Prove(or provide overwhelming evidence) to me the existance, or non existance of God

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy

The guy who pointed out the Bethlehem problem to me has a theology degree and about twenty years experience as an ordained Church of Christ minister.

Ckweb sure seems to think otherwise. He apparently has a theology degree.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

This would only apply to carbon-dating, which makes assumptions about the rate of production of carbon-14.

C14 production has been calibrated with tree ring dating back to about 8000 years ago and there is a project with a lake that has annual layers to calibrate all the way back to 30,000 years ago. The calibrated C14 levels are within 5% of the predicted levels so it’s not just an assumption.

There is no way that the Flood could mess up other forms of radiometric dating,

I don't see how it could mess up ALL C14 dating either. It sure can't mess up tree ring dating. The only thing that messes up C14 dating is contamination with other sources of carbon or some ignoramus forgetting that the carbon must have come from an atmospheric source for it to dateable. C14 can't be used to date oceanic life because of that.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


Oh, come off it. It might help your worldview to believe that everybody who is skeptical is also narrow-minded, but unfortunately for you, it just isn't true.

Huh?!? You are the one who accused CyberShy of being a Fundamentalist when his posts clearly reveal he is not. And then when he clarified it again, you wrote

I couldn't tell whether you were doing so out a genuine desire/need/whatever to show that the bible was reliable or whether you were doing so in order to play devil's advocate.

That means you think there are only two options: either a person has a genuine desire to show that the Bible is reliable (which must mean a fundamentalist to you) or a person is playing devil's advocate (in other words, they don't believe the Bible is reliable). I am pointing out that there are more options than that . . .

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Ckweb sure seems to think otherwise. He apparently has a theology degree.

What do I think otherwise?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy

*if* you still stick to your form of evolution,
than it still does not work.

Say you have monkeys with inteligence 1 up to 10.
The avg would be 5.5, right?
Natural selection will remove the 1-4 monkeys, so only 6-10 are left over. Now the avg will be 8. If you continue this way, in the end, there will be only monkeys with level 10.

No. That would only occur if the 1-4 monkeys weren't bright enough to survive. A monkey doesn't need to be supremely intelligent to survive. Only a species that is in need of more brains is likely to evolve something that is so biologically expensive. Brains take a lot of energy to support and to form. Without some need for more its disadvantageous to have a larger brain. The question is why our ancestors needed so much expensive tissue, not why monkeys don't have more of it.

The question stays the same, will monkeys with human supervision ever write a book of shakespear?

CyberShy

No. They may, after evolving to become something that is no longer a monkey, write a book that is not Shakespeare. However if you were to have a passel of monkeys pounding away at a passel of computers AND used a filter to retain any similarity to Shakespeare I suspect it wouldn't take forever for you get a considerable degree of congruence. Random chance isn't going to do it for so massive a project.

Evolution is not random. It’s directed by the environment.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


What do I think otherwise?

You seem to have a higher opinion of theology degrees than Cybershy does.

After all, you went to the effort to get one.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Huh?!? You are the one who accused CyberShy of being a Fundamentalist when his posts clearly reveal he is not.

Accused, eh? Interesting choice of words. Let's see what I actually wrote...

Originally posted by loinburger
I said "Cybershy and/or Lars," because while Lars is arguing from a fundamentalist's perspective by accepting the biblical flood account as truth, I couldn't really tell from your posts whether you were taking the fundamentalist's perspective or not.

Since when does the phrase "I couldn't really tell from your posts whether you were taking the fundamentalist's perspective or not" translate into an accusation? Don't be so paranoid.

Originally posted by ckweb
That means you think there are only two options:

Does it now? Apparently you missed the part where I said

Originally posted by loinburger
You kept arguing over (what I would consider) insignificant points about questionable biblical prophecies

There's no reason to argue over an insignificant passage of the bible, unless you're playing devil's advocate or unless your worldview requires that even the insignificant passages of the bible are correct. The former does not rule out the possibility that you genuinely believe that the significant passages of the bible are correct (you're the one who came up with that idea, not me), but the latter is fundamentalism. Your insistence on interpreting all of my posts in the worst possible fashion (apparently even going so far as to ignore the parts that don't fit your worldview that I must be narrow-minded if I'm skeptical) is bordering on the pathological.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred


You seem to have a higher opinion of theology degrees than Cybershy does.

