Evidence and the Supernatural

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Evidence and the Supernatural

In response to Caposkia's request, I've started this thread in the hopes that the conversation will actually progress somewhere. 

The topic of this conversation is very simple. 

- show me evidence for the existence of a spiritual world, basically, any world other than this one.

- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

- existence of some "creator" or "higher power."

etc.

I am pretty lenient on what is evidence: refer to a scientific journal with an article discussing evidence for the supernatural (even theist websites are okay, but it better be good. Not AIG), some aspect of nature or life that requires an outside force, valid philosophical argument, and even anecdotal evidence. 

Oh, if I start seeing stereotypical, lame arguments like the fine tuning argument, every painting has a painter, appeal to fear or guilt, argument from morality, argument from faith, I'm going to be royally pissed.    

I hope I have made this clear.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

HisWillness wrote:

An excellent point. Of course, the Bible has more sway in people's minds than Little House on the Hill, so when people start to take it at its word that homosexuals should be punished simply for being homosexual, I start wondering "who the contractor was".

That's taking it out of context.  Sure we should be punished for everything we do wrong.  Homosexuality is something that's always pulled out of the hat.  What about murder? 

The idea there is that the contractor didn't design sex that way, not that the feelings are wrong, the act would be.  There are medical reasons for that. 

Also, it's like asking an artistic glass blower to make you a nice glass sculpture, then later using it for a bong.  How do you think the artist is going to feel about that? 

Would they or would they not have a right to be upset about it? 

The problem here is how religions have blown this way out of proportion.  Contrary to popular belief, you can still be a follower of Christ and be homosexual.  The Bible supports that understanding.

HisWillness wrote:

My point was not that the Bible should have contained more information, it's that the information in the Bible doesn't help us find out anything. Period.

mainly because it takes understanding to find out anything from the Bible.  Why would you consider anything that you think its fictional a source for information?

HisWillness wrote:

You've careened past the point. The possibility that there are spiritual beings of any kind is equally unlikely. The unlikeliness of a plane of existence that has yet to reveal itself as having any influence on our present plane of existence approaches infinity.

There are over a billion people in the world that would disagree with your statement.  Not because they believe in the Christian God, but because they have seen this plane of existance reveal itself to them and seen how it has influenced our present plane. 

Think of the Butterfly affect.  The littlest, most unnoticable happening can cause the largest change. 

HisWillness wrote:

Try this: test something on the "spiritual plane". Measure a "spiritual being". Observe a spiritual being. Can you? Probably not. You can't because you know absolutely nothing about the spiritual plane. If that's the case, how is it that you know it is inhabited?

well, let's take this logically and one step at a time.  how are you wanting me to measure a "spiritual being"?  With a ruler??? 

What kind of test would you expect me to perform on the "spiritual plane"? 

What factors are you taking into consideration for your outcome?

Do you consider at all that if spirits are real, they'd have a mind of their own and can make their own choices thus not necessarily cooperating with your study? 

HisWillness wrote:

No, but then my grandmother wouldn't say that. She also wasn't representing the word of an invisible (yet supremely powerful) ruler. You don't think that changes the tone just a little?

again, I think you're smarter than that.  You know what I was getting at.  It is a saying that many grandparents have said to their kids and sometimes their grandkids. 

The point was when they said that, they obviously didn't want you to go play in traffic, if they did, they should be in jail.  The idea was for you to stop bothering them for a bit. 

now parallel that to your original question.

HisWillness wrote:

Of course. That's what I mean. You don't take it literally. There's no point in doing so.

precisely.  Though I'm sure you're not using that statement as a specific reference are you. 

Which would you more likely take seriously?

Go play in traffic.

Go outside and play.

Are you having trouble figuring that out?  I would assume not.  Same with scripture.

Though the idea is if you know that it's your eye or hand that's really been making you consistently trip and it's really the source of your problems, then yes, you would get rid of it. 

Do we not do that medically?  If your leg is injured to the point that it's just a deadweight and has no possibility of doing anything for you in the future, would you amputate it or let it stay?

HisWillness wrote:

You're unbelievable. God won't control people, but he interferes, but he doesn't interfere, but he does. So he affects the world without having a physical presence. I just can't believe you. The things that you say remain unconfirmed to say the least.

I can't believe you can get lost in such simple claims. 

Do you understand free will?  He'll interfere if we let him.  It's still a choice. 

When you first came on, I thought you were going to be a good support for your understanding.  I'm really starting to wonder about that.

HisWillness wrote:

That's not the least bit true. With what we know of neuroscience, unexpected things like that happen all the time. My point was that there is no separating the brain from the mind. Without the brain, there is no mind. 

it's not the least bit true, yet it happens all the time unexpectedly.  Are you saying that science says it should happen?  if it should, then why is it unexpected???

you contradicted yourself, but I understand that wasn't your intention.  I get it.

I see your logic as well.  Please present to me your research.  We can go from there.

HisWillness wrote:

No, you don't. You emphasize what you believe to be the scientific method. The scientific method is much more rigorous, and continues to narrow the gap into which people have aimed to put gods for years. Personal experiences are influenced by "bias" in the scientific realm, and as such, need not apply.

oh geez here we go again.  Its' already been agreed upon my understanding of the SM is the same as the generic definition of it.  We're past this point.

I challenge you or anyone to try that approach and still, excuses come up.

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, look who's the expert now! So naturally, you can tell fact from fiction, and determine whether something may or may not be true.

not for everything, but from the research I've done and the understanding I have, yea.  I'm usually pretty good about it, though if I'm ever unsure, I always do more research. 

were you assuming you were the expert before?  Just for the record, I never said I was an expert.  don't get all huffy puffy on me now.  It's just a friendly conversation.

HisWillness wrote:

Congratulations. That's step one. That's the attempt to eliminate bias. In your attempt to eliminate bias, you may have to consider many explanations that don't coincide with what the Bible says. Until you can consider other explanations, you may be suffering from bias.

I feel like I'm starting at square 1 with you.  I've made it abundantly clear through this forum and others this was my stance. 

I've heard that statement 100 times.  Though for the amount of time I've been on this site, I would have expected at least a small bit of conclusive evidence.  I've heard many explanations that don't coenside with what the Bible says.  They were easily refuted as misunderstandings or lack of research.

Do you have something new?

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You have something that's beyond a fossil record or other physical sciences?

Gee, no I don't. Do you?

read through the forum.  Pick a topic.  There's also more, but I"m making a feeble attempt here at staying focused.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Wow, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

Wow, I missed that response of cap's. If he truly thinks that that feeling comes remotely close to 'proving' God is real...

*face-palm*

why is it that you're so far off the plane?

it was simply pointing out that his attempt failed, not that it comes close to proving God is real.  it's just clarifying a logical approach to the statement. 

are you saying his came remotely close to disproving God???

*face-palm*


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I wasn't

nigelTheBold wrote:

I wasn't really comparing her belief to yours; I was responding to this one quote:

caposkia wrote:

The simple point was that physical observations are not going to proove the spiritual.  I think you further clarified my point above.  I'm trying to get people off the need for "physical" evidence and possibly try some SM.

The only comparison is that she also asked me to go beyond physical observation to accept her beliefs. I just used her as the most ludicrous example of people saying the lack of physical evidence isn't a flaw.

She even told you to use SM to come to the same conclusion she did?

nigelTheBold wrote:

As for the books to back up the history of the Bible: I read this really great by by Timothy Powers called Declare. It was a spy thriller that tells the story of a man who fought djinn during both WWII, and the height of the cold war in 1963. It included several historic people, many historic events, and very real historic places.

Because there is historic evidence supporting the book, does that mean that djinn are real? Or that the Soviet Union chained one, and (spoiler alert!) collapsed only on its death in the 1980s?

How much fact do you accept in a book before you consider it to be real?  You know that story's fake because you were told it was.  Is it the same with the Bible?

did they use real people as characters in that book as the Bible does? (that's historically backed up)

Are there people who use the teachings of that book to better their lives?

Do the teachings better lives? 

There are a lot more things to take into consideration than just historical fact.  As I've mentioned, that's just one of many things. 

You see now how easy it is for people to get lost in an idea and why i want to stay so focused.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Anyway, my quibble was mostly your appeal to forego physical evidence.

I too like dragons. Even tiny, invisible, completely-ineffective dragons.

I understand.  Though please don't get me wrong.  I have learned that the physical evidence there is seems to be either ignored, denied or dismissed as just plain coincidence on this site.  There was a whole forum dedicated to that topic. 

I figured its' probably better to explain by clarifying that God's not physical. 

Most people ask me to prove God or show them God and yet they're looking for me to put out my hand and say, "look, there he is". 

would you rather go to physical evidence?  You'd have to accept the fact that physical evidence alone isn't enough evidence for me to accept my faith, therefore you must understand I wouldn't expect that for you either.  It's just one of many building blocks. 

if you want to take the physical evidence rout, please check science vs. religion.  A forum I put on here a while back to make sure we don't repeat anything that has been exhausted in that forum. 


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I

caposkia wrote:

I understand.  Though please don't get me wrong.  I have learned that the physical evidence there is seems to be either ignored, denied or dismissed as just plain coincidence on this site.  There was a whole forum dedicated to that topic. 

I figured its' probably better to explain by clarifying that God's not physical. 

Most people ask me to prove God or show them God and yet they're looking for me to put out my hand and say, "look, there he is". 

would you rather go to physical evidence?  You'd have to accept the fact that physical evidence alone isn't enough evidence for me to accept my faith, therefore you must understand I wouldn't expect that for you either.  It's just one of many building blocks. 

if you want to take the physical evidence rout, please check science vs. religion.  A forum I put on here a while back to make sure we don't repeat anything that has been exhausted in that forum. 

 

Cap, how do you know that gods aren't physical?  Aren't you saying that YOUR god - the one you believe in - isn't physical?  Aren't you the one making the rules for your god?

 

Say what you want - you still have no way of determining which piece of "evidence" is evidence is for your god, a different god, an alien, spirits, ghosts, or even natural (normal) phenomena, etc...

 

Isn't all your "evidence" just a collection of random things that you put in one basket?  Anything that supports your presupposition goes in the basket, anything that contradicts it doesn't.

 

This is what I see with all theists.  They have a vague idea of what a god would be and then they fill up that idea (basket) with things that could fit:

Love? Check.

Material? Check.

Miracles? Check.

and, depending on where or when you are born you have a different list.

Leaves change color?  Check.

Lightning? Check.

Storms? Check.

Waves? Check.

Illness? Check.

Curing? Check.

 

Just grab a dictionary, collect random words and you can claim it is "evidence" for your god!

 

What Cap has NOT done, nor any theist, has shown why their collection of "evidence" actually defines one thing, or anything at all!

