The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Oh, I

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, I don't know ... probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe. So odds are actually pretty good that life is going to pop up somewhere in that vast expanse. Chances are, it already has elsewhere, too.

now we're getting into somantics.  you're right about the odds being probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe.  Obviously the odds were good enough to produce life on this planet if you're going to look at it from that perspective. 

let's back up to before the creation of any life.  Then what are the odds not having the "earth" statistic.  As you've easily pointed out, it's slim.  If you think they're that good, the odds are less than winning the lottery, therefore you should put your life savings into the lottery.  You're pretty much guaranteed to win right? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Crucifiction and Salvation story is a nasty, primitive, immoral idea that appeals to the most primitive aspects of our minds. It ultimately links back to the primitive idea of blood sacrifice to appease the angry gods or whatever 'powers' are imagined to govern the world.

Treating 'sin' as something that can be 'transferred' like a monetary debt is a nonsense.

Accepting punishment for someone else's wrong-doings is both pointless and dishonest, especially if the 'person' taking on the punishment is not even apparently going to suffer the full force of the punishment, in this  case, real and permanent death. Justice is certainly not served, that is a perversion of the very idea of justice.

If the punishment is seen to be unjust, that is the issue, and it is not really being served by deflecting it to someone else.

If one is comparing the punishment for 'sin' to this situation, it only makes any sort of sense if God's punishment (Hell?) is fundamentally unjust. I of course agree that the concept of Hell as punishment is fundamentally an ultimately evil and unjust concept, as would be a being that would set up such a system.

You're saying he didn't suffer the full force of the punishment.  Sure ok he didn't die a perminant death.  There are many reasons for that as I previously explained a bit of.  However if he did die perminantly, then it'd be my assumption that we'd no longer be dying because that's a consequence for sin as well. 

Jesus only paid the way to God for us. That's it

As far as Hell, what is hell?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Case in point is the quote you made here regarding the removal of offending body parts which illustrates the problems of literal interpretation of archaic writings. This particular reference is a form of early psychiatry in a way describing taking an activity to excess. Did this writer seriously mean that such offenders should pluck out their eye or cut off a body part? Most likely it was but a metaphor or an analogy to express how such excess behavior is detrimental to one's long term goals. In this case, the goal was to be one of the saved not the damned. However many believers consider that it is literal because to be damned for sinning is far worse. Jews seem to value their body parts unlike Christians as described in the NT as it was their duty to the god to maintain and preserve it as they were born a pure soul and could return it in such condition to the god.

Sure, many believers may "vocalize" that they would take it literally, however, how many followers do you see walking around with missing body parts?  Or do you think they're really that sinless. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gravity can be explained and understood by tools both mathematical and physical through measurements, so this is a poor analogy in describing the inability to measure the spiritual aspects of a god or his supposed realm outside our reality or time space dimension. If a god exists that has some sort of relationship with the physical universe then it should be measurable in some way. Theists generally skirt this by claiming he is outside of our ability to perceive. If so, you shouldn't have any knowledge of the god at all. Since theists think they have such knowledge of the god they must also have some sort of physical evidence if not the entire concept is completely illusion or self created. You can't have this both ways.

one of my current posts explained the constant that gravity is vs. God's "choice" to use his power when and how he wants.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No it's not necessary to go to the point of origin to audit, one can do so in the middle so it is not the age old issue of debate of origin. As the beginning is obscured or unknown one begins in the middle of the path and follows through logically. It may be by doing so one can interpret data points earlier,  though accuracy will deteriorate as one does. When one uses such methods one can look at multiple paths to gain understanding of the overall. When considering ancient Israel for example one must also look seriously at occurrence elsewhere in the world at the same time period. Stories existing in ancient Babylonian legends and in Canaanite as well are connected and reflected in Bible books such as in Psalms and the leviathan or twisty serpent. This is Marduk crushing Tiamat or Kingu in Babylon and is found in Psalms 74:13-14. These are pieces which can be used to follow an audit trail to gain understanding of the whole.

it sounds a lot like my process to coming to my faith then. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Regarding

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding the likelihood of conditions being within the range appropriate for the emergence of life on at least one planet in the universe, it would be staggeringly unlikely that there would be no suitable planet among the estimated 100's of billions of planets that are probably out there.

This figure is based on the fact that we have already located hundreds of planets within our local neighbourhood, and how we can only detect those which meet certain restrictions in regard to the orientation of their orbit with respect to our line of sight to their star, are large enough and/or close enough to us to detect, etc. We have already identified some which are likely to be rocky worlds no more than twice the mass of earth, and some whose surface temperature is likely to be in a survivable range.

We have detected organic molecules central to life as we know it, such as amino acids, on meteorites, so it is likely that the precursors substances for life are readily produced by natural processes.

Given these observations, the idea that it is unlikely that there would be any planet in the entire universe suitable for life without special intervention is the truly absurd notion.

numbers don't lie


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

caposkia wrote:
now we're getting into somantics.  you're right about the odds being probably less than 1 to the number of planets in the universe.  Obviously the odds were good enough to produce life on this planet if you're going to look at it from that perspective.

I am looking at it from that perspective, because that's the available data we have. You asked what the odds are, and 

caposkia wrote:
let's back up to before the creation of any life.  Then what are the odds not having the "earth" statistic.  As you've easily pointed out, it's slim.

I guess I was trying to point out that it's speculation either way. We know that carbon behaves in a way such that life will result from chemicals combining in a certain situation. I guess what you're asking is how odd that situation really would be.

If there are 100 billion stars in the universe (obviously simplified) then maybe 400 billion planets? I think the odds of you arriving at the situation we had on earth is pretty good, with 400 billion chances.

caposkia wrote:
If you think they're that good, the odds are less than winning the lottery, therefore you should put your life savings into the lottery.  You're pretty much guaranteed to win right? 

If you're betting that life will show up on one of 400 billion planets over the course of 10 billion years, then it's kind of the opposite of the lottery. It would be like a lottery where you have all the tickets, and only one of them has to come up a winner. You're helped by the fact that a lot of planets are probably going to contain carbon and hydrogen already.

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: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Regarding the likelihood of conditions being within the range appropriate for the emergence of life on at least one planet in the universe, it would be staggeringly unlikely that there would be no suitable planet among the estimated 100's of billions of planets that are probably out there.

This figure is based on the fact that we have already located hundreds of planets within our local neighbourhood, and how we can only detect those which meet certain restrictions in regard to the orientation of their orbit with respect to our line of sight to their star, are large enough and/or close enough to us to detect, etc. We have already identified some which are likely to be rocky worlds no more than twice the mass of earth, and some whose surface temperature is likely to be in a survivable range.

We have detected organic molecules central to life as we know it, such as amino acids, on meteorites, so it is likely that the precursors substances for life are readily produced by natural processes.

Given these observations, the idea that it is unlikely that there would be any planet in the entire universe suitable for life without special intervention is the truly absurd notion.

numbers don't lie

Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.

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
BobSpence1 wrote:caposkia

BobSpence1 wrote:

caposkia wrote:

numbers don't lie

Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.

The figure I gave above of 400 billion planets is really low. For the observable universe, a low actual estimate of the number of stars is 30 billion trillion stars. So even my overly conservative estimate of the planets gives us incredibly good odds that RNA or phospholipids will spontaneously organize at some point over 10 billion years. The odds are really good, in fact, that it would happen thousands of times.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
While we are mentioning

While we are mentioning lagit science, let me remind everyone here of Cappy's game plan.

The end goal is the claim that the Christian God is the one true god.

Cappy is deluded into believing that "spirits" exist, but we know this is absurd, because Cap has no way of defining a "spirit" or replicating or falsifying such a claim.

BUT, if we humor cap by going by the "spirit" model for the sake of argument, the end goal is still there "The God of Jesus is the one true god"

What cap fails to take into account dispite the blatant lack of evidence for "spirits", is that Cap would not buy the "spirit" argument if a Muslim were using that tactic with the end goal of presenting Allah into the gap.

Would Cap buy this "spirit" tactic if a Hindu's end goal was to prove the existance of Vishnu?

Cap's mistake is thinking we have not played this game before and must think that we are stupid in not thinking ahead.

So while all these scientific facts are valid in refuting Cap's absurd naked assertions, Cap is still stuck with no evidence for the particular personal claim made.

Cap, work on getting "spirit" DNA, get it peer reviewed and falsified, then you will have something. Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.

 

ALLAH EXISTS

YAHWEY EXISTS

VISHNU EXISTS

SPIRITS EXIST

I CAN FART A FULL SIZED LAMBORGHINI OUT OF MY ASS

All fit the same catigory of NAKED ASSERTION.

When you start with a naked assertion, everything that follows is just as steamy and stinky as the starting claim.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Case in point is the quote you made here regarding the removal of offending body parts which illustrates the problems of literal interpretation of archaic writings. This particular reference is a form of early psychiatry in a way describing taking an activity to excess. Did this writer seriously mean that such offenders should pluck out their eye or cut off a body part? Most likely it was but a metaphor or an analogy to express how such excess behavior is detrimental to one's long term goals. In this case, the goal was to be one of the saved not the damned. However many believers consider that it is literal because to be damned for sinning is far worse. Jews seem to value their body parts unlike Christians as described in the NT as it was their duty to the god to maintain and preserve it as they were born a pure soul and could return it in such condition to the god.

