March 24, 2010

Worldview Quote

A lively Atheist named Antzilla said to me

"I mean for people thousands or even hundreds of years ago to believe this crap I understand. But today 2010 ACE (AC) with all the knowledge available to believe creationism you would have to really, really try to bypass your intellect or have no intellect, or be brainwashed since a child."

Then he quoted, I believe, another Atheist Brad Reddekopp "If people don't want their beliefs laughed at, then they shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

I gave him a couple of recent quotes to help him along. Then after reading some more quotes that were quite inspirational, I thought it would be good to include some as a post now and then. So now I feel the need to highlight the champions that stand on God's Word and possibly face persecution in their fields for doing so.

The first one a couple of days ago was Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD. Physics, recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief."

Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

Today the quote is from John Lennox (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science)

"The fact that there are scientists who appear to be at war with God is not quite the same as science itself being at war with God. For example, some musicians are militant atheists. But does that mean music itself is at war with God? Hardly. The point here may be expressed as follows: Statements by scientists are not necessarily statements of science. Nor, we might add, are such statements necessarily true; although the prestige of science is such that they are often taken to be so."

God's Undertaker (2007) p.18

bit.ly/GodQuote

138 comments:

  1. Amen. Some forget that Atheism is a religion as well, and requires much faith.

    I myself don't believe atheists exist.

    I look forward to more quotes.
    -Cullen Webb
    Nation Pains

    ReplyDelete
  2. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    -Anon

    (I think that applies nicely to both the absurd comment above and Dan's topic of quotes)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,

    >>"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. <<

    TRUE. So does that mean creationism wins by default? NO.

    >>Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, <<

    Yes because this view has no evidence. The fact that miracle theory is written in a really old book is not evidence. The bible is only evidence of how old creation theory is.

    >>The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief<<

    NO Dan the scientific view is
    >>At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth.<<

    So we'll continue to ask the questions required until a satisfactory answers are found. If evidence is found for creationism then that would become the scientific view.

    >>"The fact that there are scientists who appear to be at war with God is not quite the same as science itself being at war with God.<<

    Scientists are not a war with anything. Scientists have a thirst for knowledge. Scientists are like kids asking” Why? Why? Why?” Religion is the parents shouting “shut up cause I said so.”

    Maybe closer to my point I should have said

    "I mean for people thousands or even hundreds of years ago to believe this crap I understand. But today 2010 ACE (AC) with all the knowledge available to believe THE BIBLE IS A REAL ACCOUNT OF HISTORY you would have to really, really try to bypass your intellect or have no intellect, or be brainwashed since a child."

    How many intelligent people believe the bible is an accurate account of history?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are you telling us that the Noah Ark story is a true record of history? If the bible is considered as a work of fiction, no one will object. My objection is pointing to those claiming the bible is true - which is not. Hence I despite at those deliberately spreading falsehood. Continue to claim the bible is the word of god is also, by extension, is wilful ignorance at least.

    Before you answer this, think about the central claim of the bible - that god exists. Prove to the world that this claim is true. If you can't and nobody can, then continue to insist the bible is a true record of history is a deliberate act of deceit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ****CUT AND PASTED*****
    NOT WORK OF ANTZILLA
    ------------------------------------
    Evidence of god
    Here it is again from a discussion forum on Amazon. A very patient Michael Altarriba answering some questions from a christian.

    Do you only consider what you can see, hear, feel, and smell to exist?

    No.

    Is this your evidence?

    There's all kinds of evidence that isn't the direct stimulation of my sense organs.

    We now know that a magnetic field surrounds our planet Earth. However, we don't have any sensory organ which can detect the magnetic field. We know the existence of the magnetic field through the effect of the magnetic field on magnetized objects. Science extends our sensory inputs. Many science disciplines also quantify the observed effects and record the effect as is. The interpretation of the data is open for anyone interested - and have access to the data.

    What would evidence for God be for you, and why would you trust it?

    Good question: I guess that depends on exactly how you define the word "God". Tell me what the word means to you, and I'll tell you what I'd like to see in the way of evidence.

    But, really, since *you* are the one who believes that the word "God" refers to something which exists, perhaps you can simply tell me why you believe that word has the meaning it has...

    Do you assume God does not exist because you have no evidence for God existing?

    Well, I can't claim to *know* that no Deities exist, but, since I don't see any good evidence that any of them exist, I take the *provisional* position that they don't, just as I do for unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc.

    If so, why?

    Parsimony: using the simplest explanation that fits the facts. It's my preference.

    Are there not a lot of things that you have no evidence for existing?

    Sure... the aforementioned leprechauns, unicorns, fairies, and many other things.

    Or, do you just say maybe God exists, maybe He does not?

    I say I have no good reason to believe that any Deities exist, so I live my life as if they don't.

    The problem with many religious is that they do not see 'god existence' as a provable fact. Since they cannot prove god's existence, many turn around and put the illogical demands on the atheists. If god exists, it must be able to be proven. Just like anything which exists, someone can find a proof of its existence. Atoms is a good example. We cannot see it, we cannot feel it, but it is everywhere and it is the fundamental building blocks of the natural world. The existence of atom has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. So if god exists, there must be a way to prove it. If no proof is found, the default position is that it does not exists.

    The logic of prove of non-existence has long been settled. Demanding proof of non-existence is a demonstration of the lack of understanding of the working of logic.

    Instead, I ask "What reason can you give me for believing that God exists?" you say. Why do you ask me this?

    Because you claim to believe that "God" exists. Many other people believe in Deities, too. So, since you're *here*, virtually speaking, I'm asking you for your reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  6. CONT...
    Interestingly, this thread is started by this religious. The title of the thread is "How can an intelligent person actually believe that he can prove God does not exist?" Ditto above. An intelligent person does not need to prove the non-existence of god(s). No proof, no god. That's is logical default position. Until there is evidence of god, I am in the position that there is no god. I don't need any proof that there is no god. Those who claim there is a god need to produce the evidence to support their claim.

    I am not your proof God does not exist, just because I cannot prove God does exist.

    As always, I don't ask for proof... I ask for evidence. Have any?

    Instead, I ask "What reason can you give me for believing that God 'DOES NOT' exist?" Could your answer be, no evidence? Yes it could,...

    Indeed, it is.

    ... but as I have said a number of times, you having no evidence, does not mean evidence will not be procured in the future. Does it?

    If and when it is, I'll evaluate it.

    It took mankind 3 million years to prove atoms and germs existed.

    We collected evidence to support the assertion that things we call atoms and germs exist.

    Where is your equivalent evidence for the existence of Deities? And, if you don't have any, why believe?

    ReplyDelete
  7. NEW QUOTE OF THE DAY!

    "Not all creationists are imbeciles,
    however alot of imbeciles are creationists."
    ANTZILLA 2010 ACE

    ReplyDelete
  8. Albert,

    >>Are you telling us that the Noah Ark story is a true record of history?

    Of course I am. But you may want to look at this post first. Also, this is worth repeating but it has been said before:

    Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories" Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as fact.

    The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written plainly as a historical narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Albert,

    >>Before you answer this, think about the central claim of the bible - that god exists. Prove to the world that this claim is true. If you can't and nobody can, then continue to insist the bible is a true record of history is a deliberate act of deceit.

    First, there is overwhelming evidence for Christ.

    Second, Logic says the Bible is Supernatural.

    And third the case has been made for God already. Give it a listen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ant,

    >>It took mankind 3 million years to prove atoms and germs existed.

    >>We collected evidence to support the assertion that things we call atoms and germs exist.

    Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of things that we cannot see–invisible atoms. In Hebrews 11:3. written 2,000 years ago, Scripture tells us that the things which are seen were not made of things that do appear.”

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan, can you clarify this for me please? You believe that the bible is word for word a true record of history. You believe that we are all descendent of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve). Do you believe in evolution theory?

    Here is a first question assuming that you believe the bible is true literally and that you don't believe in evolution. How come there are so many different skin colour of human today?

    As for the Noah's Ark, do you believe the flood to be global or just near Middle East? If it is global, then how the animals in Australia, North Pole, South Africa be collected and later returned to their habitats? Oh, btw, I hope you know that when the Northern hemisphere is in summer, the Southern hemisphere is in winter. How the summer insects in the southern hemisphere survived given when they were transported from their summer, it would be winter in the destination?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Albert,

    I do appreciate you inquiring and asking for my clarifications as to what I believe and I do love talking about these sorts of things, so welcome.

    >>Dan, can you clarify this for me please? You believe that the bible is word for word a true record of history.

    Well, besides the obvious hyperbole and parables that should not be taken literally, yes I do believe that the Bible is the original Word of God Himself that is a historical narrative. That is my presupposition.

    >>You believe that we are all descendant of one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve).

    Yes! More accurately we are descendants of Noah's family, but ultimately yes.

    Do you believe in evolution theory?

    It depends on what part of evolution that you are talking about. If you are talking about how one dog evolved into another? (Micro) Then absolutely YES!! I do believe that Great Danes and chihuahuas are related and part of the same family, of their own kind. If you are talking about how we, plants, pond scum, whales, horses, and monkeys all came from the same trunk of some "tree of life"? (Macro) Then absolutely not!

    >>Here is a first question assuming that you believe the bible is true literally and that you don't believe in evolution. How come there are so many different skin colour of human today?

    Just like the different colors of dogs or cats, the product of what many secular scientists used to call "junk DNA" is not junk at all. The DNA (God) determines what switches will be turned on or not. What pigments and design of that very individual sequence of, not only physical, but also something called theEpigenetic switches, which has to do with the environment of the generations of DNA, prior to conception.

    >>As for the Noah's Ark, do you believe the flood to be global or just near Middle East?

    Most definitely, global.

    >>If it is global, then how the animals in Australia, North Pole, South Africa be collected and later returned to their habitats?

    I am one to believe that can be answered with the same similarities between mankind. How that Italian and Spanish people from Spain have similar languages as Spanish people from Mexico. Travel, and migration, has been around for a very, very long time. A great deal can happen in the span of 6000+ years.

    Oh, btw, I hope you know that when the Northern hemisphere is in summer, the Southern hemisphere is in winter.

    I know, I have been to Perth and Melbourne Australia in the middle of (our) winter and had a blast how great the weather was. Perth (Fremantle) was hosting the America's cup at the time, what a great town and time!

    >>How the summer insects in the southern hemisphere survived given when they were transported from their summer, it would be winter in the destination?

    Are you claiming that all insects die when the weather changes? Do insects hibernate at all? I heard of the wood frogs that get frozen alive only to thaw in the spring. God has a grand design, don't you agree?

    keep searching for that truth!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan, Look likes our understanding of the world we are living in are miles apart.

    Since you believe god created the universe, may I ask who created god? This is a taboo question which you may have answered many times. The point I would like to focus on is the relative merits of an honest "we don't know" answer verse the gap filler answer "god created it". Is there any evidence that "god created it" is better than the honest answer "we don't know"?

    Since you believe that the big flood did occur and Noah built a ark to house all land animals (2 for most and 7 for the clean ones), don't you think that the technology required would be impossible for men 2000+ years ago? Just for butterflies, there is over 150,000 known species. How do you suppose these men, 2000+ years ago could have travelled all over the world and collected and transported all the animals to the Ark in time for the big flood? Do you believe that they have technology and skill which modern science is yet to discover?

    I am a student of science. God exists because the bible says so is a circular argument. Hence I would like you to address the issues we are going to discuss without quoting the bible as "evidence". We can discuss the bible, but please I do not accept bible as evidence of factual historical records. To me, the bible is badly written horror stories.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Albert,

    >>Since you believe god created the universe, may I ask who created god?

    Since that is more of a pad question I will give the pad answer. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause. In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.

    Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

    >>Since you believe that the big flood did occur and Noah built a ark to house all land animals (2 for most and 7 for the clean ones), don't you think that the technology required would be impossible for men 2000+ years ago?

    Not at all, because it did happen and secondly you are thinking in a limited world temporal plane. What I mean is that you are not thinking on a supernatural plane. Would those thing be possible on such a plane of the supernatural? Quite easily, right? To answer these questions you would have to answer how God created the entire universe in six literal days. Is that possible?

    Just for butterflies, there is over 150,000 known species. How do you suppose these men, 2000+ years ago could have travelled all over the world and collected and transported all the animals to the Ark in time for the big flood?

    First do you have proof that there were 150,000 known species (of modern speciation) back in Noah's day? Plus, you cannot fault the Bible for modern speciation and classifications. Nice try though, but that is just not fair. Could a being that created the universe in that short of a period of time transcend space and time to gather butterflies? Scratch that, Do you believe that all butterflies came from just two butterflies? If not, then there is no way that I can convince you that Noah himself lived to the ripe old age of 900+ years... I really am beginning to think you are not clicking and reading my links that I am providing.

    >>I am a student of science.

    Correction. Let's all be honest here and understand that you are a student of secular science.

    (To be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  15. (con't)

    >>God exists because the bible says so is a circular argument.

    I have addressed this already but it is worth repeating.

    All forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Why are your senses valid?

    It has been explained already though,

    * (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)
    * (2, from 1) Hence, we have good reason to assume that they are completely truthful throughout.
    * (3) The writings describe many events that demonstrate the existence of God.
    * (4, from 2 and 3) Hence, these descriptions must be truthful, so God must exist. (It actually suffices for just one of them to be truthful.)
    * (5) If the writings had been authored by man, they would not have been true on all of these points. (With arguments in each of these cases.)
    * (6, from 1 and 5) Hence, they must have been authored by someone other than man.
    * (7, from 2 and 5) Hence, we have good reason to assume the existence of someone who, unlike man, is completely truthful, and who authored these writings.
    * (8, from 7) This someone is God.

    What we see here is not an instance of circular reasoning, but two different arguments, only partly deductive, for the existence of an all-knowing higher being who wrote the writings in question.

    >>We can discuss the bible, but please I do not accept bible as evidence of factual historical records.

    At your request? No, because I do accept bible as evidence of factual historical records as presented by the overwhelming evidence.

    Peace? (Isaiah 48:22,Psalm 28:3)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,

    I can write a book (or with some other people as well write a set of books), put in some known history and proclaim that I am god. When I am challenged, I use the book to prove that I am god.

    Of course, you know that such book(s) do(es) not constitute evidence of me being god.

    In fact, my contention is that the central claim of the bible - that god exists is false and the bible is fiction.

    Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidential support.

    Since we cannot agree on whether the bible is factual or not. Shall we just attempt to settle whether the Noah ark and global flood was the historically accurate for the time being?

    Are you suggesting that 2000+ years ago, people can jump from the physical reality into a "super-natural" plane. Are you suggesting that somehow these men 2000+ years ago can time travel and teleport from Middle East to Australia, collect samples of kangaroo and koala and then teleport back to Middle East.

    Tell me if there is any evidence that there exists a super-natural plane. The beauty of language is that we can coin words and concepts which do not have real meaning and counter-part in the real world. Super-natural is just a word, without real counterpart until you can provide evidence that the entity represented by the word exists.

    Logic and languages are tools for us to communicate. Just like playing a game of chess, we have to agree with a protocol (game rule) so that the game makes sense. I posit that language is based on a common physical reality - all our concepts and our ability to communicate - depends on a consistent physical reality which both of us built our experience and language on. For effective communication, human have worked out some logical structures which we can all agree. True AND true is true. True OR false is true etc. This is the emergent property of language.

    I said I am a student of science. You qualified to 'secular science'. What is the other science which is NOT secular? By science, I mean the methodology that scientist adopted to study the physical reality in which we live. I mean the evidence-based investigation, through double-blinded review process by peers, through vigorous experimentation and careful observation. I don't mean "science" based on old books without reference to reality.

    If you claim there is a super-natural plane, please provide evidence that such a plane exists.

    Peace Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and the Non-Religious, largest lending team on Kiva.org

    ReplyDelete
  17. >>I can write a book (or with some other people as well write a set of books), put in some known history and proclaim that I am god. When I am challenged, I use the book to prove that I am god.

