stimuli and not personality in general.  The woman who both hated the dress and liked the same dress, or the man who both believed in God and didn't at the same time, were they 2 different people or were they the same person regardless?  Same person right?  Making a different choice doesn't make you a different person.  The question then for the woman would be why does she have an opinion of the dress in the first place and what is it that she likes and doesn't like and why?  Her reasoning I'm willing to bet is learned and not instinctive or natural by any means, but a process through her up bringing and surrounding culture that has helped her decide those factors. yes in both cases.  Otherwise she would have no opinion or care for the dress in the first place.

TGB: What it does show is that consciousness is dependent on what part of the brain activates it. The left side is more rationally functioning whereas the right is more emotionally operative.

 

The guy who both believed in God and didn't.  Again why? for both?  If a random person out there you've never met came up to you and said I'm your father, would you believe him?  no.  Of course not.  What if later you told your real dad about the encounter only to find out that your real dad supports the idea that the random guy is your father... do you then believe?  Again, your experience of acceptance in this case is learned.  

TGB: The likelihood for this guy is he rationally does not believe in god but because of his upbringing his emotional right side still clings to the idea.

You yourself don't believe in God now because through a learned process you have come to that conclusion.  Basically what I'm trying to say is proving the brain is used to manipulate learned processes does not prove that thinking cannot exist or doesn't happen outside the brain.  Look at it this way.  the only way to observe these outcomes is physical.  The brain itself could be viewed as a sort of adapter so that our thoughts can be conveyed physically.  This would explain why certain parts of the brain are used for certain decisions and why certain sections might not agree or might slow down processes.  the disagreement may be mixed signals.  Do you have a link for the disagreement study, I'd like to look at that one closer.  

I'd like to make a note that here I'm not coming up with any excuses because any of this was counter to what i believe.  I'm only making logical perspective claims to the reasoning behind me holding onto the idea that a thought can happen outside a physical brain.  Again Signalless communication comes to mind as far as conveying or transferring the signal to a physical brain.     I don't believe learned decisions no matter how slow or how much in disagreement is in any way reason to believe that without a brain thought can't happen.  This only proves that the brain is key in conveying thought to an observable outcome physically.  

What is signaless communication?????

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

The reasoning would have to be rational. But the thing is this Cap, you keep talking about your holy book as part of your proof, your holy book can't be used to prove itself, as otherwise I can prove that any religion is true or that the magic sandwich will cure all diseases or any other bizarre/nonsensical thing. You also imply that you studied the religion you follow, then you would know that the Egyptians have no records of the plagues that you say were visited on them, which is a rather large omission for them. Not to mention that the many myths that make up the five books of Moses, the Pentetudes(sp?) are easily linked to earlier myths of polytheistic belief systems.

The only reason why a Christian can claim the Bible to support itself is because it's not just 1 book... it's 66 (at this point) different books that are congruent with each other.  The whole reason why the Bible is as is is because the stories through the ages from unrelated authors paint a timeline as well as support each other's claims.  

Egyptians have gaps in their records in many places as well as records that didn't actually happen and conflicting records.  Understanding the mindset of the Ancient Egyptians, it likely was recorded, but also hidden from public view due to the fact that it makes their Pharaoh look bad.  Much of the history that didn't have an ideal outcome was masked by Egyptian scribes and in many cases, alternative histories were written.  The ironic part of this is there's no record of the plagues happening, but as far as we can tell, no alternative history was written in place of it either.  

Joker wrote:

The thing is this Cap, if it were just people believing odd things I could accept that and I wouldn't do much other than facepalm periodically. The problem is that you have dangerous and toxic beliefs in your faith, even if you yourself don't believe all that others do, the ones who use their alleged holy book as an excuse to harm others, marginalize people, restrict the rights of others or justify atrocities. You have children believing that if they don't follow this belief properly they will burn forever in torment and that the same is true for those around them. You have people trying to retard the advances of science because they're afraid that it contradicts their superstitions and because it might mean that they aren't right so instead they do what they can to spread ignorance and distrust for people who do real research. You have people who, in the name of their deity, commit acts of terrorism on others, bombing medical clinics, murdering those that they see as 'the enemy' and while I recognize that you yourself might not believe this and might even condemn such behavior their beliefs helped shape them to that point.

Right, and all that is through ignorance.  Think about it, people... heh people... the government I should say does the same thing with our Constitution, but people do it too. It's what we in politics call "red tape".  the thing is, if you're not educated and read it for yourself with an intelligent mind, then you can make it say anything you want.  The is in reference to not only the Bible but to our constitution, or the Quran or any other authoritative document as well.  Due to the many ways to translate and the translational difficulties of the Bible, it's even easier for people to manipulate what it says because they don't have to reference to the original intent through context... why?  because they don't know it.  We know the original intent, or what logically seems to be the original intent because we educate ourselves not only in the ancient cultures, but the history in general as well and the personality of God.  But hey, a religion where i can make it exactly how I want it and then tell people this is how it is, what a concept.  Ignorance is Bliss and i can get rich off it.  Instead i choose to understand.

 

Ok, to start with what do you mean 'alternate history' in terms of the plagues? Let's assume that they did happen, the Egyptians would still have records showing losses of crops and supplies as well as likely documenting deaths and the like, especially given the fact that even the Pharaohs son was among the dead. The Hebrew people themselves may never have even been there, they may have simply adopted some of the oral stories from another group that had been in egypt and the myths sort of worked their way in. To your other point, sections of the bible do contradict one another, look at the new testament there are differing versions of Jesus' speeches and there are different accounts as to whether or not his family was aware that he had apparently a divine origin (in some cases angels show up, in some cases they don't). There are other issues too where prophecies that were said to happen didn't, and we're also dealing with things that had been passed down only orally for generations, if you've ever played the telephone game you know how hard that can be, especially with new languages and the like. Then factor in language translations, the council of Nicea deciding by popular vote what would be in the new bible, and the various new formats for it during the middle ages. Not to mention, of course, the next round of translations there. If your book is divinely inspired I would argue that a divine perfect being should be capable of making a book that would be self evident, not need interpretation and be scientifically consistent.

Not to mention that your holy book, and every other holy book I have encountered, is scientifically inaccurate without mental gymnastics that would make the sleaziest lawyers cringe. I could also point out that a book series, say the Dresden Files, is totally internalyl consistent, it even takes place in a location that exists (Chicago) and references disasters and other events that have occurred. The stories themselves are consistent with one another and things predicted in one book can happen in another, this does not however mean that there is a duster wearing wiseass wizard working in Chicago to try to keep humanity safe from various beings of darkness.

I'd also point out that the constitution is a legal document, it spells out what rights people have and there are arguments for both loose and strict constructionism depending on the circumstances and situations. I am of the school of thought that it is a living document, either that or we have to follow Jeffersons advice and hold a new constitutional convention every 30 years or so to update the damn thing or alter it as time and points change. The constitution also doesn't claim to speak for an all powerful being that will torment us forever and ever if we do not do what it says in this document. Your bible does, as do many other holy books. There is no evidence for a divine being existing outside of these books and if the books alone are evidence then apparently there are a LOT of deities out there, and I mean a lot. Not to mention fantastic beings like dragons, gryphons etc. and if they aren't around now then apparently they must have died off. I could also point out that the idea of the 'personality' of your god can only be gained through the book, right? If that's true then your book is still subject to different interpretations as some see God as a laid back hippy, some as a monstrous tyrant, and some as a stern and unbending judge, I'm sure there are other interpretations too but I figured I'd go for the big archetypes here.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Except that

jcgadfly wrote:

Except that the same logic doesn't apply to the God of the Bible because he contradicts logic at a whim. Are you worshipping a different God now?

You should probably be specific as to what you're referring to when saying specifically that God contradicts logic.  This way we can actually discuss it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:We have given

Brian37 wrote:

We have given you PLENTY OF rational reasons WHY there was never a god or god/s of any kind. We keep telling you that your pet claim IS NOT special, no matter how elaborately you have allowed your brain to swallow your fictional super hero claim.

have you now. Is your logical reasoning; "your pet claim is not special" or the "fictional super hero" excuse?  I can say that your dog is just like any other dog because there are thousands of his breed out there... but that in no way does not make your dog unique.  Let's go to people.  All Chinese people are the same.  But this is again blatently not true and there are many very unique personalities within ever culture.  If that's your rational excuse, then your'e going to have to do better.

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'll ask again, what would you be "LOGICALLY" looking for.

WE KEEP TELLING YOU AND YOU IGNORE IT.

i keep confronting everything you throw at me.... no matter how redundant.... and you keep ignoring it.  especially the big bold capital word up there... oh wait... not bold.  EH, I'll put it bold at the end of this part.   "LOGICALLY"  There, bold too now.  

Brian37 wrote:

Take your argument to a fucking university science  lab, not a church, not a Jesus fan club, where everyone pats you on the back.

Oh... my bad.  I didn't realize this was a Jesus fan club.  Got me there.  I'll take it to those who oppose the belief instead and see what they have to say about it.  I was wondering why I wasn't getting anywhere on here.  Religious nuts are all the same.  no offense guys.

Brian37 wrote:

TAKE IT TO A PLACE with plenty of observers no matter what their personal beliefs are, whom all have the same training OUTSIDE your pet claim. Get that lab to independently test and falsify the "data".

Otherwise you are doing nothing but elaborately mentally masturbating with your own wishful thinking.

Ok, you want to go back to the lab study again.  Great... are you going to stick with it this time or cower in the corner again when your logic is questioned.  Just a tip.  If there is a question about your approach, instead of getting defensive, why don't you approach the question with logic and reasoning... you know... with lab results that support your conclusion as well.  

Ok, back to the point.  What exactly are we studying under a microscope in a lab?  Wait... this is where we lose you.  Sorry to make you think.  I'll do the first part for you.  How about "signalless communication" dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnn,,,,,,,,,  That might be a start... Then explain the process and how it's possible if there in fact is no other existence or possibility besides the physical.    oh wait... this still might make you think... hmmm.  tough call here on giving you information without the burden of thought on your part...

Brian37 wrote:

YOU ARE NOT any different than any Muslim, Jew, or Hindu, and your "metaphysics" crap is just a new agey word you use to make your woo sound different, but you still resort to your ancient book of myth.

oh we're getting back to the title of the thread now... Kudos to you... but it seems we lost you on that one a long while back.. not really worth getting back to at this point... at least not with you.

Brian37 wrote:

PLAY THE FUCKING GAME ON NEUTRAL FIELD WITH NEUTRAL REFS WITH NO HORSE IN THE RACE.

true point and case.  no neutral minds here.

Brian37 wrote:

You wont do that because you know you cant.

I thought i was when I originally came onto this site... heh.. oops.

Brian37 wrote:

You are merely protecting your own fucking ego, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing with us here.