 

Cap, will you rise to the occasion?  Will you show WHY your collection of words actual apply to something (as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan?  For example, please show how the existence of the Universe is connected to the same "being" that performs (so-called) miracles, or is the same being that "creates" the Laws of Logic, etc?

 

If you can't, you must accept that your "defintion" or "evidence" is just an arbitrary, personally subjective collection of words.

 

 

To give an anecdote:

I was sitting on the subway and thinking of how we name things: that "everything has a name".  Well, nothing could be further from the truth. 

I was looking at the floor, a portion of the hand-hold, someone's shoe, the space in between and to about 36 inches above the floor.  There was a little dirt and maybe a bit of red text in the corner of my eye. it was a particular angle of sight, a particular smell, a particular time of day, a particular volume, a particular make-up of Nitrogen, Carbon and Oxygen, and a particular set of thoughts being thought in the riders heads, emotions being felt,  etc.

Now: what do we call that?  What if I add another shoe?  The "thing" has changed. If I add ONE atom, or wait a nanosecond.

 

I can call it a scene, a moment, a "state of affairs", etc.  But one scene is different from another persons scene, and there are almost an infinite number of "scenes" (and yet, it could have only been one state of affairs at the time).

Or, if I'm Cap, I could call it God.  I could say "THAT amount of shoe in the field of vision, THAT viewing angle, THAT portion of the hand-hold, THAT particular volume of space, THAT smell, THAT time of day, etc. - THAT is GOD!"

 

So, how does a theist even begin to address this?  How do you verify the qualities of god?  Even to yourself?  How do you know you aren't creating your own god (even if a god exists, you could be wrong by one "atom", but you would still be wrong.)

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
First, I'll drop the

First, I'll drop the homosexual thing. If you honestly think that homosexual sex is "wrong" because it somehow violates functional sex, then ... your research should really focus on biology. Homosexuality is found in biology all over the place. Bonobos and chimps both exhibit it, as do many different types of birds. If there were a creator, why would so many of its creations exhibit homosexuality if it were against its will?

caposkia wrote:
mainly because it takes understanding to find out anything from the Bible.

And that makes the Bible an unnecessary step. You already know right from wrong without the Bible. You know there's no reason to take your eye out or stone people, even though those things are recommended right there in the book. You already know. The Bible doesn't help you with that at all.

caposkia wrote:
There are over a billion people in the world that would disagree with your statement.  Not because they believe in the Christian God, but because they have seen this plane of existance reveal itself to them and seen how it has influenced our present plane.

I'll say it again: personal experience does not cut the mustard as empirical evidence. It doesn't meet the stringent requirements of the scientific method. We don't know if those people are hallucinating or not. Just because a schizophrenic sees things, that doesn't mean they're real. The suggestibility of the human mind is such that you can convince people quite easily that they have seen something they have not. People can convince themselves quite easily that they have seen something they haven't.

caposkia wrote:
What kind of test would you expect me to perform on the "spiritual plane"?

I have no idea, because as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. Nobody has ever shown me how it can.

caposkia wrote:
Do you consider at all that if spirits are real, they'd have a mind of their own and can make their own choices thus not necessarily cooperating with your study?

Do you have any way at all of substantiating that? No. It's impossible, because we have no communication with spirits. Spirits are our ideas of the departed.

caposkia wrote:
Do you understand free will?

No, I don't. I've never seen anyone make a good case for it at all.

caposkia wrote:
He'll interfere if we let him.  It's still a choice.

But in terms of testability, it's observably the same as no god interfering at all. Someone discovering Jesus may experience the same elation as someone placing a particularly enjoyable chemical in their bloodstream. We are largely governed by hormones anyway.

caposkia wrote:
When you first came on, I thought you were going to be a good support for your understanding.  I'm really starting to wonder about that.

When you first came on, I didn't realize that your understanding of the scientific method was the one thing you refuse to research. I do want to understand your point of view, but I'm having a hard time. There are facts in this world, after all. The acceleration of bodies acting in gravity, the speed of light in a vacuum, the number of electrons in a carbon atom, etc. These things are solid truth. Even biology and psychology have facts that remain solid, without the aid of a great deal of mathematics. These truths came from testing, and so did most of the knowledge that we have about the world. Real knowledge about the world is discovered this way.

caposkia wrote:
it's not the least bit true, yet it happens all the time unexpectedly.  Are you saying that science says it should happen?  if it should, then why is it unexpected???

I see your logic as well.  Please present to me your research.  We can go from there.

Okay, read The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, or pretty much any neurologist's book for the lay-person. Just because the unexpected happens, that doesn't mean that a miracle has occurred. We haven't mapped each individual cell of each individual person, and when a physician gives you a low-ball estimate of how much you're going to remember, she's covering her ass! When you remember more, it's good news. If she had told you anything more optimistic, there would be a good chance you would be mad at her. These anecdotal situations are common in medicine, and are not evidence for some supernatural happening.

caposkia wrote:
I challenge you or anyone to try that approach and still, excuses come up.

They aren't excuses, you're just addressing friends of the scientific method. What would you like us to try? Do you have a hypothesis? That's the first part of the method. If the hypothesis is testable, then we can proceed.

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Oh, look who's the expert now! So naturally, you can tell fact from fiction, and determine whether something may or may not be true.

not for everything, but from the research I've done and the understanding I have, yea.  I'm usually pretty good about it, though if I'm ever unsure, I always do more research.

Yet you shy away from falsification as though it's a demon. Research some Karl Popper and get back to us.

caposkia wrote:
I've heard many explanations that don't coenside with what the Bible says.  They were easily refuted as misunderstandings or lack of research.

But as you said above, why would I consider the Bible a source of information? I wouldn't. I would put it aside in any attempt to find solid, substantial truth as irrelevant. I already know that killing people isn't socially practical, and is emotionally repugnant. I don't need the Bible to tell me that. I already know that lying is equally problematic, that honouring your parents is a good idea, and that adultery in many cases is betrayal.

As for facts, the Bible isn't a source for those either. So I can find neither normative nor positive statements in the Bible that impart information.

caposkia wrote:
Do you have something new?

Sure, all the time. The CERN Large Hadron Collider should be able to help us answer the most fundamental questions about the universe that man has ever asked. The unification of forces would be a major step in the understanding of the universe. There are people developing nanotubes to cook malignant tumors by microwave. Research into Neurolinguistic Programming is helping us understand some of the strange behaviours of our mind. Stem cell research is allowing people to grow entirely new organs instead of relying on translplants.

Do you have something new? I can open up the Bible and be told that the Hebrews should stone criminals to death. That's great, but it's not helping anybody.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Wow, I missed that response of cap's. If he truly thinks that that feeling comes remotely close to 'proving' God is real...

*face-palm*

why is it that you're so far off the plane?

it was simply pointing out that his attempt failed, not that it comes close to proving God is real.  it's just clarifying a logical approach to the statement. 

are you saying his came remotely close to disproving God???

*face-palm*

The statement of yours, 

Quote:

If they're "feeling his love" doesn't that confirm knowing God is really there and is more than a figment???

That phrase does more than just "come close" to asserting that "feeling his love" "prov(es) God is real". Look at the two phrases again:

1. "proving God is real";

2. "confirm knowing God is really there";

Seems to me these are very close to equivalent.

Your implication that "feeling his love" can reasonably "confirm knowing God is really there", and now your denial that you were offering it as strong evidence for the reality of God, is yet another example of why I (and others) find it difficult to read a coherent story from you.

As another example, consider this extract from a recent post of yours:

Quote:

HisWillness wrote:

That's not the least bit true. With what we know of neuroscience, unexpected things like that happen all the time. My point was that there is no separating the brain from the mind. Without the brain, there is no mind. 

it's not the least bit true, yet it happens all the time unexpectedly.  Are you saying that science says it should happen?  if it should, then why is it unexpected???

you contradicted yourself, but I understand that wasn't your intention.  I get it.

I see your logic as well.  Please present to me your research.  We can go from there.

Now look at a more complete version of what Will was responding to:

Quote:

caposkia wrote:
....  But then there are cases of unexplained regeneration of old memories which according to the science you reference above, should not happen.


That's not the least bit true. With what we know of neuroscience, unexpected things like that happen all the time. My point was that there is no separating the brain from the mind. Without the brain, there is no mind. 



It is now clear that Will was referring to your assertion that such 'regeneration' of old memories "should not happen" according to science. Will is saying that your assertion that according to science, such resurfacing of deeply buried memories should not happen. That is simply NOT correct - science has no problem accomodating such events. 'Unexpected' simply refers to the fact that they do not occur predictably at any given point, and don't happen as frequently as retrieval of more regularly accessed memories - there is nothing remarkable or inexplicable to science here. Not to say we understand all the details, of course.

The way you phrased your response, and omitted what he was responding to, you made it seem that Will was denying that such events occur, so you could respond with "yet it happens all the time unexpectedly".

Can you see the issue I am getting at here? It is not so much with the content of the argument on either side, it is with your confused and confusing presentation, and apparent misreading of fairly simple statements.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

...

BobSpence1 wrote:

Not that one - I had already picked up that you accepted an old earth.

I was not thinking of one specific thing, rather all the many things which are explicitly inconsistent with scientific evidence. Why would you assume I was just focussing on that?

So long as you accept a 4.5 billion year old earth and Universe in excess of 13 billion years, that Adam and Eve and the G of E was purely metaphorical, that Adam and Eve were not the ancestors of af all mankind, that Noah and the Flood is similarly metaphorical, and so on, then thats OK.

I have not found any inconsistent scientific evidence.  Maybe this is where you and I need to go.  Please present to me your inconsistent science.  Though before you do, please check out Science Vs. Religion on this website to make sure we're not going to repeat an old tired out topic. 

So does that mean you accept that the Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden story and the story of Noah and the Flood are metaphorical, ie mankind did not originate with a created man and woman, that there was not a world-wide flood which wiped out everything except one family and all creatures which could not survive in such flood-waters and could not fit on a wooden boat? Because those are all explicitly incompatible with science.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:nigelTheBold

caposkia wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

The only comparison is that she also asked me to go beyond physical observation to accept her beliefs. I just used her as the most ludicrous example of people saying the lack of physical evidence isn't a flaw.

She even told you to use SM to come to the same conclusion she did?

No. I was glossing over that bit, as I really didn't want to get into a discussion about the scientific method, and the place of God therein. I've written pretty thoroughly about that in this thread. I was responding to the "go beyond the physical evidence" portion, which as I've said, can be used by anyone with even the wonkiest beliefs, like homeopathy or the Magick Powers Of Crystals or that there's a UFO hiding in the tail of Haley's comet, and the only way to reach it is to kill yourself at its closest approach to earth.

That's all I was saying.