Sure, many believers may "vocalize" that they would take it literally, however, how many followers do you see walking around with missing body parts?  Or do you think they're really that sinless.

Again Cap, I wasn't saying believers cut off body parts only that an archaic writing advocated it and it shouldn't be considered literally which is what you said as well. The point was Hammurabi, Canaanite stories, and the Bible all have these archaic concepts including stoning of individuals that are in fact victims. You already do not follow many of these rules and laws handed down by the ancients but do accept others such as the Jesus stories. 

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Gravity can be explained and understood by tools both mathematical and physical through measurements, so this is a poor analogy in describing the inability to measure the spiritual aspects of a god or his supposed realm outside our reality or time space dimension. If a god exists that has some sort of relationship with the physical universe then it should be measurable in some way. Theists generally skirt this by claiming he is outside of our ability to perceive. If so, you shouldn't have any knowledge of the god at all. Since theists think they have such knowledge of the god they must also have some sort of physical evidence if not the entire concept is completely illusion or self created. You can't have this both ways.

one of my current posts explained the constant that gravity is vs. God's "choice" to use his power when and how he wants.

I read your comments in the other thread and it supports what I said that gravity is a poor analogy. Your comments regarding earthquakes is also a poor analogy too as it is physical as well. If your god is outside the physical as you say measurement is not possible. If it acts upon the physical in some way then it should be. As you claim you have no physical proof you are in fact admitting he does not act upon the physical. Claiming that he does act in our time space dimension means measurement must be possible or that you are incorrect in assuming what you observe is an action of the god. Again, you can't have this both ways.

Claim: God acts in the physical world. Interaction, interference or your perception of him.

Proof: Such & such is the action or perception.

Result: God is in the physical realm.

Measurement: What is it?

No way to measure means your claim is not true and you are not perceiving a god. How can you know of an entity that is not in our time space dimension? If you know of him/it then it interacts and measurement must exist.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No it's not necessary to go to the point of origin to audit, one can do so in the middle so it is not the age old issue of debate of origin. As the beginning is obscured or unknown one begins in the middle of the path and follows through logically. It may be by doing so one can interpret data points earlier,  though accuracy will deteriorate as one does. When one uses such methods one can look at multiple paths to gain understanding of the overall. When considering ancient Israel for example one must also look seriously at occurrence elsewhere in the world at the same time period. Stories existing in ancient Babylonian legends and in Canaanite as well are connected and reflected in Bible books such as in Psalms and the leviathan or twisty serpent. This is Marduk crushing Tiamat or Kingu in Babylon and is found in Psalms 74:13-14. These are pieces which can be used to follow an audit trail to gain understanding of the whole.

it sounds a lot like my process to coming to my faith then. 

That doesn't mean you correctly followed the audit trail, only that you tried. Errors are made in interpreting data that others have created especially since no general standard existed at the time for documenting the data.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:I guess I

HisWillness wrote:

I guess I was trying to point out that it's speculation either way. We know that carbon behaves in a way such that life will result from chemicals combining in a certain situation. I guess what you're asking is how odd that situation really would be.

If there are 100 billion stars in the universe (obviously simplified) then maybe 400 billion planets? I think the odds of you arriving at the situation we had on earth is pretty good, with 400 billion chances.

400 billion to 1 and you're calling them pretty good odds.......

wow 

HisWillness wrote:

If you're betting that life will show up on one of 400 billion planets over the course of 10 billion years, then it's kind of the opposite of the lottery. It would be like a lottery where you have all the tickets, and only one of them has to come up a winner. You're helped by the fact that a lot of planets are probably going to contain carbon and hydrogen already.

you like to stretch it as far as it can go huh.  We're getting to the point where the odds of an intelligence behind life is better.  Those numbers mind you were only estimates from you and are probably underestimated.   Maybe the reasoning isn't understood by the physical scientists as to how this being could exist, but statistically speaking... well, it makes more sense.

Again, the above logic would not have worked for me on here as far as support for God.  I can pretty much guarantee it. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Correct -

BobSpence1 wrote:

Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.

So lemme get this strait, you're defending 400 Billion + to 1 odds of "spontaneous" life and yet are giving me flack about believing in God. 

I guarantee as I was explaining in my last post that if the tables were turned, that conclusion would be unacceptable by the general RSS population.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:The figure

HisWillness wrote:

The figure I gave above of 400 billion planets is really low. For the observable universe, a low actual estimate of the number of stars is 30 billion trillion stars. So even my overly conservative estimate of the planets gives us incredibly good odds that RNA or phospholipids will spontaneously organize at some point over 10 billion years. The odds are really good, in fact, that it would happen thousands of times.

For your statistics to hold water, your theory is correct that it would have happened thousands of times, not just once.  And yet of the trillions of planets and stars that we have observed, there has been no observable life.

You're trying to twist bad odds around to sound good... do you work in real estate?

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:While we are

Brian37 wrote:

While we are mentioning lagit science, let me remind everyone here of Cappy's game plan....

What are you worried about?  You are so adamant in "reminding" people of my purpose on here as if you're worried that I might start making sense to them.

People on here are smart, I wouldn't worry about them so much.  If my "game plan" is so utterly unreasonable, then there should be no concern of you that everyone will forget my game plan. 

Honestly, why such concern over me?  It seems you fear a progressive conversation.

Also, I don't remember having an interview with you.  How do you know my decision in certain situations? 

unless.... *gasp*   you're making assumptions.  but... that wouldn't be rational OR logical.


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

caposkia wrote:
For your statistics to hold water, your theory is correct that it would have happened thousands of times, not just once.  And yet of the trillions of planets and stars that we have observed, there has been no observable life.

Most of those planets aren't visible to the point that we'd be able to see whether there's life on them or not. Don't lose hope just yet.

caposkia wrote:
You're trying to twist bad odds around to sound good... do you work in real estate?

Haha! No, but good call. Since it's a big deal when we can view planets directly at all (Cf. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/11/two-reports-detail-imaging-of-extrasolar-planets.ars), the odds are still good considering the number of probable planets in the billions of observable galaxies.

I guess my point in all of this is that "odds" is a silly way to examine the problem, given that we can't know what the odds really are. Are they very good, considering how likely the combination of things that make life probably are, or are they very bad, considering how little life we know of in the universe? The answer is we don't know, so that kind of speculation is largely fruitless.

We do know, however, that life can be formed from basic chemistry. If that's possible, then the need for something to have started the process diminishes considerably.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.

So lemme get this strait, you're defending 400 Billion + to 1 odds of "spontaneous" life and yet are giving me flack about believing in God. 

I guarantee as I was explaining in my last post that if the tables were turned, that conclusion would be unacceptable by the general RSS population.

 

That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!

For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.

Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.

The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.

If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?

You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I read your comments in the other thread and it supports what I said that gravity is a poor analogy. Your comments regarding earthquakes is also a poor analogy too as it is physical as well. If your god is outside the physical as you say measurement is not possible. If it acts upon the physical in some way then it should be. As you claim you have no physical proof you are in fact admitting he does not act upon the physical. Claiming that he does act in our time space dimension means measurement must be possible or that you are incorrect in assuming what you observe is an action of the god. Again, you can't have this both ways.

Simply, I'm trying different approaches.  Obviously talking about anything besides something physical isn't going to make much progress... or at least that's what I'm seeing.  So I try different analogies and see where they go.  Gravity and Earthquakes obviously don't take place of how you'd study God, but they touch on aspects of why God is so difficult to comprehend. 

e.g.  Gravity:  can't see it, thus can't describe it, only what it does, (same as God)

        Earthquakes:  don't tend to have a pattern or better wording would be they're unpredictable and therefore you can't measure an earthquakes effects before it happens. (same as God)

I've also concluded... I can't remember if it was in this forum or the other active one I'm a part of... that with the logic that if God's not physical, then he can't affect the physical then God must be physical, however, for what you're quoting, I was saying that you can't detect the being of God or his presence physically.  I never said he doesn't affect the physical nor did I claim no evidence of his works in this world. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Claim: God acts in the physical world. Interaction, interference or your perception of him.

Proof: Such & such is the action or perception.

Result: God is in the physical realm.

Measurement: What is it?

No way to measure means your claim is not true and you are not perceiving a god. How can you know of an entity that is not in our time space dimension? If you know of him/it then it interacts and measurement must exist.

yes, measurement must exist.  Do we understand it yet as far as a science... no.  This entity that's not in our space time dimension can manuver I'm sure through space and time at His will be it that he'd be the creator of all of it, therefore, it's not illogical to have a relationship with such a being.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That doesn't mean you correctly followed the audit trail, only that you tried. Errors are made in interpreting data that others have created especially since no general standard existed at the time for documenting the data.

That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Most of

HisWillness wrote:

Most of those planets aren't visible to the point that we'd be able to see whether there's life on them or not. Don't lose hope just yet.

They are however visible enough to understand whether they could logically support life or not, which they can't.

HisWillness wrote:

Haha! No, but good call. Since it's a big deal when we can view planets directly at all (Cf. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/11/two-reports-detail-imaging-of-extrasolar-planets.ars), the odds are still good considering the number of probable planets in the billions of observable galaxies.