    I am sure you could but would it pass the logical test? I would say, nope!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also

    Albert,

    >>In fact, my contention is that the central claim of the bible - that god exists is false and the bible is fiction.

    Great. Please provide your evidence for such a claim

    ReplyDelete
  19. >I am sure you could but would it pass the logical test? I would say, nope!

    Well said. Did the bible pass the logical test? Nope!

    Let's take Noah's ark as an example.

    Is it logical to suggest "that 2000+ years ago, people can jump from the physical reality into a "super-natural" plane. Are you suggesting that somehow these men 2000+ years ago can time travel and teleport from Middle East to Australia, collect samples of kangaroo and koala and then teleport back to Middle East."?

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1. Assume God created the universe.
    2. God either created the universe and let it run its course, or intervene when necessary.
    3a. A non-intervening god is what Einstein called a "cosmic god". It is not the personal god commonly referred to in most religion. Such a non-intervening god, if exists, does not make any difference to physical laws and our daily activities. By Ockham razor, we can ignore the existence of god.
    3b. God is intervening. That means god answers prayers.
    4. Prayers do not work.
    5. Hence God does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Albert,

    >>Are you suggesting that 2000+ years ago, people can jump from the physical reality into a "super-natural" plane. Are you suggesting that somehow these men 2000+ years ago can time travel and teleport from Middle East to Australia, collect samples of kangaroo and koala and then teleport back to Middle East.

    Tell me if there is any evidence that there exists a super-natural plane.

    You are taking wild assumptions that the tectonic plates were always in the current positions it is today. In other words the position of the land was quite different back in those days. You just never take that into account with your worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Great, you agree that "super-natural" does not exist, right?

    My understanding is that the tectonics plate movement time frame does not match with the Noah Ark's time. But, before I continue, can you clarify approximately when did the global flood occurred?

    BTW, how old is the Universe, according to your belief? When you respond with the age of universe, please use time as we commonly understand today, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sorry I missed your butterfly part. Here it is.

    Of course, I do not know how many species of butterfly were there at the great flood. (This depends on the estimate time of the great flood which I hope you can give me an indication.) So you agree that Noah has collected more than 2 butterflies.

    It seems to me that you believe Noah has lived to 900+ years. That's according to the bible. But where is the evidence? I can write in my book that I am already 1000 years old. So to make it logical, we need some evidence, don't we? Where is the evidence that Noah lived to 900+ years? Ah, be logical, please!

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is something for you to consider, Dan.

    If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) xreated evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe? (David Hume)

    ReplyDelete
  26. rhiggs
    "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    -Anon
    (I think that applies nicely to both the absurd comment above and Dan's topic of quotes)"

    --
    Religion n. 1. the belief in and worship of a God or gods.
    2. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
    3. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
    --

    Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, but that does not mean atheists believe in nothing. You believe in the evolution theory, the big bang theory etc. and as we already know, that requires faith. So yes, atheism is a religion and no, your absurd comment does not apply to what Cullen Webb said.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stewie, I beg to disagree. Atheism does not require faith. Atheism is the position that there is no valid evidence of god. Until there is, atheism deposit that there is no god.

    The main difference between agnostic and atheism is that atheism does not give religion the benefit of doubt. In fact, why we should? As in everything in life, if there is an evidence of something, we can form an opinion of that something exists - pending the validity of the evidence and interpretation.

    There are million things people can dream up. It is NOT our task to prove whether these crazy ideas exist or not. It is those who claims the existence of god get the burden of proof to the rest of the world that their god exists.

    I am accusing the religious spreading falsehood. I am condemning the evangelists propagating unsupported claim as if it were true. I am pointing my fingers at the religions which divide people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Albert Ip
    "Great, you agree that "super-natural" does not exist, right?"
    Can you prove that super-natural does not exist?

    "But, before I continue, can you clarify approximately when did the global flood occurred?
    BTW, how old is the Universe, according to your belief? When you respond with the age of universe, please use time as we commonly understand today, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing."
    I don't think he can answer those questions because the bible doesn't say anything about when those events occured.

    You believe the universe is almost 14 billion old, right? Since you are demanding so much from Dan, I want you to prove to me that the universe is 14 billion years old... and I want concrete evidence, not assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "It seems to me that you believe Noah has lived to 900+ years. That's according to the bible. But where is the evidence?"
    There is no evidence. You believe that we and chimps came from the same ancestor, right? where is the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Stewie,

    For the age of the universe, do a degree in cosmology in a real university.

    For evidence of human and chimps having the same ancestor, do a degree in biology again in a real university and do not skip class when evolution theory is taught.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Here is something for you to consider, Dan.
    If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) xreated evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe? (David Hume)"
    What is darkness? You can see light and put it in a jar, but can you do the same with darkness? If I said 'darkness does not exist, it is just the absence of light', would you believe me? and if I said evil is just the absence of good?
    See where I'm going?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Stewie,

    Are you equating god with darkness or with light?

    Do not do good is not the same as do evil. If someone is hurt and lying at the side road, you don't do anything and just walk pass. Fine. However, you walk towards the injured and kick on the wound. That's evil.

    Got it?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "For the age of the universe, do a degree in cosmology in a real university.
    For evidence of human and chimps having the same ancestor, do a degree in biology again in a real university and do not skip class when evolution theory is taught."
    So can you prove them or not? Sounds like you can't. Frankly, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time studying theories. I've read 'The blind Watchmaker', which is pretty much the best explanation of the evolution theory and to be honest, it doesn't prove much.
    Now, if you can't prove anything to me then just say so and we can all move on.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Are you equating god with darkness or with light?"
    light

    "Do not do good is not the same as do evil. If someone is hurt and lying at the side road, you don't do anything and just walk pass. Fine. However, you walk towards the injured and kick on the wound. That's evil.
    Got it?"
    Yes, it's evil. Good is absent from the deed, that makes it evil.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doing no good is you walked pass. Doing evil is you added injury to the wounded. There is a BIG difference.

    In cities, many walked pass people in need daily. Globally, many ignored many people in needs constantly. Do you know that every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger today? 3 billion people in the world today struggle to survive on US$2/day. [source] Many of us "walked pass".

    In contrast, telling people in Africa that using condom is against the will of the imagining god. This would cause millions more to be infested by HIV. That is more than just "walk pass". This is EVIL.

    ReplyDelete
  36. >"Are you equating god with darkness or with light?"
    >light

    Show us your proof of the existence of light then. (god's existence proof needed)

    ReplyDelete
  37. >Frankly, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time studying theories. I've read 'The blind Watchmaker', which is pretty much the best explanation of the evolution theory and to be honest, it doesn't prove much.

    Intellectual dishonesty, wilful ignorance and lazy attitude demonstrated. If you don't have the intelligence to do Science, admit it and get out of the way. Just let the brilliant minds do their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Albert Ip
    "Show us your proof of the existence of light then. (god's existence proof needed)"
    Oh dear. Okay, can you see? If you can, then that's your proof. Your eyes can't function without light.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Good. If you want to prove there is light, you test - using your eyes.

    If you want to prove that there is a god, what do you do?

    My answer would not be consulting the bible. The bible said it was inspired by god and hence using it to prove god's existence is circular. You need to look elsewhere to find god.

    Yes, it is impossible for us to look everywhere. May be when I am looking under the bed, god is on top of the bed. When I am looking at the top, he hides under the bed. So looking the god is difficult.

    But if there is a god and the god listens to prayer, may be we can ask god to show himself. You can pray for a week and ask god to show him to you. You need to be really really sincere.

    After a week, if you see god, good luck! You are the first one ever! If not, you have to ask these questions:
    1. god is not real, or
    2. god does not want us to know he is real, or
    3. god simply does not listen to prayers - at least not any more. You then make up your mind which of these 3 is the correct answer.

    But, before you know god exists, you should not tell other people that god exists. That is spreading falsehood. That is spreading superstition. Unless you are absolutely sure that god exists, you should not lead people into believing something which is not real.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Intellectual dishonesty, wilful ignorance and lazy attitude demonstrated. If you don't have the intelligence to do Science, admit it and get out of the way. Just let the brilliant minds do their jobs."

    --
    Albert, this is what you said yesterday: "There are million things people can dream up. It is NOT our task to prove whether these crazy ideas exist or not. It is those who claims the existence of god get the burden of proof to the rest of the world that their god exists.I am accusing the religious spreading falsehood. I am condemning the evangelists propagating unsupported claim as if it were true. I am pointing my fingers at the religions which devide people."
    --

    Hypocrite.
    It is NOT my task to prove whether your theories are true or not. It is you, who claim that your theories are true that must bear the burden of proving to the rest of the world that your theories are true. I am accusing atheism for spreading falsehood. I am condamning atheists for propagating unsupported claims as if their true. It is up to you to prove me wrong.

    Look Albert, I asked you to prove 2 things to me. Surely that's not too much to ask from a 'brilliant mind'? I got my MBA degree ages ago, I'm not going to go back and study biology at a 'real university' (whatever that is). Why should I, when there are 'brilliant minds' like you out there who can explain everything to me?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Albert, do you believe in intelligence, instinct and that you have a conscience? Can you see these things? You see, some things don't have to be visible for you to believe in them. I would say the same applies to God.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cosmology is a subject area of at least a semester work if you have the mathematical background necessary to follow the quantum mechanics and relativity. You cannot expect me to explain this to you without me knowing your standard. Getting a decent university education is a good starting point I suggested. Ditto for evolution theory.

    Both cosmology and evolution theory are taught in REAL universities. If you can't handle science, shut up! If you can, do a proper study and learn something good and useful.

    Yes, there are millions of crazy things people dream up, so don't bother proving them. However, I want to explicitly point out the ridiculous claim which is poisoning intellectual discourse - religion BS!

    Tell me why your nasty christian god does not come out and let everyone know he exists. That's a simple, straight-forward, everybody happy situation. The fact this god does not do that, not that he does not like it, is that he does not exist and hence cannot do it.

    Have anyone ever seen god? No, except in the fiction stories in the old books. Have prayer ever worked? Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Cosmology is a subject area of at least a semester work if you have the mathematical background necessary to follow the quantum mechanics and relativity. You cannot expect me to explain this to you without me knowing your standard. Getting a decent university education is a good starting point I suggested. Ditto for evolution theory.

    Both cosmology and evolution theory are taught in REAL universities. If you can't handle science, shut up! If you can, do a proper study and learn something good and useful."
    Ever heard of the term 'summarizing'? Okay, let me make this easy for you. Is Richard Dawkins' book (the blind watchmaker) a good explanation of the evolution theory? And what the hell is a real university? Aren't all universities real?

    "Yes, there are millions of crazy things people dream up, so don't bother proving them. However, I want to explicitly point out the ridiculous claim which is poisoning intellectual discourse - religion BS!

    Tell me why your nasty christian god does not come out and let everyone know he exists. That's a simple, straight-forward, everybody happy situation. The fact this god does not do that, not that he does not like it, is that he does not exist and hence cannot do it.

    Have anyone ever seen god? No, except in the fiction stories in the old books. Have prayer ever worked? Nope."
    Ooh, tetchy! I am not a Christian (yet), so I can't answer those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Albert,

    >>Great, you agree that "super-natural" does not exist, right?

    Wrong.

    >>My understanding is that the tectonics plate movement time frame does not match with the Noah Ark's time.

    Then you misunderstood. Any proof of your claim?

    >> But, before I continue, can you clarify approximately when did the global flood occurred?

    Earth's oldest living inhabitant "Methuselah" at 4,767 years, has lived more than a millennium longer than any other tree. Everything was destroyed before that, in the flood, nothing is older because of that reason. You want to know when the flood was, just look at that one Bristlecone Pine in California.

    >>BTW, how old is the Universe, according to your belief?

    I have no clue, some postulate less then 10,000 years old and I would agree with that. If we are correct as to the genealogy of the Bible then that would be accurate. Billions? No way.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Albert,

    >>It seems to me that you believe Noah has lived to 900+ years.

    Yes.

    >>That's according to the bible. But where is the evidence?

    That's according to the Bible is the evidence.

    I can write in my book that I am already 1000 years old. So to make it logical, we need some evidence, don't we? Where is the evidence that Noah lived to 900+ years? Ah, be logical, please!

    We have been through this already, are you not reading?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Albert,

    >>If the evil in the world is intended by god he is not good. If
    it violates his intentions he is not almighty. God can't be both almighty and good. There are many objections to this, but none that holds since god is ultimately responsible for the existence of evil. Besides, if only god can create he must have created evil. If somebody else (the devil) [c]reated evil, how can one know that god, and not Satan created the universe? (David Hume)

    Answered. Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  47. Albert,

    >Atheism is the position that there is no valid evidence of god.

    There is a plethora of evidence, all of which you do not accept or acknowledge. So if I fold my arms and say "I do not accept that evidence" does not mean I am being a rational logical person. You reject evidence! There is a huge difference.

    >>I am pointing my fingers at the religions which divide people.

    Welcome to the club of Debunking Atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Albert,

    >>Intellectual dishonesty, wi[l]lful ignorance and lazy attitude demonstrated.

    Wait I am confused, are we discussing Atheists now? :7)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Albert,

    >>But, before you know god exists, you should not tell other people that god exists.

    The difference is experience with God (me) vs non experience (atheists).

    A mother tells a child not to touch that hot Iron and the kid listens and believes his Mom. As soon as the Mom leaves the room the child touches the Hot Iron and gets burned. He just went from a belief the Iron 'was' hot to an experience that the Iron 'is' hot with 100% assurance. No one can come and tell him otherwise because his experience tells him different. He is 100% certain the Iron is hot and he has the burn to prove it.

    Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God.

    On the flip an atheist cannot say they have 100% certainty based on a non experience, it is based on a belief still. They have a belief based on lack of said experience, but they remain uncertain (lack of assurance). God exists and is very real but don't take my word for it, find out for yourself. (John 14:21)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Stewie,

    >>And what the hell is a real university? Aren't all universities real?

    I am glad that you are focusing on what I call prejudices. So Albert, are Christian Universities "real Universities" and in that same breath you do understand where universities originated from, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Albert,

    >>Have prayer ever worked? Nope.

    Are you speaking from experience? Did God reject your request for Lotto numbers or something? Prayers do work but under the guidelines of the Bible.

    If you want your prayers answered then first become a born again Christian. Next read and follow God's Word. (John 8:31)

    Then if you truly need God to intervene on your behalf then you must follow Christ's Words (Matthew 17:20-21)

    I can tell you that prayers do work.

    ”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” Martin Luther

    ReplyDelete
  52. Stewie,

    "Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, but that does not mean atheists believe in nothing."

    It doesn't matter what else they believe in. Atheism, as you defined it, is not a religion.


    "You believe in the evolution theory, the big bang theory etc. and as we already know, that requires faith. So yes, atheism is a religion"

    Ignoring the fact that they do not require faith, by that fallacious logic, if all people that accept the evolution and big bang theories don't believe in Santa Claus, then not believing in Santa Claus is also a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rhiggs,

    >>Ignoring the fact that they do not require faith, by that fallacious logic, if all people that accept the evolution and big bang theories don't believe in Santa Claus, then not believing in Santa Claus is also a religion.

    First, they do require faith and second at least Santa Clause was a real person (Saint Nicholas) and not just a postulated theory.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Fine, insert hobgoblins or the tooth fairy.

    You get the point. It's a fallacious association to make, regardless of whether a separate belief requires faith or not.

    ReplyDelete
  55. My children, who do not get lied to, knows the tooth fairy as Mom or Dad.

    Plus you never saw hobgoblins? You didn't miss a thing. But it was real...movie that is. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dan, you have very interesting logic. My books need logic while the bible does not. My book is not the proof of me being god while the bible is the proof of god being god. Is it because the bible was old? Is it because the bible was written by men in the desert? Is it because you were told the bible was true when you were young and you are still young at mind?

    On March 27, 2010 5:56 PM, you replied:
    Tell me if there is any evidence that there exists a super-natural plane.

