Science, Atheism, Theory, Fact - Definitions, Meanings, and More

[der Astronom]

Ha, you doubt I've read the Bible? That's laughable.
Personally, I feel you are too biased to be on this thread, but since I have no control over that, I will just say that you have never read the Bible because if you did, you wouldn't be saying God is immoral, a murderer, ineffective and incompetant, and you definitely wouldn't be saying it was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah-
..What the hell is the matter with you

Having an opinion about the bible that is different from your own does not entail not having read it.
And it doesn't matter if he hasn't read it. It in no way excuses you from having to explain the problems in the bible, and if they weren't problems, then god didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, he did not murder anyone, or did not have moments in which he was incompetent. The fact is, you can find verses in the bible that demonstrate god destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, and you can find verses where he's killed people, and others where he was being incompetent. Hard to believe anyone who can point that out didn't read the bible, and if they didn't, it doesn't matter anyways; you still have to address those issues.

Therefore, I will not answer any of your inquiries from here on out. I explained my rationale in extreme detail and what you have posted is just a cheap way of attacking the Bible and my agnostic beliefs, which you also know nothing about.

And I see no reason why these attacks on the bible are invalid. And if you are suggesting they are on the basis of the poster not having read the bible, that's an ad hominem fallacy, and if you were right, then it should be easy for you to point out where they're wrong about it. So far, you have done nothing but complain it's too complicated, and provide vague answers that don't explain anything. So ja, we don't know anything about your agnostic beliefs because you failed to explain them.

Alright, this is just stupid. I practically post an entire 10 page essay, and I am suppossed to do it again instead of just telling them to READ THE THREAD BEFORE THEY START POSTING?

No, you posted a 10 page essay with vague statements that don't explain anything, saying things like it's too complicated, and see for yourself, and you made several fallacies. That's not evidence of anything, and I don't find it convincing at all.

HOW IS IT THAT YOU QUOTE ME AND THEN RESPOND AS IF YOU NEVER READ MY RATIONALE? I am no longer answering the same questions over and over again simply because you want to be argumentative.

No, we read your "rationale", but the problem is, it's too vague and explains nothing.

Jquestionmark, I find your lack of intuition disturbing. Every single shred of what you have posted has already been brought up and amply discussed. I have explained all this. If you have nothing more to add that is actually worth posting, then stop with the snarling please.
I find it ironic that you want everything to be peachy on this thread, and yet you are the main one being overly dramatic and refusing to explore any subject with an intuitive mindset.

Actually, from what I have seen, you're the one with the snarky comments and you have explained none of your assertions particularly well. If you have no good explanations to back up any of your arguments, then maybe you're the one that needs to stop posting.

 

[CassinoChips]

EASY ON THE "YOU SHOULD STOP POSTING; NO U" STUFF, FOLKS. DEBATE THE INFORMATION, NOT THE PERSON PRESENTING THE INFORMATION. AND AS I STATED IN EVERYONE'S FAVORITE THREAD, A PERSON CAN READ YOUR POST, DIGEST THE INFORMATION, AND COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH IT. DOESN'T MEAN THEY'VE "IGNORED" IT OR "NOT READ" IT.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

TOO VAGUE Yeah, this will definitely be my last post. I have been very competant with my debate. I have not resorted to shallow argument, which is something I can't say for certain other people

And just to clarify that other post: Sodom and Gomorrah were despicable places that deserved to be purged. God saved lives by doing that.
If God's a murderer by that, maybe you should stay atheist.

Your debate hardly encompasses this amount of detail. Most others have become redundant and grudgingly argumentative. Therefore, you are only speaking of yourselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unadulteratedawesome
God orders the Israelites to kill and slaughter many times and also rewards them for doing so. He himself kills fleeing Ammonites with a hail of stones, destroys Sodom and Gomorrah himself, sends the plagues against Egypt, among other murders.

You're causing me to begin to doubt you've ever read the Bible.


You're saying he knows everything and is present everywhere, but he is still unable to predict events accurately enough that he can actually stop or change them for the better? If we consider the Bible and your view to be accurate, God is not only an immoral murderer but ineffectual and incompetent to boot.

You claim to be agnostic in that you don't believe completely in either science or the Bible, but you've held the Bible's statements over those of science in every case. You may want to reconsider your beliefs, as your arguments make you appear to be a theist, perhaps even a creationist Christian.

Ha, you doubt I've read the Bible? That's laughable.
Personally, I feel you are too biased to be on this thread, but since I have no control over that, I will just say that you have never read the Bible because if you did, you wouldn't be saying God is immoral, a murderer, ineffective and incompetant, and you definitely wouldn't be saying it was wrong to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah-
..What the hell is the matter with you

Therefore, I will not answer any of your inquiries from here on out. I explained my rationale in extreme detail and what you have posted is just a cheap way of attacking the Bible and my agnostic beliefs, which you also know nothing about.