So what are you saying here... are you finally admitting that you really can't defend your own position logically?  I mean that's really the only way I could stroke my ego on here... though... oh darn it all to a field of flowers and back... there are some really intelligent people on here that make me think oh so hard.  Pauljohntheskeptic and TGbaker, yall might need to tone it down a bit.. You're cramping my ability to stroke my ego.  

JUST KIDDING, I appreciate you discussing with me... don't change a thing

Brian37 wrote:

Go empirically demonstrate "HOW" a thought can arise without a material process. Don't waste your time nakedly asserting "it can happen because I say so.

You're walking into waters with a current I don't believe you can swim.  If there is in fact a metaphysical existence, which is theorized scientifically on a quantum level, then the question really goes to you as to what reasoning other than "we haven't seen it" is there to say that a thought CAN'T happen without a material process?  

I have given you reasoning as to how it possibly could and why we only detect it through a material process.  You have efficiently showed me that I could slap you in the face with an immaterial thought and you still wouldn't accept it.    I don't think I............

Brian37 wrote:

WE DON'T CARE what you say.

........................oh... then why ask in the first place?

Brian37 wrote:

Please Cap, go do your own homework and come back to us when you can actually meet our demands. But YOU do not get to decide for us what we would accept.

Of course not, why would you assume I would think I could decide what you accept?  

I first came on looking for people to challenge what I know.  made no claim other than that I am a believer.  

Then it came to discussing specifics... any number of them

now it's down to me trying to convince you not of my belief, but that you yourself have a poor stance for your own belief... which is fine, most people can't defend themselves and that's nothing to be ashamed of... but frikken admit it already, stop dwelling on something you obviously have no understanding of.  Let me use my time with the TG Bakers and the PJTSs out there.  

Get your claims independently tested and falsified. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN TRY TO DO. You won't try because you know damned well you cant.

yea, you seem to be so sure of that... yet when confronted with exactly what, either it's an illogical expectation for science to do... not me, science... or just another excuse that backtracks to... oh.. I dont' know... 30 pages ago where you and I started.

Brian37 wrote:

INVISIBLE FRIENDS are myth. Yours is and so is every other claimed in human history. Otherwise if they had any credibility, you could test it just like DNA.

If these invisible friends were physically based Brain.. That's the only logical way we could test them like DNA.  The fact that they're not suggests other means of study, as to which I have tried to discuss with you, but it was obviously beyond your level of understanding at this point.  I'll wait until you get through highschool, then we'll talk again.

Brian37 wrote:

You believe in Santa for adults, nothing more. Wake up before you waste your entire life on a stupid myth.

 

I'm trying.  I came here so that people could challenge what I think I know... I'm still waiting for you to start.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:No the human

TGBaker wrote:

No the human ancestery goes back prior to homo sapiens sapiens to homo erectus, homo habilus etc.;

Common fallacies
 Not the only woman....
    "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.

Do you have a reference or a link?  I'd like to see that study.  I have some concerns, namely that only 5000 years ago all people of the world had a common ancestor, through the geneology study I mentioned, it shows more like hundreds of thousands of years ago the branching happened.

TGBaker wrote:

As to what evidence would I need for the Biblical Fall.  Pretty simple correspondence to the Biblical story. The plants made before the sun, stars and moon (typical myth of the period); No animals living for millions of years prior to the alleged Fall.  No fall those animals should not have suffered and dies since sin had not entered the world. Since they did god tortured them if he was real.  Look there is simply no evidence of a fall because one did not happen, The story is simply a myth that does not correspond to evolution, the origins of the universe, of man or anything else.

There is nothing to suggest that animals didn't die Biblically before the fall.  The Earliest plant fossils don't go nearly far enough back to show evidence of whether they were there before the sun or not, or whether the sun was there first.  this would also go into the issue of whether God put time into creation or whether God is subject to time himself.  

TGBaker wrote:

The 2nd law is a law it does not break laws. And far from entropic states, dissipative structures most every star runs locally the opposite of entropy.  Complexification or emergence  in the cooling of entropy can be understood like a freezing process.  From the one thing of expansion the cooling began as it expanded and gravity froze off from the strong electromagnetis weak force. From that eletromagnetic forces froze off from the strong and weak forces as they separated. It is as things cool down that matter becomes more complex. In other words it takes the 2nd law to have things in the universe. It is like crystals forming.

Like I said, I'd need to look it up again, I could be wrong.  It had to do with the universe needing something to wind it up so that the energy was potential before the big bang, 

TGBaker wrote:

None of the Vatican stuff or things you have mentioned have panned out. Why? Because we would have them as evidence and people would have a general acceptance that they are real. But science can regularly supply evidence for its propositions of reality. None have been demonstrated for metaphysic.

The ones I've heard of use the persons medical history as evidence of an incurable disease or handicap and yet the person is healed and there is no known record of a treatment.  Now there are conspiracy theory's around all this, but unless you can give me an example of one that the Vatican has officialized and counter it with the evidence that opposes the claim, I don't believe there are explanations.  It sounds to me as if you're making an assumption.  If there's one thing I've learned while on this site, those who don't believe are just as stubborn as any other religious nut out there and regardless of the counter evidence put in front of them, what they think they know they're happy with and nothing will convince them otherwise.  (this is a general observation obviously and does not apply to all)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Show me an

TGBaker wrote:

Show me an event that is provable like an event where say Lincoln interacted with the world

How is Lincoln interacting with the world any more or less provable than anything else written down in history?  

Documentation?  That would be the Bible and historical records in support of the Bible including archeology and so on.

Eye Witness accounts?  The Bible claims many eye-witness accounts and miracles of God are supposedly witnessed all over the world constantly

Monuments?  Results of that persons actions being followed still to this day?  

When it comes down to it, this kind of evidence is subject to the observers acceptance of the resources as valid.  Ask someone from China or an enemy country and they might discredit the existence of such a character as Lincoln due to the corrupt nature of our country today and how we dont' follow a lot of the values that Lincoln is portrayed to have.

TGBaker wrote:

You sure can't because none of them have ever stood up scientifically.

This in reference to the 1000's of claims by the Vatican.  scientifically how?  In my understanding, for any "God sighting" to stand up in science would suggest that we know how it happened and has a simple explanation that has nothign to do with God.  E.g.  His headache went away.. God cured me!!! no, you took an Advil a half an hour ago.  We can go into the detail of how Advil played a role in the curing of this persons headache, but it's already widely accepted that this means of treatment for headaches is not unknown or rare.  Either way, we're talking about happenings that have no scientific understanding, yet science can't debunk either.  These studies from what I understand are empirical.  

TGBaker wrote:

Documented evidence PLEASE!!!!!

In reference to miracles happening.  Look up specific Miracles that the Vatican has accepted and while you're at it, look up the process.  

just a note, the majority of the world accepts the existence of the metaphysical.  You seem to think that it's not accepted, but statistics show the majority would accept such claims.

 

TGBaker wrote:

Give me good evidence and documentation of things that have happened in this world with no explanation. I have chased these things for years and found nothing.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_affirms_miraculous_healing_attributed_to_bl._father_damien/


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: In

caposkia wrote:

 

In reference to miracles happening.  Look up specific Miracles that the Vatican has accepted and while you're at it, look up the process.  

just a note, the majority of the world accepts the existence of the metaphysical.  You seem to think that it's not accepted, but statistics show the majority would accept such claims.

 

The majority of the world has believed all sorts of things throught history so in this instance a plea from majority seems a redundantly poor argument.

As for your example of "miracle healing" can you come up with something that wouldn't be biased? The vatican has affirmed all sorts of miracle bs.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:What is

TGBaker wrote:

What is signaless communication?????

Look into the Aspect Experiment:

http://keelynet.com/biology/reality.htm


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:caposkia

robj101 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

In reference to miracles happening.  Look up specific Miracles that the Vatican has accepted and while you're at it, look up the process.  

just a note, the majority of the world accepts the existence of the metaphysical.  You seem to think that it's not accepted, but statistics show the majority would accept such claims.

 

The majority of the world has believed all sorts of things throught history so in this instance a plea from majority seems a redundantly poor argument.

As for your example of "miracle healing" can you come up with something that wouldn't be biased? The vatican has affirmed all sorts of miracle bs.

Medical doctors are part of their investigations in what i"m referencing to.  


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:robj101

caposkia wrote:

robj101 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

In reference to miracles happening.  Look up specific Miracles that the Vatican has accepted and while you're at it, look up the process.  

just a note, the majority of the world accepts the existence of the metaphysical.  You seem to think that it's not accepted, but statistics show the majority would accept such claims.

 

The majority of the world has believed all sorts of things throught history so in this instance a plea from majority seems a redundantly poor argument.

As for your example of "miracle healing" can you come up with something that wouldn't be biased? The vatican has affirmed all sorts of miracle bs.

Medical doctors are part of their investigations in what i"m referencing to.  

Why hasn't the media picked up on this? Why isn't this guy all over the place?

I liked the vatican wafer that actually turned into "meat" story myself. Kinda nasty but amusing all the same.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:Ok, to start

Joker wrote:

Ok, to start with what do you mean 'alternate history' in terms of the plagues? Let's assume that they did happen, the Egyptians would still have records showing losses of crops and supplies as well as likely documenting deaths and the like, especially given the fact that even the Pharaohs son was among the dead. 

The Egyptians may have that record somewhere.  We aren't even close to uncovering all the Egyptian history.  Due to the common theme of Egyptians in regards to their leaders, it would not be unusual to find out that they've kept the truth hidden away and made an alternative to what happened to appease the people and make their pharoah look better than he was.

Joker wrote:

Not to mention that your holy book, and every other holy book I have encountered, is scientifically inaccurate without mental gymnastics that would make the sleaziest lawyers cringe. I could also point out that a book series, say the Dresden Files, is totally internalyl consistent, it even takes place in a location that exists (Chicago) and references disasters and other events that have occurred. The stories themselves are consistent with one another and things predicted in one book can happen in another, this does not however mean that there is a duster wearing wiseass wizard working in Chicago to try to keep humanity safe from various beings of darkness.

It's funny when people try to claim the Bible as a scientific document when in fact the concept hadn't been invented nor understood for many hundreds or even thousands of years later.  science wasn't what teh people understood, so science wasn't the way the Bible stories were explained.

Joker wrote:

I'd also point out that the constitution is a legal document, it spells out what rights people have and there are arguments for both loose and strict constructionism depending on the circumstances and situations. I am of the school of thought that it is a living document, either that or we have to follow Jeffersons advice and hold a new constitutional convention every 30 years or so to update the damn thing or alter it as time and points change. The constitution also doesn't claim to speak for an all powerful being that will torment us forever and ever if we do not do what it says in this document. Your bible does, as do many other holy books. There is no evidence for a divine being existing outside of these books and if the books alone are evidence then apparently there are a LOT of deities out there, and I mean a lot. Not to mention fantastic beings like dragons, gryphons etc. and if they aren't around now then apparently they must have died off. I could also point out that the idea of the 'personality' of your god can only be gained through the book, right? If that's true then your book is still subject to different interpretations as some see God as a laid back hippy, some as a monstrous tyrant, and some as a stern and unbending judge, I'm sure there are other interpretations too but I figured I'd go for the big archetypes here.