Quote:

How much fact do you accept in a book before you consider it to be real?  You know that story's fake because you were told it was.  Is it the same with the Bible?

did they use real people as characters in that book as the Bible does? (that's historically backed up)

Are there people who use the teachings of that book to better their lives?

Do the teachings better lives? 

There are a lot more things to take into consideration than just historical fact.  As I've mentioned, that's just one of many things. 

You see now how easy it is for people to get lost in an idea and why i want to stay so focused.

I understand. I shouldn't've brought it up, as it really had nothing to do with what I was trying to say, which really wasn't meant as a conversation-starter, but as an explanation of why we here might not accept an appeal to forego the physical evidence.

Quote:

I understand.  Though please don't get me wrong.  I have learned that the physical evidence there is seems to be either ignored, denied or dismissed as just plain coincidence on this site.  There was a whole forum dedicated to that topic. 

I figured its' probably better to explain by clarifying that God's not physical. 

Most people ask me to prove God or show them God and yet they're looking for me to put out my hand and say, "look, there he is". 

would you rather go to physical evidence?  You'd have to accept the fact that physical evidence alone isn't enough evidence for me to accept my faith, therefore you must understand I wouldn't expect that for you either.  It's just one of many building blocks. 

if you want to take the physical evidence rout, please check science vs. religion.  A forum I put on here a while back to make sure we don't repeat anything that has been exhausted in that forum. 

No problem. I know I find it pretty much impossible to believe in extraordinary things without extraordinary physical evidence. I'm not sure if it's a failing or a strength, but it's how I am.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:-

butterbattle wrote:
- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

First-person experience of one's own subjective awareness qualifies as evidence for the soul.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:butterbattle

Paisley wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

First-person experience of one's own subjective awareness qualifies as evidence for the soul.

But not for its potential for existence independent from our physical bodies, or really as other than a manifestation of our brain processes.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:butterbattle

Paisley wrote:

butterbattle wrote:
- evidence for the existence of a "soul."

First-person experience of one's own subjective awareness qualifies as evidence for the soul.

Now I just think you're having us on. The idea of a soul is so utterly unrelated to observable consciousness that you can't be serious.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just to clarify my previous

Just to clarify my previous post re the 'soul', I was thinking of it in the broadest possible sense, as a some sort of overall encapsulation of our 'personality'. All metaphorical really. Just for the benefit of people like poor ol' Paisley, who apparently are schizoid enough to think they have one, as well as imagining they talk to some powerful supernatural being.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
daedalus wrote: Cap, how do

daedalus wrote:

 

Cap, how do you know that gods aren't physical?  Aren't you saying that YOUR god - the one you believe in - isn't physical?  Aren't you the one making the rules for your god?

I never said "gods" aren't physical.  There have been many physical "gods" in history.

I'm not making the rules for my God.  Sounds like you're trying to though.

daedalus wrote:

 

Say what you want - you still have no way of determining which piece of "evidence" is evidence is for your god, a different god, an alien, spirits, ghosts, or even natural (normal) phenomena, etc...

if that helps you sleep at night

daedalus wrote:

Isn't all your "evidence" just a collection of random things that you put in one basket?  Anything that supports your presupposition goes in the basket, anything that contradicts it doesn't.

hmm...... nope

daedalus wrote:

This is what I see with all theists.  They have a vague idea of what a god would be and then they fill up that idea (basket) with things that could fit:

Love? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Material? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Miracles? Check.

daedalus wrote:

and, depending on where or when you are born you have a different list.

Leaves change color?  Check.

daedalus wrote:

Lightning? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Storms? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Waves? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Illness? Check.

daedalus wrote:

Curing? Check.

 

daedalus wrote:

Just grab a dictionary, collect random words and you can claim it is "evidence" for your god!

and presto!!!!

daedalus wrote:

What Cap has NOT done, nor any theist, has shown why their collection of "evidence" actually defines one thing, or anything at all!

Are you telling me you'd actually accept a reasoning? Even if it doesn't have to do with the physical sciences?!!!

daedalus wrote:

 

Cap, will you rise to the occasion?  Will you show WHY your collection of words actual apply to something (as opposed to a Muslim, Hindu, or Pagan?  For example, please show how the existence of the Universe is connected to the same "being" that performs (so-called) miracles, or is the same being that "creates" the Laws of Logic, etc?

yes I Will!!!!  - me looking inspired

daedalus wrote:

If you can't, you must accept that your "defintion" or "evidence" is just an arbitrary, personally subjective collection of words.

 

oh man, pressure's on.

notice the process of this forum and go from there.

daedalus wrote:

 

To give an anecdote:

I was sitting on the subway and thinking of how we name things: that "everything has a name".  Well, nothing could be further from the truth. 

I was looking at the floor, a portion of the hand-hold, someone's shoe, the space in between and to about 36 inches above the floor.  There was a little dirt and maybe a bit of red text in the corner of my eye. it was a particular angle of sight, a particular smell, a particular time of day, a particular volume, a particular make-up of Nitrogen, Carbon and Oxygen, and a particular set of thoughts being thought in the riders heads, emotions being felt,  etc.

Now: what do we call that?  What if I add another shoe?  The "thing" has changed. If I add ONE atom, or wait a nanosecond.

The first one is called a splabberschmuff.

The second one is called a pair of splabberschmuff.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:First,

HisWillness wrote:

First, I'll drop the homosexual thing. If you honestly think that homosexual sex is "wrong" because it somehow violates functional sex, then ... your research should really focus on biology. Homosexuality is found in biology all over the place. Bonobos and chimps both exhibit it, as do many different types of birds. If there were a creator, why would so many of its creations exhibit homosexuality if it were against its will?

er... free will????

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
mainly because it takes understanding to find out anything from the Bible.

And that makes the Bible an unnecessary step. You already know right from wrong without the Bible. You know there's no reason to take your eye out or stone people, even though those things are recommended right there in the book. You already know. The Bible doesn't help you with that at all.

an unnecessary step for what??? Knowing if there's a spiritual world or not?  yea, I agree.

HisWillness wrote:

I'll say it again: personal experience does not cut the mustard as empirical evidence.

Though for ball lightning it does...

HisWillness wrote:

I have no idea, because as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. Nobody has ever shown me how it can.

Which is a conclusive state of mind.  It seems quite clear why no one may have showed you how it can. 

1. either no matter what anyone has showed you, it doesn't matter becuase you've already decided the answer..

or.

2.  They don't know what you might be looking for.

Just as everyone else, I can't guess at what makes you tick.  What would you be looking for?  ya know, considering for a moment that you might be willing to go out on a limb.

HisWillness wrote:

Do you have any way at all of substantiating that? No. It's impossible, because we have no communication with spirits. Spirits are our ideas of the departed.

if I made such a conclusive statement, you'd be asking me for evidence. 

HisWillness wrote:

caposkia wrote:
Do you understand free will?

No, I don't. I've never seen anyone make a good case for it at all.

do something.  Did you do it, or did someone else make you.

When you get to a point in your life where you have "no other choice", is it really that you have no other choice or is it that you don't like the alternative? 

that's what free will is.

HisWillness wrote:

But in terms of testability, it's observably the same as no god interfering at all. Someone discovering Jesus may experience the same elation as someone placing a particularly enjoyable chemical in their bloodstream. We are largely governed by hormones anyway.

depends on your point of view.  Understanding comes into play.

HisWillness wrote:

When you first came on, I didn't realize that your understanding of the scientific method was the one thing you refuse to research. I do want to understand your point of view, but I'm having a hard time. There are facts in this world, after all. The acceleration of bodies acting in gravity, the speed of light in a vacuum, the number of electrons in a carbon atom, etc. These things are solid truth. Even biology and psychology have facts that remain solid, without the aid of a great deal of mathematics. These truths came from testing, and so did most of the knowledge that we have about the world. Real knowledge about the world is discovered this way.

I refused to research the scientific method... yet I clarified my understanding which is identical to the definition

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, read The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, or pretty much any neurologist's book for the lay-person. Just because the unexpected happens, that doesn't mean that a miracle has occurred. We haven't mapped each individual cell of each individual person, and when a physician gives you a low-ball estimate of how much you're going to remember, she's covering her ass! When you remember more, it's good news. If she had told you anything more optimistic, there would be a good chance you would be mad at her. These anecdotal situations are common in medicine, and are not evidence for some supernatural happening.

I'm currently reading a book called, "phantoms in the Brain".  I have a feelign it's along the same lines. 

HisWillness wrote:

They aren't excuses, you're just addressing friends of the scientific method. What would you like us to try? Do you have a hypothesis? That's the first part of the method. If the hypothesis is testable, then we can proceed.

I've explained a general basis a few times now.  It all comes down to doing it.  I really don't feel like typing it all out again.  Please look back into the forum.  I'm pretty sure it was in this one.

HisWillness wrote:

Yet you shy away from falsification as though it's a demon. Research some Karl Popper and get back to us.

if you're so such I shy away from falsification, why would you even bother giving me something to research?

finally though.  thanks for something at least. I'll look him up. 

HisWillness wrote:

But as you said above, why would I consider the Bible a source of information? I wouldn't. I would put it aside in any attempt to find solid, substantial truth as irrelevant. I already know that killing people isn't socially practical, and is emotionally repugnant. I don't need the Bible to tell me that. I already know that lying is equally problematic, that honouring your parents is a good idea, and that adultery in many cases is betrayal.

As for facts, the Bible isn't a source for those either. So I can find neither normative nor positive statements in the Bible that impart information.

how can you be so sure that all of those are wrong?  Who told you that?  Who told them that? How did that get started? 

If your answer is a natural instinct, then how do you explain the Vikings history or other self-mutilating peoples in history?

HisWillness wrote:

Sure, all the time. The CERN Large Hadron Collider should be able to help us answer the most fundamental questions about the universe that man has ever asked. The unification of forces would be a major step in the understanding of the universe. There are people developing nanotubes to cook malignant tumors by microwave. Research into Neurolinguistic Programming is helping us understand some of the strange behaviours of our mind. Stem cell research is allowing people to grow entirely new organs instead of relying on translplants.

Do you have something new? I can open up the Bible and be told that the Hebrews should stone criminals to death. That's great, but it's not helping anybody.

all of that "new" stuff was very relevent to our conversation too, thank you.

Stoning criminals may have helped save others lives, mental statuses or property depending on the crime.

Not condoning it.

Strangely against your judgement I'm assuming.  I have found extremely helpful information in the Bible about pretty much every aspect of life.  Though I tend to read the whole story too and not just pull a part out and say it's ok for my dog to drink my blood. (actual claim I heard from someone)

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:HisWillness

caposkia wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

I'll say it again: personal experience does not cut the mustard as empirical evidence.

Though for ball lightning it does...