After all, you went to the effort to get one.

Oh, yes I do have a higher opinion of theology degrees, provided of course they earned at a mainstream University, University College, or College. My undergraduate degree was actually Religion & Theology, just for the record.

Thanks for clarifying.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by loinburger


Accused, eh? Interesting choice of words. Let's see what I actually wrote...

Okay, maybe accused was a strong word. Does "suggested" work better for you?

Since when does the phrase "I couldn't really tell from your posts whether you were taking the fundamentalist's perspective or not" translate into an accusation? Don't be so paranoid.

That's not what you wrote initially. You wrote, speaking to me,

I thought that you were arguing in favor of fundamentalism, like Cybershy and/or Lars.

Sounds to me like you were making an assumption, at the very least, about CyberShy.

There's no reason to argue over an insignificant passage of the bible, unless you're playing devil's advocate or unless your worldview requires that even the insignificant passages of the bible are correct. The former does not rule out the possibility that you genuinely believe that the significant passages of the bible are correct (you're the one who came up with that idea, not me), but the latter is fundamentalism. Your insistence on interpreting all of my posts in the worst possible fashion (apparently even going so far as to ignore the parts that don't fit your worldview that I must be narrow-minded if I'm skeptical) is bordering on the pathological.

What you consider "insignificant" and what CyberShy considers "insignificant" are quite obviously two very different things. The prophecies were obviously of some importance to CyberShy as they are a personal basis for his belief in God.

Oh, btw, no need to resort to ad hominen attacks . . .

I never accused you of being narrow-minded; I simply pointed out that your posts thus far have suggested that there are only two types of people who support the Bible's reliability: (1) Fundamentalists, and (2) Devil's Advocates. You now seem to have accepted my point that there might be a third type; namely, a non-Fundamentalist believer.

[Adalbertus]

Evolution is not random. It?s directed by the environment.

To avoid confusion. The mutations are random. The natural selection gives advantageous mutations a higher chance to survive. Mutation+selection=evolution which gets its direction through selection, and not mutation.

There is a problem to a (naive) view of the typing-monkey <-> evolution comparison. Normally one would assume the typing monkeys type 50 pages and the supervising human says "ok" if everything is typed alright. The evolution makes small steps, and therefore can go faster in the correct direction: So the correct typing-monkey comparison would be that as soon as the first n letters is correct the human supervisor says that from now on all first n letters have to be the same. Or for evolution: Even a slightly brighter brain or a slightly better eye gets rewarded.

Oh the good old times when researchers got excited when they found a principle which would save God detail work. (D'Alemberts principle of least action in mechanics was hailed as "the only principle which has the dignity to be God's".)

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

To avoid confusion. The mutations are random. The natural selection gives advantageous mutations a higher chance to survive. Mutation+selection=evolution which gets its direction through selection, and not mutation.

There is a problem to a (naive) view of the typing-monkey <-> evolution comparison. Normally one would assume the typing monkeys type 50 pages and the supervising human says "ok" if everything is typed alright. The evolution makes small steps, and therefore can go faster in the correct direction: So the correct typing-monkey comparison would be that as soon as the first n letters is correct the human supervisor says that from now on all first n letters have to be the same. Or for evolution: Even a slightly brighter brain or a slightly better eye gets rewarded.

Oh the good old times when researchers got excited when they found a principle which would save God detail work. (D'Alemberts principle of least action in mechanics was hailed as "the only principle which has the dignity to be God's".)

I really appreciate your latter observation . . . it's a valid point, which bespeaks the fact that the growth of the field of science owes a great deal to the Christian worldview despite some infamous run-ins throughout history. The Christian worldview, of course, promotes the idea of an ordered world that can be the subject of study. Theology, IMO, is still the queen of the sciences . . .