Quote:
"lets not resort to insulting dead people" (Darwin - an individual)
"Insulting an entire group of people by saying {evolutionists} are fabricating information is a bit much" (I was not aware all evolutionists were scientists and atheists)
And what is this? I insulted a dead person because I said that Darwin's theory was only correct in it's basic view of natural selection? Well if that is the case, I guess so...
Evolutionists are fabricating information? Nope, never said that. I simply stated that they try to make their theories seem more than what they are,, theories built on theories.

Quote:
I have to cover this, even though the conversation has gone a ways since here. Typically, an argument of any worth occurs when you support your claims with evidence
Alright, this is just stupid. I practically post an entire 10 page essay, and I am suppossed to do it again instead of just telling them to READ THE THREAD BEFORE THEY START POSTING?

Quote:
The Bible has a fair morality construct? I was not aware that stoning people to death for saying words, turning people to salt for looking over their shoulder, killing men for spilling semen on the ground, making women subservient to men, and a whole additional list of absolutely beautiful examples of injustice were fair acts. If there's some magical complexity to these things I've listed, I'd love to know what it is. If you can't provide that, I'm going to be forced to assume that you're just saying words, and not making an argument.
HOW IS IT THAT YOU QUOTE ME AND THEN RESPOND AS IF YOU NEVER READ MY RATIONALE? I am no longer answering the same questions over and over again simply because you want to be argumentative.

Jquestionmark, I find your lack of intuition disturbing. Every single shred of what you have posted has already been brought up and amply discussed. I have explained all this. If you have nothing more to add that is actually worth posting, then stop with the snarling please.
I find it ironic that you want everything to be peachy on this thread, and yet you are the main one being overly dramatic and refusing to explore any subject with an intuitive mindset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unadulteratedawesome
So... you're saying God isn't all-knowing or understanding. Even if He exists, where does His authority come from? Simply the authority of a parent/creator? A pretty cruddy one at that. I'm not sure I'd support a father who genocides his own descendants.

What.. the hell?
No, I am saying that He simply would not have made man if He thought they would make statements such as that ^
Undermining the entirety of the work that's been put into this thread with such a shallow and uneducated statement. I am forced to imply:

He did not genocide anyone. Man did. It's pretty ironic that we've been currently bringing up scapegoating, and an atheist comes and kills it.

If I assume God is real:
-He is omnipresent and knows all
-He cannot see the future
Being omnipresent and knowing all, however, He can see a little further down the road.

Quote:
Actually, what you have just described pretty much matches the definition of gnosticism (eg, gnostic theism or gnostic atheism), which is that you can know anything with a definite amount of certainty. If you have a source somewhere that verifies your claims about agnosticism, I'd like to see it.
You can know the workings of reality. You cannot know what it is, how it came about, or why it is there. Therefore, I stomp on the idea of gnosticism. There is no need for a source, as I feel you have the depth to understand that and maybe I should have been more clear as it is a very specific term.

Quote:
Yes, I have read those, and you seem to neglect that it also mentions that if the slave has a family, and if he is released before his family, but doesn't want to leave them behind, he has to stay with them as a slave forever. That's just cruel and unjust, and I don't see any good reason for having this extra condition. Additionally, masters can beat their slaves, and if they die as a result (which is effectively murder), the master receives no punishment for it.
It's hard to see the good in it no doubt, but it is still explainable.
The slave could not die within the same day they were beaten, otherwise it was punishable, by death nonetheless.
That, by extension, means most slaves were never beaten to death. Think about it..
And if their eyes or teeth became damaged, they were to be set free>> The book of Leviticus is practically an instruction manual for the Isrealites following the Exodus. It includes the idea of 'eye for eye, tooth for tooth'.
There is a much greater message in this, which you can bridge on your free time if you want, but I've already spoken my piece on the Bible's fundamental aspects of morality and am not going to exhaust myself diving into the depths of what He decided for his chosen people.
To point you in the right direction, think about the eye for eye concept and how Babylon was of the direct genealogy of Cain (as Abel to the Isrealites and Jesus)

All I will say is that those times were extremely brutal. God was actually giving more humane ways of treating slaves. And overall, He did not support slavery. Extending what I said before, He had two choices: tone down the inevitable, or purge the Earth all over again.

But above all: God did not support slavery. This is a truth that needs to be concreted.

Quote:
Like what sort of trouble? We've abolished slavery, and I think we're better off without it.
I do not support slavery neither.