    Two days later, on March 29, 2010 1:11 PM, you wrote
    >>Great, you agree that "super-natural" does not exist, right?

    Wrong.


    So what is it? Does super-natural exist or not?

    Your answer to god and evil problem posted by David Hume is a language trick. As I have shown here (March 28, 2010 3:57 PM), evil deed IS NOT the same as doing no good. Evil IS NOT absence of good. If you cannot understand the difference, I have nothing to add.

    On the question of whether prayer works or not. Why don't we test it out. You are a devout christian, so god will listen to your prayers, obviously not mine. Why don't you pray to ask god to appear to me and let me be totally convinced he exists? He gains a new follower and you show the world that you are not lying. In your "40 Day Fast" post, you wrote: "As mysterious as the tumors were to us, the symptoms returned again recently." Did you check whether the tumors have returned or just the symptoms? Your wife was cured - not by prayers, but by the miracle of modern science.

    Please read http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

    ReplyDelete
  57. Oh Albert,

    >>On March 27, 2010 5:56 PM, you replied:
    Tell me if there is any evidence that there exists a super-natural plane.

    On March 27, 2010 5:56 PM, I was quoting you.

    My response was that you were taking wild assumptions that the plates looked as they do today, they all could have been connected at a time you do understand.

    >>Does super-natural exist or not?

    To be very clear, Absolutely yes. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain that He indeed exists.

    >>As I have shown here (March 28, 2010 3:57 PM), evil deed IS NOT the same as doing no good.

    But an evil deed is the absence of good, hence the term used, "An Evil deed."

    'If you cannot understand the difference, I have nothing to add.

    >>Why don't you pray to ask god to appear to me and let me be totally convinced he exists?

    You don't read the bible much, do you? Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. You are beginning to sound like the Devil himself. (Matthew 4:1-7)

    >>He gains a new follower and you show the world that you are not lying.

    Most have heard this but...

    Your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.

    Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God. If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect. If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria. If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies. So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it. It is limited.

    Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence. Don't you see? If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  58. >The difference is experience with God (me) vs non experience (atheists).

    Can you describe a concert example of an experience with god? How do you make sure that you were not hallucinating?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Real universities are universities which teach real sciences, art and social sciences. Real universities are not those "diploma mills". I do not have curriculum details from "Christian Universities", so I cannot say anything about them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Faith, by definition is believing in something without evidence. Science simply does not work that way. Science is empirical enquiries - starting with observations - repeatable observations, observations which everyone can, given the focus and direction, observe. Many scientific theories are counter-intuitive and may be difficult for layman to understand. Nevertheless, saying science requires faith is pure ignorance. See Is Science the religion for Atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  61. >My children, who do not get lied to, knows the tooth fairy as Mom or Dad.

    Did you show your children "god", I mean god as real object or entity? Did you lie to your children that god exists? Did you tell your children beside the christian god, there were many many gods human have worshipped throughout the history?

    ReplyDelete
  62. >My response was that you were taking wild assumptions that the plates looked as they do today, they all could have been connected at a time you do understand.

    So, why my suggestions that Noah's people could time travel, teleport wild assumptions and god created the universe in 6 days not? If I am right, you believe the universe is about 10,000 years old. The tectonic plates movements are typically 0-100mm per year and they were together millions of years ago. Totally different time!

    What is it? Is the universe 10,000 years old and Earth was formed with the plates already separated (but looks like they were one piece million years ago) or the Earth is actually 4.54 billion years old as believed by most scientists?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Your presupposition that there is a god leads to what?

    My believe depends on evidence. If you can show me evidence, I will believe in your god. This evidence-based approach has been proven to be the best invention human has ever invented. By basing on empirical facts, observations that people can duplicate, we form a common basis to develop mutual understanding. I show you an apple. You see the apple. We can discuss things about the apple, without misunderstanding. When there are issues, we go back to the apple and look at it. There is no point saying I saw that and you didn't. Let just see it together and verify. That's the basis of development.

    By proclaiming illusions only one can see, I cannot see what you see. It becomes an argument leading to nowhere. This is bias.

    Scientific methodology tries its best to get rid of such bias. Scientific theory welcome challenge. When someone publishes a paper, everyone else gets to try out to see if what is described in the title is true or not. If not, questions are raised. Answers given. Try again. This is progress. This is what made us able to communicate across oceans.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Albert,

    >>Can you describe a concert example of an experience with god?

    While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason and His existence.

    >>Real universities are universities which teach real sciences, art and social sciences.

    Like Masters or Appalachian? Great!

    >>Faith, by definition is believing in something without evidence. Science simply does not work that way.

    Secular scientists have faith in multiverses.

    >>So Is Science the religion for Atheists?

    No way, because Atheists Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended (shameless plug, I know)

    >>Did you show your children "god", I mean god as real object or entity?

    Yes, I show then who Jesus is and was.

    >>Did you lie to your children that god exists?

    Now you are confusing me with atheists. They teach their kids a, false, meaninglessness worldview.

    >>Did you tell your children beside the christian god, there were many many gods human have worshipped throughout the history?

    I teach them that people worship false gods in the past and present.

    >>[Did} god created the universe in 6 days not?

    He certainly did.

    (To be continued)

    ReplyDelete
  65. (con't)

    >>The tectonic plates movements are typically 0-100mm per year and they were together millions of years ago. Totally different time!

    You are taking wild assumptions as to the distances traveled per year. Based on a steady/constant movement theory, I suppose. Those are the kind of assumptions/mistakes that people made with radio metric dating also.

    Volcanic activity created a thirty-five mile long rift in Ethiopia in just a few days. Look it up

    >>My believe depends on evidence. If you can show me evidence, I will believe in your god.

    An Atheists once said "That's why creationists like you can never be real scientists. You see real scientists like myself start with evidence and develop our theories accordingly. You start with the Bible, not evidence, and you are not prepared to change your views. I start with evidence and am prepared to change or modify theories as new evidence comes along. That is read science."

    So you are an atheist, right? And you don't believe in God, and don't believe the Bible's account of Genesis has any part in science and in discussing the origins issue, is that right?

    So are you prepared to change that?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Can you tell me how the bible come into being? Ain't they written by men? How these men got the inspiration from god? Were these men hallucination in the desert heat when they wrote the stories? Were they not stories, originally based on oral history (OT by Moses) and the NT were a collection of books selected by the early churches for their political objectives? The books in the NT were written about 30 to 50 years after Jesus died (if Jesus ever existed). How accurate you would think these books would be? Is it not some common sense should prevail here?

    I would not say Masters and Appalachian are real universities - but again, I may be wrong. I need to see their curriculum if I am to make a judgment.

    Some scientists have speculated the possibility of multi-verse. At least they are honest to say that these are their speculation and everyone should consider with scepticism. I would not call these scientists have faith in multi-verse. But again, it is important to understand the speciality nature of the scientific discipline. Most science disciplines have contained so much knowledge that it is very difficult for a scientist next to field to claim expertise. When scientists are speaking, we need to make a distinction between whether s/he is speaking as an expert in his/her field or s/he is speaking as a layman. I can only speak as a student of science and my degree was 40 years old now. In between the time, I did not practice science per sec.

    However it would be very wrong to say science is based on faith - any kind of faith. If someone claims to practise science and yet depends on unsupported evidence, that one's not a scientist. This is exactly why creation or intelligent design were not accepted by the scientific community. These are based on speculations and unsupported claims.

    to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  67. If you were not born in USA (I am in Australia, I suppose you are from USA), you were born into a christian culture. What if you were in Middle East, what would be your faith? If you ask any Muslim, they would be as convinced as you are about their perceived nature of god. If a muslin and a christian get together to discuss whose version of god is better, do you have any evidence to support any of your claims? I know muslin don't. I know you cannot too. The issue of god - as you suggested - is a person thing. You said you god has revealed himself (to you personally, I suppose). Can you describe that experience? I have been asking people about this for a long time, no one seems to be able to describe in concrete terms what is that experience.

    You said to told your children that people has worshipped false god in the past and in the present. What are the evidences that you have shown to your children that the god you are worshipping is really the true god. Please let me just remind you that it is equally easy, these days at least, to write a few books and proclaim the author as the representative of the true god. The bible as proof is bad evidence. Except the bible, what else you can show your children that the god you are worshipping is REALLY the true god.

    Obviously, you have mistrust of the scientific community. This is very unfortunate. I always wonder how USA who can send men to moon and come back safely, can allow its citizens science literacy be so low.

    Volcanos can cause a mountain to pop out and make a big crack in ground in matters of seconds. However, tectonic plates movement are NOT the same as such volcano activities. Obviously, you wont believe in radioactive dating, you rather believe the old books. You choose to ignore the great achievement science has made in the last 150 to 200 years. You cannot see that now we can communicate is the result of scientific endeavour. I can accept that 2000 years ago, men knew little (compare to today) and they could have superstitions and delusion of god. I am really surprised that seemingly intelligent being cannot see the contradictions within the bibles. I am really surprised how illogical one is when religion is involved.

    Seriously, when your children are sick, do you bring them to a hospital?

    Yes, I am an atheist. I am prepared to change if evidence shows the way. The account in Genesis is utterly wrong. Such account not only should have no part in science, it should have no part in our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Albert,

    >>Can you tell me how the bible come into being? Ain't they written by men?

    Technically they were written by God and penned by man. Man could never do such a thing on his own.

    >> Were these men hallucination in the desert heat when they wrote the stories?

    Now you are confusing the Qur'an with the Bible. Common mistake.

    >>The books in the NT were written about 30 to 50 years after Jesus died (if Jesus ever existed). How accurate you would think these books would be? Is it not some common sense should prevail here?

    If Jesus ever existed? Really? You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity. You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.

    By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. They were written while many of the apostles were still alive and could be verified.

    Dr. F. F. Bruce, the late Ryland’s Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, asserts of the New Testament: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

    Professor Bruce further comments, "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."

    Your presuppositions though, will determine if you will accept documented historical proof or not.

    >> I would not call these scientists have faith in multi-verse.

    Many atheists do though, that is all they have for the moment. John Loftus, as an example, based his entire book and worldview on that point and he called it science (page 113 under "Science has displaced God"), hilarious read.

    >>However it would be very wrong to say science is based on faith - any kind of faith.

    I completely agree with that entirely, but lets get things back on tract, secular scientists certainly do. There is no such thing as being neutral within worldviews. I certainly am not neutral, they, and you, are hostile towards the Word of truth. Listen to the whole lecture, I dare you.

    >> If someone claims to practice science and yet depends on unsupported evidence, that one's not a scientist.

    Then there is no such thing as a scientists then. You cannot have zero presuppositions in life.

    >>This is exactly why creation or intelligent design were not accepted by the scientific community.

    O'rly? Science is now a consensus?

    Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. The cause of intelligence. This is why they pigeon hole themselves and scientists often wear, with pride, the title of metaphysical naturalism. Do you now see the dangers of scientists taking philosophical positions such as this?

    to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  69. Albert cont'd,

    >>If you were not born in USA (I am in Australia, I suppose you are from USA), you were born into a christian culture.

    Culture? Maybe. For the record my "culture" was my home and school and I was raised an Atheist and was taught evolution in school. So my culture was anything but Christian.

    >> What if you were in Middle East, what would be your faith?

    Christian. I certainly hope you are not suggesting there are zero Christians in the Middle East. There are Christians in China even.

    >>If a muslin and a christian get together to discuss whose version of god is better, do you have any evidence to support any of your claims?

    I certainly do. You do understand that the Qur'an agrees with many things of the Bible and was written some 600 years after the Bible, don't you?

    >> You said you god has revealed himself (to you personally, I suppose).

    Nope. I said that "it is through God's collective natural (nature) and special (Bible) revelation that I know for certain..."

    >>Can you describe that experience? I have been asking people about this for a long time, no one seems to be able to describe in concrete terms what is that experience.

    I did try also and the list was all over the place. I have had some real unexplainable experiences though.

    >>What are the evidences that you have shown to your children that the god you are worshipping is really the true god.

    It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for the validity of His Word and existence.

    >> Please let me just remind you that it is equally easy, these days at least, to write a few books and proclaim the author as the representative of the true god.

    Maybe so but not back in those days. To copy the Bible just once it would have taken over a year to do. They were cherished and revered as sacred writings, to alter it in any way, or to make things up, would be the death of them.


    To be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  70. Albert cont'd,

    >>The bible as proof is bad evidence.

    I addressed this already.

    >> Except the bible, what else you can show your children that the god you are worshipping is REALLY the true god.

    All of nature. Other peoples experiences. Conscience, reason, our dating system (I was born 1968 years after Christ), and the cohesiveness of the claims. Off the top of my head. I have a cartoon for you.

    >>Obviously, you wont believe in radioactive dating, you rather believe the old books.

    I believe in the evidence presented. The Biblical evidence is far stronger evidence then the postulation that we were all apes at one time and the earth is billions of years old without a shred of evidence to point to that worldview besides Lab Coatauthoritarians saying so.

    >>You cannot see that now we can communicate is the result of scientific endeavour.

    I certainly do see the benifits of science. You are constantly misrepresenting my as hating science. I LOVE SCIENCE!!!! It is the Lab Coatauthoritarians that are suspect in my view.

    >>I am really surprised that seemingly intelligent being cannot see the contradictions within the bibles.

    Please show me one. My post made the case before that, Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Dead Sea Scrolls showed how accurately it was transmitted.

    >>I am really surprised how illogical one is when religion is involved.

    I know right! Atheists just plug their ears and close their eyes. Crazy, huh?

    >>Seriously, when your children are sick, do you bring them to a hospital?

    Just being sick? No probably not. But when my wife had a tumor in her brain we sought out the the best Neurosurgeon on the planet. Remember, I LOVE SCIENCE. God created Doctors, right?

    >>Yes, I am an atheist. I am prepared to change if evidence shows the way.

    Great. I will pray for that day.

    >>The account in Genesis is utterly wrong.

    Oops there are your presuppositions getting in the way again. You will never find God if you close your eyes so tightly.

    >>Such account not only should have no part in science, it should have no part in our lives.

    So you declare war against God do you? Good luck with that. Are you now prepared to change that feigned statement of "I am prepared to change if evidence shows the way." We both know the truth about that one, now don't we?

    ReplyDelete
  71. >Technically they were written by God and penned by man.

    The reasons given in your linked post are:
    1. a wicked man wouldn't think of themselves as wicked and wretched.
    2. A good man wouldn't write it because it would of been a lie.
    3. a cohesive prophetically accurate book.
    4. proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    My responses:
    1 & 2 why not? There is absolutely no reason why anyone would not write about human being wicked or being good. At the time, the author might thought they were really writing for god - because these thoughts had come into their mind. I have strange dreams too. If I write them down, does it make it word of god? No, of course. Why don't you put the same judgement on these books? What evidence, besides the books themselves, that show that it is words of god? BTW Quran also claims that it is the word of god and it is different from the bible. Which is the true version? Your answer will be the bible. But on what evidence that you can conclude the bible is the true version? Both cannot be right at the same time. But both can be wrong!

    3. cohesive prophetically accurate? Well my book will be accurate up to 2010. 1000 years later, people will say that it is cohesive prophetically accurate!

    4. The dead sea scrolls show that these manual scripts were between 150BC to 70AD. What does it prove? These are old books, that is it!

    Basically, you have not provided a single evidence that the bible is the word of god!

    If Jesus ever existed? check this out. http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm Oh, you said this is from an atheist site and their words are biased. I am saying exactly the same thing about the sites you lead me to read. So, please read and consider the evidence!

    >no such thing as being neutral within worldviews.
    Agreed. What we do when two people disagree on something? Continue to insist one is right or seek evidence to find out who is right and who is wrong. I take the second path. Unfortunately, Bahnsen is teaching rubbish. I completely agree with his assertion that there is a diametrical difference between how we approach to understand the reality of the world. However, he proposed the "christian understanding" is nothing but based on the bible. Such understanding did not give human any progress for the last 2000 years and it will continue to hinder progress for the future. [Past example: Galileo's heliocentric view, current examples: stem cell research etc.]