 

The constitution is a different document than the Bible, but it is manipulated just as easily regardless of the securities the writers tried to put in place to avoid such attempts to change its meaning.  My point is that regardless of what each document is about, people will manipulate them to say what they want it to say and what will benifit them the most regardless of what it really might say.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

No the human ancestery goes back prior to homo sapiens sapiens to homo erectus, homo habilus etc.;

Common fallacies
 Not the only woman....
    "Y-Chromosomal Adam", the most recent male-line ancestor of all living men, was much more recent than Mitochondrial Eve, but is also likely to have been long before the Identical ancestors point.

Do you have a reference or a link?  I'd like to see that study.  I have some concerns, namely that only 5000 years ago all people of the world had a common ancestor, through the geneology study I mentioned, it shows more like hundreds of thousands of years ago the branching happened.

CAP WIKI: Mitochondrial Eve just GOOGLE. You are reading christian propaganda to have a 5000 year old date. That is plain absurd but typical froma creationist disinformation agenda. I gave you a long list of fossils I have studied that puts human ancsetry back in africa a million years ago.  You need to read objective science stuff instead of that propganda.

TGBaker wrote:

As to what evidence would I need for the Biblical Fall.  Pretty simple correspondence to the Biblical story. The plants made before the sun, stars and moon (typical myth of the period); No animals living for millions of years prior to the alleged Fall.  No fall those animals should not have suffered and dies since sin had not entered the world. Since they did god tortured them if he was real.  Look there is simply no evidence of a fall because one did not happen, The story is simply a myth that does not correspond to evolution, the origins of the universe, of man or anything else.

There is nothing to suggest that animals didn't die Biblically before the fall.  The Earliest plant fossils don't go nearly far enough back to show evidence of whether they were there before the sun or not, or whether the sun was there first.  this would also go into the issue of whether God put time into creation or whether God is subject to time himself. 

Cap the plants were not there before the sun. Its an old myth that simply has the plants existing before the sun and moon were made. Animals have been around a billion years.  And if god put time in creation we could argue that he created the world 5 seconds ago and placed all of your memories there making you think the world is over an hour old though it is only 5 seconds. Oh come on get real cap that is not even believable.

TGBaker wrote:

The 2nd law is a law it does not break laws. And far from entropic states, dissipative structures most every star runs locally the opposite of entropy.  Complexification or emergence  in the cooling of entropy can be understood like a freezing process.  From the one thing of expansion the cooling began as it expanded and gravity froze off from the strong electromagnetis weak force. From that eletromagnetic forces froze off from the strong and weak forces as they separated. It is as things cool down that matter becomes more complex. In other words it takes the 2nd law to have things in the universe. It is like crystals forming.

Like I said, I'd need to look it up again, I could be wrong.  It had to do with the universe needing something to wind it up so that the energy was potential before the big bang,

Cap there is no need for a Big Wind up before the big bang that is in baseball. I have studied the development of order out of chaos/entropy since 1983.  Entropy is part of the laws of nature and can not violate itself. In fact things move away from entropy by displacing there ienternal entropy all the time, crystals, stars, animals and plants.

TGBaker wrote:

None of the Vatican stuff or things you have mentioned have panned out. Why? Because we would have them as evidence and people would have a general acceptance that they are real. But science can regularly supply evidence for its propositions of reality. None have been demonstrated for metaphysic.

The ones I've heard of use the persons medical history as evidence of an incurable disease or handicap and yet the person is healed and there is no known record of a treatment.  Now there are conspiracy theory's around all this, but unless you can give me an example of one that the Vatican has officialized and counter it with the evidence that opposes the claim, I don't believe there are explanations.  It sounds to me as if you're making an assumption.  If there's one thing I've learned while on this site, those who don't believe are just as stubborn as any other religious nut out there and regardless of the counter evidence put in front of them, what they think they know they're happy with and nothing will convince them otherwise.  (this is a general observation obviously and does not apply to all)

 

Cap it is a matter of I have researched all this stuff for years. I have never found an authentic miracle. If there was no known record of treatment there is probably no knwn diagnosis. I challange you to pick any well known miracle and research it and see if you can find convincing evidence of it.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
He's back on "miracles"

He's back on "miracles" again?

That is merely a word used by ignorant people who are too lazy to look for a natural answer.

It is merely beating an "oh shit" moment without a wide enough sample rate to see that in that same "oh shit" moment, the outcomes range and others are not as lucky. It is merely an emotional reaction that ends up placing a fictional utopia magic in as a gap explanation.

Like plane crashes. Some only one person dies and everyone calls that a "miracle". Then in another crash only one person survives and they also call that a "miracle". When is it not a miracle? When the ratio of survival vs death is 50/50?

How about this, there is no god/allah/vishnu or satan pulling the strings on a natural event. A plane crashes for a variety of reasons such as weather conditions, plane mechanical failure, pilot error or a combo. And people survive or die due to where they sit and angle of impact or altitude of the plane at the time of the cause of the accident.

Same with any other survival/death event.

"Miracle" is a bullshit word and a word uttered by those looking for fictional utopias.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

Ok, to start with what do you mean 'alternate history' in terms of the plagues? Let's assume that they did happen, the Egyptians would still have records showing losses of crops and supplies as well as likely documenting deaths and the like, especially given the fact that even the Pharaohs son was among the dead. 

The Egyptians may have that record somewhere.  We aren't even close to uncovering all the Egyptian history.  Due to the common theme of Egyptians in regards to their leaders, it would not be unusual to find out that they've kept the truth hidden away and made an alternative to what happened to appease the people and make their pharoah look better than he was.

Joker wrote:

Not to mention that your holy book, and every other holy book I have encountered, is scientifically inaccurate without mental gymnastics that would make the sleaziest lawyers cringe. I could also point out that a book series, say the Dresden Files, is totally internalyl consistent, it even takes place in a location that exists (Chicago) and references disasters and other events that have occurred. The stories themselves are consistent with one another and things predicted in one book can happen in another, this does not however mean that there is a duster wearing wiseass wizard working in Chicago to try to keep humanity safe from various beings of darkness.

It's funny when people try to claim the Bible as a scientific document when in fact the concept hadn't been invented nor understood for many hundreds or even thousands of years later.  science wasn't what teh people understood, so science wasn't the way the Bible stories were explained.

Joker wrote:

I'd also point out that the constitution is a legal document, it spells out what rights people have and there are arguments for both loose and strict constructionism depending on the circumstances and situations. I am of the school of thought that it is a living document, either that or we have to follow Jeffersons advice and hold a new constitutional convention every 30 years or so to update the damn thing or alter it as time and points change. The constitution also doesn't claim to speak for an all powerful being that will torment us forever and ever if we do not do what it says in this document. Your bible does, as do many other holy books. There is no evidence for a divine being existing outside of these books and if the books alone are evidence then apparently there are a LOT of deities out there, and I mean a lot. Not to mention fantastic beings like dragons, gryphons etc. and if they aren't around now then apparently they must have died off. I could also point out that the idea of the 'personality' of your god can only be gained through the book, right? If that's true then your book is still subject to different interpretations as some see God as a laid back hippy, some as a monstrous tyrant, and some as a stern and unbending judge, I'm sure there are other interpretations too but I figured I'd go for the big archetypes here.

 

The constitution is a different document than the Bible, but it is manipulated just as easily regardless of the securities the writers tried to put in place to avoid such attempts to change its meaning.  My point is that regardless of what each document is about, people will manipulate them to say what they want it to say and what will benifit them the most regardless of what it really might say.

1. The Egyptians were building pyramids when the entire earth (including Egypt) was supposed to be under water. If they missed that little tidbit I doubt if they'd include divinely sent plagues from a god they didn't worship.

2. You believe the Bible isn't a science or a historical document but you claim the miracles as scientific and historically accurate? Odd...

3. Wouldn't you think the being you believe is the divine inspiration of the Bible be at least a little perturbed about its being manipulated? Instead he does nothing and allows them to prosper. why do you worship such a wuss?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:CAP WIKI:

TGBaker wrote:

CAP WIKI: Mitochondrial Eve just GOOGLE. You are reading christian propaganda to have a 5000 year old date. That is plain absurd but typical froma creationist disinformation agenda. I gave you a long list of fossils I have studied that puts human ancsetry back in africa a million years ago.  You need to read objective science stuff instead of that propganda.

If you reread my statement, I was telling you that I had a PROBLEM with the 5000 year perspective.  I thought you were stating it as true.  I must have read your post wrong.  Sorry.  You'll find as you get to know me better I'm not very well versed in the "christian propaganda"  Many have made references here blaming me for reading such and such an article from a religious fanatic that I've never heard of before.  I am amused when that happens however.

TGBaker wrote:

Cap the plants were not there before the sun. Its an old myth that simply has the plants existing before the sun and moon were made. Animals have been around a billion years.  And if god put time in creation we could argue that he created the world 5 seconds ago and placed all of your memories there making you think the world is over an hour old though it is only 5 seconds. Oh come on get real cap that is not even believable.

You get this from me stating that we don't have fossils of plants dating back far enough to decide either way?  Also, I had made a statement a long time ago that if it was true (I never claimed I accepted that perspective and there are many theories that Genesis isn't necessarily chronological)  then the light God provided before the sun must have allowed photosynthesis in plants.  This would make sense in support for the return of God in Revelation where his glory will light the world... unless plants will no longer exist, his light must have the same properties as the sun... no way to say either way because I don't believe we have the means of testing glory.

TGBaker wrote:

Cap there is no need for a Big Wind up before the big bang that is in baseball. I have studied the development of order out of chaos/entropy since 1983.  Entropy is part of the laws of nature and can not violate itself. In fact things move away from entropy by displacing there ienternal entropy all the time, crystals, stars, animals and plants.

So your theory then is that it's a constant recurrence and that there's going to be a collapse then another big bang?  Do you believe this eternally happens or was there a beginning to all this at some point and at that beginning, what gave it the energy to start?  (legitimate question here)

TGBaker wrote:

Cap it is a matter of I have researched all this stuff for years. I have never found an authentic miracle. If there was no known record of treatment there is probably no known diagnosis. I challange you to pick any well known miracle and research it and see if you can find convincing evidence of it.

 the link below is still under investigation, but I like it because not only is it still under investigation years after its occurrence, but it goes into detail about how careful especially under the new Pope, the Vatican is in accepting miracles as true miracles.  It's hard after reading the process of that article to believe that the Vatican would accept an explainable occurrence regardless of what the skeptics say.  