I guess my point in all of this is that "odds" is a silly way to examine the problem, given that we can't know what the odds really are. Are they very good, considering how likely the combination of things that make life probably are, or are they very bad, considering how little life we know of in the universe? The answer is we don't know, so that kind of speculation is largely fruitless.

odds seemed to make progress in some conversations, that's why I focused on it. 

Basic ideas in many instances have taken until recent years to be "put together" by people, why is basic chemistry any indication that there is no God.  Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's easily implemented naturally.  If it were so in basic terms, the universe would be crawling with life. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:That is

Brian37 wrote:

That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!

For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.

Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.

The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.

If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?

You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.

If you were trump, you'd probably challenge the logic of such a manufacturer.  The manufacturer would then shoot back with the idea that he makes millions only to pick the best one out of all of them.  Then all the materials are recycled and used again through the same process.  It costs nothing more because the recycled products are 100% reused and 100% recycled and you're guaranteed the best of the bunch.  Manufactured in the way they'd be most useful. 

I love the logic that the "better" explanation is we got lucky.  Some of the greatest minds in science would laugh at that logic.


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

caposkia wrote:
They [the planets] are however visible enough to understand whether they could logically support life or not, which they can't.

You mean right now? Maybe not. There are planet/star combinations that could produce life in a few million years. Maybe it's rare for us to see it because it happens in several-hundred-million-year spurts that we can't catch a glimpse of. We're discussing a point of ignorance on both our parts, so it's pure speculation. That's why we can't calculate odds.

caposkia wrote:
Basic ideas in many instances have taken until recent years to be "put together" by people, why is basic chemistry any indication that there is no God.

I don't think I said that. My approach to the problem of God has been to ask what is likely, not state unequivocally that a bearded creator definitely did not wave his hands and produce earth. That's just unlikely, considering we've never observed (directly or indirectly) evidence of anything poofed into existence.

caposkia wrote:
Just because it's basic doesn't mean it's easily implemented naturally.  If it were so in basic terms, the universe would be crawling with life.

It could be, but we wouldn't know. We don't have any way to make that observation yet.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I read your comments in the other thread and it supports what I said that gravity is a poor analogy. Your comments regarding earthquakes is also a poor analogy too as it is physical as well. If your god is outside the physical as you say measurement is not possible. If it acts upon the physical in some way then it should be. As you claim you have no physical proof you are in fact admitting he does not act upon the physical. Claiming that he does act in our time space dimension means measurement must be possible or that you are incorrect in assuming what you observe is an action of the god. Again, you can't have this both ways.

Simply, I'm trying different approaches.  Obviously talking about anything besides something physical isn't going to make much progress... or at least that's what I'm seeing.  So I try different analogies and see where they go.  Gravity and Earthquakes obviously don't take place of how you'd study God, but they touch on aspects of why God is so difficult to comprehend. 

e.g.  Gravity:  can't see it, thus can't describe it, only what it does, (same as God)

        Earthquakes:  don't tend to have a pattern or better wording would be they're unpredictable and therefore you can't measure an earthquakes effects before it happens. (same as God)

I've also concluded... I can't remember if it was in this forum or the other active one I'm a part of... that with the logic that if God's not physical, then he can't affect the physical then God must be physical, however, for what you're quoting, I was saying that you can't detect the being of God or his presence physically.  I never said he doesn't affect the physical nor did I claim no evidence of his works in this world.

I understand what you are doing and my point was to get you to see if you percieve the god it must have a way to interact with our time space dimension. If he does do this and affects the physical dimension a means to measure or detect such must also be possible.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Claim: God acts in the physical world. Interaction, interference or your perception of him.

Proof: Such & such is the action or perception.

Result: God is in the physical realm.

Measurement: What is it?

No way to measure means your claim is not true and you are not perceiving a god. How can you know of an entity that is not in our time space dimension? If you know of him/it then it interacts and measurement must exist.

yes, measurement must exist.  Do we understand it yet as far as a science... no.  This entity that's not in our space time dimension can manuver I'm sure through space and time at His will be it that he'd be the creator of all of it, therefore, it's not illogical to have a relationship with such a being.

There you go. 

Now you need to explain how it is that you perceive of this god. Or if you relie on others who did and you accept their word for it. Then you must explain why you accept their word for it versus observations that are not determinate and expalin why you do so in light of your statement that no measurment currently exists to detect said god.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That doesn't mean you correctly followed the audit trail, only that you tried. Errors are made in interpreting data that others have created especially since no general standard existed at the time for documenting the data.

That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.

Further analysis and repeatable results by those who are neutral on the outcome. I'd say disinterested outsiders but as we all are parties in some way it's likely difficult to find that. 

Based on your comments you have not considered sufficient data in you analysis as you have admited to lack of knowledge in ancient history such as Sumer. Further research on your part is needed in the area of ancient myths and gods so you fully take in consideration possible source material that developed the book you relie on to validate your position of faith. 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Correct - and the numbers are massively in favour of at least one planet offering suitable conditions for life to arise spontaneously.

So lemme get this strait, you're defending 400 Billion + to 1 odds of "spontaneous" life and yet are giving me flack about believing in God. 

I guarantee as I was explaining in my last post that if the tables were turned, that conclusion would be unacceptable by the general RSS population.

Let me spell it out for you: if the odds are 400 billion to 1 that any particular planet would be suitable for the emergence of life, and we have 300 billion planets, then the odds that at least one planet out of those 300 billion will be ok for life will be over 50%. This is the sort of figure I'm defending.

So to estimate the probability of intelligent life arising at least once in the Universe, we have to take into account the number of 'throws of the die', which dramatically improves the odds.

Put it this way - you get 16.7% chance of a throwing a six in one throw of a die, 30.5% of at least one 6 in two throws, 42.4% in three throws, etc.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

That is consistant with an uncognitive nature.....NINNY!

For every sperm there are millions, per load that go nowhere GOOGLES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION, if we are counting all the sperm ever produced by all men living or have ever lived.

Your "god" must be one hell of a lousy manufacture if he can only produce life as an extreme minority.

The better explanation is that "we got lucky" because of random nature. No magic being with a disembodied "super brain" required.

If I were Trump and this god sat in my boardroom, what do you think I would say to such a failure of a manufacturer?

You see rarity as "divine", I see rarity for what we know, "rare" and that is all it means. There is no need to over complicate simplicity by trying to explain it away with something more complex. You should know what infinite regress is.

If you were trump, you'd probably challenge the logic of such a manufacturer.  The manufacturer would then shoot back with the idea that he makes millions only to pick the best one out of all of them.  Then all the materials are recycled and used again through the same process.  It costs nothing more because the recycled products are 100% reused and 100% recycled and you're guaranteed the best of the bunch.  Manufactured in the way they'd be most useful. 

I love the logic that the "better" explanation is we got lucky.  Some of the greatest minds in science would laugh at that logic.

WAKE UP!

Trump would be rightfully miffed at an "all powerful" manufacturer going out of it's way to do things the hard way.

"he makes millions only to pick the best one"

WHY? He is all powerfull, why not just make it perfect from the start without all the waste?

The waste indicates that there is no manufacturer. The waste indicates a natural crap shoot of an uncognative process. As soon as you postulate a magical manufacturer into the mix, the concept of all powerful contradicts the reality of waste.

Waste in REAL manufacturing is a fact that business people seek to minimize. I would say going by your claim(for argument's sake only) that it is absurd that a being who claims to be "all powerful" would even need to create all that waste, much less want to.

 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You mean

HisWillness wrote:

You mean right now? Maybe not. There are planet/star combinations that could produce life in a few million years. Maybe it's rare for us to see it because it happens in several-hundred-million-year spurts that we can't catch a glimpse of. We're discussing a point of ignorance on both our parts, so it's pure speculation. That's why we can't calculate odds.

yea, logic is a better approach.  Odds are a good indicator however of what is more or less likely.

HisWillness wrote:

I don't think I said that. My approach to the problem of God has been to ask what is likely, not state unequivocally that a bearded creator definitely did not wave his hands and produce earth. That's just unlikely, considering we've never observed (directly or indirectly) evidence of anything poofed into existence.

Here's the other problem with opposing point of views.  In order for God to exist, everything must have "poofed" into existence.  Not that that holds any more logic than *BOOM* a few Billion years later here we are.

I digress.  Why is it not logical to conclude that if we come to understanding of our surroundings through science, that God's "creating" took a similar approach?  Sure, you look at Genesis and see "day 1 God made the heavens and the Earth".  It makes it sound like a quick process, especially translating the time period word into day.  I conclude that it was quite a long process.  I would also conclude that:

1.  When being presented with the story from God, God wanted to make sure important details were remembered and thus did not "bore" them with the non-consequential. 

2.  The author who had the revelation from God would find it quite tedious to have to detail the process of creation in the story. 

3.  I personally would not successfully read through a book that detailed the lengthy process of what actually happened at creation and I would ultimately miss the important point of the story being bombarded with excessive amounts of rather irrelevent information.  My conclusion is that others would agree with me. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I understand what you are doing and my point was to get you to see if you percieve the god it must have a way to interact with our time space dimension. If he does do this and affects the physical dimension a means to measure or detect such must also be possible.

He would do this and it is probable to measure the effects of the happening.  The unpredictability of the energy we'd seek out to measure is that of an earthquake.  The possibility of actually being there and knowing exactly what to use for measurement as it happens could possibly be beyond our abilities.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There you go. 