Sorry, what? Ball lightning (you mean lightning inside a cloud, right?) is a physical phenomenon with a physical explanation. It's easily observable, and doesn't rely on personal experience alone to describe it. There's no comparison there.

caposkia wrote:
1. either no matter what anyone has showed you, it doesn't matter becuase you've already decided the answer..

or.

2.  They don't know what you might be looking for.

Just as everyone else, I can't guess at what makes you tick.  What would you be looking for?  ya know, considering for a moment that you might be willing to go out on a limb.

That's just a false dichotomy, and justification for the immaterial is required, but justification for the physical isn't. For the physical, I have an easy and rigorous epistemology. For the immaterial, I have hearsay and ancient texts. I'm saying I can't imagine what you'd give me that would sway my idea of the universe because I really can't come up with something that hasn't been discovered yet. I can imagine all sorts of magical creatures, but that doesn't make them real.

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

Do you have any way at all of substantiating that? No. It's impossible, because we have no communication with spirits. Spirits are our ideas of the departed.

if I made such a conclusive statement, you'd be asking me for evidence.

You're absolutely right. I meant to say, "Spirits are more likely our ideas of the departed [rather than creatures who interact with the physical world only visually]."

caposkia wrote:
do something.  Did you do it, or did someone else make you.

Your world is really that black-and-white, isn't it? I think I get it now: you honestly can't fathom anything between those two polar extremes. Or maybe you can, and I'm not understanding as well I think. Can you imagine that there's more going on than just one originator of an action? That causality is a quagmire where human behaviour is concerned?

caposkia wrote:
I refused to research the scientific method... yet I clarified my understanding which is identical to the definition

No, it's not - that's why you'll need to research. You don't understand the scientific method, and we're running into communication problems because of that.

caposkia wrote:
I've explained a general basis a few times now.  It all comes down to doing it.  I really don't feel like typing it all out again.  Please look back into the forum.  I'm pretty sure it was in this one.

A "general basis" is not a hypothesis. Again, if you have a testable hypothesis, I'm all for it. "Tilt your head back and wait for the Godness to come upon you" isn't a test. Even if it were a test, how would one interpret the results?

caposkia wrote:
HisWillness wrote:

 I already know that killing people isn't socially practical, and is emotionally repugnant. I don't need the Bible to tell me that. I already know that lying is equally problematic, that honouring your parents is a good idea, and that adultery in many cases is betrayal.

how can you be so sure that all of those are wrong?  Who told you that?  Who told them that? How did that get started?

Who said anything about "wrong"? I used my words carefully to illustrate that my morality doesn't have to be absolute. I can reach a moral conclusion without a standard by which to judge my conclusion.

caposkia wrote:
Stoning criminals may have helped save others lives, mental statuses or property depending on the crime.

Not condoning it.

You're not condoning it, you're justifying it as reasonable, and with the weakest of premises. The crime completed, is there no better way to take someone's life than stoning? You figure that's really the best way to go?

caposkia wrote:
I have found extremely helpful information in the Bible about pretty much every aspect of life.

Give me one story that reaches a conclusion you couldn't have reached on your own.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Sorry,

HisWillness wrote:

Sorry, what? Ball lightning (you mean lightning inside a cloud, right?) is a physical phenomenon with a physical explanation. It's easily observable, and doesn't rely on personal experience alone to describe it. There's no comparison there.

no, Ball Lightning is a phenomenon that occurs usually in drier desert areas, but can happen pretty much anywhere.  It's where there is a lightning strike somewhere.  In it's wake is this glowing ball of energy that lasts for usually no longer than a minute and then vanishes.  Enough have observed it to accept its happenings in the science world. None can explain it or study it because no one has been able to reproduce it and it doesn't last long enough to study.  No one can really predict when and where it'll happen either, therefore, it's hard to even prepare a study for it. 

HisWillness wrote:

That's just a false dichotomy, and justification for the immaterial is required, but justification for the physical isn't. For the physical, I have an easy and rigorous epistemology. For the immaterial, I have hearsay and ancient texts. I'm saying I can't imagine what you'd give me that would sway my idea of the universe because I really can't come up with something that hasn't been discovered yet. I can imagine all sorts of magical creatures, but that doesn't make them real.


 

Though I haven't seen Ball Lightning in person.  I have heard of reliable accounts, and electromagnetic scientists accept its happenings, therefore, I have no reason to not believe it, though humor me.  Please give me a reason to believe Ball Lightning actually happens.  Maybe from that, I can help you further with believing in a spiritual world.

HisWillness wrote:

Your world is really that black-and-white, isn't it? I think I get it now: you honestly can't fathom anything between those two polar extremes. Or maybe you can, and I'm not understanding as well I think. Can you imagine that there's more going on than just one originator of an action? That causality is a quagmire where human behaviour is concerned?

 You asked what free will is.  I gave you a simple answer.  Nothing more.

in reference to your reply though, have you seen my references to the butterfly effect?

HisWillness wrote:

No, it's not - that's why you'll need to research. You don't understand the scientific method, and we're running into communication problems because of that.

oh geez.  I think it was one of the millions of pages on the other forum.  I actually posted the generic definition of it and clarified that it's my view of what it is.  Look it up.

HisWillness wrote:

A "general basis" is not a hypothesis. Again, if you have a testable hypothesis, I'm all for it. "Tilt your head back and wait for the Godness to come upon you" isn't a test. Even if it were a test, how would one interpret the results?

I'm sure you'd like it to be that easy, but the trick is you'd actually have to make an effort.  A bigger effort than most scientific experiments.  why?  Because you'd need to seek God out with your whole heart and your whole mind.  Not seek out his non-existance (though that has worked for a few), but actually seek out God. 

The hypothesis is, you'd find Him if you saught out God with your whole heart and mind and streingth. 

If you're willing to try, we can work on it from here. 

HisWillness wrote:

Who said anything about "wrong"? I used my words carefully to illustrate that my morality doesn't have to be absolute. I can reach a moral conclusion without a standard by which to judge my conclusion.

Sorry I misused your phrasing. 

who decides your conclusion is moral?  How can it be moral if you're the only one that believes so?

I base that question off of your claim to reach a moral conclusion without a standard.

HisWillness wrote:

 

You're not condoning it, you're justifying it as reasonable, and with the weakest of premises. The crime completed, is there no better way to take someone's life than stoning? You figure that's really the best way to go?

are you now suggesting a moral way of killing a criminal?

HisWillness wrote:

Give me one story that reaches a conclusion you couldn't have reached on your own.

The rules of a courtship according to the Bible and how that will ensure a better possibility of a successful relationship and eventually a lifelong marriage. 

Statistically relationships that have followed those rules have been longer and more fulfilling.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The statement of yours, 

Quote:

If they're "feeling his love" doesn't that confirm knowing God is really there and is more than a figment???

That phrase does more than just "come close" to asserting that "feeling his love" "prov(es) God is real". Look at the two phrases again:

1. "proving God is real";

2. "confirm knowing God is really there";

Seems to me these are very close to equivalent.

It came down to a wording issue.  If you're feeling the love of a being, how can you actually feel that love unless the being exists? 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your implication that "feeling his love" can reasonably "confirm knowing God is really there", and now your denial that you were offering it as strong evidence for the reality of God, is yet another example of why I (and others) find it difficult to read a coherent story from you.

you claimed that was my "strong evidence".  I never claimed such.  I was simply pointing out a poor excuse for dismissing what was said.  Nothing more.  You can read further into it if you'd like.

BobSpence1 wrote:

As another example, consider this extract from a recent post of yours:

Quote:

HisWillness wrote:

That's not the least bit true. With what we know of neuroscience, unexpected things like that happen all the time. My point was that there is no separating the brain from the mind. Without the brain, there is no mind. 

it's not the least bit true, yet it happens all the time unexpectedly.  Are you saying that science says it should happen?  if it should, then why is it unexpected???

you contradicted yourself, but I understand that wasn't your intention.  I get it.

I see your logic as well.  Please present to me your research.  We can go from there.

Now look at a more complete version of what Will was responding to:

Quote:

caposkia wrote:
....  But then there are cases of unexplained regeneration of old memories which according to the science you reference above, should not happen.


That's not the least bit true. With what we know of neuroscience, unexpected things like that happen all the time. My point was that there is no separating the brain from the mind. Without the brain, there is no mind. 



It is now clear that Will was referring to your assertion that such 'regeneration' of old memories "should not happen" according to science. Will is saying that your assertion that according to science, such resurfacing of deeply buried memories should not happen. That is simply NOT correct - science has no problem accomodating such events. 'Unexpected' simply refers to the fact that they do not occur predictably at any given point, and don't happen as frequently as retrieval of more regularly accessed memories - there is nothing remarkable or inexplicable to science here. Not to say we understand all the details, of course.

The way you phrased your response, and omitted what he was responding to, you made it seem that Will was denying that such events occur, so you could respond with "yet it happens all the time unexpectedly".

Can you see the issue I am getting at here? It is not so much with the content of the argument on either side, it is with your confused and confusing presentation, and apparent misreading of fairly simple statements.

There only seems to be misreading of simple statements in your responses.

I see what you were pulling out and trying to point out.  The point still stands firm.  Basically, it's a strawman.

Let's simplify it into one sentence:

without the brain there is no mind, but unexpected things happen all the time.

Simply, it opens up any and every possibility and brings no closure to his approach.

if they're unexpected, that also means they're unexplained because if they were explainable, then they wouldn't have been completely unexpected.

Do you see what I'm getting at?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So does

BobSpence1 wrote:

So does that mean you accept that the Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden story and the story of Noah and the Flood are metaphorical, ie mankind did not originate with a created man and woman, that there was not a world-wide flood which wiped out everything except one family and all creatures which could not survive in such flood-waters and could not fit on a wooden boat? Because those are all explicitly incompatible with science.

You really need to do some research


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi everyone. I took a short

Hi everyone.

I took a short break from the forum to think about my presence here. 

Anyways, I checked out and began reading Hank Hanegraaff's FACE.

Thus far, the book is exactly what I had expected. I'll discuss it more once I finish.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hey Cap, what's your reply

Hey Cap, what's your reply to this rrs guy, Master Degree philosopher todangst?

"The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_omnis_the_bible_assertions_of_the_christian_gods_omnipotence_omniscience

Your religious "faith", your god, is nothing more than "hope" .... 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:None can

caposkia wrote:

None can explain it or study it because no one has been able to reproduce it and it doesn't last long enough to study.  No one can really predict when and where it'll happen either, therefore, it's hard to even prepare a study for it. 