There was an interesting popular news article on this once but I cannot find it on the Web anymore:

Helweg, Otto J. “Scientific Facts: Compatible with the Christian Faith?” USA Today (March 1997).

If somebody can find it, please let me know. I tried the USA Today website but to no luck. I initially found it here:

http://www.britannica.com/bcom/magazine/article/0,5744,320200,00.html?query=worldview

[Ethelred]

You must be extremely knowledgeable to be able to say that if it is outside of time, cause and effect no longer apply. I'd have thought they'd occur simultaneously and thus have "no effect" on whether I can make the assumption. But I'm not the expert on things that happen at the point of the big bang. I await your example of something that happened without a cause then..

I don’t have to be extremely knowledgably on this. Since the concept of cause and effect REQUIRES that one come before the other time is a required value for the concept to work. Same for simultaneity as that too requires time to exist.

I can’t give an example of ANYTHING that occurred without TIME. However, YOU are insisting on a god without a cause, so I no reason to say a universe cannot exist without a cause, within the bounds of this discussion. After all a god that can produce a universe would most likely be more complex and therefore more improbable than the universe itself.

What reason ? All you've done is object to my reasoned argument. Or are you saying you are a believer in there being no God so are not concerned with reason ?

What reasoned argument have you given? I have seen a lack of reason coming from you so far. Every single thing you have said makes a Universe without a god unlikely also applies to a god. Considering your version requires both the Universe and a god I see that as at least one step that is not needed.

For about the third time, it doesn't arise from my assumptions, but from yours. You were the one that needed a cause for the cause, when that is going to be outside our experience, our universe, and the rules we have deduced something about. Denial changes nothing.

I guess you did want to go around again then. I don’t need a cause. YOU claimed I do, not I. I only said that if the Universe must have a cause then that applies exactly equally to the god you propose created the universe. Your claim I need a cause does not mean it was my idea that one is needed. You brought it up. I only applied YOUR argument to your god.

I don't have to. I was asked in the thread title to prove there was (or was not) a God. I have done so to any reasonable criteria

Like many believers you don’t have the vaguest conception of what constitutes reasonable proof. You don’t have any proof much less a reasonable proof. You have done nothing that shows the existence of any god at all.

Really ? If you say so. It may or may not be true, but you are the one assuming that, not anyone else.

I am merely applying your claims about the needs of a universe to your god. It’s a completely legitimate thing to do.

Ah that's what you are doing are you ? Ignoring the previous posts to return to the same discredited arguments.

Discredited by you is not the same as discredited by reason or evidence.

Might as well anyway, since had you any new arguments you would have put them.

I didn’t need any new ones. They were more than adequate to the task at hand. Since you simply repeated yourself so did I. When you actually show some reason that I might have been wrong then there may be a need for me to come up with something different. Until then your repetitions will be met with the same argument as they have been greeted with before.

Well that's a matter of debate in itself. Having shown the arguments you've put forward so far, to be flawed, when they are restated I'd consider that quibbling rather than debating.

Since my arguments were the same as yours, except I used the word god instead of universe, then if you managed to show a flaw in my argument then you necessarily showed the flaw in your argument.

Why ? That is a restriction you are putting on, and without justification. No one can know that the rules that apply here have any relevance anywhere else.

Again that same argument applies to the universe itself and however it might have come into existence without a god. It still remains a fact that you have to have both a god and a universe and I only need the universe. That is one less step. You too have no idea what the rules might be for how a universe might come into existence.

Err where did I mention sentience ? Are you not making up your own arguments to rail against here ? God may be sentient, or may not be, that was not anything that formed part of the initial request in the thread title.

You didn’t need to mention it. I covered that objection already. If a god is not sentient than it is no different from a natural law. Thus the god becomes a non-god. That is it becomes what I been supposing. Some sort of basic rule underlying the instantiation of universes.

And how is all that caused ?