Now you need to explain how it is that you perceive of this god. Or if you relie on others who did and you accept their word for it. Then you must explain why you accept their word for it versus observations that are not determinate and expalin why you do so in light of your statement that no measurment currently exists to detect said god.

ok, where do you want me to start?  Maybe the personal stuff first... naw, that won't work because noone can disprove or prove a personal account if they weren't there themselves. 

How about Biblical historocity and geology.  Naw, just becasue the Bible coensides with history doesn't mean God is real.  Other scripts do the same.... well except for the intervention and prophesy parts.

How about science.  Eh... well everything in science is contingent upon the physical and therefore wouldn't directly point to a spiritual cause because it always seeks another physical source regardless if it's currently understood or not. 

How about "God sightings" as they call it, where a person's life is dramatically changed due to an experience with God or finding God?  Even though millions can come up with the same exact outcome due to a "God sighting", it's still dismissed as something psychological.

I can't rely on other's due to the fact that everyone implements their own opinion into what they feel is "the right way" e.g. religion, therefore, it's not because of what others have told me per say, but more so of what I've learned from others and compared and researched on my own through the above. 

So again I must ask.  Where to start?  What would you accept? 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
caposkia wrote:

That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.

Further analysis and repeatable results by those who are neutral on the outcome. I'd say disinterested outsiders but as we all are parties in some way it's likely difficult to find that. 

Based on your comments you have not considered sufficient data in you analysis as you have admited to lack of knowledge in ancient history such as Sumer. Further research on your part is needed in the area of ancient myths and gods so you fully take in consideration possible source material that developed the book you relie on to validate your position of faith. 

In my research, the majority of "neutral" people conclude on the side of God. 

History has always been my weakness most likely due to my undiagnosed ADD and therefore it has been harder for me to retain specific details in history.  However, everyday, I'm trying to learn more and my research is far from over.  A good reference to what I do know is from "The Next Christiandom".  It's a good timeline of the faith through history in the world. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Let me

BobSpence1 wrote:

Let me spell it out for you: if the odds are 400 billion to 1 that any particular planet would be suitable for the emergence of life, and we have 300 billion planets, then the odds that at least one planet out of those 300 billion will be ok for life will be over 50%. This is the sort of figure I'm defending.

So to estimate the probability of intelligent life arising at least once in the Universe, we have to take into account the number of 'throws of the die', which dramatically improves the odds.

Put it this way - you get 16.7% chance of a throwing a six in one throw of a die, 30.5% of at least one 6 in two throws, 42.4% in three throws, etc.

I think realistically, the odds are in the quadrillions.  The numbers you have presented are hypothetical at best and don't take into consideration all the aspects of creating life, only the odds of a planet having the possibility of sustaining life.  When you add the other aspects, which I don't believe I have enough knowlege right now to name them all, the odds are dramatically reduced.

In other words, the odds of your dice analogy could be accurate, however, put all the dice together, now try to roll those exact numbers on each die.  Depending on the number of dice in hand, the odds will dramatically reduce per greater the number. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WAKE

Brian37 wrote:

WAKE UP!

*snort* huh??

Brian37 wrote:

Trump would be rightfully miffed at an "all powerful" manufacturer going out of it's way to do things the hard way.

"he makes millions only to pick the best one"

WHY? He is all powerfull, why not just make it perfect from the start without all the waste?

The waste indicates that there is no manufacturer. The waste indicates a natural crap shoot of an uncognative process. As soon as you postulate a magical manufacturer into the mix, the concept of all powerful contradicts the reality of waste.

Waste in REAL manufacturing is a fact that business people seek to minimize. I would say going by your claim(for argument's sake only) that it is absurd that a being who claims to be "all powerful" would even need to create all that waste, much less want to.

You fail as Trump to realize what has been created.  A self stustaining machine!  Genius.  No more hired hands, it creats on it's own.  In order to be fully self sufficient, it would need to be able to adapt to change over time in order to still fully work.  Thus it leaves a margin of error regardless of how perfect the system because change is not known until it happens.  So for a failsafe, He installed a mechanism to narrow the margin of error and still work most efficiently while adapting to any and all changes. 

Sorry imitation Trump

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Let me spell it out for you: if the odds are 400 billion to 1 that any particular planet would be suitable for the emergence of life, and we have 300 billion planets, then the odds that at least one planet out of those 300 billion will be ok for life will be over 50%. This is the sort of figure I'm defending.

So to estimate the probability of intelligent life arising at least once in the Universe, we have to take into account the number of 'throws of the die', which dramatically improves the odds.

Put it this way - you get 16.7% chance of a throwing a six in one throw of a die, 30.5% of at least one 6 in two throws, 42.4% in three throws, etc.

I think realistically, the odds are in the quadrillions.  The numbers you have presented are hypothetical at best and don't take into consideration all the aspects of creating life, only the odds of a planet having the possibility of sustaining life.  When you add the other aspects, which I don't believe I have enough knowlege right now to name them all, the odds are dramatically reduced.

In other words, the odds of your dice analogy could be accurate, however, put all the dice together, now try to roll those exact numbers on each die.  Depending on the number of dice in hand, the odds will dramatically reduce per greater the number. 

What are you basing your estimates of the probabilities on? Have you studied the relevant science? You are right, you do not have remotely enough knowledge to make a meaningful estimate, therefore you have no basis whatever to assess those figures either way.

On the statistics, you simply don't understand. In the dice analogy each roll of a single die corresponds to the development of a single planet. As more dice are rolled, as the more planets form, even if each event has a very small chance of the particular outcome, the chance that at least one will produce the outcome of interest approaches ever closer to 100%, although it will never actually reach it. We are NOT trying to get the "exact number" on each die. Only on ONE. Out of billions  (or more).

The point is, that no matter how unlikely the spontaneous emergence (note: I said emergence, not sustainability) of life in any give random planet is, if there are enough planets, it will become more than likely. We don't really know the probability of life, although we have reason to believe from various observations and experiments that it is not as vanishly unlikely as you assume. We can now put a plausible lower limit on the number of planets, that figure is definitely more than  "hypothetical at best", so you certainly have no basis for insisting that the emergence of life at least once in the universe is extremely unlikely.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I understand what you are doing and my point was to get you to see if you perceive the god it must have a way to interact with our time space dimension. If he does do this and affects the physical dimension a means to measure or detect such must also be possible.

He would do this and it is probable to measure the effects of the happening.  The unpredictability of the energy we'd seek out to measure is that of an earthquake.  The possibility of actually being there and knowing exactly what to use for measurement as it happens could possibly be beyond our abilities.

The point being again this interaction had to have occurred in the past for anyone to have legit mate knowledge. If this be the case your spiritual being interacted with the physical. This must leave some kind of trace. If you are not able to see, feel, touch or show physical proof and do so by interpolation or inspiration from the book containing the story then how could you know if your spiritual feeling inside you is just not generated from within and nothing more or was your god? Maybe it's the right half of your brain talking to your left half?

As to the level of energy involved your guess that it is as great as an earthquake is pure speculation it may have the zip of a housefly.

As modern man has already progressed in technology beyond the wildest dreams of the ancients of the alleged time of Jesus most of them would be denouncing belief today after seeing that which they thought was not possible. Or we all would be gods to them.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

There you go. 

Now you need to explain how it is that you perceive of this god. Or if you rely on others who did and you accept their word for it. Then you must explain why you accept their word for it versus observations that are not determinate and explain why you do so in light of your statement that no measurement currently exists to detect said god.

OK, where do you want me to start?  Maybe the personal stuff first... naw, that won't work because noone can disprove or prove a personal account if they weren't there themselves. 

How about Biblical historocity and geology.  Naw, just becasue the Bible coensides with history doesn't mean God is real.  Other scripts do the same.... well except for the intervention and prophesy parts.

How about science.  Eh... well everything in science is contingent upon the physical and therefore wouldn't directly point to a spiritual cause because it always seeks another physical source regardless if it's currently understood or not. 

How about "God sightings" as they call it, where a person's life is dramatically changed due to an experience with God or finding God?  Even though millions can come up with the same exact outcome due to a "God sighting", it's still dismissed as something psychological.

I can't rely on other's due to the fact that everyone implements their own opinion into what they feel is "the right way" e.g. religion, therefore, it's not because of what others have told me per say, but more so of what I've learned from others and compared and researched on my own through the above. 

So again I must ask.  Where to start?  What would you accept?

 

This is your standard evasive escape I have seen before.

1)Personal is really all you have. Your belief is within and based on your mind accepting something as fact because it has been convinced through some means. This means what you say can't be expressed, yet you concede that for a god that is spiritual to interact with the physical a trace must exist. Kind of puts you in the witness seat to prove your case doesn't it.

2)Bible history does not conform well with the real world or history, archeology and certainly not geology. Have you never picked a fossil out of limestone?

3)Science is what helps us to understand the real world in which we find ourselves. As we still have a long way to go we may still find your god's crashed space ship somewhere. Jesus did say he was not of this world right?

4)As to God sightings, how do you know they are not just significant emotional events causing incorrect credit to an unknown? I know several Christians that reset their lives from self destructive behavior as well. It seems to be a trend among those who have emotional problems of some kind including drug addicts, alcoholics, inmates on death row, and others who have need of a crutch to get through life. If that keeps them from raping little kids or from drinking and driving, whatever works is fine with me. However it won't work as evidence to prove interaction with a god that is not in our time space dimension.