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:He's back on

Brian37 wrote:

He's back on "miracles" again?

yea, the topic was brought up.  you know by now this thread is redundant

Brian37 wrote:

That is merely a word used by ignorant people who are too lazy to look for a natural answer.

I use it because it's what you know in reference to what we're talking about.  Do you have a different word you'd like to use that might apply to an actual happening or work of God?  Maybe it'll help you feel less ignorant?

Brian37 wrote:

It is merely beating an "oh shit" moment without a wide enough sample rate to see that in that same "oh shit" moment, the outcomes range and others are not as lucky. It is merely an emotional reaction that ends up placing a fictional utopia magic in as a gap explanation.

You use the emotional gap filling technique all the time, though instead of crying "miracle" you cry "fake"  and as long as it didn't happen in your mind, the world still makes sense.

Brian37 wrote:

Like plane crashes. Some only one person dies and everyone calls that a "miracle". Then in another crash only one person survives and they also call that a "miracle". When is it not a miracle? When the ratio of survival vs death is 50/50?

no, that's a miracle too.  Only when the ratio is 20/80 is it not a miracle... now when it comes to Gods hand in the miracle, that's a different story.

Brian37 wrote:

How about this, there is no god/allah/vishnu or satan pulling the strings on a natural event. A plane crashes for a variety of reasons such as weather conditions, plane mechanical failure, pilot error or a combo. And people survive or die due to where they sit and angle of impact or altitude of the plane at the time of the cause of the accident.

It's still a miracle you were able to spin off that statement without stuttering 'fake' or 'delusion'

Brian37 wrote:

Same with any other survival/death event.

So... if I survived death, then it must be the angle of the plane I wasn't on that caused me to live.  

Brian37 wrote:

"Miracle" is a bullshit word and a word uttered by those looking for fictional utopias.

"fake" is a bullshit word and a word uttered by those who don't want to see the truth regardless of reasoning.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. The

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The Egyptians were building pyramids when the entire earth (including Egypt) was supposed to be under water. If they missed that little tidbit I doubt if they'd include divinely sent plagues from a god they didn't worship.

Egypt does have a flood story.. though the papyrus containing the flood story is damaged and hard to interpret... look into "the Book of the Dead" (Falkner or Budge)

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You believe the Bible isn't a science or a historical document but you claim the miracles as scientific and historically accurate? Odd...

It's not a science journal... I never claim it to be not historical... if I did, then I'm sorry, i was mistaken.   Some stuff written in the book is scientifically explainable.  But you expect to find the scientific explanation in the Bible, which it's not, which is why i say it's not a science document.    A non scientific claim in many cases can have a scientific reasoning... why would you assume it wouldn't?  

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Wouldn't you think the being you believe is the divine inspiration of the Bible be at least a little perturbed about its being manipulated? Instead he does nothing and allows them to prosper. why do you worship such a wuss?

have you read the consequences in place for those who change the word?  I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.  Seems quite harsh to me, but wuss? nah.  I'd like to see you endure the consequences.  

Why is it when you get knocked down you get right back up again and fight with your hands tied instead of resorting to a rational means of conversation?  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

CAP WIKI: Mitochondrial Eve just GOOGLE. You are reading christian propaganda to have a 5000 year old date. That is plain absurd but typical froma creationist disinformation agenda. I gave you a long list of fossils I have studied that puts human ancsetry back in africa a million years ago.  You need to read objective science stuff instead of that propganda.

If you reread my statement, I was telling you that I had a PROBLEM with the 5000 year perspective.  I thought you were stating it as true.  I must have read your post wrong.  Sorry.  You'll find as you get to know me better I'm not very well versed in the "christian propaganda"  Many have made references here blaming me for reading such and such an article from a religious fanatic that I've never heard of before.  I am amused when that happens however.

TGBaker wrote:

Cap the plants were not there before the sun. Its an old myth that simply has the plants existing before the sun and moon were made. Animals have been around a billion years.  And if god put time in creation we could argue that he created the world 5 seconds ago and placed all of your memories there making you think the world is over an hour old though it is only 5 seconds. Oh come on get real cap that is not even believable.

You get this from me stating that we don't have fossils of plants dating back far enough to decide either way?  Also, I had made a statement a long time ago that if it was true (I never claimed I accepted that perspective and there are many theories that Genesis isn't necessarily chronological)  then the light God provided before the sun must have allowed photosynthesis in plants.  This would make sense in support for the return of God in Revelation where his glory will light the world... unless plants will no longer exist, his light must have the same properties as the sun... no way to say either way because I don't believe we have the means of testing glory.


There is no reason though to believe such an unrealistic scenario apart from trying to salvage the belief that the bible is accurate from the plenty of scientific evidence that runs against it. This demonstrates that Genesis is mythic. There is not history but origin myth.  You would have to believe that the plants and earth were created before the sun, stars and moon( the rest of the universe ) with the earth as all there is in the primal ocean with the bowl of heaven over it keeping the waters above it.  You would have to believe there was no major evolution as is seen everywhere by fossils.  You would have to believe that god cloned Eve from Adam because there were no humans. 

 

But if you admit that this story is mythic then you admit Christology rests on a mistake. For there is no fall and there is no original. Thre is no need for redemption or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for an original sin that did not happen.  If you really believe defending this text over empirically determined science then i really don't see what we can discuss.  There is no way that the earth was created before the sun or sustained by god's life. Though you are right the author of the story believed EXACTLY that,

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. The Egyptians were building pyramids when the entire earth (including Egypt) was supposed to be under water. If they missed that little tidbit I doubt if they'd include divinely sent plagues from a god they didn't worship.

Egypt does have a flood story.. though the papyrus containing the flood story is damaged and hard to interpret... look into "the Book of the Dead" (Falkner or Budge)

jcgadfly wrote:

2. You believe the Bible isn't a science or a historical document but you claim the miracles as scientific and historically accurate? Odd...

1. Eguypt's fllood story wasn't world wid with the waters covering the tallest mountains.

It's not a science journal... I never claim it to be not historical... if I did, then I'm sorry, i was mistaken.   Some stuff written in the book is scientifically explainable.  But you expect to find the scientific explanation in the Bible, which it's not, which is why i say it's not a science document.    A non scientific claim in many cases can have a scientific reasoning... why would you assume it wouldn't?  

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Wouldn't you think the being you believe is the divine inspiration of the Bible be at least a little perturbed about its being manipulated? Instead he does nothing and allows them to prosper. why do you worship such a wuss?

have you read the consequences in place for those who change the word?  I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.  Seems quite harsh to me, but wuss? nah.  I'd like to see you endure the consequences.  

Why is it when you get knocked down you get right back up again and fight with your hands tied instead of resorting to a rational means of conversation?  

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

He's back on "miracles" again?

yea, the topic was brought up.  you know by now this thread is redundant

Brian37 wrote:

That is merely a word used by ignorant people who are too lazy to look for a natural answer.

I use it because it's what you know in reference to what we're talking about.  Do you have a different word you'd like to use that might apply to an actual happening or work of God?  Maybe it'll help you feel less ignorant?

Brian37 wrote:

It is merely beating an "oh shit" moment without a wide enough sample rate to see that in that same "oh shit" moment, the outcomes range and others are not as lucky. It is merely an emotional reaction that ends up placing a fictional utopia magic in as a gap explanation.

You use the emotional gap filling technique all the time, though instead of crying "miracle" you cry "fake"  and as long as it didn't happen in your mind, the world still makes sense.

Brian37 wrote:

Like plane crashes. Some only one person dies and everyone calls that a "miracle". Then in another crash only one person survives and they also call that a "miracle". When is it not a miracle? When the ratio of survival vs death is 50/50?

no, that's a miracle too.  Only when the ratio is 20/80 is it not a miracle... now when it comes to Gods hand in the miracle, that's a different story.

Brian37 wrote:

How about this, there is no god/allah/vishnu or satan pulling the strings on a natural event. A plane crashes for a variety of reasons such as weather conditions, plane mechanical failure, pilot error or a combo. And people survive or die due to where they sit and angle of impact or altitude of the plane at the time of the cause of the accident.

It's still a miracle you were able to spin off that statement without stuttering 'fake' or 'delusion'

Brian37 wrote:

Same with any other survival/death event.

So... if I survived death, then it must be the angle of the plane I wasn't on that caused me to live.  

Brian37 wrote:

"Miracle" is a bullshit word and a word uttered by those looking for fictional utopias.

"fake" is a bullshit word and a word uttered by those who don't want to see the truth regardless of reasoning.

Fake is what "miracles" are. It is a self delusion.

You are merely attributing non existent comic book causes to natural events.

You either survive or you don't. There is no fucking boogieman or super hero in any instance where someone survives or dies. The result of someone surviving or dying are a result of the conditions at the time of the event. No fucking magic or invisible friends needed to explain reality.

Babies are born every minute and people die every minute. Neither event is magic or the cause of a invisible thinking being or an invisible bad guy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:There is no

TGBaker wrote:

There is no reason though to believe such an unrealistic scenario apart from trying to salvage the belief that the bible is accurate from the plenty of scientific evidence that runs against it. This demonstrates that Genesis is mythic. There is not history but origin myth.  You would have to believe that the plants and earth were created before the sun, stars and moon( the rest of the universe ) with the earth as all there is in the primal ocean with the bowl of heaven over it keeping the waters above it.  You would have to believe there was no major evolution as is seen everywhere by fossils.  You would have to believe that god cloned Eve from Adam because there were no humans. 

You are stuck on the chronology of it all, which if so, does not take into consideration what light God was providing before the sun.   Everyone seems to be stuck on science going against scripture, yet when it's presented, it fails to discredit scripture.  Plants before the sun?  I'm not going to try to justify the Bible scientifically strictly using Genesis.  If that's your only defense then it's weak.  To suggest that there is such a God that provides his own light without the sun is to suggest this light also has all the characteristics that are needed in the case of photosynthesis.  to suggest otherwise is speculation and against reasoning.  

Do you honestly believe my reasoning is strictly to salvage the belief?   Honestly?  you disappoint me.