Turns out it's probably silicon combustion (which would make sense in desert areas). I would have guessed plasma, but this article outlines the reproduction of the effect:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-ball-lightning.html

But even if it were a mystery, why would you just assume that it's something magical? I have no problem with mystery - the Higgs Boson, for example, is a missing particle that could or could not be discovered by the large hadron collider, which is the last mathematical piece of the puzzle yet to be observed at that scale. It's a mystery - we don't know if that's exactly what's there. But that doesn't mean I'm going to throw around a wild hypothesis that it's ghosts.

caposkia wrote:
Please give me a reason to believe Ball Lightning actually happens.  Maybe from that, I can help you further with believing in a spiritual world.

The above should help. It looks exactly like silicon combustion, so it probably is. The spiritual world still doesn't have an actual representative.

caposkia wrote:

 You asked what free will is.  I gave you a simple answer.  Nothing more.

in reference to your reply though, have you seen my references to the butterfly effect?

The butterfly effect still gives me the impression that your view of causality is completely isolated and linear. It's a way to explain propagation of complexity in a chaotic system, and the "butterfly" would have to be the big bang, being the initial state of the system. Have you ever seen wave interference? When you add a wave to another, and the pattern of the combined wave is more complicated than the two waves individually. All you have to imagine is every elementary particle in the universe being added (and in some cases subtracted) simultaneously, and you get an idea of the complexity involved. The butterfly effect refers only to the initial conditions in a system, and the conventional definition of the effect is inaccurate, having lost its connection to the mathematics it was meant to describe.

caposkia wrote:
I'm sure you'd like it to be that easy, but the trick is you'd actually have to make an effort.  A bigger effort than most scientific experiments.  why?  Because you'd need to seek God out with your whole heart and your whole mind.  Not seek out his non-existance (though that has worked for a few), but actually seek out God.

I already have. So have lots of people on this site. My whole heart and my whole mind, and I desperately wanted to believe it was true. Desperately. I had a rough period of my life where it would have been wonderful to have someone god-like to look after me. But the supernatural was consistent, and it did not show up.

caposkia wrote:
The hypothesis is, you'd find Him if you saught out God with your whole heart and mind and streingth.

Your hypothesis is that if you believe hard enough, then you will believe. It's not really a hypothesis, it's sort of a redundancy.

caposkia wrote:
who decides your conclusion is moral?

The members of a culture.

caposkia wrote:
How can it be moral if you're the only one that believes so?

Since no humans exist in isolation (people must be born and raised), there is no person who has formed a completely individual morality. It simply cannot exist.

caposkia wrote:
I base that question off of your claim to reach a moral conclusion without a standard.

There's a standard, it's just not an absolute standard. The standard is my culture. It's the same way that you or anyone else forms their morality. As I said earlier, you learned to not take Jesus literally when he tells you to take your eye out. That's cultural understanding (that is, it's learned). Cultural morality is also (like anything cultural) learned.

caposkia wrote:
are you now suggesting a moral way of killing a criminal?

No, I'm suggesting stoning as an unnecessarily barbaric punishment. We would be better off considering other ways of dealing with criminals altogether.

caposkia wrote:
The rules of a courtship according to the Bible and how that will ensure a better possibility of a successful relationship and eventually a lifelong marriage. 

Statistically relationships that have followed those rules have been longer and more fulfilling.

Can you tell me where I'd find these? I'm not being slippery, I really don't know what you're referring to.

Also, I think lesbian relationships last the longest and are the most fulfilling. I'll find out where I read that and get back to you.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Here is some evidence for

Here is some evidence for God.

 

Last week I was thinking about God and I found 20 bucks.  What are the chances of that just happening?  This is a true miracle and if you can't see that then you aren't looking at things in the correct way. 

The universe is the way it is, but if it were different life a we know it wouldn't exist.  Since life as we know it doesn't exist so there must be a reason.  That reason must be God.

Good things happen to some people.  Some of those good things are very unlikely.  Some of those unlikely good things happen to people who believe in God.  The reason why unlikely good things happen to people who believe in god is obviously because god exists. 

Science doesn't know everything.  If science doesn't know something then maybe religion does.  If religion knows something then religion must be right!

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote: Here is

True believer wrote:

Here is some evidence for God.

 

Last week I was thinking about God and I found 20 bucks.  What are the chances of that just happening?  This is a true miracle and if you can't see that then you aren't looking at things in the correct way. 

The universe is the way it is, but if it were different life a we know it wouldn't exist.  Since life as we know it doesn't exist so there must be a reason.  That reason must be God.

Good things happen to some people.  Some of those good things are very unlikely.  Some of those unlikely good things happen to people who believe in God.  The reason why unlikely good things happen to people who believe in god is obviously because god exists. 

Science doesn't know everything.  If science doesn't know something then maybe religion does.  If religion knows something then religion must be right!

 

Poe!

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Hey!  I just said that here.

Hey!  I just said that here.

EDIT: Damn you, JillSwift!  You're name is literal!

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:Here is

True believer wrote:

Here is some evidence for God.

 

Last week I was thinking about God and I found 20 bucks.  What are the chances of that just happening?  This is a true miracle and if you can't see that then you aren't looking at things in the correct way. 

The universe is the way it is, but if it were different life a we know it wouldn't exist.  Since life as we know it doesn't exist so there must be a reason.  That reason must be God.

Good things happen to some people.  Some of those good things are very unlikely.  Some of those unlikely good things happen to people who believe in God.  The reason why unlikely good things happen to people who believe in god is obviously because god exists. 

Science doesn't know everything.  If science doesn't know something then maybe religion does.  If religion knows something then religion must be right!

 

If you were thinking about unicorns and you found 20 bucks would that conclude unicorns exist?  How can this prove it's not a random coinsidence to a skeptic?  I understand that this can prove it that god exists to you, but how can you prove it that God exists to anyone who doesn't believe in him?

If something good happens that seems to be very rare, like perhaps falling down 10 stories and somehow surviving, does that prove God exists?  If it happens to someone who is non-religious, wouldn't it prove otherwise?

Science NEVER claims to know.  Religion not only claims to know "something" but to know "everything".  Religion also claims that anything contrary is wrong despite any evidence.

 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Hey!  I just

Thomathy wrote:

Hey!  I just said that here.

EDIT: Damn you, JillSwift!  You're name is literal!

My post-fu is Poe-tant!


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:If you

SmallChristian wrote:

If you were thinking about unicorns and you found 20 bucks would that conclude unicorns exist?  How can this prove it's not a random coinsidence to a skeptic?  I understand that this can prove it that god exists to you, but how can you prove it that God exists to anyone who doesn't believe in him?

If you were thinking about unicorns and you found 20 bucks then God was obviously just trying to distract you from thinking of unicorns. Unicorns are obviously evil! 

SmallChristian wrote:

If something good happens that seems to be very rare, like perhaps falling down 10 stories and somehow surviving, does that prove God exists?  If it happens to someone who is non-religious, wouldn't it prove otherwise?

If they believe in the truth then that is why God saved them.  If the don't believe in the Truth then God saved them so that they can learn the Truth latter.  Either way its evidence of Gods awesome power!

SmallChristian wrote:

Science NEVER claims to know.  Religion not only claims to know "something" but to know "everything".  Religion also claims that anything contrary is wrong despite any evidence.

 

Religion is never wrong! Sometimes people interpret it wrong, but religion itself is still right.  You see the problem is with people not God.  God know everything, but our meager little minds just don't understand what God is telling us.  Religion is full of knowledge, the problem is that we don't always know how to interpreter that knowledge to get the Right answer.  There is only one Truth, and that is the Truth God is trying to tell us.  If we don't arrive at the correct answer that is our fault not God's.  That is why religion is better then science.  You see science admits that it might be wrong while with religion you always know that you are right.


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
What if unicorns were trying

What if unicorns were trying to distract you from beliving in God because God is evil?

If someone survives 10 stories and they believe that a goddess saved them wouldn't that mean the goddess saved them? Wouldn't that be evidence of the Goddess?

Which religion?  Becuase there's thousands of them.  Or are they ALL right?


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian wrote:What if

SmallChristian wrote:

What if unicorns were trying to distract you from beliving in God because God is evil?

Then unicorns just don't understand Gods true Greatness, and that is why they are evil!  Everything that exists exists because of God.  Why can't unicorns just appreciate Gods obvious greatness just like I do?  If they can't do that then they must be evil.  Besides where would a unicorn get 20 bucks, that's just silly. 

SmallChristian wrote:

If someone survives 10 stories and they believe that a goddess saved them wouldn't that mean the goddess saved them? Wouldn't that be evidence of the Goddess?

No, because goddesses don't exist.  Isn't that obvious?

SmallChristian wrote:

Which religion?  Becuase there's thousands of them.  Or are they ALL right?

No, there is only one correct religion.  The problems is that sometimes people don't interpret truth in the correct way.   There is only one Truth, but there are thousands of interpretations.  That how I know that Unicorns are actually Satan in disguise! 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
 Really?  I've been

 Really?  I've been searching for teh True Religion my whole life!  I keep looking at each one and comparing them to each other, and all of them disagree with each other.  Even sects of the Bible-believing Religions can't agree, even people at the same church can't agree on the Bible!  It seems that everyone has their own personal religion, one at a time!  So can I read your personal declaration of faith?  Perhaps I can add it to the archives! 

 


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
SmallChristian

SmallChristian wrote:

 Really?  I've been searching for teh True Religion my whole life!  I keep looking at each one and comparing them to each other, and all of them disagree with each other.  Even sects of the Bible-believing Religions can't agree, even people at the same church can't agree on the Bible!  It seems that everyone has their own personal religion, one at a time!  So can I read your personal declaration of faith?  Perhaps I can add it to the archives! 

 

You're just not interpreting things the right way.  Anything can be anything else if you take everything that is said as a metaphor.  If people disagree then you can just intemperate what there saying so that they're both right.  Say one person says God is love, and another person says god is vengeful.  You can interpret this to mean God loves being vengeful, and then everyone is right!  Another example say two different groups use different holly books. They both say they believe in God.  You might ask yourself which of these two groups is correct.  Well you don't have to decide, because with enough creative interpreting they can both be correct.  For instance couldn't the whole Jesus is God thing just be a metaphor for God living in all of us?  What about Noah's ark.  That stories is kind of hard to credit isn't it.  Especially with all the different types of animals we know to exist.  Well no problem it can just be a metaphor right?  The flood water can be a metaphor for sin right, and the ark can be a metaphor for God protecting us from that sin.  Why is there two of every kind of animal on the ark?  That's easy, its because God protects males and females equally.  All of this is just an issue about how you want to deal with truth.  If you believe that people are capable of knowing truth then some people must be correct and other people must be wrong.  If that is the case then you should examine all the evidence, and discard those thing that are obviously false.  If you believe that people are not really capable of knowing truth, then by simply shifting your perspective enough you can believe anything is true.  It all depends on your ideals, do you really care if what you believe is actually true?  If not you can believe in anything.  Just remember Unicorns are obviously evil, and they can't give you 20 bucks. 