5)There is no way that you would have the belief you do in the god you do without the reliance on others. You have based your beliefs on the ancient writings from 2000 to 3000 or more years ago and interpret to suit your purpose. Not that in some cases I don't understand that interpretation only that I consider it to be based in legend and mythology while you accept it as events in the real world.

I would accept something that was substantial in nature and showed proof of a god interacting in our time space dimension. I do not accept writing by ancients that exhibit ignorance and present stupidity as the word of the god. I do not accept a god that required people to do his killing as in the OT. I don't accept the medieval feudal concept that an offense must be paid for by a sacrifice to the lord and master. It's whacked and silly. Even children see this as idiotic. Brian and others have presented exactly how asinine the idea is in one way or the other multiple times. 

In my case, I need something to show me why the impossible history based in the land of never was in the OT has any relation at all to the time space dimension we are in. I don't see where Adam and Eve were anything more than characters in an ancient parable or myth. If this is so, there is nor fall of man or offense to the feudal lord. No offense, no messiah to die for your sins. Get it?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
caposkia wrote:

That's true, so how do we determine then the accuracy of my audit trail.

Further analysis and repeatable results by those who are neutral on the outcome. I'd say disinterested outsiders but as we all are parties in some way it's likely difficult to find that. 

Based on your comments you have not considered sufficient data in you analysis as you have admitted to lack of knowledge in ancient history such as Sumer. Further research on your part is needed in the area of ancient myths and gods so you fully take in consideration possible source material that developed the book you rely on to validate your position of faith. 

In my research, the majority of "neutral" people conclude on the side of God. 

History has always been my weakness most likely due to my undiagnosed ADD and therefore it has been harder for me to retain specific details in history.  However, everyday, I'm trying to learn more and my research is far from over.  A good reference to what I do know is from "The Next Christiandom".  It's a good timeline of the faith through history in the world. 

1)Neutral means the person has no basis in the outcome or they are disinterested. It is not easy to find a person neutral on the god concept of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

2)You need to read history that researches the ancient people of Sumer, Mitani, the Hitites, and the Canaanites. Read pure boring ass books from archaeologists, Assyriologists, and ancient historians. Any book that has the word Christian in the title is clearly already presenting a bias. You need facts without prejudice from researchers and investigators that look at the past with no intent to justify an ideology. Facts and research into ancient civilizations is what opened my eyes to reality. It may not work for you though, you may be like my sister who will wait to die to find out the truth. 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cap is still evading the

Cap is still evading the hocus pocus claims of the bible because diversion tactics are the perfect excuse to placate one's own ego.

Cap will go round robin with everyone here because Cap doesn't see a placebo for what it is.

"Words don't mean what they mean".

"I have my own personal god, everyone else got it wrong"

Yet Cap, still stays to try to convince us that his magical super hero exists where others have failed, yet his claim is unique and correct. Keep it up Cap, stay with us, we have hope for you.

 

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


Dracos
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Stupid book

This garbage is for sale from Amazon.  1 cent.  Grossly overpriced.  Is this what passes for wit among the superstitious?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:This garbage is

Dracos wrote:

This garbage is for sale from Amazon.  1 cent.  Grossly overpriced.  Is this what passes for wit among the superstitious?

Wow - I thought you had to be joking, but there's at least 6 used copies listed for 1c plus $3.99 shipping. Must be a fantastic read...

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Dracos

BobSpence1 wrote:

Dracos wrote:

This garbage is for sale from Amazon.  1 cent.  Grossly overpriced.  Is this what passes for wit among the superstitious?

Wow - I thought you had to be joking, but there's at least 6 used copies listed for 1c plus $3.99 shipping. Must be a fantastic read...

I bought the damn thing last November and reviewed it in post #538. It's not worth the shipping of $3.99. If you find it free on a 12 hour flight and you have already read all of the in-flight magazines and the emergency directions twice, skip it and take a nap. It's generally a rant against Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens with some comments RE: 'true Christians', see my other posts regarding it. I'll send you my copy for free, you pay the COD charge.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:What are

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are you basing your estimates of the probabilities on? Have you studied the relevant science? You are right, you do not have remotely enough knowledge to make a meaningful estimate, therefore you have no basis whatever to assess those figures either way.

not that it makes a difference.  I'm not the one who concluded (nor was there one person) that the odds are terrible.  Trillions or quadrillions is some estimates I've heard.  No one is fully equipped to come up with an exact estimate.  Too many factors involved... too many unknowns still.

BobSpence1 wrote:

On the statistics, you simply don't understand. In the dice analogy each roll of a single die corresponds to the development of a single planet. As more dice are rolled, as the more planets form, even if each event has a very small chance of the particular outcome, the chance that at least one will produce the outcome of interest approaches ever closer to 100%, although it will never actually reach it. We are NOT trying to get the "exact number" on each die. Only on ONE. Out of billions  (or more).

You do have a good case at making bad odds look good.

BobSpence1 wrote:

The point is, that no matter how unlikely the spontaneous emergence (note: I said emergence, not sustainability) of life in any give random planet is, if there are enough planets, it will become more than likely. We don't really know the probability of life, although we have reason to believe from various observations and experiments that it is not as vanishly unlikely as you assume. We can now put a plausible lower limit on the number of planets, that figure is definitely more than  "hypothetical at best", so you certainly have no basis for insisting that the emergence of life at least once in the universe is extremely unlikely.

The problem here is you're basing your conclusion on the fact that it happened.  It makes a difference to take it from the perspective that it didn't happen yet.  How likely would it happen?

It's like this.  1 out of 1,000,000 people will win the lottery jackpot.  (of course assuming odds.  Usually they're about that)  If Billions of people play, sure someone will win.  When you take out the fact that someone already won, you have to put it in the perspective of what is the likelyhood that you will be that winner?  The fact that more than 1 million people are playing greatly lessens your likelyhood of winning. 

Thus, the greater number of planets that formed and haven't taken on life, the greater the odds that it won't happen, though of course in odds, there's always a chance.  The difference here is there isn't a set amount of numbers drawn to guarantee a winner.  There is no drawing, instead, you're taking into account whether it'll happen at all or not.  There's no set amount to draw from and no limit to the number possibility... from what we know. 

I like also how you were mentioning the case of emergence and not sustainability.  You know to take in the sustainability factor, the odds would be even worse by... pppph...millions?  billions?  Trillions???? 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:The

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The point being again this interaction had to have occurred in the past for anyone to have legit mate knowledge. If this be the case your spiritual being interacted with the physical. This must leave some kind of trace. If you are not able to see, feel, touch or show physical proof and do so by interpolation or inspiration from the book containing the story then how could you know if your spiritual feeling inside you is just not generated from within and nothing more or was your god? Maybe it's the right half of your brain talking to your left half?

As to the level of energy involved your guess that it is as great as an earthquake is pure speculation it may have the zip of a housefly.

Who said there was no trace?  It's why I used the earthquake example. 

You're right about trying to figure out the amount of energy involved.  I think you see my point then.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As modern man has already progressed in technology beyond the wildest dreams of the ancients of the alleged time of Jesus most of them would be denouncing belief today after seeing that which they thought was not possible. Or we all would be gods to them.

People of today would have to come up with some pretty incredible excuses to dismiss the happenings written in scripture.  Though I've seen some winners on here, I guess it's not out of the question... though they were just as creative back then as well.  Science not needed for excuses. 

It's easy to come up with an excuse that makes sense to you and others.  It's difficult to consider other possibilities once you've come up with a conclusion whether true or not.  It's why it took so long for many people to accept the idea that the world was actually round.  Doesn't matter if scripture mentioned it or others discovered it, they knew it was flat. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

This is your standard evasive escape I have seen before.

sweet, here we go again! (not you specifically, but generally speaking)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1)Personal is really all you have. Your belief is within and based on your mind accepting something as fact because it has been convinced through some means. This means what you say can't be expressed, yet you concede that for a god that is spiritual to interact with the physical a trace must exist. Kind of puts you in the witness seat to prove your case doesn't it.

Not really, it's you who would have to accept the facts presented by personal experience, science, history, geology, etc. before you'd consider accepting a truth.   Therefore, I could never just sit somewhere and "prove my case".  Just like the Salem witches, if someone is convinced in their own mind, it's truth until they themselves decide it's not.  As you can tell, your claim was the same toward me here, but I can claim the same about you.  It's a poor defense on either side. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2)Bible history does not conform well with the real world or history, archeology and certainly not geology. Have you never picked a fossil out of limestone?

I have a lot of believer friends (theologins even) that would greatly disagree here.  Yea, I've picked them out.  fossils don't go against Biblical teachings.  The Bible supports evolution dispite what the creationists want to believe.  It takes someone who does their homework to see that however.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

3)Science is what helps us to understand the real world in which we find ourselves. As we still have a long way to go we may still find your god's crashed space ship somewhere. Jesus did say he was not of this world right?

Right, so why do you keep looking for evidence in this world?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

4)As to God sightings, how do you know they are not just significant emotional events causing incorrect credit to an unknown? I know several Christians that reset their lives from self destructive behavior as well. It seems to be a trend among those who have emotional problems of some kind including drug addicts, alcoholics, inmates on death row, and others who have need of a crutch to get through life. If that keeps them from raping little kids or from drinking and driving, whatever works is fine with me. However it won't work as evidence to prove interaction with a god that is not in our time space dimension.