I didn’t claim to know. I said I was speculating. Cause and effect still requires time in any case. How was your god caused? The same question still applies no matter how many times you want to pretend that is an assumption it isn’t. It’s a question. If you can ask how the universe was caused I have the same reasonable question about your god. I do know that neither man nor god is needed for mathematical principles to be true. It is after that where I must make an assumption. The assumption was that somehow physics is an inevitable consequence of math. I think it’s a reasonable assumption but I sure can’t prove it nor would ever make that claim. Its you that have claimed to prove the unprovable.

And how are vacuum fluctuations caused. Or the previous universe ? And what caused the rules mankind have deduced this universe seems to adhere to ?

Again how was your god caused?

As for the rules of the universe we can’t know that. However since mathematics can be used to create different laws for a universe and some of the laws would likely be incompatible I am guessing the specific laws we have to deal with are a matter of random chance PLUS the universe we live must of course be the sort of universe that intelligence can arise in. We wouldn’t be able to ask questions otherwise so all universes that might have arisen that cannot support life would simply not be noticed by anything. We need not worry about them as a consequence.

Getting bored with this anyway. I'll leave the questions I've posed, for you to mull over. Getting bored with this anyway. I'll leave the questions I've posed, for you to mull over.

Perhaps if you stopped repeating yourself you wouldn’t be so bored.

[Adalbertus]

The Christian worldview, of course, promotes the idea of an ordered world that can be the subject of study.

Anyway, the Christian worldview doesn't have a God who punishes human only for knowing/wanting to know too much. Even in the more basic/ancient versions of Christanity, God punishes for a reason, which could be understood.
I wouldn't wonder if this is a heritage of Judaism, because it has put a lot of efforts into (empirically) finding what God punishes. Most of the apparently senseless laws can be justified for hygienic reasons (even the obligation to eat no porc. If you don't know how to protect against salmonelles(sp?) it's better not to eat it. Most ancient religions knew gods punishing for transgessing the usual human sphere. The ancient Greeks/Romans never would have developed flight. Ikaros was punished. Nevertheless, there are so many theologicians who tell pure nonsense - My theology is comprised in Mt 18,3.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by ckweb
Sounds to me like you were making an assumption, at the very least, about CyberShy.

I said "and/or," not "and," because I didn't know if Cybershy was a fundamentalist or not--nor do I particularly care, seeing as how he stopped answering my posts several pages back.

Originally posted by ckweb
What you consider "insignificant" and what CyberShy considers "insignificant" are quite obviously two very different things.

You're preaching to the choir...

Originally posted by loinburger
You kept arguing over (what I would consider) insignificant points about questionable biblical prophecies

Originally posted by ckweb
Oh, btw, no need to resort to ad hominen attacks . . .

I'm sorry. I was angry over apparently having my all of my posts interpreted by you in the worst possible light, and assumed (after it happened a second time) that there was a motive behind it.

Originally posted by ckweb
I never accused you of being narrow-minded;

I agree, you never did. However, when I said "It might help your worldview to believe that everybody who is skeptical is also narrow-minded, but unfortunately for you, it just isn't true", you did not try to disabuse me of the misconceptions I held over your beliefs, which I took as a confirmation given that your post struck me as inflammatory ("accused CyberShy of being a Fundamentalist" and whatnot).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb


Sounds to me like you were making an assumption, at the very least, about CyberShy.

Its not an completely unreasonble assumption with Cybershy. He says he thinks the Bible must be interpreted but he clearly is a Young Earth (or at least a scientificaly impossible young Earth) Creationist. He might not agree on the 'Fundamentalist dates but he seems to believe in:

Adam and Eve

A World Wide Flood

Creationist propaganda and just plain lies about how evolution works.

Other odd things about science that are promulgated by Creationists for the purpose of obfuscating reality so they might continue in their Fundamentalist beliefs.

So unless a person is keeping track pretty closely over time I can see where it is extremely easy to think of Cybershy as a Fudamentlist style Creationist as they seem to be his entire source of knowledge of science.

He walks like a duck and he certainly quakes like one MOST of the time. Every once in while he makes sounds that might not come from a duck. I think he is a mutant duck. Evolved from the Fundamentalist duck only because he is slightly more capable of adaptation to reality.