But if you think that slavery ended out of a sudden hard on for good morals, you are sadly mistaken.
The only reason it became abolished is because of it's increased lack of necessity. After industrializing, a nation no longer needs slaves.
This is fully relevant with America: The north wanted the south to industrialize as they had, and felt it only necessary to abolish slavery to make this happen.

Quote:
the only way an atheist can call himself a hypocrite would be if he worshipped a god or gods while claiming not to believe in any gods--and this is not a universal trait of atheism. Atheism makes no claims about morality, and contains no doctrines or codes of any kind
I would have to disagree with the entirety of this. Atheists seem to have a very strong claim on morality, which is based on the doctrine of atheism itself:
Vanity.
Which is extremely ironic to me
This in itself is hypocritical, as they proclaim that everything is permitted, and yet argue morality.

Quote:
I have several problems with this. First, if god is omniscient, why was there a need to test Eve? He knew it was going to happen. Secondly, this explains a model for how the Earth exists, but there's no evidence that it is the real model as reflected in reality.
He gave man free will. We we're to be living beings, not empty vessels.
Omniscience obviously only goes so far. There are many instances in the Bible where God shows sorrow, regret, anger, and even relief.

Quote:
And being honest means not scapegoating someone for anything you do wrong. If I do something wrong, I should take responsibility for it; not shove it onto some other person, real or fake, regardless of whether or not he's willing to take on all responsibility.
God sent Jesus to die for our sins. I hardly find this a concept of scapegoating. This is God's will we're talking about here..
And to add to it, He did not say to discount His laws, he simply said it is now tolerable because of the sacrifice, so long as we believe in it.

And just a side note:
You have to understand the idea of sacrifice. God did not sacrifice Jesus, man did,, unintentionally. He tricked the Jews into paying their blood price.
God had to jump through a few loopholes to be able to bring balance.
Jesus was a blasphemer and a political dissident. His death was technically God's law at the time. He made grace without sin, which is something that should be carefully thought about before making direct assumptions of the Jesus incident.

Quote:
And they don't have to be the beacon of morality in order to point out the flaws of the morality in a religious belief system. My morality, or the morality of any other atheist doesn't in any way invalidate any criticism we make of religion; it still stands that the bible contains no verses about condemning slavery, for example, and regardless of what I believe, or what my morals are (and if you're wondering, I condemn slavery. Whether or not all atheists condemn slavery is a non issue and helps your argument in no way), it is still immoral for the bible not to condemn it and instead, describes how people should be treated as slaves.

Did you ever think about the reasoning behind the laws by God that limits slavery? This will serve as a good example in lieu of Bible morals. A slave can only serve for 7 years before being set free or paid for further service.
God never commanded that there be slaves, He just saw that this was an inevitability and decided to set a standard for it. Back then, a slave was either a criminal or a poor individual with no other way to go anyways. God saw the actions of the Egyptians and decided to free the Isrealites.
There is a balance with this. God didn't dispatch slavery altogether because it would have led to just as much, if not more, trouble.

//And you are basically saying that atheists are hypocrites as well, which kind of enforces what I stated earlier.

Quote:
I am presuming you are referring to the agnosticism in which it is impossible to know anything (eg, whether or not god exists), in which case you have no argument; if you are asserting agnosticism as truth, perhaps you will have to explain that assertion. Otherwise, you're basically saying we can't know anything for sure, so why bother speculating at all?
No, no, no.. no agnostic believes you can't know anything. Any agnostic who says that is not agnostic,, they are a moron.
The conception of agnosticism is that you can know anything within our realm of reality, nothing more, nothing less. Theism and atheism both try to account for where that singularity, that existed for a trillionth of a second before exploding (the singularity we live in) came from. If that is in fact how the universe started (which doesn't really matter)

Bible Morals 101

Vanity> Lucifer is cast from Heaven along with 1/3 of the angels> Eve is tempted
Temptation> Eve disobeys God> Eve tempts Adam to do the same
Shame> they realize they are naked
Fear> they hide from God

God casts them from Eden, as they had cursed man to have this forbidden knowledge

Vanity> Cain becomes jealous of Abel
Temptation> Cain is tempted to kill Abel
Shame> Cain has killed Abel
Fear> Cain tries to hide his sin

God spares Cain and declares that nobody punishes him.
Cain becomes the direct ancestor of Babylonian rule

Vanity is the crux of sin.
Vanity is taught in every aspect of secular morality.
Suffering just becomes more directive

The beginning story of the Bible alone is enough to explain how any bad situation on Earth ensues.Every sin creates another. This is why it is referred to as a plague.

And so blasphemy becomes punishable by death, as it leads to uprising.