TGBaker wrote:

But if you admit that this story is mythic then you admit Christology rests on a mistake. For there is no fall and there is no original. Thre is no need for redemption or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for an original sin that did not happen.  If you really believe defending this text over empirically determined science then i really don't see what we can discuss.  There is no way that the earth was created before the sun or sustained by god's life. Though you are right the author of the story believed EXACTLY that,

 

You're right, to admit that this story is mythic is admitting Christianity is hanging on false hope and this God does not exist.  However, any suggestions including your own don't seem to empirically discredit scripture.  It makes sense that you believe first of all that plants were made before the sun according to the book and that photosynthesis can't happen without the sun.  There is that unknown light source mentioned in the book before the sun that we know nothing about, so to assume your scientific case holds water is to assume you know more than what is written in the books.  If so, please provide your sources


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1a. The

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

If you read back on PJTS and I's thread, you'll notice that we've agreed that the exact timing of the stories are not precisely known and they may be off by many hundreds of years.  This being the case, the Egypt flood and the Noah flood may be in sync.  So you have evidence to believe the Egypt flood is mythical?  Be it that the papyrus is damaged and hard to interpret, I'm quite shocked, but I'll see what you have to present.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

Of course, you should know beer and wine take priority over all creation!

jcgadfly wrote:

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

that's a claim that would suggest you are holding out on us... what empirical evidences do you have now?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

He never said when it would happen... the other problem with your conclusion above is God is going to judge according to his own understanding and not yours or anyone elses.  Your "mucking with scripture" I've learned is a bit different than actually changing what it says or changing the words within.  The ones who do change it are held accountable to it.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

I accuse you because you used to be someone who actually asked good questions.  I don't know what happened.  The answers you're getting are as reasonable as the questions you ask.  They are literally simple, strait forward answers focused specifically and solely on what you asked.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13663
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

There is no reason though to believe such an unrealistic scenario apart from trying to salvage the belief that the bible is accurate from the plenty of scientific evidence that runs against it. This demonstrates that Genesis is mythic. There is not history but origin myth.  You would have to believe that the plants and earth were created before the sun, stars and moon( the rest of the universe ) with the earth as all there is in the primal ocean with the bowl of heaven over it keeping the waters above it.  You would have to believe there was no major evolution as is seen everywhere by fossils.  You would have to believe that god cloned Eve from Adam because there were no humans. 

You are stuck on the chronology of it all, which if so, does not take into consideration what light God was providing before the sun.   Everyone seems to be stuck on science going against scripture, yet when it's presented, it fails to discredit scripture.  Plants before the sun?  I'm not going to try to justify the Bible scientifically strictly using Genesis.  If that's your only defense then it's weak.  To suggest that there is such a God that provides his own light without the sun is to suggest this light also has all the characteristics that are needed in the case of photosynthesis.  to suggest otherwise is speculation and against reasoning.  

Do you honestly believe my reasoning is strictly to salvage the belief?   Honestly?  you disappoint me.

TGBaker wrote:

But if you admit that this story is mythic then you admit Christology rests on a mistake. For there is no fall and there is no original. Thre is no need for redemption or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for an original sin that did not happen.  If you really believe defending this text over empirically determined science then i really don't see what we can discuss.  There is no way that the earth was created before the sun or sustained by god's life. Though you are right the author of the story believed EXACTLY that,

 

You're right, to admit that this story is mythic is admitting Christianity is hanging on false hope and this God does not exist.  However, any suggestions including your own don't seem to empirically discredit scripture.  It makes sense that you believe first of all that plants were made before the sun according to the book and that photosynthesis can't happen without the sun.  There is that unknown light source mentioned in the book before the sun that we know nothing about, so to assume your scientific case holds water is to assume you know more than what is written in the books.  If so, please provide your sources

No he is not stuck on the "chronology" .

If I was arguing the Star wars series and mentioned the fact that the later films had robots which by the authors motif were prior to the storm troopers, which in the movie were depicted as human, would that make the "force" real?

Really? You might as well argue that God planted the dinosaur bones.

Here is the "Chronology"

People made shit up. People after them made more shit up to compete with the prior shit made up.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

If you read back on PJTS and I's thread, you'll notice that we've agreed that the exact timing of the stories are not precisely known and they may be off by many hundreds of years.  This being the case, the Egypt flood and the Noah flood may be in sync.  So you have evidence to believe the Egypt flood is mythical?  Be it that the papyrus is damaged and hard to interpret, I'm quite shocked, but I'll see what you have to present.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

Of course, you should know beer and wine take priority over all creation!

jcgadfly wrote:

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

that's a claim that would suggest you are holding out on us... what empirical evidences do you have now?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

He never said when it would happen... the other problem with your conclusion above is God is going to judge according to his own understanding and not yours or anyone elses.  Your "mucking with scripture" I've learned is a bit different than actually changing what it says or changing the words within.  The ones who do change it are held accountable to it.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

I accuse you because you used to be someone who actually asked good questions.  I don't know what happened.  The answers you're getting are as reasonable as the questions you ask.  They are literally simple, strait forward answers focused specifically and solely on what you asked.

1a. And yet, you believe your flood story is true because God said so in the Bible (which is right because he said so in the Bible). Do I believe the Egyptian flood story is mythical? I can only be sure of the parts of the story that involve their gods. There may have been a regional flood. Do you stand against your scriptures and claim that the flood of Noah was regional?

1b. Though I don't drink, I can accept Ben Franklin's alleged opinion that "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Then again, I lean more toward a deistic God existing if one does at all (like Ben).

2. I don't need empirical evidence to dispute your (and other Christians') positive claim - I though you knew that.

3. The variable time frame like the one in the garden of Eden? If your God meant by "surely die" - "you'll die after living to a ripe old age for the environment you live in"is that really a threat?

4. Again, you only make that claim when I give you questions you can't answer. Just because you don't like the questions doesn't mean they're not valid ("good" is a poor standard). If you are saying my questions are BS remember that they are only in response to your claims. If there's a problem, re-evaluate your claims.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

There is no reason though to believe such an unrealistic scenario apart from trying to salvage the belief that the bible is accurate from the plenty of scientific evidence that runs against it. This demonstrates that Genesis is mythic. There is not history but origin myth.  You would have to believe that the plants and earth were created before the sun, stars and moon( the rest of the universe ) with the earth as all there is in the primal ocean with the bowl of heaven over it keeping the waters above it.  You would have to believe there was no major evolution as is seen everywhere by fossils.  You would have to believe that god cloned Eve from Adam because there were no humans. 

You are stuck on the chronology of it all, which if so, does not take into consideration what light God was providing before the sun.   Everyone seems to be stuck on science going against scripture, yet when it's presented, it fails to discredit scripture.  Plants before the sun?  I'm not going to try to justify the Bible scientifically strictly using Genesis.  If that's your only defense then it's weak.  To suggest that there is such a God that provides his own light without the sun is to suggest this light also has all the characteristics that are needed in the case of photosynthesis.  to suggest otherwise is speculation and against reasoning.  

Do you honestly believe my reasoning is strictly to salvage the belief?   Honestly?  you disappoint me.

TGBaker wrote:

But if you admit that this story is mythic then you admit Christology rests on a mistake. For there is no fall and there is no original. Thre is no need for redemption or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for an original sin that did not happen.  If you really believe defending this text over empirically determined science then i really don't see what we can discuss.  There is no way that the earth was created before the sun or sustained by god's life. Though you are right the author of the story believed EXACTLY that,

 

You're right, to admit that this story is mythic is admitting Christianity is hanging on false hope and this God does not exist.  However, any suggestions including your own don't seem to empirically discredit scripture.  It makes sense that you believe first of all that plants were made before the sun according to the book and that photosynthesis can't happen without the sun.  There is that unknown light source mentioned in the book before the sun that we know nothing about, so to assume your scientific case holds water is to assume you know more than what is written in the books.  If so, please provide your sources

Dude the plants were not created before the sun.  In fact the universe is 13.7 billion years old.  The earth cooled and formed 4.5 billion years ago long after stars were formed. That iis factual. Not that they were created as lights in the sky to tell seasons, They were lights in the sky by which man learned to tell seasons. So we are stuck with science going against scripture because it does. It is simply a reflection of  Semitic myth about 700 BCE.  If you are not going to justify the Bible with Genesis ewhne it is part of the bible then what are you doing.  It does discredit the whole story and places it with the other creation myths of that period.  The plants were created on the third day and the sun, stars and moon on the fourth.   Also the earth revolves around that sun. Are you saying the earth is older than the stars and the sun!!!!!!   So it did not revolve around anything . Is it the center of the universe.  It is hardly a weak defense. You have no response for it other than going against every known fact that I've presented. You are simply going against fact to try and preserve an idea of inspiration of scripture that is not valid any more than the story of creation is valid. Your idea of photo synthesis before there is a sun is not even a speculation. It is a falsehood that is being presented to try and justify a false belief about a myth of creation.  Photosynthesis did not develop until long after single celled life had developed.  The idea of light before in the book before there is a sun is a typical belief that the day have light and the night did not. The sun was a a secondary of light and the moon another.  The story has god create light so the story can have days.  The earth is a disc in the primal ocean. The sky is a bowl for which the pillars of the four ends hold up. The stars were visioned as being on the bowl that kept the waters from above in coming together with the ocean.   It is a primitve falt earth view of our world. 

What I have presented is factual about the solar system.  There is nothing valid about light before the sun in the story. That is not to say that there was not light before the sun for there were billions of older stars.  I assume I know more than is written in whatever books you are talking about. WHAT BOOKS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT>  Pick up any book about the solar system, the universe and its formation. It is a myth and there was no fall and so no need for a sacrifice of a human being on a cross. Sorry.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

There are a thousand books at the end of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

If you read back on PJTS and I's thread, you'll notice that we've agreed that the exact timing of the stories are not precisely known and they may be off by many hundreds of years.  This being the case, the Egypt flood and the Noah flood may be in sync.  So you have evidence to believe the Egypt flood is mythical?  Be it that the papyrus is damaged and hard to interpret, I'm quite shocked, but I'll see what you have to present.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

Of course, you should know beer and wine take priority over all creation!

jcgadfly wrote:

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

that's a claim that would suggest you are holding out on us... what empirical evidences do you have now?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

He never said when it would happen... the other problem with your conclusion above is God is going to judge according to his own understanding and not yours or anyone elses.  Your "mucking with scripture" I've learned is a bit different than actually changing what it says or changing the words within.  The ones who do change it are held accountable to it.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

I accuse you because you used to be someone who actually asked good questions.  I don't know what happened.  The answers you're getting are as reasonable as the questions you ask.  They are literally simple, strait forward answers focused specifically and solely on what you asked.

You simply go around in circles. We provide empirical proof and you ignore it. The creation story is purely a myth as is the flood story. Read the earlier version of the Epic of Gilgemish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

 

Other fall of man myths :

Other traditions

  • In Gnosticism, the snake is thanked for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve, and thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's control. The Demiurge banished Adam and Eve, because man was now a threat.
  • Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age, until Prometheus brought them fire to help them live through cold. The gods punished humans allowing Pandora to release the evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity. See Ages of Man for more.
  • In classic Zoroastrianism, humanity is created to withstand the forces of decay and destruction through good thoughts, words and deeds. Failure to do so actively leads to misery for the individual and for his family. This is also the moral of many of the stories of the Shahnameh, the key text of Persian mythology.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:redneF

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.

Weak attempt at shifting the theist's burden of proof.

it was a weak case from Brian to begin with.

No.