    We believed we were the reason for god to create the universe. We believed we were at the centre of the universe. Both of these belief are wrong and not supported by evidence. The universe took 14 billion years to allow this tiny planet to have life form. On earth, it took 4.5 billions. Father Coyne (retired Director of Vatican Observatory) has an analogy:
    we will translate the time 13.7 billions years into some number which we may make some sense of. Let say 13.7 billions years is condensed into one year and the big bang occurred at the start of the year. Earth is formed on the 1st September. The first life would come to the earth on 4th September. Dinosaurs would be born on Christmas day and lived 5 days. On the last day of this one-year-old-universe time scale, human came into being 2 minutes before midnight. Jesus was born 2 seconds ago. Galileo was born 1 second ago. As pointed out by Father Coyne, modern Science has been studying a year old universe for only 1 second if we assume the study was started by Galileo.[source]

    What is referred here in Father Coyne's last second is the human invention of science methodology - reasoning based on empirical evidence. It is world view is diametrical to christian world view. I make no apology in adopting mine instead of the christians'.

    to be con't

    ReplyDelete
  72. >If someone claims to practice science and yet depends on unsupported evidence, that one's not a scientist.

    I stand by my words. I am condemning any scientific endeavour which doest not base on empirical evidence.

    >Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence.

    Not true. Evolution theory does not address the initial formation of life. The theories which deal with initial life formation on earth is grouped under abiogenesis which is still an area of active research and no major model has been commonly accepted yet.

    [I will respond to your person experience with god after I read your posts....]

    >I believe in the evidence presented. The Biblical evidence is far stronger evidence then the postulation that we were all apes at one time and the earth is billions of years old without a shred of evidence to point to that worldview besides Lab Coatauthoritarians saying so.

    I don't get it. How can a set of old books have more weight of thousands if not millions of scientists each independently verifying each other's evidence? The old books are all contradiction everywhere whereas all scientific theories fit together perfectly (of course except at those areas where it is work in progress!)

    >, I LOVE SCIENCE. God created Doctors, right?

    I do not see how you love science. Your science literacy level, if I may say, is worse than my worse students. No, god did not create doctors. Doctors learn their skill and knowledge through hard work. Have you read THANK GOODNESS!. Gratitude should be given to whom gratitude is due, my friend.

    >Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure.

    "pure" - what does this adjective mean here?

    I stand by my words that I am prepared to change where evidence show me. I am not declaring war against god - after all god does not exist and there is no one to fight against. I am condemning those who spread falsehood and unsupported claims. I am prepared to argue with reasons logic and evidence. I may be convinced. I guess you are not. But that's OK.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Albert,

    >>There is absolutely no reason why anyone would not write about human being wicked or being good.

    Do you consider yourself to be wicked?

    >> I have strange dreams too. If I write them down, does it make it word of god?

    That depends really...

    >> What evidence, besides the books themselves, that show that it is words of god?

    Just take a look at the entire field of archaeology. A quick search would help you out.

    1. Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.

    2. The Bible's message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.

    3. Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred—something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.

    Prophecies are something that your dreams have yet to produce. We would have to determine if they were 1) in line with God's Word for mankind and 2) they came true.

    >>3. cohesive prophetically accurate? Well my book will be accurate up to 2010. 1000 years later, people will say that it is cohesive prophetically accurate!

    You are being intellectually dishonest I would suspect at this moment. You know that the prophetic writings were written many hundreds and thousands of years before the prophecies came true. We have documented proof of that, and the Dead Sea scrolls were just one of them. To deny evidence is just that, denial.

    >>4. The dead sea scrolls show that these manual scripts were between 150BC to 70AD. What does it prove? These are old books, that is it!

    That is what gave the Bible it's validity that lasted for thousands of years. Prophecy is a powerful tool of God's. Don't you understand that there were skeptics back in those days also? That the skeptics were silenced, as you will be soon.

    Merely look at Psalm 22 (they pierced my hands and my feet,...They part my garments among them...) How could the writer just happen to know that Romans were going to introduce a torture method called crucifixion? How?

    (hating the 4,096 character limit, TBC)

    ReplyDelete
  74. (Cont'd)

    >>If Jesus ever existed? check this out...

    Oh come on now. Really? Eye witnesses are merely hearsay? Really? Is that the same for our courts also? Give us a break. Again intellectually dishonest on your part. Fold arms and say you don't believe all you want but don't insult our intelligence. I suppose there were no such thing as George Washington or Paul Hogan either. The fact that they existed were merely hearsay by people. What a crock (get it?).

    >>Bahnsen is teaching rubbish.

    This from a man that believes that Paul Hogan never existed to boot. Although, I will say that I am happy that you got a taste of Bahnsen. Please devour more! It is good for the soul.

    >> We believed we were at the centre of the universe. Both of these belief are wrong and not supported by evidence.

    Wrong yet again!!! We are indeed the center of the universe dude. From a figurative standpoint we are the only reason why the universe exists. We are the only intelligent life in the entire vast universe. We are, in a sense, center stage! But the literal minds, like yourself, that read the Bible incorrectly, got it wrong. There are obvious hyperbole and parables that you "literal reading people" are missing entirely. It's OK, you are fallible after all. We forgive you.

    Let me just make a point on Father Coyne's writings. If I am wrong about the universe being 6000 years old it will NEVER, ever, effect my Salvation at all. I would merely be incorrect as to my understand of the Bible and God would be there to correct and instruct me. And yes I could indeed be wrong. But you on the other hand, if you are wrong about Salvation you will spend eternity in Hell FOREVER, and ever. That is something that I don't want to happen at all. So please, with sugar on top, make 1000% sure you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  75. (Cont'd yet some more)

    >> Evolution theory does not address the initial formation of life. The theories which deal with initial life formation on earth is grouped under abiogenesis which is still an area of active research and no major model has been commonly accepted yet.

    Yea I have heard of that before but you do understand that your bible is called "On the ORIGIN of SPECIES" don't you? Play with words afterwards all you wish, we all know better.

    >>No, god did not create doctors. Doctors learn their skill and knowledge through hard work.

    Fine, I should of clarified it ans said If God exists, as I believe, then God created Doctors (and the air they breath), right?

    >>after all god does not exist and there is no one to fight against.

    Uh oh, your presuppositions are showing, you might want to cover that up.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Correction on: Play with words afterward all you wish, we all know better.

    I wanted to say, "Play with words afterward all you wish, we all know that Darwin's "Origins" evolution theory does not hold up to critical scrutiny. God does though."

    ReplyDelete
  77. >Do you consider yourself to be wicked?

    I do not consider myself wicked. But I can write a book about how wicked human are. Why not?

    >Bible accuracy

    I have already mentioned that I can write a book, with some known history throw in and mix with other fantasy, myths and non-sense. The accuracy of one part of the book does not imply the accuracy of the rest of the book. Ditto for bible. The most important claim in the bible - your god exists, has no evidence support it. Even if all the stories of the bible is correct, we still do not know whether god exists or not just from the bible. Evidence!

    >loving god

    Your so called loving god is blood thirsty and regularly perform genocide. You god killed without regard to whether some are innocent. You god likes to kill innocent children and babies. What kind of model is that for human?

    >Bible prophecies
    Here is a reviewer comment of Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?

    Tim Callahan has done the rational thing and examined hundreds of verses from the Bible claimed to be "prophecy" to see if they meet four simple tests:
    1) Is it true, false, or too vague to be specifically interpreted?
    2) If true, was it written before or after the fact?
    3) If written before the fact, was its fullfillment something that could be logically predicted based on the knowledge of the time?
    4) Was the prophecy directive or deliberately fulfilled by someone with knowledge of the prophecy?

    There is not a single "prophecy" that meets these four tests. Maybe that seems obvious to many, but at a time where fundamentalists are trying to shut down all challenges to their view that the Bible is "inerrant", it's about time someone looked at what is actually written there to see if it is really true or not.

    Callahan is not a accredited scholar, as some have pointed out in efforts to trash this book, but is that really necessary? After all, any educated person can find verses like this in the Bible and check their veracity:

    "An oracle considering Damascus. Behold, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her cities will be deserted forever; they will be for flocks which will lie down and none will make them afraid". (Isiah 17:1-2)

    Here we are over 2500 years later, and Damascus is still standing; in fact, it is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It's obvious this "prophecy" is nonsense, and that alone should invalidate any claims to Biblical "inerrancy". Those who need to read this the most will not, but the rest of us can read it and get some facts on our sides when fundamentalists start talking about prophecy.


    to be con'd

    ReplyDelete
  78. >Jesus

    Did you check out the link I put in about Jesus? Beside the bible, Jesus is no where to be found, even in Roman's detailed records.

    Do you really believe that a woman can become pregnant without sperms? What makes you think that Jesus, born as a human, did not need a biological father? This is illogical exception given to a story of myths. Common sense, man!

    >center of universe

    Figurative yes, I can consider myself as the centre of the universe. Together we are the centre of the universe. That's perception does not change the fact that we are NOT at the centre of the universe. Whether there are other intelligence in the universe, we do not know. We should not assume there is not. Lottery is difficult to win. But there are people winning lottery. That is called large number principle. Here we have, 14 billion years of time, in million of billions of galaxy which with billions of stars (Our sun is a star) each star with many planets. The chance that there is intelligence on another galaxy is non-zero. However, the chance that we can communicate with such intelligence will be small. The distance is in light years. Physical travel time would be in million year.

    >wrong about the universe being 6000 years old

    Your 6000 years old universe came from the bible - another evidence of the inaccuracy of the bible.

    >On the ORIGIN of SPECIES

    Dawin explained how different species came about. He did not explain the origin of life!

    >evolution

    Denying evolution theory is denying scientific facts. Check out The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. It is written by Francis Collins, the man credited for the sequencing of human genomes and a devout christian. It would be the kind of book christians like to read.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Albert,

    >>I do not consider myself wicked. But I can write a book about how wicked human are.

    So then you are not human? Take a test to see if you are a good person...or not.

    >>The most important claim in the bible - your god exists, has no evidence support it.

    Correction: No evidence that you will accept that is. Prophetic writings coming true would give any sane person pause.

    >> Even if all the stories of the bible is correct, we still do not know whether god exists or not just from the bible.

    Sure you do. By the claims in it and the prophetic writings that have proved itself time and time again throughout the thousands of years and is more relevant today then any other time in history. It truly is the Living Bible.

    >> Your so called loving god is blood thirsty and regularly perform genocide.

    Genocide according to who?

    >>You god killed without regard to whether some are innocent.

    How could you claim that? Evidence! Evidence! Evidence! Are you omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? He is, and can certainly know the wicked you are looking through a perspective that cannot judge those points. How intolerant of you.

    >>Tim Callahan has done the rational thing...Callahan is not a accredited scholar.

    So tell me why do you place your faith with this Tim Callahan dude?

    ReplyDelete
  80. >>Do you really believe that a woman can become pregnant without sperms? What makes you think that Jesus, born as a human, did not need a biological father? This is illogical exception given to a story of myths. Common sense, man!

    If you remember I addressed that already in a past post.

    >>Whether there are other intelligence in the universe, we do not know.

    I certainly do, Psst, the answer is, nope.

    >>Darwin explained how different species came about. He did not explain the origin of life!

    Fair enough. I thought the play on words was cute. I entertain myself sometimes.

    >>Check out The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

    I have one for you also.

    ReplyDelete
  81. >Do you really believe that a woman can become pregnant without sperms? What makes you think that Jesus, born as a human, did not need a biological father? This is illogical exception given to a story of myths. Common sense, man!
    If you remember I addressed that already in a past post.

    What is the relation of that past post with Jesus, human, born without a biological father? Why a human Jesus did not need a biological father, whereas everyone else need one? Ans: Jesus does not exit.

    >10 commandments
    "Thou shall not kill" - check out how many has god killed here

    I reference you a book written by a scholar, you refer me to a book written by fool - Here are some of the comments from the book you referred.
    Painful to even try to distort reality enough to make sense of this. If its approached as Fiction, it might be entertaining. Other than that, its a bizarre glimpse into a demented mind.

    It's hard to comprehend why anyone would willingly embrace ignorance, but this book confirms that many do. The ID movement is comprised of nothing more than a horde of despicable, dishonest buffoons.


    You said you love science. The language of god is an easy read and is written by a christian too, although the argument for god is lame!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Albert,

    >>Why a human Jesus did not need a biological father, whereas everyone else need one?

    You cannot even begin to understand God or His Word through man's intellect. He stand outside of the laws of nature. Man will say Noah living until 900 and his wife having her first child at 90? Hogwash!"

    A Christian says " I believe you Lord"

    >> Ans: Jesus does not exit.

    As for your Ans: Jesus is God and will not birth Himself. I would surmise that it had to be a supernatural phenomenon. Even mankind cannot "clone" through procreation.

    >>check out how many has god killed here

    Thanks for the list. Hilarious! I love how Atheists judge God. One of the main reasons atheists are against God in the first place. How Ironic!!

    >> Here are some of the comments from the book you referred...

    Faith in mankind still? Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  83. This is interesting to note that in Genesis, the tree of knowledge is at the centre of the garden and yet Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat the fruit of that tree. God does not want man (and woman) to have knowledge.

    Well, in your religion, I understand having faith is a virtue. Faith - a belief without evidence. That's shine through and explains why religion is hindering scientific endeavour and human progress.

    It took a long time for human to finally invented the scientific method - a systematic way of studying the nature based on empirical evidences and observations. In the last 150 years, human has made more progree (for human's living, yet detrimental to the environment - but that's for another occasion) than all history combined in the past.

    In this era of enlightenment, it is unthinkable to find people who are still stubbornly believed in old books, written by uninformed men with much less knowledge today, to be factually true. If Jesus is human as you may belief, his fresh and blood is biological. Telling me that Jesus does not need a biological father is a claim which defies reasons and hence need majestic evidence to support. What one find is from the old books. More interesting still, Roman, well known for their care in taking records, do not have any sign of Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus, as a composite of myths from the Pagan is very plausible. Jesus, if existed, birthday would not be in December.

    >god's killing
    Do you think all these killings, excerpt from the bible, are moral? It is moral because it is the act of god or it is moral because it is moral? Is killing babies moral by any standard? So will you argue that killing babies by god is moral? Where will the slippery slope end? What about killing babies because god told one to do so?

    Atheist does not believe in god because there is no evidence to support the existence of god. I, an atheist, but speaking just for myself, ask for reason and logic. I look at the bible objectively - evaluate the act of god by a common standard - a standard which I can live with and live up to. Using this basic standard, I find the god in OT disgusting, blood-thirsty and nothing like the christians are trying to tell me. I am not making up verses and then assign the bad verses to your god. These are verses from the bible. I am just interpreting the consequences and the moral of such acts from a human standard point. The god in OT should be put in jail for all the crimes this god has committed against humanity. As I am against capital punishment, this god should be in jail for millions life times.

    If you still think your god depicted in OT is loving, after verifying the verses are truly from your bible, you are delusional at the minimum. Of course, unless your 'loving' means killing. How can an honest moral human agree that killing baby is done in "love"?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Albert,

    >>This is interesting to note that in Genesis, the tree of knowledge is at the centre of the garden and yet Adam and Eve are forbidden to eat the fruit of that tree. God does not want man (and woman) to have knowledge.

    Maybe so, certainly at that time that was true. maybe God knew what we would do with that knowledge and use it towards evil. Ever think of that? Just look at the advancements in weaponry, through science, that we have today. Knowledge is power indeed.

    Hedges said in an interview at salon.com "You know, there is nothing in human nature or in human history that points to the idea that we are moving anywhere. Technology and science, though they are cumulative and have improved, in many ways, the lives of people within the industrialized nations, have also unleashed the most horrific forms of violence and death, and let's not forget, environmental degradation, in human history. So, there's nothing intrinsically moral about science. Science is morally neutral. It serves the good and the bad. I mean, industrial killing is a product of technological advance, just as is penicillin and modern medicine. So I think that I find the faith that these people (new atheists) place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels."