SmallChristian
SmallChristian's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2007-03-21
User is offlineOffline
 LOL!

 LOL!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:Just

True believer wrote:

Just remember Unicorns are obviously evil, and they can't give you 20 bucks. 

Bravo.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:Besides

True believer wrote:
Besides where would a unicorn get 20 bucks, that's just silly.

Are you telling me that you've never heard of unicorn money?

One "Fable" = $1,000,000 "Dollars."

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Are you

butterbattle wrote:
Are you telling me that you've never heard of unicorn money?

One "Fable" = $1,000,000 "Dollars."

Well, if that's the kind of money a unicorn carries, then he still can't give you $20. Eye-wink


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Well, if

JillSwift wrote:

Well, if that's the kind of money a unicorn carries, then he still can't give you $20. Eye-wink 

Obviously, you didn't know that my unicorns exchange their Fables for U.S. currency at the Unicorn-Human Inter-dimensional Bank.

On a completely different note, I finished Hank's book, "The FACE That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution." (a resource recommended by Caposkia)

Unsurprisingly, it was a sloppy compilation of many long-debunked Creationist claims. Featuring big font and short snappy arguments, the entire book is only about 150 pages long. Clearly, this work was directed at the uninformed masses.

Featuring:

- an obviously arrogant and heavily biased perspective.

Hank wrote:
If you begin as a creationist, you will become equipped to demonstrate the farce of evolution. In addition, your confidence in the Christian worldview will be solidified. If you begin as an evolutionist, the shaky pillars of your worldview will be undermined.
   

- quote mines.

Darwin wrote:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.

- blaming evolution for abortion, adultery, AIDS, communism, racism, sexism, etc. For some reason, he didn't explicitly mention homosexuality, although he did include an interesting picture of some half-naked men prancing in a gay parade.

Hank wrote:
With God relegated to the status of a Disney character, we grabbed for all the gusto we could. And what we got in return was adultery, abortion, and AIDS

- strawmen.

Hank wrote:
From a purely logical point of view it should be self-evident that nothing comes from nothing. In other words, it is illogical to believe that something could come from nothing. Yet, this is precisely what philosophical naturalism - the worldview undergirding evolutionism - presupposes.

- blatant lies and simple ignorance of science.

Note that the phrase inside the parentheses is actually in the book. I suppose that its purpose is up for interpretation.  

Hank wrote:
Darwin had an excuse. In his day fossils finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, more than a century after his death (one would surmise he is now a creationist), we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one species to another.

Hank wrote:
While the general public seems blithely unaware of the fact that transitions from one species to another do not exist, it is common knowledge among paleontologists.

Here is my favorite section in the entire book; it gave me a hearty laugh.

Hank wrote:
The pro-avis fairy tale, like any good fairy tale, begins long, long ago with little pro-avises running around on two legs while they playfully caught insects in their scaly little hands. One fateful day an ugly little pro-avis we'll call Mike was born. Unlike his brothers and sisters, little Mikey had frayed scales on both of his hands. Because of little Mikey's imperfections, no one wanted to play wth him. Sadly, he had to run around all by himself trying to catch insects. Suddenly, little Mikey discovered something miraculous. Insects stuck like magic to his frayed scales. The more he caught, the better he ate. The better he ate, the faster he ran. The faster he ran, the more his scales frayed. In time little Mikey's ugly scales were transformed into beautiful flying feathers. Soon little Mikey was able to catch insects that would normally have been beyond his reach. It wasn't long before all the little pro-avises wanted to be just like Mike, They began fraying their scales and in time, like Mike, their scales were transformed into fantastic flying feathers. And they lived happily ever after.

In fairy tales, frayed scales turn into feathers, and frogs turn into princes. In evolution all you have to do is add millions of years and little pro-avises turn into beautiful flying birds.

Cheers.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


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

butterbattle wrote:

Hi everyone.

I took a short break from the forum to think about my presence here. 

Anyways, I checked out and began reading Hank Hanegraaff's FACE.

Thus far, the book is exactly what I had expected. I'll discuss it more once I finish.

I'll be honest, I haven't read any of his material.  I've only gotten outlines from him of things he's researched.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:Hey

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

Hey Cap, what's your reply to this rrs guy, Master Degree philosopher todangst?

"The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience

http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_omnis_the_bible_assertions_of_the_christian_gods_omnipotence_omniscience

Your religious "faith", your god, is nothing more than "hope" .... 

I'll respond step by step as I read through.

1: , I noticed that he's imediately bringing to light the idea of defining something with only negatives.  I have clarified that I am not trying to show God by saying what he isn't.  When I've been asked about what he is, I've clarified that we have constructed descriptive words to only describe the physical.  Even the non-physical stuff we know of like memories and what have you, we still revert to physical explanations to better grasp their existence. 

In my understanding, I'm not trying to explain to you what God isn't, it's that our language hasn't words to describe the spiritual other than "spirit, ghost, energy".  Energy as I've described already is also only explained using physical traits to understand its existance.  Therefore, we are beyond this issue.

2:  He talks about Theists attempts to explain God.  Obviously, as he points out, God is beyond our comprehension as far as His abilities and what he is.  Therefore, why is it such a claim against God to show that?  If this God was real, it's true, we wouldn't be able to fully comprehend Him.   If a computer could think/comprehend, it wouldn't be able to fully comprehend humans due to the fact that humans wouldn't have made it as complicated as we are.   Even if we were able to create a robot that has all the functions of a human body, we still wouldn't have perfectly replicated human material, therefore, the robot would still not fully comprehend what we are. His case for failure to comprehend fails. 

3:  The reference of Judges does not take into account that it was written from the perspective of another person and didn't consider the idea that God did not have that plan to take out the iron chariots.  His case fails.

4: He goes off on this big schpeal about God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc.  which leads to predestination.   See my computer analogy.  If God created it, then of course he's going to know everything that's going to happen from every action taken or that could be taken.  It's just so much information, it's beyond our comprehension to fathom it, though just like a computer, every action the computer would take or be told to take, the outcome is already known by the creator.  Does not assume predestination except that it's been programmed in such a way. 

The only claim for predestination can be held up only by the limitations (programming) we have and not by the actions we take.  You could claim predestination for a computer, but that doesn't mean anything.  The creator could have built a particular computer to design buildings, but some poor soul bought that machine, not knowing its capability to gamble online.  I guess though there was a predestined purpose for that computer, its' not being used the way it was intended.  The creator then did not know that his computer was going to be a machine for an online casino, but he does know how it will react and work in such a situation if the question was ever presented to him.  He would also know the outcome of that action taken with that particular computer no matter how minute it would be.   If the computer had a choice in the matter, the creator would also know what the computer would choose be it that the programmer would have had to program that reasoning into the computer. 

Knowing what's going to happen tomorrow doesn't make the future written in stone.  Therefore predestination is a poor conclusion. It also fails.

5:  Goes onto logic and reason.  Assumes so many people claiming that people would have to let go of their reasoning(emphasis added) to accept God.  Key word was emphasized due to the fact that reasoning in general wasn't in question.  It takes reasoning to accept God.  Though your own reasoning would say due to the fact that God is so incomprehensible, he can't be true because everything that's true is comprehensible.    Science has proven our minds are in fact finite.  Therefore, it's a very unreasonable conclusion to say that anything incomprehensible to humans is false.  It's logical to say it's not understood yet.  You have to reason that for the God of the Bible to be true, you'd have to accept the fact that there can be a being out there that is beyond your comprehension as far as abilities and being. 

 

The above is simply logical conclusions to those approaches if you read carefully.  They're not in any way excuses to "not face the facts" as many would try to claim.  You can pull out anything from above and discuss it with me.  I'm open to it. 

Simply put, he concludes it's pointless to talk about God.  I conclude from his research that people need to be able to step outside their box of understanding.  His conclusions make it clear that comprehension is everything and that nothing exists outside of it.  Logic is in the mind, not a scientific Law and therefore is a weak ground to stand on.  There is personal logic and general logic.  From the quotes I read he represented, they were talking about personal logic.  I attempted to respond above with general logic, though I'm not perfect, I may have not done so successfully.  Please just respectfully let me know if I didn't. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Turns out

HisWillness wrote:

Turns out it's probably silicon combustion (which would make sense in desert areas). I would have guessed plasma, but this article outlines the reproduction of the effect:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070122-ball-lightning.html

But even if it were a mystery, why would you just assume that it's something magical? I have no problem with mystery - the Higgs Boson, for example, is a missing particle that could or could not be discovered by the large hadron collider, which is the last mathematical piece of the puzzle yet to be observed at that scale. It's a mystery - we don't know if that's exactly what's there. But that doesn't mean I'm going to throw around a wild hypothesis that it's ghosts.

I never said anything about magic.  Non-believers try to claim God as magic because his actions otherwise would be unexplainable.  Magic only exists in the mind, because it's not magic if you understand how it happens.    Why would you throw around a wild hypothesis?  That's not very logical.

HisWillness wrote:

The above should help. It looks exactly like silicon combustion, so it probably is. The spiritual world still doesn't have an actual representative.

apparently until 2007, neither did Ball Lightning.  What's your point? Oh I get it, Ball Lightning didn't exist until 2007.  gotcha.

HisWillness wrote:

The butterfly effect still gives me the impression that your view of causality is completely isolated and linear. It's a way to explain propagation of complexity in a chaotic system, and the "butterfly" would have to be the big bang, being the initial state of the system. Have you ever seen wave interference? When you add a wave to another, and the pattern of the combined wave is more complicated than the two waves individually. All you have to imagine is every elementary particle in the universe being added (and in some cases subtracted) simultaneously, and you get an idea of the complexity involved. The butterfly effect refers only to the initial conditions in a system, and the conventional definition of the effect is inaccurate, having lost its connection to the mathematics it was meant to describe.

Obviously, the butterfly effect is just the initial happening.  There is progress to the theory beyond just that.  Interaction and interference causes your linear theory to bend a bit as you've pointed out.  I accept that.  God takes all of that into consideration mind you.

HisWillness wrote:

I already have. So have lots of people on this site. My whole heart and my whole mind, and I desperately wanted to believe it was true. Desperately. I had a rough period of my life where it would have been wonderful to have someone god-like to look after me. But the supernatural was consistent, and it did not show up.

Did not show up? or did not show up in the way you wanted it to.  I don't know your journey, so I can't make any conclusions as to whether your statement holds water or not.  It's just something I"m challenging people who even have been there to do.  I would of course better explain your approach.  Church is not your window, it's only a fellowship.