The claim of an 'immaterial brain' is nonsensical.

caposkia wrote:
why make an effort larger then the effort put forth? 

His claim is infinitely more compatible with reality, than the opposite.

Unless you can debunk his claim, you've failed to do anything but take up bandwidth trying to intelligently rebuke the claim.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

No because I'm not claiming lack of evidence as an excuse for believing either.  I'm endorsing thought.

So, you've come to the firm conclusion that science doesn't have a more plausible explanation for how the universe formed? Or how life evolved, than ancient scripture??

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.

Better try and reword that response....it makes no sense whatsoever...

 

caposkia wrote:

Everything proven to be true at one time was merely a claim.

I think you've got that backwards.

If you know your history (you keep claiming to be thorough in your 'investigation'), you'd know that the church used to burn people at the stake for attempting to 'prove' the claims of the church were wrong.

They lost their grip on being the 'purveyors' of 'truth' a long time ago, and the power to rule the people went along with it.

You people will never have that power again.

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
The sun was not a god, and your god is fictional too.

 that's an associative conclusion without basis.

Patently false.

Thousands of god 'legends' from antiquity have been debunked and now reside alongside Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Your 'argument' that is without basis is a logical fallacy, that is beyond sophomoric.

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods. 

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
I can state my logical reasoning and I have and you know it

You and I tried that with a '1 on 1', and there was simply nothing intriguing in your 'reasons'.

Our one on one consisted of you asking me for my background, then ending it due to your own personal conclusions.   No reasoning was stated.

I gave you my reasons, very clearly.

You're 'all show', and 'no go'.

You had the spotlight, and this is the best case you can make?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079#comment-335407

 

The reasons where that you started to go downhill real quick with your responses. There was nothing detailed or compelling in your response, as to how you concluded that 'God' exists, or even why it's plausible to even entertain the thought.

If there is anything in that thread that you want to quote to prove that I overlooked some compelling evidence, by all means, do so.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

If you'd like to claim otherwise, then introduce 1 remotely compelling 'logical reasoning' in this thread, and impress the entire forum...

I'm assuming you're talking about logical reasoning specifically about my God existing.  There's a reason why i ask what you're looking for because each person's logical reasoning is going to be different, so much to your disappointment, the whole forum might not be impressed, but here goes.

There are thousands of miracle claims from around the world.  Research shows that there is no natural explanation for these phenomenon.  The Vatican has recorded many healing miracles and others beyond healing have been reported from every corner of the globe throughout history.  

Now it's your turn to discredit the Vatican which at this point was my only specific reference(not that I don't have more) and I will agree with you that the catholic church is hardly credible, but they do their homework as far as miracles are concerned and so i support their findings on that front.  Beyond that, I'll sit here and watch you ask for a specific miracle only to question its authority and liklelihood of the happening only for me to say it's from a credible source, which is subjective of course regardless 

That's punting to God.

People have been doing that for millenia.

It's getting old...

 

caposkia wrote:

so i will ask for the 100th time... What specifically are you looking for?

A reason why anyone should be convinced (as you are), that the folklore of the Christian god, and Jesus are actually real.

caposkia wrote:

Don't cower away either by claiming i ignored your challenge.  I gave you what you asked as specific as you asked it.  If you want something more, ask directly, don't beat around the bush. 

Stop posturing.

WTF would I cower away from someone who can't do anything but duck and weave?

There's no good reason that I've ever heard, that makes me even stop and question my skepticism.

Here's your chance.

You claim to be a true 'Christian'.

According to other 'true Christians' I've talked to, it's part of their duty to help others come to 'God'.

You've got a forum full of reasonable people.

So, give us some good reasons...

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

Your whole thread was about how weak the 'argument' was from the RRS in the debate with Ray Ray the "Banana Man" and Kirk the "Crocoduck" logician.

how is my question asking for a focus so that i can answer appropriately strawman?  I'm not making a claim, I'm asking a question.  Yes my thread was about how weak the argument was in that debate.  It's the whole reason why i got on this site in the first place.  

Give us all 1 good reason to believe that 'God' exists.

Just 1.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

redneF wrote:

You have yet to demonstrate that you have anything remotely intriguing to 'argue', or 'difficult' to overcome.

You have yet to be specific enough to discuss anything.  

Ummm, no.

I even set up a thread for you to bring whatever big guns you felt would be compelling reasons to believe in god, and all I seem to see are:

caposkia wrote:
to make a long story short...

caposkia wrote:

I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

 

caposkia wrote:

This theoretical God did put events and people in my life in a way that made it obvious to me that there was someone there. 

caposkia wrote:
I started seriously studying what the Bible was teaching.  Turns out most religion got it wrong from what i was learning.  From this point I made it a point not to accept anything that couldn't be proven scripturally. 

 

caposkia wrote:
  I studied the Bible starting in highschool personally and didn't get any outside help in understanding what i was reading until about mid highschool.  That's when the 4th angle of knowing God came into my life.  They were more congruent with scripture and introduced me to the spiritual warfare angle, which from what i've found is very Biblical.  

to this day I use all resources and still challenge all people opposing what I accept to further investigate my beliefs, but of course from what I've seen, I can logically accept the existence of God.  

 

caposkia wrote:

as you can see from my summary, there was a time of questioning... that was when i was in middle school through highschool and a little bit of college.  I fully accept the existence of God now, but I vowed to myself and God that i would constantly question everything I know  and accept and seek to challenge my own belief so that i wouldn't fall in the religious acceptance and get stuck in a one track state of mind.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Ultimately, I don't question the existence of God, it seems pretty clear to me, though i still question everything I know, therefore, if there's reason to not believe there is a God, i'm open to it.  

I really like that last part.

A total non sequitur.

"I don't question the existence of God', but, "if there's reason to not believe there is a God, i'm open to it. "

 

 So, that's a 'True Christian', huh?

That's funny.

That's not even a sober statement...

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

At least the guys with the Modal Arguments exercise our brains.

That's because they're leading the conversation.  I'm letting you lead.  if its weak, you have yourself to blame. 

No.

You're just trying to shift the burden.

It's your calling card.

The burden is 100% yours.

I'm not only giving you the 'lead', I'm directly asking you to give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to be convinced (as you purport to be) that 'God' "obviously" exists.

I'll even lower the bar some more. Give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to even consider that Jesus actually existed and was put here by 'God'.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
So redundant because it has yet to be addressed by those who seem to think they're being more direct with me.

I was direct with you, and gave you every opportunity to 'showcase' your 'story'.

uh.. you asked me for my history then concluded that i dont' have logical reasoning.  Again, i was following your lead.  what opportunity did you give me again?

redneF wrote:

There are so many 'gaps' in your spiritual 'journey', that it's like reading a book with pages missing.

so be specific and ask me to fill in the gaps where you feel they are needed.   I'm waiting.

I asked you very specifically not to be vague:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079#comment-335577

And your response was:

 

 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
oh, and i'm not looking for a focus like "god"... that's not a focus.  I'm looking for something more like; "I haven't seen you explain your logical reasoning for god scientifically considering an X point of view or Y focus in science"... basically I'm looking for you to tell me literally and clearly what exactly you need to hear from me.  You say you're being more direct... show me. Bring it.

Sure.

Here it is:

I understand that you believe that God is not merely a myth, and that he exists. But why should I believe it's not a myth (like all the other 'Gods' of antiquity), and that a God exists, as well?
 

To answer the question as to why you should believe God exists, i would answer because he does exist.  

You've got to be kidding me?

This thread is a criticism of the 'poor job' done in the debate between the RRS and Ray Ray and Kirk 'Crocoduck', and you respond "Because he exists!" as an answer to the question of 'Why I should believe the Christian god is not a myth?'

 

caposkia wrote:

if you want more specifics...

Ummm, nakedly asserting "Because he does exist", is not a 'specific' reason to assume that the Christian god exists.

caposkia wrote:

I will ask yet again, what are you looking for.  

The same thing I've been asking you all along...

To give compelling reasons why I should believe that the Christian god is not merely a myth.

Give me the best reasons.

List them.

 

caposkia wrote:

It’s easier for me to tell the summary then answer the ‘vague’ questions specifically. 

.

Which doesn't even make sense, since I didn't ask any 'vague' questions. They were very 'pointed' questions.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:People made

Brian37 wrote:

People made shit up. People after them made more shit up to compete with the prior shit made up.

 

...and you're good at falling for made up shit.  Oh wait, that's me right?  hmm.  How do we know what's made up and what's real without making assumptions or going with what's comfortable?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1a. And yet,

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. And yet, you believe your flood story is true because God said so in the Bible (which is right because he said so in the Bible). Do I believe the Egyptian flood story is mythical? I can only be sure of the parts of the story that involve their gods. There may have been a regional flood. Do you stand against your scriptures and claim that the flood of Noah was regional?

first of all, I'm pretty sure the scripture claims it was a world wide flood... which could be assumed to be regional due to a perspective that the writers had no concept of "world".  

Beyond that, I believe in the Biblical flood because of cultural reports around the world of a flood of similar magnitude ironically taking place somewhere within that 1000 year period.  Also geological findings suggest there was a flood of great magnitude during that time in that location.  the idea that it was regional for sure came from that... though no one ever took the time to take a worldwide sample of that era to be sure whether it was regional or world wide.  Despite the magnitude, it happened and it was severe enough to wipe out life in the area.    There is debate about the world magnitude, but then the reports of a severe flood from cultures from all the continents of the world is kind of ironic.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. Though I don't drink, I can accept Ben Franklin's alleged opinion that "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Then again, I lean more toward a deistic God existing if one does at all (like Ben).

2. I don't need empirical evidence to dispute your (and other Christians') positive claim - I though you knew that.

No one needs empirical evidence to dispute an opposing point of view... the problem is if you want to get anywhere with your counter, you might need that empirical evidence

jcgadfly wrote:

3. The variable time frame like the one in the garden of Eden? If your God meant by "surely die" - "you'll die after living to a ripe old age for the environment you live in"is that really a threat?

it is if you weren't going to age and die before and you knew it

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Again, you only make that claim when I give you questions you can't answer. Just because you don't like the questions doesn't mean they're not valid ("good" is a poor standard). If you are saying my questions are BS remember that they are only in response to your claims. If there's a problem, re-evaluate your claims.

If there's ever a question I can't answer, I will make it clear as to why.  YOu know this.  i believe my last response to you was that I gave you an answer as specific and reasonable as the question asked... in other words, I answered the question as asked.    If you're not satisfied with the answer, it might be that you need to either be more specific with your question or check to see if the question makes sense.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the question is irrational anymore due to the fact that I get responses such as this and I'm bored of trying to explain how I wasn't ignoring the question.  Instead, I will just answer the question as clear and as precise as what was asked.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. And yet, you believe your flood story is true because God said so in the Bible (which is right because he said so in the Bible). Do I believe the Egyptian flood story is mythical? I can only be sure of the parts of the story that involve their gods. There may have been a regional flood. Do you stand against your scriptures and claim that the flood of Noah was regional?

first of all, I'm pretty sure the scripture claims it was a world wide flood... which could be assumed to be regional due to a perspective that the writers had no concept of "world".  