    >> Faith - a belief without evidence.

    BZZZZTT!!! Wrong yet again. Faith is a strong belief in a supernatural power that control human destiny, complete confidence in a plan, a loyalty or allegiance to a cause.

    Webster says:

    1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
    2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
    3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

    Faith, in a sense, is synonymous with loyalty and TRUST. In fact the synonyms are: confidence, trust, reliance, conviction, belief, assurance, devotion, loyalty, faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, constancy, fealty, dedication, allegiance

    So you COMPLETELY misrepresented what faith is, and we expect the apology or acknowledgment before we continue here. That brings me to my next point about evidence...

    >> That's shine through and explains why religion is hindering scientific endeavour and human progress.

    Listen dork, it was the "Churches" who started the Universities and it was a Priest that discovered the expansion of the universe dubbed the "Big Bang" that Einstein's pride fought all the way up until his death. So don't tell me that Christianity hinders science. The only thing hindering science is secular humanist scientists that push their agenda when very intelligent and reasonable people know better. Case in point, the failed presupposition that chimps and humans having the same ancestry. You are completely delusional to think that Darwin, and his concepts, have not destroyed quite a bit. They took out appendixes, tonsils, glands, etc., on the assumptions that those vital organs were vestigial at a time because of the evolutionary presuppositions, and simply have destroyed many lives.

    We are cleaning up all of your worldviews mistakes about this universe.

    ReplyDelete
  85. (Albert cont,d)

    >>Do you think all these killings, excerpt from the bible, are moral?

    Absolutely. Why? Because I have FAITH in God to do the RIGHT thing and the HONORABLE thing for us all. I TRUST Him.

    >>Atheist does not believe in god because there is no evidence to support the existence of god.

    Who are you trying to convince me or you? Again it is the evidence that you refuse to accept that you base your worldview on.

    >>I, an atheist, but speaking just for myself, ask for reason and logic.

    Here is the frustrating part for us Creationists. God has "given over" unbelievers to a "reprobate mind" (Romans 1:28) For us this complicates matters, using rational evidence and logic are not enough for most unbelievers, such as yourself.

    >>Of course, unless your 'loving' means killing.

    I love my kids so much that I will fill the person, that is breaking into my house trying to harm them, with a copious amount of hot lead.

    How can an honest moral human agree that killing baby is done in "love"?

    I don't know, ask the atheistic mindset of Abortion that murders more than 46,000,000 babies every year worldwide.

    ReplyDelete
  86. >knowledge

    Traditionally, people believe that science deal with the understanding of the reality and religion deals with moral. As I have shown before, the christian stories in OT (and some in NT) are not good moral examples for human. We now know that moral is an emergent property of social animals. For a group of animal to work together, some sort of mutually acceptable behaviour must form in order for the group to remain as a group. Human, being one of the most complex social animals, has evolved a complex set of moral standards based on compassion and empathy. As we understand the reality more, the role of religion is becoming less. My tenet is that religion has passed its used-by date and we, human as a group, should grow up and get rid of religion.

    The above description of the moral is obviously over-simplified. The balance of the smaller self (individual, 小我) and the large self (the group 大我) varies among individuals. The best simple way to explain smaller self is my own selfishness. The large self is the country or organisation I belong to. We can see people acting courageously, scarifying oneself for the good of the country. That's the expression of giving up the smaller self for the large self. The last 50 or more years, I can see the over emphasis of the smaller self. Individual only cares about gaining for themselves. Countries only care about maintaining their own self interest. As condition changes, this balance will change. I just hope that human can change fast enough to avoid the catastrophe of the climate change.

    >faith

    English is my second language. thank you for pointing out the other definition of faith.

    On religion, faith is still blind. Do you have evidence of the existence of God? During my discussion with other religious, he pointed the existence of life on earth as the evidence of god. The claim was that everything needs a creator. The fact we are here is the evidence of the creator. Of course, it is a straw man argument. The obvious answer, I am sure you can expect, is that who created the creator. Using an unknown, a mystic god, to replace an unknown is unsatisfactory.

    The origin of life (any creationist confused origin of life with origin of species) was unknown. Scientists still are debating what happened at the beginning. The following link is one of the possible scenario. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

    >Churches hindrance to scientific endeavour

    We must understand that until the last 500 years or less, the social class which has time in their hand for any investigation of reality are those related the kings and priests. The common people are busy just to make the day. Literacy is very limited. Any development in the understanding of the reality can only come from those people who have time to do the investigation. It is not surprising to find many initial discovery came from the priests. (China may be the except and that may explain why China was the most developed country in the world until about 500 years ago when she closed connection with the rest of the world.)

    It is also important to note that throughout history, the churches only accepted ideas which favoured themselves and oppressed those with a different opinion. Galileo, if not for his close relationship with the Pope, would have been burnt instead of being put under house arrest for his heliocentric view.

    Watch Father Coyne explain the evolution of life in the universe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYOR0dPZc3I Near the end when an audience asked about religion and science, I don't know if you can see the difficult he is having to reconcile his religious role and his scientist role. Lucky these days that I won't get burnt by telling the truth.

    to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  87. >evolution

    You did not bother to check out Francis Collins' work and still ignorantly believing in the creationist's propaganda, did you? You may not believe in me, after all, why you should. Read what the leading scientist, from USA, a christian, responsible for the sequencing of the human genomes has to say about the evolution theory. Yes it is not very consolatory to share a common ancestor with the chimps. But this is a proven fact - beyond any reasonable doubt. Your source is misguided.

    >moral again

    I would just add you have blind faith, nothing but blind faith. You cannot exercise your own moral values to judging the killings mentioned in OT. You blindly agreed that god killing innocent babies is just. Shame on you.

    >evidence of god

    Again, who created god?

    >reason and logic

    Wrong. Using evidence, reason and logic are enough to convince me of anything. Have you shown me any evidence of the existence of a god, not to mention your version of god?

    Using the bible to justify your god is circular logic, flawed logic. I don't buy flawed logic!

    Show me valid evidence, sound reason and good logic, you can convince me. The question is do you have valid evidence, sound reason and good logic?

    >Abortion and stem cell research

    I know there is a very slippery slope and I struggle myself to come up with an opinion. However, I strongly disagree with the reason put forward by the religious groups to support their view.

    No woman, with a sound mind, would make a decision for abortion lightly. It is a very difficult choice. The question to me is what we value more, a fully formed human being making decision for herself, or saving another yet to be born potential human being. The fact is that about 50% of preganacies end in miscarriage - including those within the first 2 weeks when the woman still don't know she is pregnant. Nature rejects fertized eggs readily. There is a fine line to be drawn on when a fertized egg become a potential human. BTW, unfertized eggs are rejected monthly! Not all atheist support abortion. I have yet to make up my mind.

    Stem cell research is a different issue. I support stem cell research. A stem cell, including those harvested from IVF, are useful for medical research. The fertized eggs, not being used in the IVF process itself is destined to be destroyed. I do not see any moral dilemma in making better use of such cells.

    Now that I have made my stance, how can an honest moral human agree that god killing innocent babies, as described in stories in OT, moral?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Albert,

    >> The obvious answer, I am sure you can expect, is that who created the creator.

    Why must you plug your ears and close your eyes on this matter. Denial is becoming your strongest suit.

    >> Any development in the understanding of the reality can only come from those people who have time to do the investigation. It is not surprising to find many initial discovery came from the priests.

    That is not what I believe, I think that it was because of the presuppositions of that one priest Lemaître that allowed the truth to come through. Unlike Einstein who could not allow such a thought that the universe had a beginning, and the implications of such a concept, he never knew the actual truth. Much like Atheists today.

    >>It is also important to note that throughout history, the churches only accepted ideas which favoured themselves and oppressed those with a different opinion.

    Correction: through a small segment of history... However an unfortunate truth it is, that stained and hindered mankind. We should not be afraid of the truth no matter where it leads us. I feel it was the insecurities of that false religion (RCC) that led that group to lack such complete confidence in the truth. But continue to beat that horse if you wish.

    >>Watch Father Coyne explain the evolution of life in the universe

    He chose a false religion that has nothing to do with God at all and is all about mankind (like evolution) and control, and pedophilia, his credibility of truth is subject to put it lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  89. (cont'd)

    >>Using the bible to justify your god is circular logic, flawed logic. I don't buy flawed logic!

    You are a broken record, you refuse to examine the evidence.

    Atheism:

    1) Insert fingers into ears
    2) close eyes
    3) Hope you are right and have faith in the self.
    4) When presented with truth, deny it or ignore it.

    >>Show me valid evidence, sound reason and good logic, you can convince me.

    I have and you followed step 4 of Atheism. I am hopeful though.

    >>No woman, with a sound mind, would make a decision for abortion lightly. It is a very difficult choice.

    The only kept babies are the ones wanted. So you are only a human if you are a desired by others. Nice logic.

    >>Now that I have made my stance, how can an honest moral human agree that god killing innocent babies, as described in stories in OT, moral?

    Admittedly, I cannot explain every single thought that God has on some subjects. I have questions myself, but I do trust Him. Fortunately, I will be there to ask such questions to Him personally. I hope the same for you.

    ReplyDelete
  90. It seems that there are some points we have left off which we should not, may I come back to them now.

    >Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

    This is where I disagree, my view is that god is a human imagination, a human invention. We give it different concepts to explain what we were unable to explain. If you say god is the creator of the universe. You need evidence to prove that. It is not "by definition". Throughout history, there are other definition of god who does not create the universe.

    From the bible, the christian god created the universe. Again, that is from the bible only. Any evidence?

    >* (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)

    We need to come back to the Noah's ark. I am still unconvinced that Noah can live to 900 years. At the time of writing of the bible, the life expectancy would be, my guess, around 20 to 40 years. Modern medicine, in the last 100 years or so, has been able to extend life expectancy by about 2 years per decade. The longevity of Noah is a wild claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary support. Any?

    Although traditionally accepted as historical, by the 19th century the changing views of archaeologists and biblical scholars had led most people to abandon a literal interpretation of the Ark story.[2][3][4] [source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark]
    # 2 Plimer, Ian (1994) "Telling Lies for God: reason versus creationism" (Random House)
    # 3 a b Browne, Janet (1983). The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-02460-6.
    # 4 a b Young, Davis A. (1995). "History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth". http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm. Retrieved 2008-11-01.

    It seems to me that you are the one who
    1) Insert fingers into ears
    2) close eyes
    3) Hope you are right and have faith in the self.
    4) When presented with truth, deny it or ignore it.
    You prefer to believe in 2000 years old book rather than modern science.

    Using god as the creator of the universe, cannot explain
    1. the background cosmic radiation,
    2. the observed red shift from most of the distant galaxies.

    These two observations, anyone with sufficient skill can verify. The first observation, the big bang theory predicts and the observations verify to 1 part in 100.000. The second one, scientist have made observations correct to 10 decimal places and the big bang model predicts to the same degree of accuracy!

    In the big bang model, the first 10^-43 s is where the unknown is. The big bang model predicts and the predictions have been verified by observation of events after that first initial fraction of a second.

    Can god hypothesis predict anything?


    to be con't

    ReplyDelete
  91. >I cannot explain every single thought that God has on some subjects.
    Of course, you cannot. I was asking you, as a human, your opinion whether killing innocent babies is moral or not? You answer, I hope is no. Then why when it was done by god, it becomes moral? God may have a plan an you cannot understand god, fair enough. But still it is moral, irrespective of the motives and plan? Being all powerful, is there another way to achieve the same aim without innocent babies being killed? You god is all powerful, there must be a different way. Why you god did not choose that other more humane path? May be the other path is more inhumane? Then why don't your god change the plan to avoid it altogether? Don't you want to think about these questions? How you can still be convinced that this is a loving god?

    >The only kept babies are the ones wanted.

    You obviously has little understanding how woman will ponder the abortion issue. Even so, what the right we have to dictate another adult's free will? As I said, my have not come to a conclusion about my own stance in abortion. I will if circumstance confronts me to assist someone with such a decision and will give my advice to the best I can at that time. Until then, I am going to let that pending.

    The question I was asking you are not "potential babies". I was asking you, your opinion, about the moral of killing innocent babies.

    >circular logic
    Even if there are specifics within the bible which can be verified as true, it does not eliminate the need of evidence to support the central claim of the bible - that the god exists. You can understand that anyone, you and me include, to dream up some stories, copy some from the folk tales, include some historically correct information to write books. When years later, some one calling the stories in the book real, won't you laugh at the stupidity those believe *everything* you or I have written just based on *verifying* some of the claims in the book? Every claim will need independent verification to make the whole book reliably true. On the other hand, one verified falsehood is enough to shed doubt to the rest of the stories in the whole book. Of course, we can always enjoy a fiction. However, the main character in OT is nasty and blood-thirsty, a character I don't like and definitely not a model for human behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Albert,

    >>If you say god is the creator of the universe. You need evidence to prove that. It is not "by definition".

    To risk sounding like a broken record I will repeat myself to help you along. While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

    In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain.

    The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic, or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything.

    So, once again, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

    (1) The writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify. (With arguments in each case.)

    >>We need to come back to the Noah's ark. I am still unconvinced that Noah can live to 900 years.

    Listen cherry picker, what part of "writings in question are true on all specific points we can verify" do you not understand?

    >>At the time of writing of the bible, the life expectancy would be, my guess, around 20 to 40 years.

    Any evidence for this mere postulation or are you being a hypocrite?

    >>You prefer to believe in 2000 years old book rather than modern science.

    Correction: I prefer to believe in the Creator of the Universe, named God, claims instead of the reprobated minds of secular men.

    >> The big bang model predicts and the predictions have been verified by observation of events after that first initial fraction of a second.

    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    Maybe you can answer some of the big bang questions that I have.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Albert,

    >> I was asking you, as a human, your opinion whether killing innocent babies is moral or not? You answer, I hope is no.

    From a perspective of me, a man, talking about men? Then no. If we are attempting to judge an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being? Then I cannot. He, after all, has a bigger perspective then I. He has the big picture where I am judging from my very limited understanding.

    >>. When years later, some one calling the stories in the book real, won't you laugh at the stupidity those believe *everything* you or I have written just based on *verifying* some of the claims in the book?

    You are missing a huge point here. These things in the Bible were indeed verified, experienced, and gained teeth because the events did play out as said in that Holy Book. These were very intelligent people who weighed the evidence and concluded that the Bibles claims were true, because they came true. They were eye witnesses to the events at the time and spent their lives defending that truth. Most all of the people lost their lives to the claims that were made. All the Apostles were tortured or killed for their beliefs. There is a true validity to the facts that ALL Christians would knowingly give up their lives for the truth of Christ. Now, that is not the same as some suicide bomber either, because the Apostles did not want to die but they had no choice. They were at peace with the decisions made by those wicked people to torture and kill those men. Willing to die for the truth and blowing up people in a suicide mission is two entirely different scenarios. Are you willing to die at our hands for that little book that you wrote? I didn't think so.

    >> Every claim will need independent verification to make the whole book reliably true.

    That is the point, every single claim did indeed have independent verification and was accepted by billions of people. Let me guess, those billions of people are dumber, or delusional, or less intellectual then you? Give us a break. A very smart man once told me that if 30 of your friends tell you that you are drunk, then fall down. Point is, people that love you enough to tell you the truth you should listen to. Listen to them because you are indeed drunk, just not according to you from your perspective, but from a multitude of perspectives that really are looking out for your best interest.

    Albert, fall down (to your knees).

    ReplyDelete
  94. >Repeating

    It seems both of us need to repeat ourselves many times before the message is gone through.

    I asked "Can you describe a concert example of an experience with god?"

    Your answer, "While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason and His existence."

    Can you give me ONE concrete example of how god has revealed himself to YOU? Are you sure you were not hallucinating?

    >The proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

    So you are saying that our ability to think is god's existence proof. I cannot see how human's ability to logic is connected to the existence of god. Please enlighten me.