HisWillness wrote:

Your hypothesis is that if you believe hard enough, then you will believe. It's not really a hypothesis, it's sort of a redundancy.

What do you mean believe hard enough?  Click your heals together and chant "there's no place like home"?  

how do you find something you're not looking for?  I say seek with your whole heart.  Really want to find him. (sounds like you've done that)  How about your mind?  did you seek out God by extensively researching, not just in books, but in life?  Did you use general logic (as Einstine did) to conclude there is no God. 

I say Einstine because though he didn't accept the Christian God, he concluded that due to the complexity of things, there had to be an intelligence behind it.  More accurately, I'm not quoting, he generally stated it was less logical to claim the absence of an intelligence behind everything observed.  I don't remember exactly what he stated. 

HisWillness wrote:

The members of a culture.

who decides their conclusion is moral?

HisWillness wrote:

Since no humans exist in isolation (people must be born and raised), there is no person who has formed a completely individual morality. It simply cannot exist.

there are isolated cultures.

HisWillness wrote:

There's a standard, it's just not an absolute standard. The standard is my culture. It's the same way that you or anyone else forms their morality. As I said earlier, you learned to not take Jesus literally when he tells you to take your eye out. That's cultural understanding (that is, it's learned). Cultural morality is also (like anything cultural) learned.

I did specify though taking it as literally as possible, if my eye was the one thing that was holding me down or causing me the problems, then logically I would take it out, however, my isn't my biggest problem.  Just like an acoholic who's problem is drinking, you take the stumbling block out of existence in your life.  An alcoholic can never sip a drink again.  Same idea.

HisWillness wrote:

No, I'm suggesting stoning as an unnecessarily barbaric punishment. We would be better off considering other ways of dealing with criminals altogether.

is the technology we use today a better alternative to killing criminals?

HisWillness wrote:

Can you tell me where I'd find these? I'm not being slippery, I really don't know what you're referring to.

The statistics or the scriptures about the courtships?

HisWillness wrote:

Also, I think lesbian relationships last the longest and are the most fulfilling. I'll find out where I read that and get back to you.

There is a reason for that beyond the fact that they're lesbian.  find that info as well.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:On a

butterbattle wrote:

On a completely different note, I finished Hank's book, "The FACE That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution." (a resource recommended by Caposkia)

Just for the record, I suggested asking Hank for factual information, not to read his publications (which I have not read). 

I suggested him because if you ask for the research on a specific topic, in my experience, he will send you an outline.  from there, you can do the research and draw your own conclusions rather than take his. 

butterbattle wrote:

Unsurprisingly, it was a sloppy compilation of many long-debunked Creationist claims. Featuring big font and short snappy arguments, the entire book is only about 150 pages long. Clearly, this work was directed at the uninformed masses.

Sounds like many of the "recommended" atheist readings I have experienced.  See the book recommended on "Atheists and their quest for the Unholy Grail"  They're referenced in it if I remember correctly.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank wrote:
If you begin as a creationist, you will become equipped to demonstrate the farce of evolution. In addition, your confidence in the Christian worldview will be solidified. If you begin as an evolutionist, the shaky pillars of your worldview will be undermined.
    

cocky

butterbattle wrote:

- blaming evolution for abortion, adultery, AIDS, communism, racism, sexism, etc. For some reason, he didn't explicitly mention homosexuality, although he did include an interesting picture of some half-naked men prancing in a gay parade.

either way, holds no relevence to anything we're talking about.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank wrote:
With God relegated to the status of a Disney character, we grabbed for all the gusto we could. And what we got in return was adultery, abortion, and AIDS

- strawmen.

There he did the same thing I've seen 90% of non-believers attempt with believers.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank wrote:
From a purely logical point of view it should be self-evident that nothing comes from nothing. In other words, it is illogical to believe that something could come from nothing. Yet, this is precisely what philosophical naturalism - the worldview undergirding evolutionism - presupposes.

- blatant lies and simple ignorance of science.

Note that the phrase inside the parentheses is actually in the book. I suppose that its purpose is up for interpretation.  

Are you claiming the ignorance of science comes in when he says it's illogical to believe that something could have come from nothing?  Even science supports that statement.

butterbattle wrote:

Hank wrote:
Darwin had an excuse. In his day fossils finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, more than a century after his death (one would surmise he is now a creationist), we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one species to another.

Hank wrote:
While the general public seems blithely unaware of the fact that transitions from one species to another do not exist, it is common knowledge among paleontologists.

Though the second quote is derived directly from personal opinion, I have supported that second idea in other forums.

butterbattle wrote:

Here is my favorite section in the entire book; it gave me a hearty laugh.

Hank wrote:
The pro-avis fairy tale, like any good fairy tale, begins long, long ago with little pro-avises running around on two legs while they playfully caught insects in their scaly little hands. One fateful day an ugly little pro-avis we'll call Mike was born. Unlike his brothers and sisters, little Mikey had frayed scales on both of his hands. Because of little Mikey's imperfections, no one wanted to play wth him. Sadly, he had to run around all by himself trying to catch insects. Suddenly, little Mikey discovered something miraculous. Insects stuck like magic to his frayed scales. The more he caught, the better he ate. The better he ate, the faster he ran. The faster he ran, the more his scales frayed. In time little Mikey's ugly scales were transformed into beautiful flying feathers. Soon little Mikey was able to catch insects that would normally have been beyond his reach. It wasn't long before all the little pro-avises wanted to be just like Mike, They began fraying their scales and in time, like Mike, their scales were transformed into fantastic flying feathers. And they lived happily ever after.

In fairy tales, frayed scales turn into feathers, and frogs turn into princes. In evolution all you have to do is add millions of years and little pro-avises turn into beautiful flying birds.

Cheers.

What? no defense to Hank comparing an evolutionist theory to a fairytale?  It's exactly again what 90% of non-believers do to believers. 

Though the fairy tale story maybe could have used a few more days of brainstorming. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oops, just to clarify, all

Oops, just to clarify, all of my comments in my post about The FACE are referring to the quote below them, not the quote above them. Sorry, not sure why I did that.

caposkia wrote:
either way, holds no relevence to anything we're talking about.

I'm just casually reviewing the book; I wasn't trying to discuss whatever is it is we're talking about. What are we talking about anyways?

Hank wrote:
While the general public seems blithely unaware of the fact that transitions from one species to another do not exist, it is common knowledge among paleontologists.

caposkia wrote:
Though the second quote is derived directly from personal opinion, I have supported that second idea in other forums.

His personal opinion, regardless of how he reached that opinion, is simply false. If anything, it is common knowledge among paleontologists that evolution is overwhelmingly supported. Like most Creationists, instead of trying to refute a mountain of evidence, Hank simply pretended that the evidence didn't exist. Also, as usual, he denied macroevolution, but granted legitimacy to microevolution, ignoring the fact that the two are actually just the same process separated by the variable of time and without explaining what would qualify as speciation. Unlike Hank, most paleontologists understand taxonomy and don't use vague concepts that they can continuously backpedal to avoid acknowledging the obvious.

I'll let other posters address the rest of what you said.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Okay, I think I've been

Okay, I think I've been patient enough with these posts. This evening's response is sponsored by Canadian Club 12-year-old.

Quote:
I never said anything about magic.

No, you just provided an explanation that involved a world you know exactly nothing about.

Quote:
Non-believers try to claim God as magic because his actions otherwise would be unexplainable.  Magic only exists in the mind, because it's not magic if you understand how it happens.

And, of course, you understand this realm that would otherwise be called magic, but for your specialized knowledge. Oh wise one, enlighten us as to the nature of this fabled land, where the non-physical happening is the banal.

Quote:
Why would you throw around a wild hypothesis?  That's not very logical.

Yeah, holy shit, what was I thinking? An explanation that would possibly involve some of the elements of the observed physical world? What a loon! Let's talk about ghosts - that's way more reasonable.

Quote:
apparently until 2007, neither did Ball Lightning.  What's your point? Oh I get it, Ball Lightning didn't exist until 2007.  gotcha.

Don't be a child.

Quote:
Obviously, the butterfly effect is just the initial happening.  There is progress to the theory beyond just that.  Interaction and interference causes your linear theory to bend a bit as you've pointed out.  I accept that.  God takes all of that into consideration mind you.

Math. Get acquainted with it. The only reason anyone said anything about "the butterfly effect" is because they were trying to explain the math to people who hate math. Apparently, that includes you, because you wouldn't make ridiculous statements stretching the applicability of chaos theory outside its realm.

Quote:
Did not show up? or did not show up in the way you wanted it to.  I don't know your journey, so I can't make any conclusions as to whether your statement holds water or not.  It's just something I"m challenging people who even have been there to do.  I would of course better explain your approach.  Church is not your window, it's only a fellowship.

Help me out, here. Do you even read what you write? A couple of posts ago, there was all this talk of "you just don't give God a chance" and "what evidence would be good enough?" Now you're on my ass to prove - prove, mind you - that I gave it my best shot believing in something that is obviously fucking not there. I mean a child could figure out that there's no invisible friend there. I wanted to believe with everything I had that there was someone or something that I could pray to when my life completely disintegrated. I didn't even need an answer, I just needed the idea to hold on to. Anything would have been fine.

And then I read the Bible. What quicker way is there for an intelligent human being to become an atheist?

Quote:
What do you mean believe hard enough?  Click your heals together and chant "there's no place like home"?

Oh, for Christ's sake, it's spelled "heels". Your attempt at being condescending screams the kind of insecurity that I couldn't wish on anyone.

Quote:
how do you find something you're not looking for?  I say seek with your whole heart.  Really want to find him. (sounds like you've done that)  How about your mind?  did you seek out God by extensively researching, not just in books, but in life?  Did you use general logic (as Einstine did) to conclude there is no God.

"Einstein", you vapid defiler of great men.

Quote:
I say Einstine because though he didn't accept the Christian God, he concluded that due to the complexity of things, there had to be an intelligence behind it.  More accurately, I'm not quoting, he generally stated it was less logical to claim the absence of an intelligence behind everything observed.  I don't remember exactly what he stated.

I question your ability to read. Einstein made some rather unequivocal assertions about the very idea of God. Behold, and let not the scorching deter you from responding with something inane:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

Go ahead, bring up Einstein again. He's a personal hero of mine.

Quote:
HisWillness wrote:

The members of a culture.

who decides their conclusion is moral?

Other cultures and human beings. "Moral" is a dynamic concept. Well, except for children. Adults make hard and fast rules for those who can't figure this shit out for themselves.

Quote:
HisWillness wrote:

Since no humans exist in isolation (people must be born and raised), there is no person who has formed a completely individual morality. It simply cannot exist.

there are isolated cultures.

Yeah, there are. Exactly how does that provide a counterpoint to my argument?