Nonetheless, God sees that man simply does not obey (even though His wisdom is exact). He sends Jesus to pay for our sins. Blasphemy is no longer punishable by death to stop uprisings, the ill are no longer cast out of the village to keep infection from growing, etc.
He practically gives man the easy way out for their dismissal of wisdom, though man must reap what he sows, which is no less a penalty when taking in the full context of all this.

There is a pattern inside sin and benevolence, they are not just 'standards' or 'demands' by God, but a way to maintain purity and love.

You do not have to be religious to heed this wisdom. It's practically the chaos theory within the social constructs of man, and should not be taken as an obsolete concept.
It should be a damn guideline to be honest

Atheists seem to discount religion without taking into consideration their own gambits. They aren't necessarily the beacon of morality to be riding a pale horse over religious belief.
The entire reasoning for even projecting it doesn't have anything to do with morality on the large scale. They simply just want to shove an idea that their is no God- which is honestly quite foolish when taking into account that we can never know where this reality came from.



I don't understand where you get the idea that I've 'demonstrated' this or 'admitted' that.. this tactic will fail any and every time you do so. Agnosticism requires a whole hell of a lot more thought than atheism and religion, and it doesn't have to take much thinking to realize that.

The Bible is only 'complicated' because people can't bear to spend a little bit of time interpreting it. I'm telling you, I could sit here and paint the most elegant damn picture of morality in the Bible and as soon as it is read it will either miraculously turn phantom or be dismissed with irrelevancy.
A lot of what you have argued in your post is explained extremely well in the Bible, to a point where it's practically infallible. This is a great way of putting it actually, because you are trying to tell me the sky is green. Pun intended.
It's really easy to dismiss something you refuse to understand. This is an attribute of both atheism and religion. These things can be argued between them all day, but agnostics are the ones that wield both swords so to speak and eventually prevail.

The rationale is simple: we accept the truth.

Both science and religion ultimately fail to show any proof of how or why this reality is here. I simply tango with them to help people realize where these beliefs ultimately lead up to-- and admittingly, to get people off the many scientific lies/assumptions that stray people.



Theists do not twist the Bible. It is a holy text and isn't clear-cut like a science textbook. It takes an exceptional amount of intuition and much, much analyzing and interpreting to understand the depths of it. People have spent their entire lives doing just this.
If anyone twists the Bible, it is most definitely atheists.

Nonetheless, when I say I don't know if the Bible is right, I'm not speaking on the wisdom within it. I'm strictly speaking of God.
As for it's history, I am not fully convinced, yet I do know that science does little to exclude it.

The Bible has a very complex morality construct. It is extremely fair, so much so that it's actually too hard for most people to take in. The eye for eye concept only scratches the surface. Words do in fact kill, and this is in fact a statement within the Bible. Stoning someone to death for blasphemy seems horrible, but it's better that one man dies instead of a potential war because of his words.
Take Hitler for example. His words alone killed millions of people and nearly damned the world into Nazism.
The fact is, nurtured morals and grade school quotes do not amount to anything. You will see how 'moral' this secular age is if police and militia all took a day off.

But was it still right for Christians to stampede over another belief?
Not really,,
But let's put this to light: What do atheists do with theism?
If Christmas has become secular, it's because of atheists. Do see how this is unfolding? Christmas is itching to be replaced again.

The entirety of your debate seems to be based on a concept that religion is wrong and science is right.
I see flaws that riddle science in every avenue that opposes the Bible, and yet I do not proclaim the Bible is right. I am a shining example of a true agnostic. It's going to take more than basing that assumption to get the ball rolling with me.

Quote:
So you're basically admitting that religion is irrational and has no consistency. Which matters to me because I care about the truth, and hand waving it away by saying it's theism changes nothing. It's special pleading, and if you're not accepting the inconsistency here simply because it's theism, then there's nothing more to say about it.

And that still doesn't address the fact that the context under which all this happened has not a shred of evidence--so Jesus was sacrificed because god willed it? Where's the evidence this god exists? It's not any less spurious than evidence of pagan deities, and any given religion can make no claims about other religions because they are based on faith, and none of them are capable of validating their own claims, let alone any other claims of any other philosophy, be it religion, science or other ideas. I don't care if you think this is okay to you because it's theism; it's got nothing to do with whether or not this is a theism issue; it's got to do with a religion discriminating on another religion for being false for no good reason.
I'm not admitting anything at all. I have my reasons for not taking much of proclaimed science to heart, as it is more theory than fact. I have many posts on this within the thread that you can quote and debate further if you wish, but I am not going to retell my entire argument.