I know it's not because it's not why I became a believer.  It took years after I started following Jesus to have the eleged "emotional experience" many have when the Spirit moves in them.  I was skeptical about all that emotional stuff for a long time after becoming a believer.    Many like to dismiss it, but there's more to it.  Believe what you will.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

5)There is no way that you would have the belief you do in the god you do without the reliance on others. You have based your beliefs on the ancient writings from 2000 to 3000 or more years ago and interpret to suit your purpose. Not that in some cases I don't understand that interpretation only that I consider it to be based in legend and mythology while you accept it as events in the real world.

If I interpreted those writings to suit my purpose, I'd have a very different story than I do.  The fact that the ancient writings are so old and still hold relevence should say something.  Though people just think it's ironic.  That's another poor excuse.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I would accept something that was substantial in nature and showed proof of a god interacting in our time space dimension. I do not accept writing by ancients that exhibit ignorance and present stupidity as the word of the god. I do not accept a god that required people to do his killing as in the OT. I don't accept the medieval feudal concept that an offense must be paid for by a sacrifice to the lord and master. It's whacked and silly. Even children see this as idiotic. Brian and others have presented exactly how asinine the idea is in one way or the other multiple times. 

Brian and others have shown ignorance and lack of research.  No offense to any of them.  I have continuously challenged them on their conclusions with no credible response. 

Anyway, I wonder what you would consider "proof of a god interacting in our time space dimension"?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In my case, I need something to show me why the impossible history based in the land of never was in the OT has any relation at all to the time space dimension we are in. I don't see where Adam and Eve were anything more than characters in an ancient parable or myth. If this is so, there is nor fall of man or offense to the feudal lord. No offense, no messiah to die for your sins. Get it?

yea, where do you wanna start?  If it's just the information, then why do we need to know any history at all?  Why not just look to the future and only use what's relevent to benefit us in the future?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1)Neutral means the person has no basis in the outcome or they are disinterested. It is not easy to find a person neutral on the god concept of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

That's what I was referencing to. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2)You need to read history that researches the ancient people of Sumer, Mitani, the Hitites, and the Canaanites. Read pure boring ass books from archaeologists, Assyriologists, and ancient historians. Any book that has the word Christian in the title is clearly already presenting a bias. You need facts without prejudice from researchers and investigators that look at the past with no intent to justify an ideology. Facts and research into ancient civilizations is what opened my eyes to reality. It may not work for you though, you may be like my sister who will wait to die to find out the truth. 

I guess you missed my testimony.  It wasn't the "Christian" titled things that led me to my belief.  In fact, it was that stuff that made me question it.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cap is still

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is still evading the hocus pocus claims of the bible because diversion tactics are the perfect excuse to placate one's own ego.

Cap will go round robin with everyone here because Cap doesn't see a placebo for what it is.

"Words don't mean what they mean".

"I have my own personal god, everyone else got it wrong"

Yet Cap, still stays to try to convince us that his magical super hero exists where others have failed, yet his claim is unique and correct. Keep it up Cap, stay with us, we have hope for you.

 

Brian is still evading the claims of the Bible because diversion tactics are the perfect excuse to placate one's own ego.

Brian will go round robin with everyone here because Brian doesn't see a placebo for what it is.

"Words don't mean what they mean".

"I have my own personal belief, everyone else got it wrong"

Yet Brian, still stays to try to convince us that his truth is correct where others have failed, yet his claim is unique and correct.

Brian, when you can come up with a defense that can't just as easily be applied to you from the opposite belief, let me know. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:This garbage is

Dracos wrote:

This garbage is for sale from Amazon.  1 cent.  Grossly overpriced.  Is this what passes for wit among the superstitious?

No, that's why it's not a best seller.  Top selling books typically feed people what they want to hear and not necessarily wisdom or truth.  It's why most Best sellers are fiction. Though


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dracos wrote:This garbage is

Dracos wrote:

This garbage is for sale from Amazon.  1 cent.  Grossly overpriced.  Is this what passes for wit among the superstitious?

No, that's why it's not a best seller.  Top selling books typically feed people what they want to hear and not necessarily wisdom or truth.  It's why most Best sellers are fiction.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I bought the damn thing last November and reviewed it in post #538. It's not worth the shipping of $3.99. If you find it free on a 12 hour flight and you have already read all of the in-flight magazines and the emergency directions twice, skip it and take a nap. It's generally a rant against Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens with some comments RE: 'true Christians', see my other posts regarding it. I'll send you my copy for free, you pay the COD charge.

It seems like when oposing views may be expressed on this site, people in general will put on a facad... to protect their reputation??? maybe???  What would people do if someone suggested possibly believing? 

Ridicule.  yea, that's Biblical. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cap is still evading the hocus pocus claims of the bible because diversion tactics are the perfect excuse to placate one's own ego.

Cap will go round robin with everyone here because Cap doesn't see a placebo for what it is.

"Words don't mean what they mean".

"I have my own personal god, everyone else got it wrong"

Yet Cap, still stays to try to convince us that his magical super hero exists where others have failed, yet his claim is unique and correct. Keep it up Cap, stay with us, we have hope for you.

 

Brian is still evading the claims of the Bible because diversion tactics are the perfect excuse to placate one's own ego.

Brian will go round robin with everyone here because Brian doesn't see a placebo for what it is.

"Words don't mean what they mean".

"I have my own personal belief, everyone else got it wrong"

Yet Brian, still stays to try to convince us that his truth is correct where others have failed, yet his claim is unique and correct.

Brian, when you can come up with a defense that can't just as easily be applied to you from the opposite belief, let me know. 

Burden of proof is on you, not me, you know that,. It is not my fault you have deluded yourself into believing that is not what you are doing.

Now, poney up with god DNA and replicate human flesh surviving rigor mortis, then you will have something.

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


Dray
Posts: 68
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:No, that's

caposkia wrote:

No, that's why it's not a best seller.  Top selling books typically feed people what they want to hear and not necessarily wisdom or truth.  It's why most Best sellers are fiction.

Must be why the bible is doing so well! Zing! Im sorry, it just had to be said.  Continue.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

What are you basing your estimates of the probabilities on? Have you studied the relevant science? You are right, you do not have remotely enough knowledge to make a meaningful estimate, therefore you have no basis whatever to assess those figures either way

not that it makes a difference.  I'm not the one who concluded (nor was there one person) that the odds are terrible.  Trillions or quadrillions is some estimates I've heard.  No one is fully equipped to come up with an exact estimate.  Too many factors involved... too many unknowns still.

Which means they might also be much lower than those high figures you heard.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

On the statistics, you simply don't understand. In the dice analogy each roll of a single die corresponds to the development of a single planet. As more dice are rolled, as the more planets form, even if each event has a very small chance of the particular outcome, the chance that at least one will produce the outcome of interest approaches ever closer to 100%, although it will never actually reach it. We are NOT trying to get the "exact number" on each die. Only on ONE. Out of billions  (or more).

You do have a good case at making bad odds look good.

I am simply explaining the basic statistics of the case.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The point is, that no matter how unlikely the spontaneous emergence (note: I said emergence, not sustainability) of life in any give random planet is, if there are enough planets, it will become more than likely. We don't really know the probability of life, although we have reason to believe from various observations and experiments that it is not as vanishly unlikely as you assume. We can now put a plausible lower limit on the number of planets, that figure is definitely more than  "hypothetical at best", so you certainly have no basis for insisting that the emergence of life at least once in the universe is extremely unlikely.

The problem here is you're basing your conclusion on the fact that it happened.  It makes a difference to take it from the perspective that it didn't happen yet.  How likely would it happen?

If it had not already happened, we would have no data to base any conclusions on. Since we can see the range of environments that at least one life system requires to survive and multiply, we can make broad estimates of the likelihood of suitable environments on other planets.

This question is very much dependent on your starting assumption: if you assume that Divine Creation is a possibility, then the existence of this one instance does not necessarily count to establishing the likelihood of natural emergence. If, like us, you see no merit in Creation as a starting assumption without evidence, then it does improve the a priori odds, since it happened at least once.

Not really a useful consideration either way.

Quote:

It's like this.  1 out of 1,000,000 people will win the lottery jackpot.  (of course assuming odds.  Usually they're about that)  If Billions of people play, sure someone will win.  When you take out the fact that someone already won, you have to put it in the perspective of what is the likelyhood that you will be that winner?  The fact that more than 1 million people are playing greatly lessens your likelyhood of winning.

Thus, the greater number of planets that formed and haven't taken on life, the greater the odds that it won't happen, though of course in odds, there's always a chance.  The difference here is there isn't a set amount of numbers drawn to guarantee a winner.  There is no drawing, instead, you're taking into account whether it'll happen at all or not.  There's no set amount to draw from and no limit to the number possibility... from what we know.

That's right - the probability does depend on the whether the issued tickets cover all the numerical possibilities, so making the probability of a winner 100%, independent of the number of tickets issued.

For the emergence of life, we have an estimate of the number of 'tickets', but no reason to assume that there is inevitably going to be a 'ticket' (planet) meeting the requirements for the emergence of life, so we must assume it is going to be less than 100%. Those calculations I gave are how we estimate probabilities in such a case.

The likelihood of any particular planet winning is used to base these calculations of the possibility of at least one 'winner', which is the important figure we are seeking.