    >Emergent property of human logic

    My ability to account for logic has nothing to do with whether you have proved god's existence. [In fact,for an account for human logic from a pure evolution view point, read Religion is Not about God: How Spiritual Traditions Nurture Our Biological Nature and What to Expect When They Fail]

    >the bible accuracy

    The source of bible - the dead sea scroll did provide some verification. That's only about whether such writing existed as claim. Yes, it verifies that the NT was written at least 50 years *after* the dead of 'Jesus'.

    The claims in bible, however, is another point of contention. Are the claims in bible true? Can you understand that the dating of the bible does not make the claims in the bible true? The dead sea scroll discovery only concludes that at the first century (using the modern calendar), someone have written some stories. Do you understand that the validity of the stories do not depend on when it was written?

    You said I cherry-pick. That's another way of admitting Noah's Ark story is only a fiction, not real. If one story in the bible is not real, how can you be sure the other stories are not "not real"?

    >life expectancy
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    >I prefer to believe in the Creator of the Universe, named God, claims instead of the reprobated minds of secular men.

    In the first day, men created god.

    to be con't

    ReplyDelete
  95. >Questions about the big bang theory

    I am not going to answer the questions you posted. Your reader(s) have attempted to answer your questions. It seems you are not interested in other's view.

    When it is to your advantage, you boost about the big bang was proposed by a priest. When asked tough question, you hide behind irrelevant questions. The big bang theory is the current best understanding of the cosmos based on observations. The big bang theory explains many observations. Can "god created the universe" explain any of the observations? In light of incomplete knowledge, which would be a better choice to continue to build up our understanding of reality? God hypothesis needs us nowhere.

    You did not follow up with Father Coyne's youtube video because "chose a false religion". Don't catholic and christian believe in the same god? Don't catholic and christian believe in the same set of bible? Why you say Coyne chose a *false* religion? How do you know his is false while yours is not?

    I have linked to you a video which I believe best explain the life of the universe. You did not watch it. I have nothing to add. However it does tell me something about your stubbornness and inability to process new information.

    >Killing innocent babies. He, after all, has a bigger perspective then I. He has the big picture where I am judging from my very limited understanding.

    Thank you to make your stance and thank you for demonstrating that you share a morality standard similar to mine. Now, the BIG question, WHY you find killing babies immoral? WHERE is that source of moral standard come from?

    Let me guide you through the reasoning. Your feeling of killing innocent babies as immoral is *real*. Such feeling does NOT come from your reading of the bible because it was about killing innocent babies by god. Your feeling come from you, yourself, independent of the bible.

    Now what is the conclusion about the source of your moral?

    >Truth of the bible

    Noah Arh - as an counter example.

    Dan, get up from your knees and stand tall as a free thinking moral human!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Albert,

    >>Can you give me ONE concrete example of how god has revealed himself to YOU?

    The Bible

    >>Are you sure you were not hallucinating?

    Reading the Bible? Nope. Cover to cover in around three weeks, completely sober.

    >> I can see how human's ability to logic is connected to the existence of god.

    Now I am smiling. Are you really getting it now or are you getting my hopes up?

    >>My ability to account for logic has nothing to do with whether you have proved god's existence.

    Never mind, I knew that wouldn't last. Please just try without connecting to God.

    >> read Religion is Not about God:

    I completely agree with that statement but I haven't read the book.

    >> Are the claims in bible true?

    Yes.

    >>Can you understand that the dating of the bible does not make the claims in the bible true?

    The eye witnesses that were recorded in antiquity does. The fact that the people faced persecution, torture, and death to recant such claims by the authorities at the time, but they never did. But until your worldview changes then you will never find that truth. If I show proof of God's existence, will everyone who sees that proof be honest enough to approve of that proof of God's existence?

    >life expectancy
    >>see a secular man made and biased wiki viewpoint.

    Go to creationwiki for an entirely different viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Albert Cont'd

    >> Don't catholic and christian believe in the same god?

    Not at all. RCC has broken the second commandment and created a god to suite themselves.

    >>Don't catholic and christian believe in the same set of bible?

    Apparently not. RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Now does that sound right? It is anything but Christian. But that does not mean that there are soundly saved Christians in that false religion. The Christians that exist are Christians in spite of the RCC theology.

    >> How do you know his is false while yours is not?

    Evidence. Ask me to expound and I will.

    >>I have linked to you a video which I believe best explain the life of the universe. You did not watch it. I have nothing to add. However it does tell me something about your stubbornness and inability to process new information.

    Assume much? I have heard Father Coyne's arguments in past debates and videos. I am very familiar with his position and who he is. If you really want me to watch that 'one' video then I will, but I have probably heard the position already with nothing new to add so it is anything but "new information."

    >> WHY you find killing babies immoral? WHERE is that source of moral standard come from?

    Christianity offers a cohesive worldview whereby we do have an objective standard so when somebody tortures you; rapes you; kills you; we can say, No, that is wrong. It's not just personal preference, it's objectively wrong. Christianity has all the answers and everything you need to live life, not just practically but rationally. If someone rejects Christianity they will end up, if they're honest and consistent, at the bottom with radical skepticism. All bets are off and all up for grabs. Completely arbitrary moral system; it's going to be pick and choose. So, according to your worldview, baby killings, rape, pedophilia are acceptable because it is what is subjectively moral, not objectively moral.

    >>Your feeling come from you, yourself, independent of the bible.

    Wrong, bzzzt Your feeling exist because God gave you a conscience that tells you that it is wrong. Where we go wrong is when we deny that little voice deep inside that says what we are doing is wrong.

    It's a proven fact that with ALL people, across all genders and races, the consequences / telltales of when a person lies, are that;

    They experience sweaty palms; They experience induced swallowing; Their heart rate increases; Their faces turn red; They avoid eye contact; They speak more quickly, etc. etc. This is with everyone human being on the planet no matter where they grew up or was raised. Except, of course, for sociopaths and those who have perfected evil deception. So these are physical reactions (that cross all humanity), that occur when people lie, keeping in mind that none of them are at all based upon comfort, self esteem, or integrity, why is that?

    Here's a hint, lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself. Therefore He has constructed us with built in sensors that perhaps we just might someday, in our blind little, self seeking minds, finally get the big picture.

    >>Now what is the conclusion about the source of your moral?

    Please let me answer with a question first; Now what is the conclusion about the source of your moral?

    >>Dan, get up from your knees and stand tall as a free thinking moral human!

    I am and that is what makes me drop to my knees and bow to Christ out of gratefulness.

    ReplyDelete
  98. >reading the bible

    Your "concrete" example of experience with god is reading the bible. I have read the bible, from cover to cover too, but this experience has an effect quite the opposite to yours.

    As I read, I become increasing angry about this god. I found this god nasty, immoral, blood thirsty and nothing like the description the people who urged me to read in the first place.

    > I can see how human's ability to logic is connected to the existence of god.

    Sorry, it was a typo. I meant I cannot see human's ability to logic is connected to the existence of god. In the "religion is not about got", the author gives a possible explanation of human thinking ability without invoking god.

    >The bible claims

    I think it would be the biggest gap we have in our world views. I challenge the accuracy of the bible in terms of its claims. I was using Noah's Ark as an example. The claim that Noah could build an ark (about 450 feet long with 3 decks, made from wood) is impossible even with today's technology. The space that would be available, again is nowhere near to host *2 of every kind of animals*. I can point you to a source, and I don't believe you will believe the evidence.

    >life expectancy

    The reason that I think you won't believe the evidence is based on your response to the life expectancy data. What would possibly be the motivation that people will create false data. Obviously, Wikipedia is not a source of original data. However, the page references published data which can be challenged by anyone who have a better view of the information.

    On the other hand, there are obvious reason where creationwiki would provide false data to support their false claim.

    to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  99. >catholic vs christian

    You understand historically, christian is a break out group from catholic. I do not want to get into the specific of these religions. However, if you have any evidence, besides quoting bible, I would like to hear about it.

    >moral

    My moral comes from my ability of empathy and passion. The greatest motivation for me to do good is I feel good doing good.

    On the other hand, killing innocent babies, whoever doing that, is NOT a good moral example. I find it ironic that christian trying to claim moral high ground using the bible as the evidence. The bible is the worse example possible for doing evil.

    Another example 2 king 23-24 "As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." Now tell me how can this be just. Is laughing at someone being bald should be punished by capital punishment?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Re: Dan's spiraling into presuppositionalism a few comments ago......

    Adapted from presuppositionalist nonsense part III:

    The presupper (e.g. Sye/Dan) claims that their foremost presupposition is that God exists and is the source of truth, knowledge, logic, etc...But where does the presupper get this claim from? How can they account for it?

    In order to make such a claim, the presupper must first presuppose the existence of the very same things that God is supposedly the source of - truth, knowledge and logic

    - The presupper presupposes truth as they already accept their claim to be true.

    - The presupper presupposes knowledge as the very act of making the claim is itself a knowledge claim.

    - The presupper presupposes logic as they use logic to arrive at their claim.

    So the original presuppositions being made are actually that truth, knowledge and logic exist. The proof? Without those three things already existing and holding, they wouldn't be able to make the claim in the first place.

    Therefore it isn't necessary to claim that God accounts for these concepts, since they are already being presupposed in order to make such a claim.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Albert,

    >>What would possibly be the motivation that people will create false data.

    And in that same breath you claim:

    >>On the other hand, there are obvious reason where creationwiki would provide false data to support their false claim.

    Thanks very much for showing the irony of your bias and presuppositions. You are cracking me up.

    >>My moral comes from my ability of empathy and passion. The greatest motivation for me to do good is I feel good doing good.

    So morals are subjective then? So whatever makes you feel good is alright. Pedophiles believe what they do makes them feel good. Is that justified?

    >>The presupper (e.g. Sye/Dan) claims that their foremost presupposition is that God exists and is the source of truth, knowledge, logic, etc...But where does the presupper get this claim from? How can they account for it?

    I presuppose the God of the Bible, evidenced by the claims in it. No other god can be logically completed. Some people worship money but I took that to it's logical conclusion and money did not create man.

    I fully admit that my explanation is a presupposed God of the Bible. It is the only one that makes rational sense. You cannot make sense of your worldview.

    When I place myself in your worldview, all these questions arise in a naturalistic, materialistic conception of the universe. Such as, "how are we self aware?" Did mankind impose order so that rationality results? If so, then reality is then subjective rather then objective. Again it becomes irrational.

    Standing in your worldview I cannot justify reality, knowledge, logic, morality, value, meaning, purpose...or anything. When your principles are fully followed out there is no rationality to it. Christianity answers these questions simply. Christianity is the only rational worldview to hold. It simply is the only system of thought that does not destroy human experience to a meaningless something.

    >>Without those three things already existing and holding, they wouldn't be able to make the claim in the first place. Therefore it isn't necessary to claim that God accounts for these concepts, since they are already being presupposed in order to make such a claim.

    Yes, existing and holding. How do you account for that? Without accounting for logic how is it possible to know for certain of things?

    >>since they are already being presupposed in order to make such a claim.

    Yes, but how do you know with certainty that will never change? Your presuppositions are correct and right but you have to borrow from my worldview in order to come to that conclusion. There has to be a start in order to do such a thing. My start is God, what is yours?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Dan,

    No one has to borrow from your worldview for logic. And none of that Bahnsen screed changes the fact that everything you and I claim relies on the original presupposition that logic, knowledge and truth exist. Without these concepts you cannot even make the argument that God is the source of logic (go ahead and try!).

    We all presuppose logic and work from there, including you. If you disagree, and insist that your presupposition about God comes before this, then it is an illogical presupposition by default, since logic isn't already presupposed.

    That is, if logic isn't already presupposed then the statement "God is the source of logic" is no different from the statement "God is not the source of logic".

    Of course you could prove me wrong right now. Just account for God being the source of logic without using logic, truth or knowledge. If you can't, then honesty should force you to admit that these concepts are presupposed before God even enters the equation, thus negating the need to account for them.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Rhiggs,

    >>And none of that Bahnsen screed changes the fact that everything you and I claim relies on the original presupposition that logic, knowledge and truth exist.

    Yes it does, can you explain how that might be? (within your worldview)

    >>Without these concepts you cannot even make the argument that God is the source of logic (go ahead and try!).

    So can you show proof of your concept?

    Wiki says that proof of concept is a short and/or incomplete realization of a certain method or idea(s) to demonstrate its feasibility, or a demonstration in principle, whose purpose is to verify that some concept or theory is probably capable of being useful.

    The point here is that I can account for the laws of logic and I can justify reality, knowledge, logic, morality, value, meaning, purpose...or anything. You cannot.

    >>Of course you could prove me wrong right now. Just account for God being the source of logic without using logic, truth or knowledge.

    You are perfectly allowed to use logic to account for logic, how did you conclude otherwise? All forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Did you use logic to conclude that logic can have an explanation without logic? If so, then are the rules now subjective?

    >>If you can't, then honesty should force you to admit that these concepts are presupposed before God even enters the equation, thus negating the need to account for them.

    Not true, it is by only presupposing God can these "concepts" even make sense or be accounted for. There is no other explanation why logic itself exists. How can logic be a man made construct? If not man made then who/what made them? Nature? I can address that one if that is your answer. Is it?

    Now please account for logic within your worldview. Can you?

    If you can't account, then honesty should force you to admit that these concepts are presupposed with God being the equation, thus negating the need to account for the Atheist's worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  104. rhiggs,

    thank you for linking to your posts on presuppositionalist nonsense.

    I have come across many presupper and you have just given me the tool to respond to their circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Albert,

    Presuppositionalist nonsense?

    So things that cannot be addressed, or answered, is rendered nonsense?

    So life is nonsense to Atheists?

    *snicker*

    >>I have come across many presupper and you have just given me the tool to respond to their circular reasoning.

    So why is circular reasoning wrong, or anything for that matter, according to your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Dan,

    >data accuracy

    I am really sorry for you. People does thing for a purpose, there is motivation behind acts. Some of the motivation is purely altruistic, others not.

    Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced information. Being crowd-sourced, many people with different agenda will be monitoring the data like a hawk. The only information which can survive is the information which is factual and neutral.

    You have the right to not accept the data. I have mine too. However, it is obvious that for sites which have an agenda can have good reasons to falsify data - e.g. to fit the fictional data from the bible. If you cannot see that, it is your problem.

    You can believe Noah lived for 900 years. That's fine. People just have the right to laugh at your absurd belief, that's it!

    >moral subjectivity

    I would not say moral is subjective. However, I will argue that moral is relative. At different times, under different culture influence, people form different moral values.

    Nowhere in the bible is slavery condemned. There are verses in the bible about how one should treat one's slave - as long as one does not beat the slave so badly that the slave die at the scene or lost an eye or teeth, that would be OK. Nowadays, slavery is almost universally considered as immoral.

    Human seek happiness. This is almost universal. Again, this is also relative. Some culture does not value happiness highest. However, building one's pleasure on someone else' pain is NOT moral. Your suggestion that "Pedophiles believe what they do makes them feel good." is moral is twisting of what I said. That's is disgusting. Is it typical of christian?

    to be cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  107. Dan continuing...

    >"I don't know"

    If the 13.7 billion years of the life of the universe is condensed into 1 year, modern science has been here for only 1 second. There is nothing wrong with an honest answer that there are many things which we do not know.

    As has been demonstrated in the last 500 years, science is able to explain more and more and the domain for which we need religion has been reducing forever. What is left in religion today are dogmas, unsupported, ridiculous claims which require huge mental juggernaut to support the claims.

    Noah Ark - great mental argument has gone in to try in vein to support that old text. Noah lived for 900 years - a source for ridicule.

    God killing innocent babies, 42 children killed for the crime of laughing at someone's baldness ( 2 king 2;23-24) How would a moral sane person defend these?

    >change

    The problem of the errant words of god is that they cannot change. As we understand the reality better, we adjust our understanding based on the new found theory. That's progress.