Quote:
It's not only about the falsehood; it's about Christianity being a dick to other religions.
Think about it this way--some guy rear ends your car in the traffic, and you try to tell the cops what happened; the cop has no idea what happened because he didn't see it, and he can't trust your story completely either because you have no evidence the other guy rear ended your car. However, the other guy says you're lying, and that you rear ended into his car; he has no evidence to back up his claims, and yet he still says you're a liar. If the cop believed him, how would you feel?
And so it is still an affair between theists. Christians have crusaded with indigenous countries, yes, but of all the things they can be discounted for, Christmas is simply not one of them.

You cannot fight this concept with science. If their enemies were atheists, that would be different. But their enemies were of the same theistic nature, so science is obsolete in this matter.

The Jews persecuted Jesus and his followers. Christians took their holiday. It's called holy war and it's nothing new.

And I just explained why this whole notion of calling pagan holidays false is absurd; if you're going to call a pagan holiday false, and replace it with something else that's not any less false, why do you believe there's a good reason for doing so?

It's an affair between theists, it's as simple as that. The scientific authentication of it is completely irrelevant, as I stated earlier.

And it's not just annoying; it's logically inconsistent and intolerant of other religions.
But anyways, do you support what they did? Do you support the fact that they disrespected another religion by replacing their holidays with their own, despite the fact that they had no basis whatsoever for claiming falsehoods in other people's religions without looking at the falsehoods in their own?

Their esteemed savior was maimed, tortured, and nailed to a cross by the Jews. I don't think it really matters what they did with the forgotten holiday.
And nonetheless, this is theism, not science. There is no need to keep bringing on the concept of falsehood.



As far as gnostic goes, I don't really need to assert what it means. I thought this was common knowledge, but for the sake of argument, Google it and you won't even have to locate a source- a million will likely just explode right in front of you.

EDIT: I am not trying to be brash, but gnosticism was constructed in a school of spiritual philosophy and my definition of belief stands quite well on the term agnosticism. I believe in no ultimatum of belief, as uncertainty is a fundamental aspect I feel that everyone should accept.
I will admit that I do take the argument on gnosticism a little personal, but this is due to my strong logic on what it presents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrible Terry Tate
By that logic, wouldn't it be a Pagan holiday regardless of how it was corrupted by Christians? I mean, if how the holiday is portrayed today cannot change its Christian core, certainly it would stand to reason that how the holiday is/was portrayed by Christians wouldn't change its Pagan core.

Christians 'graduated' from Judaism when Jesus died. It's not as if it was 'stolen'. The pagan holiday was eventually extinguished by Jews and replaced with Jesus by Christianity. This occurred around 300 AD. Santa Claus and trees are just fun counterparts they decided to keep and is not deemed a requirement by Christians to celebrate.
Saying that it's pagan origin defines it as a pagan holiday today would be to say that Christians should be considered Jews because of their origin.

a gnostic simply asserts that his knowledge is 100% certain.

Gnosticism teaches a certainty of spiritual cycles/gods/etc. Saying this must be the case. It's not exactly creationism in it's full context, but a religious precursor. In other words it's philosophy, not a church.

I not only disagree that Christmas is still Christian, but that I believe it had no good reason for replacing the original pagan holiday in the first place. And that's also another reason why I don't have to celebrate Christmas as Jesus' birthday.

There was every reason to replace the pagan holiday. It was deemed false. Don't be confused with the asinine notion of Christians still setting up trees and such. It's contradictory, I know, but tolerated by God nonetheless. Jews no longer believe in the pagan counterparts. Since Christians spurred from Judaism, the same people by extension changed their holiday.
It's no secret that Christians have always done what they can to irritate others. It's probably a contributing factor as to why they did it in the first place lol.
But as I said before, it's a Christian holiday no matter how they corrupt their own ideas.
But it's not like anyone can keep you from celebrating it either. It's just become a normal part of society. Conformism, in other words.

I edited my last post with a full explanation on agnosticism/gnosticism, which will suffice for me as I am no longer speaking on the definition of my own views. I have LLI and therefore cannot limit my logic to an unproven ultimatum.

Quote:
And I see no reason why it needs to be flaunted as Christian either. Basically, your reasoning for calling it Christian to me has no good basis--so the Old Testament says that pagan holidays are "false", and therefore, people think they have a good reason to replace it with Jesus worship? Well, what if god is false? I don't think it's a good idea, and to think you can call something off as false and replace it with something that's not any more true is logically absurd, and if you think that's why Christmas should be Christian now, I don't think it deserves it. And it doesn't matter anyways because Christmas now has become so commercialized that it's become secular.
You speak in circles. What does authentication have anything to do with a religious holiday?
And it seem like the terms pagan and secular are being twisted here. Paganism is a concept of a god/s, either way Christmas is a religious holiday. Christians took the holiday and changed it in the 3rd century AD. It's not like it's anything new..
Definitely not something an atheist should even feel the need to contend with anyways. No one is forcing them to put up a Christmas tree, and the followers of the pagan aspect no longer do so. Jews, to be specific,.