Quote:
I did specify though taking it as literally as possible, if my eye was the one thing that was holding me down or causing me the problems, then logically I would take it out, however, my isn't my biggest problem.  Just like an acoholic who's problem is drinking, you take the stumbling block out of existence in your life.  An alcoholic can never sip a drink again.  Same idea.

Oh yes. Quite right. We'll take it literally with caveats. That will make it more valuable.

Is it not clear to you that if Jesus were a real person, that he was talking down to his listeners? It's like they were complete imbeciles, and he had to explain that if they had a problem, then they should probably deal with it. So I guess he had to make it a light story about removing an eye. Fantastic. Not really all that educational to those who can read, mind you.

Quote:
is the technology we use today a better alternative to killing criminals?

You know what? If you want criminals killed, you go for it. Here, I was thinking that it would be more compassionate to try my best to rehabilitate, and if that failed, to incarcerate. If Jesus teaches you to kill until your blood lust is sated, you have a good time, you fucking sociopath.

Come on. How can I take this seriously? Stoning people? You really want to stone people? You want to watch someone get pummeled to death with stones that other people throw at them? This is the best that God can come up with? That's what he puts in His great Holy Book?

Quote:
The statistics or the scriptures about the courtships?

The scriptures. I already know that you fear math like the plague - let me know what your God is thinking about dirty love.

Quote:
There is a reason for that beyond the fact that they're lesbian.  find that info as well.

You absolutely LOVE topics about which you know nothing. It's like a pig in shit. Amazing.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:butterbattle

caposkia wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

On a completely different note, I finished Hank's book, "The FACE That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution." (a resource recommended by Caposkia)

Just for the record, I suggested asking Hank for factual information, not to read his publications (which I have not read). 

I suggested him because if you ask for the research on a specific topic, in my experience, he will send you an outline.  from there, you can do the research and draw your own conclusions rather than take his. 

I don't get this.  I Hank has factual information why doesn't he make it easily available on the Internet?  You would think that he would want everyone to know.  Are you saying he will only give out this information to certain people?

I'm assuming that because you keep saying we should do this that it must be something you have done your self.   If so why don't you give us this information, or at least summarize it in your own words.  If this information was so convincing to you why don't you share it with the rest of us?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RatDog

caposkia wrote:

RatDog wrote:


Do you consider personal experience to be evidence?

Yes, and most people do.  It is your personal experience that has showed you evidence to believe that there could not possibly be a higher power.  It is my personal experience that has showed me evidence to believe that there has to be a higher power. 

You can see from the above statement why personal experience would be a bad place to start unless we're willing to walk in each other's shoes.  All of the people I've talked to so far on here are not willing to do that. 

Is personal experience all you need to believe?  In other words if the only evidence you felt you could trust was your own feelings, and personal experience would that be enough for you to believe in God?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:RatDog

caposkia wrote:

RatDog wrote:

What are the non-physical sciences, and how are they different then the physical sciences? 

Physical is understood to be what is material. I'd prefer sticking to the scientific method in seeking out God versus actually looking for a specific science that might study the spiritual or the possibility thereof. 

Any science that studies something other than material would be considered non-physical science.

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

Quote:

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Is your use of the scientific method based on observable, empirical, and measurable evidence?

Any science that studies the non-physical world isn't really science at all.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Okay, I

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, I think I've been patient enough with these posts. This evening's response is sponsored by Canadian Club 12-year-old.

here we go

HisWillness wrote:

No, you just provided an explanation that involved a world you know exactly nothing about.

Very conclusive of you.  Thank you.

HisWillness wrote:

And, of course, you understand this realm that would otherwise be called magic, but for your specialized knowledge. Oh wise one, enlighten us as to the nature of this fabled land, where the non-physical happening is the banal.

First you will need to forward this to at least 2000 people before midnight tonight.  If you fail to do so, you will break your pencil and your CD player/s will stop working.

HisWillness wrote:

Yeah, holy shit, what was I thinking? An explanation that would possibly involve some of the elements of the observed physical world? What a loon! Let's talk about ghosts - that's way more reasonable.

I think your gettin' it!!!

HisWillness wrote:

Don't be a child.

oh come now.  it was a completely logical reply.  I can easily derive that conclusion from your post.  Try something new.

HisWillness wrote:

Math. Get acquainted with it. The only reason anyone said anything about "the butterfly effect" is because they were trying to explain the math to people who hate math. Apparently, that includes you, because you wouldn't make ridiculous statements stretching the applicability of chaos theory outside its realm.

The point still remains.  Regardless of how linear you try to make it.

HisWillness wrote:

Help me out, here. Do you even read what you write? A couple of posts ago, there was all this talk of "you just don't give God a chance" and "what evidence would be good enough?" Now you're on my ass to prove - prove, mind you - that I gave it my best shot believing in something that is obviously fucking not there. I mean a child could figure out that there's no invisible friend there. I wanted to believe with everything I had that there was someone or something that I could pray to when my life completely disintegrated. I didn't even need an answer, I just needed the idea to hold on to. Anything would have been fine.

yea, I read my posts.  Thanks for asking.

more legitimate questions:

1.  What "answer"  were you looking for?

2.  How long did you wait?

3.  Is it possible the answer was more subtle than you thought and you possibly missed it?

Just questions, none are conclusions to anything. 

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, for Christ's sake, it's spelled "heels". Your attempt at being condescending screams the kind of insecurity that I couldn't wish on anyone.

I obviously didn't read my sarcasm carefully.  I'm sorry that you see sarcasm as insecurity.  It's really just for fun.  Sorry for offending you.

HisWillness wrote:

"Einstein", you vapid defiler of great men.

So when you have no more defense for your belief, you result to insult.  Who's the child?

HisWillness wrote:

I question your ability to read. Einstein made some rather unequivocal assertions about the very idea of God. Behold, and let not the scorching deter you from responding with something inane:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

Go ahead, bring up Einstein again. He's a personal hero of mine.

Thanks for the invite.  Be it that he's such a powerful hero in your life, then you know all about what he said about an "intelligence" behind the creation.

I know he never believed in God and never called the "intelligence" God or any kind of God, just an impersonal intelligence. 

HisWillness wrote:

Other cultures and human beings. "Moral" is a dynamic concept. Well, except for children. Adults make hard and fast rules for those who can't figure this shit out for themselves.

What it comes down to is there had to be a source for those agreed upon "morals".

HisWillness wrote:

Yeah, there are. Exactly how does that provide a counterpoint to my argument?

Many core morallistic beliefs coenside with what the general connected population believes are moral beliefs.

HisWillness wrote:

Oh yes. Quite right. We'll take it literally with caveats. That will make it more valuable.

Is it not clear to you that if Jesus were a real person, that he was talking down to his listeners? It's like they were complete imbeciles, and he had to explain that if they had a problem, then they should probably deal with it. So I guess he had to make it a light story about removing an eye. Fantastic. Not really all that educational to those who can read, mind you.

If you can read, then you'll know about where Jesus was asked why he explains things the way he does. 

Basically you're right.  Read it yourself in the Gospels. 

HisWillness wrote:

You know what? If you want criminals killed, you go for it. Here, I was thinking that it would be more compassionate to try my best to rehabilitate, and if that failed, to incarcerate. If Jesus teaches you to kill until your blood lust is sated, you have a good time, you fucking sociopath.

Come on. How can I take this seriously? Stoning people? You really want to stone people? You want to watch someone get pummeled to death with stones that other people throw at them? This is the best that God can come up with? That's what he puts in His great Holy Book?

oh oh oh, hey hey.  Take it down a bit.  Sorry to offend you. Just making a point.

You have concluded that I want to see criminals killed.  I'm just saying it still happens. 

The Bible was written with everything in it.  If you're looking for a warm fuzzy carebear in the sky kind of god, then I guess Chrsistianity is not for you. 

The Bible has what is right in it and what is wrong.  What is Good and what is bad.  If it didn't, then I would have to agree with most non-believers attempts to conform my belief to nothing more than a fairytale. 

If everything was good and right, then there wouldn't be sin, we wouldn't be christians because Christ wouldnt' have had to come... and we could all be happy happy joy joy all day.

HisWillness wrote:

The scriptures. I already know that you fear math like the plague - let me know what your God is thinking about dirty love.

you want all the dirty details, read Songs of Solomon. 

if you want scriptures about courtship, lemme do some homework on that and I'll get back to you.

HisWillness wrote:

You absolutely LOVE topics about which you know nothing. It's like a pig in shit. Amazing.

Ah I get it, they're topics you feel I know nothing about because you can't comprehend anything beyond what you already think you know.

Just because I don't give you what you want doesn't mean I don't know anything about it.  I said look into it more.  There's more to it than you're saying.  Part of it has to do with women in general. 

Can you think logically without coming to irrational conclusions?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:I don't get

RatDog wrote:

I don't get this.  I Hank has factual information why doesn't he make it easily available on the Internet?  You would think that he would want everyone to know.  Are you saying he will only give out this information to certain people?

I'm assuming that because you keep saying we should do this that it must be something you have done your self.   If so why don't you give us this information, or at least summarize it in your own words.  If this information was so convincing to you why don't you share it with the rest of us?

Honestly, I don't know why he doesn't post his information.  I wish he did. 

Yes I've done it myself.  Only for topics that are irrelevent to this forum.  I assumed that if he had that much extensive information about certain topics, he'd have just as much for topics you brought to him as well.

I will not post everything he gives me because:

1.  I dont' know what each is looking for.  We'd need to be specific.

2.  the information is so extensive, I'm not going to take the time to scan it or write it.  you can just as easily ask him yourself.

e.g. when I asked him for information in the Bible about the Trinity, I figured I'd get some half hearted explanation of how the Bible explains the Trinity (be it that the word itself is not in scriptures). Instead he sends me a 7 page outline of scripture references and research he's done to support the doctern's idea and to nullify misunderstood beliefs of it.

I assumed he'd do the same for all of you be it that that particular topic was the first time I had ever contacted him. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Is personal

RatDog wrote:

Is personal experience all you need to believe?  In other words if the only evidence you felt you could trust was your own feelings, and personal experience would that be enough for you to believe in God?

I've already specified that any one thing I present cannot be taken into account as full support for what I believe. 

To directly answer your question:

no, personal experience would not be enough for me to believe in God.  I don't trust myself.

All my personal experiences that led me to strengthen my belief in God were considered in my mind with other possibilities.  Many were looked at with skepticism. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Is your use of

RatDog wrote:

Is your use of the scientific method based on observable, empirical, and measurable evidence?

Any science that studies the non-physical world isn't really science at all.

That would be an opinion.

Also yes, my use of the SM is based on the literal definition of it. 

I've already posted that... I think on the other forum.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2616
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
anyone?

Anyone look into Lee Strobel yet?