    Scientific theories are provisional and are constantly being challenged in light of new observations and data. When necessary, we accept changes to the established theories. Newton's law of motion is a good example. Newton's law of motion is challenged by Einstein's theory of relativity.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dan and rhiggs,

    Dan said, "The point here is that I can account for the laws of logic and I can justify reality, knowledge, logic, morality, value, meaning, purpose...or anything. You cannot."

    What is the use of substituting an unknown to explain an unknown? What does god hypothesis give you? Does god give us knowledge? Even basic sanitation was not mentioned in the bible. Would it not be very useful for people 2000 years ago if they were told to wash their hands before handling food? Does the god explain any reality? red shift, cosmic background radiation, atoms, molecules?

    Moral from the bible? You must be joking. The bible is the best source for doing evils!

    Purpose and value of life: You form yours and I form mine. It does not have to be the same. That's the beauty of free-thinkers. If we share some value and some purpose, we can be good friends, else you walk you way and same for me. There is a provision thro'. I don't force my opinion on you and you the same. When you are marshalling the government to favour your religion, I have my rights to object and fight back.

    >all form of logic is circular

    Wrong! Do some abstract algebra please.

    ReplyDelete
  109. >So why is circular reasoning wrong, or anything for that matter, according to your worldview?

    Man, we are living in a reality! There is a starting point for everything. If your starting is circular, there is no way to check if what you are talking is related to reality.

    "God exists because the bible said so. The bible is the words of god." Once you started like this, there is no reality check possible. Hence you whole world view is based on an unsupported falsehood. In reality, god does not exist. In reality, many claims in the bible are false. But because you started your worldview based on a circular logic, you are not able to escape from that world view.

    On the other hand, if your world view is started with an observation in reality, you can form your world view matched with reality better. The actions you take will meet the reality better. You will be laughed at less.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Albert,

    >>The only information which can survive is the information which is factual and neutral.

    Complete and utter false!!! I have tried to change things to make it less biased or slanted towards an atheists worldview only to be locked out. Try it and see for yourself. You must understand there is no such thing as neutral. Wiki is monitored by gurus that hold a secular worldview. If you cannot see that, it is your problem. Test it, for me please!!!!!

    >>You can believe Noah lived for 900 years. That's fine. People just have the right to laugh at your absurd belief, that's it!

    And I have the right to ache in sorrow for the lost that end up in hell for their stubbornness, beliefs, and rebellion.

    >>At different times, under different culture influence, people form different moral values...Human seek happiness. This is almost universal. Again, this is also relative.

    Ahh, thanks for that. So if Australia finds that pedophilia is a natural, and welcomed, pass time to "get them ready" to spread the seeds of the Aussies then you would be just fine with it as long as it is with parental consent? Would you be fine with street orgies or puppy skeet shooting? Point is that, if "humans seek happiness" and puppy skeet shooting satisfies that, and helps everyone, then are you fine with it? Are morals truly relative?

    "Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself–what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself–that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring–the strength of character–to throw off its shackles…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure that I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me–after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited."

    Ted Bundy, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 3rd edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 1999), 31-32.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Albert,

    >>"God exists because the bible said so.

    Logic exists because I have logic, a round we go!

    ReplyDelete
  112. >wikepedi locked out

    I cannot say for the policy of wikipedia. I do know that there are pages which are constantly being modified by people with selfish motivation and hence they may have been locked.

    On the issue of life expectancy, why would any country or organisation to falsify the data. Do you really believe that someone 2000 years or more ago can live for 900 years? This is a remarkable claim. Please use some sense and at least question whether that is possible or not. OK, I know, god is possible for everything. Just Bullsh*t!

    >pedophilia

    I am really sorry to say to you that you are twisting my words and this is disgusting. Did I say I endorse pedophilia? Building one's pleasure on someone's pain is immoral - that's what I said. Shame on you!

    >moral and value

    Morally, thou shall not kill is almost universal.

    In the battlefield, you are pointing your gun at your enemy and you enemy is also pointing his at you. Would you pull the trigger first?

    You still have not respond to whether killing 42 children because they laughed at someone's baldness is moral or not.

    >logic

    Logic is an emergent property. Have some education please.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Albert,

    >>Please use some sense and at least question whether that is possible or not.

    Is your claim that it is not possible, at all, that people lived to be that age. Noah's wife had her first child at 90, is that not possible?

    >>In the battlefield, you are pointing your gun at your enemy and you enemy is also pointing his at you. Would you pull the trigger first?

    I would never be put in that situation because I would have pulled the trigger a long time before the face to face. My Sig 556 would come in handy long before that.

    >>You still have not respond to whether killing 42 children because they laughed at someone's baldness is moral or not.

    (2 Kings 2:23-24) I sought help from ICR's "Days of Praise" for this one,

    Killing 42 children because they laughed at someone's baldness is an immoral act. But is that what was going on? The truth is, however, that Elisha did not curse little children at all. The Hebrew word for "children" (Strong's H5288) used with the phrase "little children" (Strong's H2945) can be applied to any child from infancy to adolescence. The word for the 42 "children" torn by the bears, however, is a different word commonly translated "young men." (Strong's H3206)

    Actually, both words are used more often for young men than for little children.

    The situation evidently involved a gang of young hoodlums of various ages, led by the older ones, with all of them no doubt instigated by the pagan priests and idolatrous citizens of Bethel. The bears which suddenly emerged from the woods "tare" (not necessarily fatally in all cases) 42 of the older hooligans.

    The jeering exhortation to "go up, thou bald head," was both a sarcastic reference to Elijah’s supposed ascension, as well as an insult to God’s prophet. This was actually a challenge to God and could not be excused. So God made good--in miniature--on a warning issued long before: "And if ye walk contrary unto me. . . . I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children" (Leviticus 26:21-22). It can be a dangerous thing, for young or old, to gratuitously insult the true God and His Word.

    >>Logic is an emergent property.

    O'rly? How so?

    >>Have some education please.

    Oh, I have...some.

    ReplyDelete
  114. >Is your claim that it is not possible, at all, that people lived to be that age. Noah's wife had her first child at 90, is that not possible?

    I cannot claim that it is impossible. However, I would require significant evidence before I will be able to believe that it would be true for people at that time to have that kind of age. There is no way, just because the bible says so, that I will automatically believe such claims. Any evidence besides the holely book?

    >kill

    My battlefield scenario is to illustrate that moral is relative. In the battlefield situation, "thou shall not kill" does not apply.

    > 2 king 2:23-24

    How many christian will have gone that far to justify a couple of verses in the bible. Even as interpreted, the morality of killing young men because they laughed at someone's baldness is questionable at best. The bible did not say another else except on laughing at the baldness. Adding other unruly behaviour in your interpretation does not lessen the immorality of killing someone.

    >It can be a dangerous thing, for young or old, to gratuitously insult the true God and His Word.

    Only if god exists. Since it does not exist, who cares!

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dan said,

    "You are perfectly allowed to use logic to account for logic, how did you conclude otherwise? All forms of reason is circular in nature, one must use logic to explain logic. Did you use logic to conclude that logic can have an explanation without logic? If so, then are the rules now subjective?

    Now please account for logic within your worldview. Can you?
    "


    I agree that you have to use logic to account for logic. Thank you for confirming my point. Now take it a bit further Dan. You also have to use logic to even attempt to account for God or anything else. Thus, logic (along with truth and knowledge) is the original presupposition. These concepts are axiomatic.

    My account for logic is this:

    Logic exists. Any attempt to prove the opposite must use logic, thus making logic an axiom.

    Same for truth and knowledge. Try and disprove them without using them in the disproof. Impossible!

    The concept of God is not an axiom because a potential disproof of God would obviously not rely on the existence of God

    So you see I don't need God to account for logic (it is axiomatic), but on the contrary, you need logic to account for God. If you disagree that you need logic to account for God, then this automatically makes your account for God illogical, by virtue of the fact that you are not initially presupposing logic.

    Logic is your original presupposition Dan. By inserting God into your account for what is already presupposed is clearly fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Albert,

    >>However, I would require significant evidence before I will be able to believe that it would be true for people at that time to have that kind of age. There is no way, just because the bible says so, that I will automatically believe such claims.

    Fair enough I completely understand.

    >>Any evidence besides the holely book?

    For now? None. That will be changing soon though and when you see the "evidence" please fall to your knees and believe.

    >>In the battlefield situation, "thou shall not kill" does not apply.

    Wrong, The bible is filled with Military War references, or corporal punishments, or to protect the inocent. You are confused, I believe. Think of it this way. Killing is definitely allowed and encouraged. Murder is not. If someone were to break into my house with intent to do harm on my kids, I am fully justified and commanded to protect my kids and fill that person with as much lead as my finger can deliver. (for dramatic effect)

    >> Adding other unruly behaviour in your interpretation does not lessen the immorality of killing someone.

    An infinite punishment for an infinite crime.

    When you lie to someone(sin by breaking the 9th Commandment) you are not lying to that person but to God Himself. Lying is a spiritual event. It's not merely a physical action. Lying is an offense against God. When His creations lie, He is ashamed of His creation and simply separates Himself.

    If I lie to a child, I'll get away with it.
    If I lie to my wife, I'll be sleeping on the couch.
    If I lie to a police officer, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.
    If I lie to a judge, it's called perjury, and I'll go to prison.
    If I lie to the government, it can be called treason, and the punishment might be death.

    So how much more egregious is a lie to God? Psst read Revelation 21:8 for the answer)

    >>Only if god exists. Since it does not exist, who cares!

    Are you absolutely certain of that? Would you bet your life on it? Because you are.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Rhiggs,

    >>Logic exists. Any attempt to prove the opposite must use logic, thus making logic an axiom.

    (x) is true to prove (x) is false you must use (x), so (x) is a "jelly bean"?

    Try this, you know, to be more logical.

    Logic exists. Any attempt to prove the opposite must use logic, thus logic exists.

    You see? No moving goal posts here.

    >>Same for truth and knowledge. Try and disprove them without using them in the disproof. Impossible!

    I completely agree.

    >>The concept of God is not an axiom because a potential disproof of God would obviously not rely on the existence of God

    Bzzt, not true. You must account for logic, without God, in order to disprove God. If you cannot, then you cannot.

    So, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?

    If you cannot, then you cannot and therefore God exists. Why? Because, and you know it's coming, the proof of God’s existence, is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything. Proof requires logic. One must be able to account for the laws of logic (without God), or the proof ends in an infinite regress of ‘and how do you know that?’ You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything.

    >>Logic is your original presupposition Dan. By inserting God into your account for what is already presupposed is clearly fallacious.

    Noe God created logic is my original presupposition Rhiggs. By removing God into your account you MUST account for logic without the use of God in order to show me that God does not exist. Otherwise you are using God's space/time, planet, air to breath, and logic to prove of God's non existence. Since you cannot, doing so is clearly fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Dan,

    "Logic exists. Any attempt to prove the opposite must use logic, thus logic exists."

    Well done. That is an account for logic. It is axiomatic. Notice that God was not needed.


    "Bzzt, not true. You must account for logic, without God, in order to disprove God. If you cannot, then you cannot."

    Fine with me as I have accounted for logic without God. Oh and if that is your stipulation, then by the same token you cannot prove God unless you first account for logic without God. Can't have it both ways Dan.

    We both presuppose logic before anything else. I understand why you don't want to admit this. But as I said, if you do not originally presuppose logic, then all of your claims are illogical by default, and thus not worthy of consideration. Regurgitating a few refuted catchphrases from Sye/Bahnsen makes no difference.

    If you disagree that logic is your original presupposition, then please explain your original presupposition without using logic. You should be able to do this if logic is not necessary. Good luck!


    "You have not accounted for the laws of logic, and are therefore unable to prove anything."

    That is untrue on so many levels Dan.

    First, I have accounted for the laws of logic. They are axiomatic. They exist and any attempt to disprove this fact requires logic.

    Second, you certainly do not need to account for logic in order to use it, and hence prove something. We all use logic everyday regardless of our beliefs, so that statement is just plain ridiculous. You learn how to prove Pythagorus' theorem as a kid without any need to account for logic. Your statement is like saying that one must understand the inner workings of a car in order to drive one.

    Third, you are actually the one who has not accounted for logic. You are just saying that it came from a supernatural being. That explains precisely nothing because your supernatural being is not an axiom and so must first be proven. This has never happened and so your account is worthless. Anyway, if you were someday successful in proving your God, you would inevitably have used logic in the process, meaning logic is a prerequisite for God, not the other way around.


    "Noe God created logic is my original presupposition Rhiggs"

    OK then. If God created logic, this means that he existed before logic. And so he is not bound by the laws of logic and can be both God and not God at the same time, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  119. >>Same for truth and knowledge. Try and disprove them without using them in the disproof. Impossible!

    "I completely agree."


    Meaning that you also presuppose truth and knowledge before God even enters the equation.

    Great.

    If you flip flop now and claim that "God created logic" is actually your original presupposition, then you are dismissing the necessity of truth, and so your presupposition is false by default.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Rhiggs,

    >>Oh and if that is your stipulation, then by the same token you cannot prove God unless you first account for logic without God.

    O'rly? Logic is contingent on God but not the other way around. I said this before but God exists outside space-time therefore space-time is contingent on God. God is not, on the other hand, contingent on space-time or logic. Space-time or logic cannot exist without God but God could exist without space-time and logic, thus the term, not contingent.

    When (X) is said to cause (Y) this means that (Y) is contingent on (X) and that (X) preceded (Y). A characteristic of (Y) is that it is that which is caused by (X) so the existence of (Y) implies the existence of (X). This, however, does not mean that (Y) caused (X). (Causality)

    >>Third, you are actually the one who has not accounted for logic. You are just saying that it came from a supernatural being.

    Is that not an account for logic by definition?

    >>Anyway, if you were someday successful in proving your God, you would inevitably have used logic in the process, meaning logic is a prerequisite for God, not the other way around.

    See explanation above.

    >>If God created logic, this means that he existed before logic. And so he is not bound by the laws of logic and can be both God and not God at the same time, yes?

    I like this question, but no. Also, see explanation above. God, being (x), is not contingent on logic, being (y), so the logical laws are an merely an expression of God's nature, but not that God needs logic to exist.

    Thanks for playing though.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "O'rly? Logic is contingent on God but not the other way around. I said this before but God exists outside space-time therefore space-time is contingent on God. God is not, on the other hand, contingent on space-time or logic. Space-time or logic cannot exist without God but God could exist without space-time and logic, thus the term, not contingent.

    When (X) is said to cause (Y) this means that (Y) is contingent on (X) and that (X) preceded (Y). A characteristic of (Y) is that it is that which is caused by (X) so the existence of (Y) implies the existence of (X). This, however, does not mean that (Y) caused (X). (Causality)
    "


    LOL!

    And guess what Dan. You had to presuppose logic in order to deduce the above. As I said, if you disagree try and repeat your answer without using logic. This should be possible if God is not contingent on logic.

    Of course, if God can exist without logic, as you declare, then he could be both God and not God at the same time. And thus you have just proved the non-existence of God. Well done!


    >>Third, you are actually the one who has not accounted for logic. You are just saying that it came from a supernatural being.

    "Is that not an account for logic by definition?"

    No because, as I explained, God is not an axiom since he is unproven. Logic itself is an axiom as any disproof of it's existence would require logic.


    "God, being (x), is not contingent on logic, being (y)"

    (As above)

    OK then, explain and account for God without using logic. This should be possible if God is not contingent on logic.


    "so the logical laws are an merely an expression of God's nature, but not that God needs logic to exist."

    If God does not need logic to exist, as you declare, then he could be both God and not God at the same time. And thus you have just proved the non-existence of God. Well done!


    It's simple Dan....

    You claim that God is the source of logic or that he created logic, and that this claim is your foremost presupposition. But this automatically dismisses the concepts of truth and logic (as they are not being presupposed), and so your presupposition is both false and illogical by default.