Christmas being a pagan holiday is not exactly true in it's entirety. This is commonly misguided, and by atheists no less, who should have better knowledge of these ordeals. It's quite indecent to assume a billion Christians are following paganism and reduce agnosticism to literary junction. I have seen this happen with other terms, and it brings a resurfacing, highly irritating inquiry-- why?
Especially when the explanation is irrelevant and not even accurate. I am agnostic, not gnostic. I know what they mean,, agnosticism is just the absence of gnostic belief, stating a law of uncertainty. Gnosticism states a precursor that fills that uncertainty with a concept of divine workings. They are alike in many ways, but they are also different. Agnostics do not have an ultimatum in their beliefs.
I have no idea how this misconception comes about.
Which makes it even less surprising how many fail to see 'christ' in the term 'christmas'.
I'm not trying to bite anyone's head off here, but these things should be recognized.:

The holiday was not called Christmas until centuries after Jesus when Christians replaced this day with celebrating him instead. So in all technicality, it may have been a pagan religion, but no longer is. Santa Claus (a modernized depiction of a past alleged god) and Christmas trees are relics of pagan ritual, no doubt, but they are not worshiped or demanded either to celebrate Christmas.

The Old Testament speaks on the pagan holiday as false, as it involved ideas such as the stag god. After Jesus, however, this demand by God was no longer a requirement so long as Christians accepted Jesus as their savior and Him as the one and only God.
Thus, the holiday converted to Christmas. To praise Christ's birthday (which was actually in the late summer or fall)
So was Christmas a pagan holiday, yes. Is it now.. not, really..

Now I personally think that Christians should still not be free falling on grace just because it was promised to them. Having Christmas trees and remnants of paganism around certainly does not appease God. Nonetheless, Christmas should not be flaunted as a pagan holiday.

Agnosticism - an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Yes.
Reality is a box. Knowing it's contents bears no looking glass for what is beyond it, what created it, or why it's even there.
Saying that it 'just happened' is an impossible claim, rejected by any and every law of nature, and so atheism contradicts itself in trying to deny religion passage.

This is a law of uncertainty that cannot be broken.

The purpose thing often comes down to human arrogance: the assumption often seems to be that the universe was made for us. It seems to me that the universe was not made for life like us, but instead, we are the way we are because it's the way life could occur in this universe.

The Bible explains this very, very well- before such a theory. It's called vanity, and according to the Bible, Lucifer vexed this asset onto man and therefore we do not fit in this realm as we should.
There were no natural disasters spoken of in the Bible, as the Holy Lands rarely, if ever, experience them. There have been no cataclysmic events in the biblical time-line. As far as the Bible goes, our universe is as calm as a Hindu cow. It's man that stirs the world, over-populates, wars, and moves to hazardous places of the world and polluting it all the same.

The problem here is, even more than science, no moral answer is ever an absolute. As things change in society, moral codes need to be re-evaluated

The moral code of the Bible is fairer than any other code on the planet. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Cast the sick from the village, stone any blasphemer..
Fair isn't all what it's cracked up to be, and yet people still complain and long for it. The moral code of the Bible can be evaluated with the same rationale as science- break down the components and examine.
And it follows like this:
Lucifer became obsessed with vanity. God cast him from Heaven.
He tempted Eve to disobey God. This brought shame. She did not want to bear this alone, so she swayed Adam to do the same.
Their shame brought on self-consciousness- they clothed themselves.
Then they hid from God- Deception was the product of fear.
God did not punish them. They alone cursed themselves. They simply could not stay in Eden with their knowledge. They would destroy it.
God nonetheless demanded balance, and this balance has yet to be fulfilled, and so despite God's harsh laws to maintain balance, man has gone off and shot itself in the foot, scattering the world and putting up walls to defend their self-importance and ignoring the catastrophe that put them there in the first place. So in the eyes of God, man-made morals are a bad joke.

The only way we're going to get a religion that could be a theory is if we're willing to drop the "practices" part of the definition.

Religion is not a theory, it's a 'truth'. This is why it is practiced among it's followers. Nobody practices a theory. Saying that religion is theory is contradictory, drawing an adverse conclusion from theory's definition.

religion encourages banding together based around belief, perhaps because faith-based beliefs require a huge investment.

Key word: perhaps.
Perhaps it's because it is a 'truth' that people feel they have to follow, and so they teach others the same so they, to, can know the truth.