The underlined text is totally missing the point, again. All I am trying to explain to you is that the more planets there are in the universe with suitable conditions such as temperature and chemical composition, the more likely is the natural emergence of life. We are not somehow trying to base it on the likeihood of it emerging on this particular planet. We are after the equivalent of the figure which for a lottery is always 100%, regardless of how many tickets are issued, not the low probability for a particular individual winning.

Quote:

I like also how you were mentioning the case of emergence and not sustainability.  You know to take in the sustainability factor, the odds would be even worse by... pppph...millions?  billions?  Trillions????

Only if somehow the conditions for life to survive and reproduce were dramatically different from those necessary for life to emerge, and unlikely to be present on the same planet, which actually seems pretty unlikely.

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Excuse Me What?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I bought the damn thing last November and reviewed it in post #538. It's not worth the shipping of $3.99. If you find it free on a 12 hour flight and you have already read all of the in-flight magazines and the emergency directions twice, skip it and take a nap. It's generally a rant against Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens with some comments RE: 'true Christians', see my other posts regarding it. I'll send you my copy for free, you pay the COD charge.

It seems like when oposing views may be expressed on this site, people in general will put on a facad... to protect their reputation??? maybe???  What would people do if someone suggested possibly believing? 

Ridicule.  yea, that's Biblical. 

I guess this says you never read what I wrote in post #538

 

On November 22, 2008 I wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 I didn’t particularly like her method of satire finding little to laugh at in her work other than the unintended. It seemed to be like Amateur Night at a comedy club in Kansas. No insult to Kansas intended. I really didn’t care for her personal revelations she slammed into the book as filler. Some of it was useful and relevant but most was a waste of paper. She devotes more space to her poor satire than completing her thoughts on issues she presents. After a few of these I concluded she wanted to express her dissatisfaction with the general Christian views but didn’t really want to be held accountable for a position.

~ rip ~

 

You do not owe me a refund though I would suggest that anyone else interested in reading this book find it at a college library. I found after I bought it that the Jesuit University I attended for my graduate degree did have it. I don’t rate Garrison very highly on either satire or intellectual capability and recommend against buying it. You can get better satire on lame late night TV.

It appears I’m not alone in my opinions of the writer. One has but to read some of the comments on Amazon. Christians take a far different view and see her book as a fantastic defense against the likes of Dawkins and Harris. I searched further and found the Rah Rah reviews from her publisher, Christian groups and then finally this one:

http://www.somareview.com/beckygarrisonsimmodest.cfm

I don’t disagree with much of Mary Beth Crain’s review.

 

So tell me, where did I ever put on a facade about my general view of this book?

I took the time to read it and discuss it with you in detail. You knew or should have known if you read my original review of the book what my general impression of the author and the book comprised. You also were aware of my position as to belief in gods as fantasy or derived from ancient legends. I may agree on many points that those who claim to be Christian don't follow what was taught by the alleged words of Jesus but that is as far as it went.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
caposkia

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The point being again this interaction had to have occurred in the past for anyone to have legit mate knowledge. If this be the case your spiritual being interacted with the physical. This must leave some kind of trace. If you are not able to see, feel, touch or show physical proof and do so by interpolation or inspiration from the book containing the story then how could you know if your spiritual feeling inside you is just not generated from within and nothing more or was your god? Maybe it's the right half of your brain talking to your left half?

As to the level of energy involved your guess that it is as great as an earthquake is pure speculation it may have the zip of a housefly.

Who said there was no trace?  It's why I used the earthquake example. 

You're right about trying to figure out the amount of energy involved.  I think you see my point then.

 

This is why I said you are evading answering the question. You provide no idea what you mean by a proof of interaction. 

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
 

This is your standard evasive escape I have seen before.

sweet, here we go again! (not you specifically, but generally speaking)

 

Are we going to go around in circles?

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1)Personal is really all you have. Your belief is within and based on your mind accepting something as fact because it has been convinced through some means. This means what you say can't be expressed, yet you concede that for a god that is spiritual to interact with the physical a trace must exist. Kind of puts you in the witness seat to prove your case doesn't it.

Not really, it's you who would have to accept the facts presented by personal experience, science, history, geology, etc. before you'd consider accepting a truth.   Therefore, I could never just sit somewhere and "prove my case".  Just like the Salem witches, if someone is convinced in their own mind, it's truth until they themselves decide it's not.  As you can tell, your claim was the same toward me here, but I can claim the same about you.  It's a poor defense on either side.

 

Yes we are!

 

My position is different in that I'm saying what god, I don't see no god. You though tell me yes there is. I say show me yet you say, I can only tell you how in my personal experience that God has made a difference to me. He has made all you see and touch. OK, how do you know? You tell me because he has left a trace. OK, show me. I can't because you just have to believe.

And round and round we go.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2)Bible history does not conform well with the real world or history, archeology and certainly not geology. Have you never picked a fossil out of limestone?

I have a lot of believer friends (theologins even) that would greatly disagree here.  Yea, I've picked them out.  fossils don't go against Biblical teachings.  The Bible supports evolution dispite what the creationists want to believe.  It takes someone who does their homework to see that however.

As an ex-Catholic I'm aware that they have decided evolution could have been the way that God made the world. They also suggest that much of the Bible is allegorical and did not necessarily occur. 

You have made claims certain stories did really occur as in the OT whereas history suggests otherwise as does archeology. I will start the thread we discussed from the beginning of the OT on Monday or Tuesday.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

3)Science is what helps us to understand the real world in which we find ourselves. As we still have a long way to go we may still find your god's crashed space ship somewhere. Jesus did say he was not of this world right?

Right, so why do you keep looking for evidence in this world?

I'm not looking. I'm responding to your claim that there is a god and his son was Jesus. My response is show me. Instead you continue to say you can't unless I accept personal experiences. 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

4)As to God sightings, how do you know they are not just significant emotional events causing incorrect credit to an unknown? I know several Christians that reset their lives from self destructive behavior as well. It seems to be a trend among those who have emotional problems of some kind including drug addicts, alcoholics, inmates on death row, and others who have need of a crutch to get through life. If that keeps them from raping little kids or from drinking and driving, whatever works is fine with me. However it won't work as evidence to prove interaction with a god that is not in our time space dimension.

I know it's not because it's not why I became a believer.  It took years after I started following Jesus to have the eleged "emotional experience" many have when the Spirit moves in them.  I was skeptical about all that emotional stuff for a long time after becoming a believer.    Many like to dismiss it, but there's more to it.  Believe what you will.

I'm glad for you, be happy do your thing and be kind to others. It's not my responsibility to show you another way. I was where you were and found it was incompatible with reality though you're welcome to believe and accept on faith if you'd like or anything else.

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

5)There is no way that you would have the belief you do in the god you do without the reliance on others. You have based your beliefs on the ancient writings from 2000 to 3000 or more years ago and interpret to suit your purpose. Not that in some cases I don't understand that interpretation only that I consider it to be based in legend and mythology while you accept it as events in the real world.

If I interpreted those writings to suit my purpose, I'd have a very different story than I do.  The fact that the ancient writings are so old and still hold relevance should say something.  Though people just think it's ironic.  That's another poor excuse.

Thank you for your admission of reliance on others, notably the writers of the Bible. I have suggested multiple times you need to evaluate this acceptance against other histories in the ancient world to consider its validity and accuracy. You said yourself you knew little about the Sumerians and other ancient history of various cultures. How can you accept the book you base your belief system upon  without adequately addressing the contradictions of many of the events and stories  when considered against other cultures?

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I would accept something that was substantial in nature and showed proof of a god interacting in our time space dimension. I do not accept writing by ancients that exhibit ignorance and present stupidity as the word of the god. I do not accept a god that required people to do his killing as in the OT. I don't accept the medieval feudal concept that an offense must be paid for by a sacrifice to the lord and master. It's whacked and silly. Even children see this as idiotic. Brian and others have presented exactly how asinine the idea is in one way or the other multiple times. 

Brian and others have shown ignorance and lack of research.  No offense to any of them.  I have continuously challenged them on their conclusions with no credible response. 

Anyway, I wonder what you would consider "proof of a god interacting in our time space dimension"?

 

I'll consider anything but that doesn't mean I'll accept it.

 

caposkia wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

In my case, I need something to show me why the impossible history based in the land of never was in the OT has any relation at all to the time space dimension we are in. I don't see where Adam and Eve were anything more than characters in an ancient parable or myth. If this is so, there is nor fall of man or offense to the feudal lord. No offense, no messiah to die for your sins. Get it?

yea, where do you wanna start?  If it's just the information, then why do we need to know any history at all?  Why not just look to the future and only use what's rel event to benefit us in the future?