    You can rectify this by admitting that your original presuppositions are actually truth, logic and knowledge. How about it?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Rhiggs,

    >>Of course, if God can exist without logic, as you declare, then he could be both God and not God at the same time. And thus you have just proved the non-existence of God. Well done!

    Not so fast, bucko! could be both God and not God at the same time. He is God and He was Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity shows evidence of God not contingent on logic.

    "I have exercised the demons, this house is clear."

    >>God is not an axiom since he is unproven.

    Unproven? For who, a few fringe skeptics? No this planet, over 5 billion, knows there is a God.

    >>OK then, explain and account for God without using logic.

    See above. Plus, I am within that space/time constraint. I need logic to describe anything, even your resistance to God.

    >>You claim that God is the source of logic or that he created logic, and that this claim is your foremost presupposition.

    True.

    >> But this automatically dismisses the concepts of truth and logic (as they are not being presupposed), and so your presupposition is both false and illogical by default.

    Wrong. They are merely rejected by a skeptic. I can reject evidence also but it does no good in life so I tend to stay away from that atheistic kind of dogma.

    >>You can rectify this by admitting that your original presuppositions are actually truth, logic and knowledge. How about it?

    Not in the mood. How about a back rub first. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  123. >For now? None. That will be changing soon though

    You mean how people manufacture false evidence to support myths like those uncovered by James Randi.

    >Kill and murder

    Thou shall not kill is not the same as thou shall not murder. Which is in the ten commandment?

    >An infinite punishment for an infinite crime.

    Are you saying that laughing at someone's baldness is an infinite crime? Are you kidding or are you insane?

    >Only if god exists. Since it does not exist, who cares!

    >Are you absolutely certain of that? Would you bet your life on it? Because you are.

    As sure as you believe that you are worshipping the true god.

    There are thousands of gods people have worshipped throughout history. None of them is more credible than any others. You have rejected all but one. I just go one step further.

    Furthermore, among all the possible gods, you have chosen to to worship the worse among them. The christian god is nasty, cruel, blood-thirsty, unjust and narrow-minded. Just because there is no evidence of his existence and because I cannot believe in non-sense with blind faith, it threatens to send me into eternal fire. That's the worse of the worse of all possible god. I will never bent my knees before such as horrible creature even if it exists.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Dan,

    "I need logic to describe anything, even your resistance to God."

    Spot on! And so, even if you are correct that God is the source of logic (which I naturally disagree with), then in order to even comprehend this fact you must first presuppose logic (and truth and knowledge).

    Similarly, in order to even comprehend the Trinity (even though it is inherently illogical) you must first presuppose logic (and truth and knowledge).



    I said >> But this automatically dismisses the concepts of truth and logic (as they are not being presupposed), and so your presupposition is both false and illogical by default.

    "Wrong. They are merely rejected by a skeptic."


    Are you implying that I reject truth and logic? If so, you are wrong. I presuppose truth and logic. You on the otherhand have admitted that you do not, meaning that YOU are rejecting the necessity of truth and logic prior to your presuppositions about God, meaning that your presuppositions are false and illogical by default.


    This doesn't seem to be sinking in. I'll say it again.

    Dan, if you presuppose ANYTHING before truth and logic, then truth and logic do not hold for that particular presupposition, meaning it is both false and illogical.

    In fact, all that matters here is your personal presupposition, not reality. You might be 100% correct, but your presupposition is still false and illogical, unless of course you admit that logic and truth are your original presuppositions.

    Without presupposing truth and logic the claim that "God is the source of logic" is exactly the same as "God is NOT the source of logic", regardless of whether God is actually the source of logic or not. As I said, it is your personal presupposition that matters here.

    How can it be true, if the concept of truth isn't presupposed?

    Are you getting it yet?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Albert,

    >>Thou shall not kill is not the same as thou shall not murder. Which is in the ten commandment?

    O'rly? Any evidence of that bare assertion? If you look at the ten commandments and read thou shall not (murder) in Exodus 20:13. All you would have to do is to look to the very next page that says if a man (murders) another man he shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:12) [Rush?] So capitol punishment if fully justified. Protection of self and others are fully justified in the Bible. Do you need referenced verses? I can go find them, they are not at the top of my memory at the moment. They are there though. I can make the case very, very easily.

    >>Are you saying that laughing at someone's baldness is an infinite crime?

    Did you even read what I wrote? Please go back and do so if you did not. Here does this help:

    The jeering exhortation to "go up, thou bald head," was both a sarcastic reference to Elijah’s supposed ascension, as well as an insult to God’s prophet. This was actually a challenge to God and could not be excused. So God made good--in miniature--on a warning issued long before: "And if ye walk contrary unto me. . . . I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children" (Leviticus 26:21-22). Clear?

    >>As sure as you believe that you are worshipping the true god.

    Yes. Absolutely sure.

    >>There are thousands of gods people have worshipped throughout history.

    True, and even today money may be some people's god, but the monotheistic God was a very radical thing. People may have worshiped god(s) but they were not the Creator of the Universe. That is God, Jesus, the one to count on for truth.

    >>None of them is more credible than any others.

    Ah, dude, the Creator of the Universe? Hello!

    >>You have rejected all but one. I just go one step further.

    Said the atheistic sheep.

    Thanks for admitting that you reject God though. It will help you understand things clearer when you are facing Him.

    >>The christian god is nasty, cruel, blood-thirsty, unjust and narrow-minded.

    If that is how you view love then so be it. BTW it is written in the Bible that you would feel that way. Who would of thunk. (Psalm 10:4, 1 John 2:16)

    >> I will never bent my knees before such as horrible creature even if it exists.

    Yea, the Bible said you would act like that also. Predictable.

    You will bow though (Romans 14:11, Philippians 2:10)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Rhiggs,

    >>Similarly, in order to even comprehend the Trinity (even though it is inherently illogical) you must first presuppose logic (and truth and knowledge).

    Great we both understand that since I am in a world that logic has to be used to describe anything. Your point is? I showed the evidence that God stands outside of logic and that Christ has always existed in the Triune God. (Genesis 1:26, Matthew 28:19, John 1:1,14, John 10:30)

    Then you rant that that is not good enough...again your presuppositions are showing. That is why it is your presuppositions that must be changed in order for you to understand Him. After all these years I fully understand the only way for that to happen in Atheists is what we refer to as, a Miracle. I am a fine example of such a miracle. I feel for you. You will not get to inherit the Kingdom of God and God will put you where He pleases. He will rule you, like it or not.

    >>Dan, if you presuppose ANYTHING before truth and logic, then truth and logic do not hold for that particular presupposition, meaning it is both false and illogical.

    Yes you are stating that but that is not the case. Tell me WHY you feel that is the case. So everyone must presuppose logic before truth and logic so then " it is both false and illogical?" Yea that makes sense. Please explain the steps to come to the conclusion that ANY presup is false.

    >>You might be 100% correct, but your presupposition is still false and illogical, unless of course you admit that logic and truth are your original presuppositions.

    Why is this so hard to understand? To use logic you must presuppose its validity and reliability.

    >>How can it be true, if the concept of truth isn't presupposed?

    So can it be truth if it is presupposed that it is not truth? The answer is yes. So if you are saying presuppositions can be either wrong or right, then I agree but that is a given.

    Now, are the laws of logic dependable and be counted on? If yes, then how do you know that? How are you certain of that?

    Now as the record spins: It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.

    In contrast, you are stuck in an absurd worldview where you claim to sense the validity of your senses and reason the validity of your reasoning and are certain that we can't know things for certain.

    ReplyDelete
  127. " I am a fine example of such a miracle."

    Wow, miracles are really being downsized these days, huh?!!!


    How many times must I explain it?

    Your presuppositions about God require logic and truth to hold FIRST, otherwise they can be discarded as false and illogical, due to the absence of presupposed logic and truth.

    The presuppositions of logic and truth do not need God, they are self-evident by the impossibility of the contrary, as both of us have shown.

    Your continual use of logic and truth to defend your presuppositions only further backs this up. So by all means, keep it up... :D

    ReplyDelete
  128. Rhiggs,

    >>Wow, miracles are really being downsized these days, huh?!!!

    I know, huh? Why does He want little ol me? I can't figure it out either. I am happy He loves me enough to save me.

    He must hate you. :7)

    >>The presuppositions of logic and truth do not need God, they are self-evident by the impossibility of the contrary, as both of us have shown.

    OK great this is where I want to focus here. How are they self evident? How do you know that? Did they exist before the universe? If so how could that even be, within your worldview? In other words, how do you account for it?

    Is your answer that it is self evident? That is an acceptable answer for you? If so,then if I say God is self evident, that would suffice?

    If not, then explain yourself for your hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "How are they self evident? How do you know that?"

    No hypocrisy

    Any disproof of my presupposition, that of logic and truth, would require logic and truth. Hence it is self-evident.

    But any disproof of your presupposition of God would not require God. Hence it is not self-evident.


    Anything you presuppose before logic and truth can be discarded as false and illogical, due to the absence of presupposed logic and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Rhiggs,

    You have game, but you are missing the mark here.

    >>But any disproof of your presupposition of God would not require God.

    God is is the causality of logic. So it would be impossible to discuss logic without God. God is self evident from the existence of logic and thought. You must borrow a worldview that God exists in order to discuss anything or work on the assumptions that logic has NEVER, or will NEVER change. Your certainty is the result of God's collective natural and special revelation. That would be like saying planets can exist without a solar system when the definition of the term planet means that it is a satellite around the sun. You cannot call it a planet without the sun, and you cannot call "logic" without God. You still are borrowing from God (Solar system) to describe logic (planet). That goes back to my example of causality.

    When (X) is said to cause (Y) this means that (Y) is contingent on (X) and that (X) preceded (Y). A characteristic of (Y) is that it is that which is caused by (X) so the existence of (Y) implies the existence of (X). This, however, does not mean that (Y) caused (X). (Causality)

    When (solar systems) is said to cause (planets) this means that (planets) is/are contingent on (solar systems) and that (solar systems) preceded (planets). A characteristic of (planets) is that it is that which is caused by (solar systems) so the existence of (planets) implies the existence of (solar system). This, however, does not mean that (planets) caused (solar systems).

    Can a moon exist outside a planet? Nope, it is contingent on a planet to define it as a moon, otherwise it is something else. You cannot explain logic (moon) without using logic (moon) but it is contingent on God (planet). Logic implies the existence of God. Otherwise it is not logic, or logical.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "God is is the causality of logic.... etc etc etc "

    *Sigh*

    In order to claim that or anything else, you must first presuppose logic and truth.

    Anything you presuppose before logic and truth can be discarded as false and illogical, due to the absence of presupposed logic and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Rhiggs,

    >>Anything you presuppose before logic and truth can be discarded as false and illogical, due to the absence of presupposed logic and truth.

    *Sigh* indeed!

    I get that part, but you cannot even account for logic, using logic, within your worldview. It makes zero sense that in a random, chance universe, there was always logic, order, and systems. Get it? Your worldview does not make any sense. That is the question that is still out there. How do you account for logic?

    Logic of the gaps?

    We understand also that you accept it as an axiom but remember this 'pretty little ditty'?

    "You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true. For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms, and also that there is invalid reasoning and I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything."

    Something caused logic to be orderly. Can you postulate how that might have been, within your worldview? We all understand that you don't know but let's try using some of that logical thought and figure out how it got there in the first place. How did order come from a chance and random construct? Did logic evolve as you postulate, within your worldview, for EVERYTHING else? If not then what CAUSED the laws of logic? The universe KNEW man would need logical order?

    We are so close. Please do not merely repeat yourself. I am trying to follow this to its logical conclusion. The issue is not if logic exists or not. The issue is why logic exists, if not God? If you cannot account for logic, then you are in that spiral of an illogical worldview yet again.

    Wait I just went back to see where this went wrong and I found it.

    You said: >>You claim that God is the source of logic or that he created logic, and that this claim is your foremost presupposition.

    I said: True.

    You said: >> But this automatically dismisses the concepts of truth and logic (as they are not being presupposed), and so your presupposition is both false and illogical by default.


    Let's make it perfectly clear as to not confuse the situation further. The absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God. Since God is eternal, the laws of logic are too. Man, being made in God's image, is capable of discovering these laws of logic. He does not invent them. I can account for the existence of the laws of logic by acknowledging they originate from God and that Man is only discovering them. Clear? That is how I "account" for logic. Now how do you account for them?

    With love.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "I get that part"

    No Dan, you clearly don’t get it. All your talk of the universe and random chance and solar systems and everything else is very interesting and is certainly worthy of debate, but that is not what I am talking about here.

    As I mentioned earlier, I am not talking about reality nor am I concerned with the ‘source of logic’. I’m talking about your personal presupposition. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you cannot hold your presupposition without already presupposing logic and truth.

    You believe your presupposition to be both true and logical, but how can it be if you haven’t already presupposed the concepts of truth and logic?


    "The issue is not if logic exists or not."

    I agree


    "The issue is why logic exists, if not God?"

    Eh, no. Maybe that’s your issue (which would explain why you don’t get what I’m talking about). My issue is that you CLEARLY have to presuppose logic and truth before even beginning to think about your other presupposition that God is the source of logic.

    Imagine a reality without logic and truth. Could you still hold your presupposition about God?

    If you say yes, then you clearly don’t understand my point.

    If you say God is the source of logic again, then you clearly don’t understand my point (because you cannot make a logical and true statement in the absence of presupposed logic and truth).

    This is why I have to repeat myself

    ReplyDelete
  134. "Atheism does not require faith".

    Hahahahahahaha! Atheism requires the highest amounts of faith, in the sense of "believing in something that you know isn't true".

    But then, you characters write the rules, don't you? YOU choose what is to be accepted, and acceptable. I have seen it in these discussions, if something doesn't fit the atheistic nonsensensical cosmology, it is rejected out of hand. You do not admit to bias, but pretend that you are unbiased and objective.

    News flash! Nobody is completely unbiased. Atheists have deluded themselves into believing that their philosophy of science is unbiased and objective. Then you act like the primitive ancestors that you pretend we evolved from and throw rocks at the evidences that you refuse to consider.

    Science, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  135. >"Atheism does not require faith".

    >Hahahahahahaha! Atheism requires the highest amounts of faith, in the sense of "believing in something that you know isn't true".

    Once again, atheism is the position that there is not sufficient evidence for one to affirm the existence of a god. Tell me how seeing no evidence as requiring "faith"?

    >But then, you characters write the rules, don't you?

    No, atheists do NOT write any rules. We just cannot believe in all the claims made in the bible without supporting evidence. Show me some evidence, if you can.


    >YOU choose what is to be accepted, and acceptable.

    Yes, I do demand evidence to be verifiable, repeatable and is available to everyone. Is that too much a demand on an all mighty god?

    >I have seen it in these discussions, if something doesn't fit the atheistic nonsensensical cosmology, it is rejected out of hand. You do not admit to bias, but pretend that you are unbiased and objective.

    I do reject some non-sense such as at the time of Noah, say 5000 years ago, people was able to build an ark, large enough to house two of *every* kind of animals.

    The current standard model of cosmology can explain why the light coming from the distant galaxies are shifted towards the red, why there is the background noise when TV stations are switched off. Can Genesis explain any of these?

    >News flash! Nobody is completely unbiased.

    Well said. This is particular so for the theists.

    >Atheists have deluded themselves into believing that their philosophy of science is unbiased and objective.

    I don't think anyone within the scientific community would claim a complete unbiased view. However, the scientific process aims to remove as much bias as possible. Take for example when someone claims to discover a new observation. Everyone wants to see the observation themselves. This is quite a contrast to divine evidence, isn't it? So far I have not seen a single god-intervention demonstrated. When scientist publishes paper, it goes through double-blind review process. That is the reviewer does not know who is the author and the author does not know who is/are the reviewers. Can any creationist's claim survive such review process?

    >Then you act like the primitive ancestors that you pretend we evolved from and throw rocks at the evidences that you refuse to consider.

    Show me the evidence and we shall examine it. Don't just make unsupported assertions. Have a backbone and show some evidence if you can.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>