Nonetheless, science works in the same exact way. If there was only one atheist on Earth, you can guarantee that others would follow in their 'truth'.
The reason why it has become so popular is because science's 'truth' is found in the one place where people can look- regardless if it is a box.

This is something that somehow falls through the cracks at the presence of scientific logic, which ironically, avoids the subject altogether.



Agnosticism is a much more intuitive take. With atheism, it is very difficult to know both sides of the coin, and therefore it seems to me that it and theism both share a common gambit.
I personally feel that science only patches itself to avoid falsification,, and religion is unfalsifiable no matter what science says. Every argument I have made in this entire thread has pointed in that direction.
This is why I am agnostic.

Let's dig into the concepts of of everything I have posted. I have aknowledged many specific ideas of evolution, compared and contrasted them, and brought on an ample idea that they conflict, contradict, and and mass unto each other resulting in general inaccuracy and unrealistic declarations.
And I have insulted every scientist and atheist because of this?
It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If I make a clear argument on something, I expect it to be logically comprehended and analyzed before anyone jumps the gun on it period. This is a scientific respect that somehow has been neglected due to sheer denial of exploration. I don't know what kind of 'proof' anyone could be looking for. To me, that just kind of shows a lack of knowledge on the subject altogether. If I say, for example, that carbon-14 atoms fluctuate in tissue and is absorbed and leaked continually just like any other substance would, and reinforce it with the idea that it is not known the exact age of the element before it is even absorbed, it is up to others to marinate on it and provide some food for thought on the claim. Telling me to provide proof repeatedly over and over with the same ridiculous remarks when I have already painted a solid claim is what is insulting. I've been fortifying my claims with more and more evidence and logic since my first post, and all I'm getting from most people is, to be perfectly honest,, a bunch of crap.
So don't tell me I need to calm down or whatever. It is others who can't seem to handle a debate.
And so your last post, Jquestionmark, failed miserably to show anything that I've said is wrong. This is a perfect example. No, I'm in the hot seat because it's hard to contend with what I present, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
So if my logic is too much for this debate, than count me out because I am not going to continue to go in this circular pattern. It's very unfair and desserves no explanation on my part. I think it's time someone else provides, as I said before. Instead of saying I'm wrong, back it up. I have obviously shown this unto everyone, as I explain a given detail with logic, not 'prove it' or 'that's just false'. Putting it on me is not only backward, it is extremely hypocritical. It's like I'm paying the penalty of others shallow detail.
So like I said, if what I say cannot be reasonably taken into account and argued against in a intelligent matter, count me out.

People are getting taller due to changes in diet, not us constantly reaching. In areas of the word where rice has been the staple of the diet, people are small (see much of asia). In parts of the world where starches and red meat are the staples, people are taller.

A change in diet is a contributing factor. To say it is the primary reason would be to say that rabbits got faster due to eating more, lets say, carrots. Their diet maybe gave them bucked teeth, but not augmented hind legs.

This again demonstrates that your knowledge of evolution comes from flawed sources - there is never a "REASON" why something would develop - it's simply that often in a species existence there will be some genetic diversification - if for any number of reasons this becomes widespread (attractive to other members of the species for instance, or conferring an advantage in feeding etc) then it has the chance to develop further - there does NOT have to be a clear cut "advantage" in terms of feeding or survival for a trait to continue to evolve - see blonde hair amongst humans as an example.

Change in environment causes changes in diet and survival gambits. By extension, these things cause genetic diversion. There is no rationality of a species gaining the ability to fly over time. Did the first living thing have wings? This would have to be the case to even merit such a concept. It simply cannot be a product of environment, diet, survival gambits, etc.
Evolution does not have a mind of it's own, it is a product of species vs environment.
Blonde hair is a product of woman gaining higher estrogen levels. This was, in turn, brought on to their descendants. This is the popular evolutionist's take on it anyways.
What extreme change in any given creature would warrant their arms to turn into wings if it takes fluctuation of a primary hormone to change a relevantly obsolete trait such as blonde hair? Even over the course of millions of years, complete with theoretical, otherwise non-existent variations of the species at hand, it makes no sense.
The idea is absurd. Darwin was right about basic natural selection, it's just too bad he built such an asinine theorem around the concept.

Correct. When science finds a theory is flawed, it abandons it. This is in contrast to creationism, which when confronted with masses of evidence that the age of the earth is older than they think, ignore it and just claim their theory is right anyway.

Our exploration of mars is roughly the same as exploring a few dozen square miles - less than 0.000001% of the surface of mars. Any traces of life on mars will be buried deep - anything on or near the surface would have been obliterated by radiation from the sun ater Mars atmosphere was stripped off.