History can help people learn from the mistakes of the past. If Adam and Eve were real and screwed up we could learn from their mistake. Next time ask for a written contract that details exactly what good and evil are. Ask for a section of definitions: what is knowledge, what is death. etc.  And no fine print.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:400 billion

caposkia wrote:

400 billion to 1 and you're calling them pretty good odds.......

wow 

Don't be a retard. The estimate is 400 billion to 1 per planet. When you consider the number of planets that probably exist, the odds shift in favor of life. If you don't understand the math you should just stick with answers like "God did it." Instead of spending your time bashing Bob and Will for making valid arguments, maybe you should make an effort to learn why they are valid

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:caposkia

spike.barnett wrote:

caposkia wrote:

400 billion to 1 and you're calling them pretty good odds.......

wow 

Don't be a retard. The estimate is 400 billion to 1 per planet. When you consider the number of planets that probably exist, the odds shift in favor of life. If you don't understand the math you should just stick with answers like "God did it." Instead of spending your time bashing Bob and Will for making valid arguments, maybe you should make an effort to learn why they are valid

Why is there always a party crasher? HUH? If Cap wants to believe in a being that can magically manipulate every neuron in your brain, and every atom in the universe down to even the sub quark level, all at once, who are you to say the earth isn't flat? You are letting pesky things like "evidence" get in the way.

Now just accept that fully grown adults pop out of dirt, GOD without a body or a penis got mary pregnant, and human flesh can survive rigor mortis, and you will understand where Cap is comming from.

Oh and always remember, "Words don't mean what they mean".

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


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

caposkia wrote:
Here's the other problem with opposing point of views.  In order for God to exist, everything must have "poofed" into existence.  Not that that holds any more logic than *BOOM* a few Billion years later here we are.

But that's not what observation shows. What has been observed is that there's an expansion from a point. "Big Bang" is a silly way to put it, but the actual observation is an expansion. So it's not absurd, it's just an observation. The point from which the expansion took place is still a mystery.

caposkia wrote:
Why is it not logical to conclude that if we come to understanding of our surroundings through science, that God's "creating" took a similar approach?

Because you're introducing certainty to overlay ignorance. You're not positing a hypothesis that could be falsified. First, we'd need to be more specific about the God part (because science requires that we can specifically describe the things we're talking about) and second, because the process of "creation" is another unknown that keeps us from falsifying the hypothesis. What is observed is an expansion. As to the cause of the expansion, or what happened before that, it's still a mystery. That doesn't mean that Wotan slips in there and makes the universe out of the ear of a Cosmic Turtle, that means we don't know.

caposkia wrote:
Sure, you look at Genesis and see "day 1 God made the heavens and the Earth".  It makes it sound like a quick process, especially translating the time period word into day.  I conclude that it was quite a long process.

Here's the main problem. You've reached a conclusion without any process of actually figuring out if you're right or not. Your conclusion has come from careful consideration of things you can't know (because nobody does). So how can I not argue with you?

caposkia wrote:
1.  When being presented with the story from God, God wanted to make sure important details were remembered and thus did not "bore" them with the non-consequential.

Do you see the problem, yet? You can't know these things that you're forming conclusions about.

caposkia wrote:
The author who had the revelation from God would find it quite tedious to have to detail the process of creation in the story.

Oh, but we needed to know about all the "begats" for pages and pages. C'mon.

caposkia wrote:
I personally would not successfully read through a book that detailed the lengthy process of what actually happened at creation and I would ultimately miss the important point of the story being bombarded with excessive amounts of rather irrelevent information.

You mean like an astrophysics journal? Because those are hard to read, and you might want a story, but if you persevered, you might get a better understanding.

caposkia wrote:
My conclusion is that others would agree with me.

Probably not in an empiricist crowd that likes to read. Y'know, like a lot of us.

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Burden of

Brian37 wrote:

Burden of proof is on you, not me, you know that,. It is not my fault you have deluded yourself into believing that is not what you are doing.

Now, poney up with god DNA and replicate human flesh surviving rigor mortis, then you will have something.

That had nothing to do with burden of proof.  It was to show how weightless your claims are. 

Just for reference, if I took your approach to "prove my belief", I'd have presented less to you than I already have. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Dray wrote:caposkia

Dray wrote:

caposkia wrote:

No, that's why it's not a best seller.  Top selling books typically feed people what they want to hear and not necessarily wisdom or truth.  It's why most Best sellers are fiction.

Must be why the bible is doing so well! Zing! Im sorry, it just had to be said.  Continue.

I figured that was to come from someone.  There's a reason why I used the word "typically"


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Which means

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which means they (odds) might also be much lower than those high figures you heard.

No,  There is no theory that would suggest lower odds.   The odds are assumed higher due to the fact that the unknowns are other factors that would have to be considered.  Those factors wouldn't lower the odds, they'd add more to the equation.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it had not already happened, we would have no data to base any conclusions on. Since we can see the range of environments that at least one life system requires to survive and multiply, we can make broad estimates of the likelihood of suitable environments on other planets.

Right, but from what I understand, the point of the statistic discussion is to ultimately suggest that the "God" factor is less likely.  In order to do that, you'd have to take this from the perspective that it hadn't happened yet.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That's right - the probability does depend on the whether the issued tickets cover all the numerical possibilities, so making the probability of a winner 100%, independent of the number of tickets issued.

For the emergence of life, we have an estimate of the number of 'tickets', but no reason to assume that there is inevitably going to be a 'ticket' (planet) meeting the requirements for the emergence of life, so we must assume it is going to be less than 100%. Those calculations I gave are how we estimate probabilities in such a case.

The likelihood of any particular planet winning is used to base these calculations of the possibility of at least one 'winner', which is the important figure we are seeking.

The underlined text is totally missing the point, again. All I am trying to explain to you is that the more planets there are in the universe with suitable conditions such as temperature and chemical composition, the more likely is the natural emergence of life. We are not somehow trying to base it on the likeihood of it emerging on this particular planet. We are after the equivalent of the figure which for a lottery is always 100%, regardless of how many tickets are issued, not the low probability for a particular individual winning.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not 100% or near if it never happened.

Life on this planet at this point in time is a blip in the timeline of the Universe.  Taking that into perspective, considering the odds to even be fair would've been hard to grasp scientifically. 

The perspective I was trying to make is considering life at all in this universe.  Not necessarily this planet. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Only if somehow the conditions for life to survive and reproduce were dramatically different from those necessary for life to emerge, and unlikely to be present on the same planet, which actually seems pretty unlikely.

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

Ah!how indeed


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15760
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:BobSpence1

caposkia wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Which means they (odds) might also be much lower than those high figures you heard.

No,  There is no theory that would suggest lower odds.   The odds are assumed higher due to the fact that the unknowns are other factors that would have to be considered.  Those factors wouldn't lower the odds, they'd add more to the equation.

BobSpence1 wrote:

If it had not already happened, we would have no data to base any conclusions on. Since we can see the range of environments that at least one life system requires to survive and multiply, we can make broad estimates of the likelihood of suitable environments on other planets.

Right, but from what I understand, the point of the statistic discussion is to ultimately suggest that the "God" factor is less likely.  In order to do that, you'd have to take this from the perspective that it hadn't happened yet.

BobSpence1 wrote:

That's right - the probability does depend on the whether the issued tickets cover all the numerical possibilities, so making the probability of a winner 100%, independent of the number of tickets issued.

For the emergence of life, we have an estimate of the number of 'tickets', but no reason to assume that there is inevitably going to be a 'ticket' (planet) meeting the requirements for the emergence of life, so we must assume it is going to be less than 100%. Those calculations I gave are how we estimate probabilities in such a case.

The likelihood of any particular planet winning is used to base these calculations of the possibility of at least one 'winner', which is the important figure we are seeking.

The underlined text is totally missing the point, again. All I am trying to explain to you is that the more planets there are in the universe with suitable conditions such as temperature and chemical composition, the more likely is the natural emergence of life. We are not somehow trying to base it on the likeihood of it emerging on this particular planet. We are after the equivalent of the figure which for a lottery is always 100%, regardless of how many tickets are issued, not the low probability for a particular individual winning.

I understand what you're saying, but it's not 100% or near if it never happened.

Life on this planet at this point in time is a blip in the timeline of the Universe.  Taking that into perspective, considering the odds to even be fair would've been hard to grasp scientifically. 

The perspective I was trying to make is considering life at all in this universe.  Not necessarily this planet. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Only if somehow the conditions for life to survive and reproduce were dramatically different from those necessary for life to emerge, and unlikely to be present on the same planet, which actually seems pretty unlikely.

For example, if the requirements for primitive life to form included pools of warm salty water, how would life that could not survive in such conditions get started???

Ah!how indeed

Quote:
Ah!how indeed

You, "MAGIC"

Us, "Rarity is a matter of odds and probability, not magic".

You are still focused on the numbers being low when we are trying to tell you that LIFE IS RARE, not because of magic, but because the universe and biology produce more waste than it is productive in production.

If you would skip your personal perception and holy book and cut to the CORE of OMNI attributes of all claimed "all powerful" god's in human history, the claimed "efficiency" of being "all powerful" from a logical standpoint would mean no waste at all, but that is not what we see in biological life, much less the universe.

If your goal as an "all powerful" being is to create life, you have it within your power to make every planet inhabitable and every life come to term.

BUT in nature, we see mostly waste.

Cap, we keep trying to tell you it is all in your head and that you fall for the same placebo trap that has been an unfortunate side effect of natural evolution of human psychology. It sounds good to you, and since you THINK that pattern works you would rather cling to that placebo, even if it is wrong, merely because it comforts you.

Energy transfer is not 100% efficient  and if your claimed being puts forth anything less than 100% efficiency, then the claim of "all powerful" and "perfect" are inconsistent  with such claims.

The REAL reality is that YOU merely like what you believe and will twist logic to any degree beyond reason to hold the postition because it makes you feel good.

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