Beyond that, I believe in the Biblical flood because of cultural reports around the world of a flood of similar magnitude ironically taking place somewhere within that 1000 year period.  Also geological findings suggest there was a flood of great magnitude during that time in that location.  the idea that it was regional for sure came from that... though no one ever took the time to take a worldwide sample of that era to be sure whether it was regional or world wide.  Despite the magnitude, it happened and it was severe enough to wipe out life in the area.    There is debate about the world magnitude, but then the reports of a severe flood from cultures from all the continents of the world is kind of ironic.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. Though I don't drink, I can accept Ben Franklin's alleged opinion that "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy". Then again, I lean more toward a deistic God existing if one does at all (like Ben).

2. I don't need empirical evidence to dispute your (and other Christians') positive claim - I though you knew that.

No one needs empirical evidence to dispute an opposing point of view... the problem is if you want to get anywhere with your counter, you might need that empirical evidence

jcgadfly wrote:

3. The variable time frame like the one in the garden of Eden? If your God meant by "surely die" - "you'll die after living to a ripe old age for the environment you live in"is that really a threat?

it is if you weren't going to age and die before and you knew it

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Again, you only make that claim when I give you questions you can't answer. Just because you don't like the questions doesn't mean they're not valid ("good" is a poor standard). If you are saying my questions are BS remember that they are only in response to your claims. If there's a problem, re-evaluate your claims.

If there's ever a question I can't answer, I will make it clear as to why.  YOu know this.  i believe my last response to you was that I gave you an answer as specific and reasonable as the question asked... in other words, I answered the question as asked.    If you're not satisfied with the answer, it might be that you need to either be more specific with your question or check to see if the question makes sense.  I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the question is irrational anymore due to the fact that I get responses such as this and I'm bored of trying to explain how I wasn't ignoring the question.  Instead, I will just answer the question as clear and as precise as what was asked.  

1. Indeed the scripture does claim that there was a world-wide flood. History and science disagree with you. They must be wrong, huh? That or God did this and magically removed any evidence of it .

2. People have given you evidence (myself included). For some reason you choose to ignore it.

3. So, if you accept that they had no concept of their own death and didn't know what that meant for them you have to agree (if you take the evidence as it is) that God made a meaningless threat. Put that together with God placing a good/evil choice in front of people who didn't know what either were and certainly not the difference between them then you also have to agree that God desired the Fall (if you believe the story and take the evidence as it is).

4. You dismissed my question and decided to be insulting (questioning my mental state) instead. Did you redefine "honesty" when I wasn't looking?  Contrary to your belief, claiming that a question doesn't make sense because you can't answer it/don't like where it leads is not equivalent to answering it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Dude the

TGBaker wrote:

Dude the plants were not created before the sun.  In fact the universe is 13.7 billion years old.  The earth cooled and formed 4.5 billion years ago long after stars were formed. That iis factual. Not that they were created as lights in the sky to tell seasons, They were lights in the sky by which man learned to tell seasons. So we are stuck with science going against scripture because it does. It is simply a reflection of  Semitic myth about 700 BCE. 

Dude I know what science says.  There are many perspectives on that as well and angles one can take that allow this to be supported by science, including the idea that Genesis is not chronological and that the "days" are literally just periods of time and not necessarily consecutive periods of time.  The problem I have with that perspective however is there's nothing to suggest it's not and it seems that it was one after another and not just randomly put there.  The other idea is the forming of the solar system and the process of formation and strength of the sun.  Now carbon dating gives us a specific understanding of age, but anything beyond that is speculation referencing only to what we can observe.  In other words, it's no more supported than what many historians claim as reasons to believe the Bible is false... that being the claims of occurances using observable data and not necessarily correct data, which is consistent in historical writings all over the world from that time.  

Ultimately, I can see that it's not going to matter what angle I take, to you, science goes against scripture and no matter how legitimate my counter to that is, you're going to believe that I'm only trying to justify a false story.  I get that and that's fine.  If you really want to discuss both sides of this, then let's talk about how much we really know in science and how much is fact through empiricism.  

TGBaker wrote:

If you are not going to justify the Bible with Genesis ewhne it is part of the bible then what are you doing.  It does discredit the whole story and places it with the other creation myths of that period.  The plants were created on the third day and the sun, stars and moon on the fourth.   Also the earth revolves around that sun. Are you saying the earth is older than the stars and the sun!!!!!!  

are you saying you were there to watch it form!!!!  c'mon dude.  Let's put it this way, all we know from Genesis is that the Earth started off empty and void... as far as science is concerned, this "Earth" described could be the mass of space junk that was hurtling through space at this point in time that would potentially become the planet as we know it.  There's nothing to suggest otherwise.  We assume that in reference to the Earth that it's in the solar system already orbiting the sun.  Nothing suggests it's already in orbit or even near the right location to be lit by the sun.    I'm guessing you didn't take that into consideration when arguing the point that the sun existed before the Earth as your case for Genesis going against science.

TGBaker wrote:

So it did not revolve around anything . Is it the center of the universe.  It is hardly a weak defense. You have no response for it other than going against every known fact that I've presented. You are simply going against fact to try and preserve an idea of inspiration of scripture that is not valid any more than the story of creation is valid. Your idea of photo synthesis before there is a sun is not even a speculation.

Of course it's not... all we know scientifically is the sun, therefore, there'd be nothing to study that would suggest photosynthesis before the sun... not to say that there wasn't, but we have nothing to use to argue the point on either side... You start using science and then fall into speculation.  With arguing the validity of such a story, there of course would have to be speculation on both sides... but if you're going to argue with speculation, then you're going to have to accept fact and speculation from the opposing side as well.  Your speculation in this case is that the "Earth" was already in orbit and orbiting the sun.  We don't know exactly when the Biblical creation story took place in history, therefore we can only speculate that the Earth was in orbit and even in the solar system.  Facts would suggest that it was not.

TGBaker wrote:

It is a falsehood that is being presented to try and justify a false belief about a myth of creation.  Photosynthesis did not develop until long after single celled life had developed. 

That's what we would speculate because from our observable life, we can see no other way.  Put God into the equation and suddenly there are more unknowns.

TGBaker wrote:

The idea of light before in the book before there is a sun is a typical belief that the day have light and the night did not. The sun was a a secondary of light and the moon another. 

that's all the people knew... why would the writer make it more complicated than that?  Assuming God was behind the writing, would it prove beneficial to His purpose to get into a full scientific explanation that the writer and the people reading it would not comprehend for 1000's of years to come?

TGBaker wrote:

The story has god create light so the story can have days.  The earth is a disc in the primal ocean. The sky is a bowl for which the pillars of the four ends hold up. The stars were visioned as being on the bowl that kept the waters from above in coming together with the ocean.   It is a primitve falt earth view of our world. 

What I have presented is factual about the solar system.  There is nothing valid about light before the sun in the story. That is not to say that there was not light before the sun for there were billions of older stars.  I assume I know more than is written in whatever books you are talking about. WHAT BOOKS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT>  Pick up any book about the solar system, the universe and its formation. It is a myth and there was no fall and so no need for a sacrifice of a human being on a cross. Sorry.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

There are a thousand books at the end of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Where does sacrifice of a human being on a cross come into the scientific understanding of the Genesis story?  What are your thoughts on the possibility that the Earth was not yet in orbit?  If your thoughts have anything to do with me trying to justify something that is obviously false, then I think we're done here.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

TGBaker wrote:

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1a. The pyramids were being built during Noah's worldwide flood. Noah's flood story can't be right as it stands against history. The Egyptians had a flood story also (it's actually older than the story of Noah) - but that one's a myth, right?

If you read back on PJTS and I's thread, you'll notice that we've agreed that the exact timing of the stories are not precisely known and they may be off by many hundreds of years.  This being the case, the Egypt flood and the Noah flood may be in sync.  So you have evidence to believe the Egypt flood is mythical?  Be it that the papyrus is damaged and hard to interpret, I'm quite shocked, but I'll see what you have to present.

jcgadfly wrote:

1b. The Babylonians were brewing beer when the earth and universe were supposedly created (I'm pretty sure you don't believe that but this if for the YECs). Guys, did God give Babylonia a special place to work while he was making the rest of the earth?

Of course, you should know beer and wine take priority over all creation!

jcgadfly wrote:

2.  I expect the Bible to be religious propaganda. It's the Christians who insist on making the Bible something it's not (starting with the claim of Revealed Truth).

that's a claim that would suggest you are holding out on us... what empirical evidences do you have now?

jcgadfly wrote:

3. Those consequences must not have meant a damn thing to the people who wrote and translated it because they've been mucking about withe the Bible for the last several thousand years. So, since God has yet to visit those threats on those who mucked about with Scripture, yep, he's a wuss.

He never said when it would happen... the other problem with your conclusion above is God is going to judge according to his own understanding and not yours or anyone elses.  Your "mucking with scripture" I've learned is a bit different than actually changing what it says or changing the words within.  The ones who do change it are held accountable to it.

jcgadfly wrote:

4. Why do you only accuse me of not engaging you in conversation when I ask questions that you only have BS answers for? How have you knocked me down from your back?

I accuse you because you used to be someone who actually asked good questions.  I don't know what happened.  The answers you're getting are as reasonable as the questions you ask.  They are literally simple, strait forward answers focused specifically and solely on what you asked.

You simply go around in circles. We provide empirical proof and you ignore it. The creation story is purely a myth as is the flood story. Read the earlier version of the Epic of Gilgemish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

 

Other fall of man myths :

Other traditions

  • In Gnosticism, the snake is thanked for bringing knowledge to Adam and Eve, and thereby freeing them from the Demiurge's control. The Demiurge banished Adam and Eve, because man was now a threat.
  • Ancient Greek mythology held that humanity was immortal during the Golden Age, until Prometheus brought them fire to help them live through cold. The gods punished humans allowing Pandora to release the evil (death, sorrow, plague) into the world due to her curiosity. See Ages of Man for more.
  • In classic Zoroastrianism, humanity is created to withstand the forces of decay and destruction through good thoughts, words and deeds. Failure to do so actively leads to misery for the individual and for his family. This is also the moral of many of the stories of the Shahnameh, the key text of Persian mythology.

 

 

I'll try to read those links at some point.  I feel I've been answering you quite directly.  how have I been ignoring empirical evidence?  How about what I just presented?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:No.The claim of

redneF wrote:

No.

The claim of an 'immaterial brain' is nonsensical.

Anything that one might not understand or believe is nonsensical to them.  It's a subjective stance.  

redneF wrote:

His claim is infinitely more compatible with reality, than the opposite.

Unless you can debunk his claim, you've failed to do anything but take up bandwidth trying to intelligently rebuke the claim.

What claim?  A brain with no brain being nonsense?  He has yet to rationally support that claim.  It'd be like me trying to prove you don't have a dog and you claiming you do but refusing to show me.   It's useless to pursue.  Anyone can claim anything and not support it... and if enough people agree, suddenly it's rational.  

His best argument for his claim is the same that you and others are trying to accuse me of using, which is rationale without basis.  If your'e going to buy his, why shouldn't I just claim something and expect you to believe it?  BTW I'm not, but as far as Brain's concerned, that's all I need to do with him.   That's all he's expecting me to buy.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything.....

That's endorsing gullibility over skepticism.

skepticism is fine, but a good skeptic has reasoning behind their skepticism.  skepticism without basis has another term associated with it... it's called ignorance.  

redneF wrote:

So, you've come to the firm conclusion that science doesn't have a more plausible explanation for how the universe formed? Or how life evolved, than ancient scripture??

I have come to the firm conclusion that science and scripture support each other.  Where there is no support, there's a lack of information to claim anything on either side.

Not claiming here that the Bible is a scientific document.  Only that most of what's written in scripture can be supported scientifically.  What can't we don't have enough information about... this woudl include claimed miracles.   They sound amazing, but we weren't there and of course science has nothing to reference to as far as miracles are concerned... if it did, they wouldn't be miracles.  

redneF wrote:

While that is a personal choice, it is impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things that are merely 'claimed', and not shown to be unequivocally true.

caposkia wrote:

interesting perspective be it that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.

Better try and reword that response....it makes no sense whatsoever...

then you're getting too deep for yourself.  You said "it's impractical, foolish, and dangerous to give equal consideration to things taht are merely 'claimed'."  Assuming that the claimed things were always proven... or so it seems... so I responded that in order for us to give less consideration to things claimed, we'd have to not discover.  Basically what I'm saying is everything proven started off as a claim.  In order for those claims to be considered true or false, you'd have to give those claims 'equal consideration' to all other claims.  Otherwise, you're just as reasonable as any religious sect out there only accepting what you want to be true and not necessarily what is true.  

redneF wrote:

I think you've got that backwards.

If you know your history (you keep claiming to be thorough in your 'investigation'), you'd know that the church used to burn people at the stake for attempting to 'prove' the claims of the church were wrong.

They lost their grip on being the 'purveyors' of 'truth' a long time ago, and the power to rule the people went along with it.

You people will never have that power again.

This in reference to all truths started as a claim.  Are you saying we knew the truth before something was claimed to be?  I know my history and I know what the churches did... if you did your homework, you'd also see the claims that the church was tryign to protect had no basis scripturally or scientifically.    There are sects today that still make false claims and try to base it on scripture, any educated person can easily see they're wrong.  Some of these sects have pretty serious consequences for their patrons that go against them... unfortunately for them, fortunately for us they have some serious laws to obide by and can no longer burn people for opposing views.  

redneF wrote:

Quote:

my point was that it was an associative conclusion.  He and you have no basis to associate my God with all other gods. 

That's an incredibly stupid special pleading for 'your god'.

The Egyptians attempted monotheism more than once, and there were other 'Jesus' type 'Miracle Man' myths before. 

You say this and have no basis for your claim.  I can claim the same about you, but it's going to get us nowhere... YOur'e back talking to me again even though you gave up on a debate that you ran from.  Are you saying you want to debate after all?  

redneF wrote:

I gave you my reasons, very clearly.

You're 'all show', and 'no go'.

You had the spotlight, and this is the best case you can make?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29079#comment-335407

 

The reasons where that you started to go downhill real quick with your responses. There was nothing detailed or compelling in your response, as to how you concluded that 'God' exists, or even why it's plausible to even entertain the thought.

If there is anything in that thread that you want to quote to prove that I overlooked some compelling evidence, by all means, do so.

hmmm... maybe the part about how I started doing research and concluded from researching a number of valid and accepted avenues such as science, history, archeology etc. that I found the truth... I didn't yet go into detail about any of those because the focus at the point was my history and not what I had researched... AND without even inquiring about what I might have found though valid avenues, you concluded that due to my history of faith being false, despite my turning from that, that anything I researched must have been false.  This without any reference or claim yet made.  

There's a reason why i claimed you wasted people's time.  If your goal during that debate was to disprove my understanding through my history, then you should have said that.  I would have told you strait up that my history has nothing to do with what I believe today... though I'm pretty sure I told you that as well... I may have forgot to mention that, though I figured it was pretty clear in my writeup.  

redneF wrote:

That's punting to God.

People have been doing that for millenia.

It's getting old...

Then find a miracle and empirically disprove it.  I mean a valid one.  Valid being that the Vatican has claimed it to be officially a miracle.  Oh, i'm sorry, was that too much to ask?

redneF wrote:

A reason why anyone should be convinced (as you are), that the folklore of the Christian god, and Jesus are actually real.

where shall we start... this is the point where I'm lookign for you to pick a specific valid direction.  From there, I might ask you to get more specific with where you want to go, but that's not me ignoring, that's just me making sure we're focused.  

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Don't cower away either by claiming i ignored your challenge.  I gave you what you asked as specific as you asked it.  If you want something more, ask directly, don't beat around the bush. 

Stop posturing.

WTF would I cower away from someone who can't do anything but duck and weave?

Dude, where are you getting this from?  as far as a conversation between you and I go, I haven't claimed anything and you've ran from anything you've challenged me to do, so what exactly am I ducking and weaving from?

redneF wrote:

There's no good reason that I've ever heard, that makes me even stop and question my skepticism.

Here's your chance.

You claim to be a true 'Christian'.

According to other 'true Christians' I've talked to, it's part of their duty to help others come to 'God'.

You've got a forum full of reasonable people.

So, give us some good reasons...

Start reading the branched forums from this one.  The history forum with JPTC, the forum started with Baker.  etc.  Those are more focused and get into what you're claiming to look for.  just a suggestion.  they are focused and flowing... don't respond in those unless you have something substantial to share.

redneF wrote:

caposkia wrote:
but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site. 

That's a complete intellectually dishonest strawman.

Red, the question wasn't rhetorical.  You're claiming strawman before any reasoning was put forth.  Your'e also ignoring the question.  even still with the new responses... yes you're looking for 1 good reason.  I could give you one good reason to like icecream, but if you're not a fan of chocolate or coffee, then my case that the coffee chocolate chip icecream is all the reasoning in the world is going to mean nothing to you.   Stop ignoring the question.

redneF wrote:

Quote:

 

You have yet to be specific enough to discuss anything.  

Ummm, no.

I even set up a thread for you to bring whatever big guns you felt would be compelling reasons to believe in god, and all I seem to see are:

caposkia wrote:
to make a long story short...

caposkia wrote:

I started questioning the whole thing. (yes there are gaps in my story, but I'm trying to make a long story short.)

 

you never got to the big guns section... you asked me a specific question.. I only got to answering it.  which was what my history was.

redneF wrote:

 So, that's a 'True Christian', huh?

um... no... that's the testimony of one of many paths to becoming a true Christian and a good example of what a true Christian isnt'.  Dude, stop speculating and start confronting it.  YOu have nothing and you're trying to make a case out of it.  STOP IGNORING THE QUESTION.

redneF wrote:

Quote:

That's because they're leading the conversation.  I'm letting you lead.  if its weak, you have yourself to blame. 

No.

You're just trying to shift the burden.

Dude, most good debators would find it dangerous to allow the opposing side to take control.  It would mean they would have to have a better defense and reasoning than they.  You on the other hand decide to conclude that this approach is "shifting the burden" and is weaker on my side.  Interesting.  Does that mean you're case really is that weak?

redneF wrote:

I'm not only giving you the 'lead', I'm directly asking you to give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to be convinced (as you purport to be) that 'God' "obviously" exists.

I'll even lower the bar some more. Give me 'good', 'strong' reasons to even consider that Jesus actually existed and was put here by 'God'.

right, and I've given you one question so that I may start.  I need a focus.  ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE ME A FOCUS?

Here's one.  Statistically  over 80% of the worlds population accepts the fact that there is a metaphysical existence.  I know many arguments against this as a claim to believe, but you wanted one.  Now if this means nothing to you, which I think it won't, then I need you to pick a frikken focus, or all your'e going to get is more claims that you may not accept.  some would accept statistics as extreme as these as reason to consider further.  You I have a feeling won't... which is fine, but what would get you to consider further?  What specifically?  At least Brain gave me a specific... it's an irrational specific and I told him why, but it was a specific.  You can't even do that.  

redneF wrote:

You've got to be kidding me?

This thread is a criticism of the 'poor job' done in the debate between the RRS and Ray Ray and Kirk 'Crocoduck', and you respond "Because he exists!" as an answer to the question of 'Why I should believe the Christian god is not a myth?'

finally I think you're seeing how broad you're allowing this to be... I answered your question as specifically as you asked it.  You should follow up with what reasoning do you have to support that question... then I will propose the question I've been asking you again... where do you want to start (FOCUS) remember????  This... this is where we've hit a wall.

redneF wrote:

The same thing I've been asking you all along...

To give compelling reasons why I should believe that the Christian god is not merely a myth.

Give me the best reasons.

List them.

as vague as you asked??? ok

scientific reasoning

history

Archeology

Geology

Vatican research and claims of miracles as supported and backed up by their modified years of research.

personal experiences with this God

spiritual encounters, some personal, some from other reliable sources.

congruency with happenings and claims scripturally

um... I may have forgotten a few... that's a start though.

now I haven't given you anything to go on yet, only avenues of support... why do I get the feeling that you're going to claim I claimed something and try to claim a strawman?

 

redneF wrote:

Which doesn't even make sense, since I didn't ask any 'vague' questions. They were very 'pointed' questions.

pointed?  sure... but then you claim the answers are vague despite the response that was just as pointed as the question. e.g... why should I believe?  Because God exists.  It's like why should I accept that the Earth revolves around the sun?  The most direct answer to that question is because it does.  Now of cousre I want reasoning behind it, but your astrological maps and books aren't credible to me, so where to from there?  you might actually need to ask me what I might want to look at as a focus or what it is that would convince me then.  You then might find that simply looking through a telescope and seeing the stars change through the seasons would convince me of yoru claim... therefore you would have taken so much time to give me all the research in the world that would not convince me when all I needed was a first hand experience that you could show me.  

this is why I ask you for a focus.  I'm not going to spin off years of research for you to tell me they're not credible sources and/or whatever else... or just run away.  iwant to know what really would interest you.. .what focus.  Your question is vague despite how pointed you think it is.. it opens up the forum to anything and everything... some of it you might not accept and I want to avoid wasting time on those focuses.   Are you up for that challenge?  '