Either way you look at it, there is a 0.000001% chance that life ever existed on Mars. The entire planet is iron, rust, and carbon dioxide. Traces of nitrogen and sodium does very little to spark much interest. the idea has become somewhat outdated since we gained the ability to find out the elements/substances of the Martian makeup.
If you look at the history of the Bible, you will see that it is only discounted by theory. There is no actual fact that goes against it.
Obviously, evolutionists think that time can evolve a lie into a truth as well.

Sorry, but you cannot simply make up a number, then claim everyone else must prove it wrong.

Yes I can. It is the number of human history. It has already 'claimed' itself, it's science that is on the contrary.

EVERY dating technique says creationism is incorrect, your response to this is to say they must all be wrong - yet you cannot provide an alternative which proves creationism correct.

I never said creationism was correct. If I did, I would have ever flaunted the idea that I'm a pure agnostic.
In order for radioactive dating techniques to work, you have to know the starting amount of radiation within the organism from the start. Carbon-14, for example, fluctuates in the atmosphere, which by extension, the air we breath and the food we eat.
The same goes for inorganic material, which is even more variable because it endures any and every condition, including heavier radiation from other objects and being in the elements in general.
But that's not it. The real killer is right here:
How the hell can you tell how old the carbon-14 was before it entered the body, or any other radioactive element at that? This, in my book, renders dating obsolete.

The only reason radioactive dating is held in high esteem is strictly because it fits into the ideas of evolution, much like the incredible amounts of missing links and other far fetched ideas that patch it.

Please explain how coal, oil etc has developed in 6000 years.

I explained this earlier. If God were to create life on a planet, He would make it livable. The planet would be highly volatile if it were 'new'.
This is actually a statement that protects creationism at every angle, which ironically for me went unnoticed until now
But I'm not going to fall back on that idea, as I have enough rationality to improvise.
Fossil fuels can be made in a controlled setting. It simply does not take millions of years for it to be formed naturally. Even having to explain this is an absurdity in itself. They are deemed to be millions of years old through dating techniques.
The flavor of irony.

As far as the creationism goes however, a great flood can account for all fossil fuels through pressure and de-oxygenation.
This is something not to be taken lightly because it makes a lot of sense. Since dating techniques are unverified, saying that there are fish fossils on the tops of mountains paints a pretty ominous picture for an atheist, dropped at the slightest idea presented by science.

Please explain your alternative to einsteins theory of relativity, since atomic clocks, which operate on the exact same principle as carbon dating, proved relativity correct.

Atomic clocks do not operate the same way as carbon dating. They are two entirely different things actually. Atomic clocks work by the speed and pattern of an atom's movement. Radioactive dating works by the decay of atoms as the particles within them change and/or replace another. This is why uranium literally turns into another element (lead) when it is depleted for example.
Einstein's relativity does not get along with much of particle physics. The rule of thumb for mass-energy equivalence works for radioactive decay, but it does not venture into half life or any other aspects of still phenomenal workings of the atom, such as why radioactive particles change in the first place. There is no way of knowing which atoms will decay starts first and which ones will delay, which is something radioactive dating faces. There are too many variables to account for accuracy.
Even the Standard Model only works if you allow variables. Adding insult to injury, radioactive dating also faces this as well.


I have monumental arguments on radioactive dating, and yet it is still assumed that the technique is reliable. And with no factual presentation. I have also provided an educated theorem on the ideas of both evolution and creationism.
I think it is time for someone else to take the hot seat, as certain people are getting so critical that they are making blatantly false remarks on what I have posted. In no way have I said science is wrong because the Bible says so. What merits that statement, seriously?
And obviously, I am the most open minded person on this thread. I've been answering every inquiry in the best of logic.
I'm not the one taking a side, I'm actually, ironically, the only one seeing both sides.So I wouldn't be jumping the gun on who's close minded.
Just a friendly reminder.

Before I continue (this is becoming a repetitive notion for me, but I guess there's only so many variations of saying it )
I would like to state that I do not falter with criticism, even if it can sometimes seem redundant from my perspective. I love knowledge and continue to push it no matter the discrepancies. However, I will bring to light any discrepancy for what it is if it is not fully merited. If someone claims I have insulted them and I feel it is only being used as a tool to rally others against my knowledge, I will not let it go unstated.
This thread is for the unbiased ones. We are very intelligent. Let's not get too fanatical here. If anyone was thoroughly insulted, I apologize.
Now on to the discussion

At no point does evolution suggest that nature will somehow "know" a rabbit should become faster - it's simply that when genetic diversion occurs in a way that makes some rabbits faster, those rabbits are more likely to survive and breed.

The rabbit becomes faster because after many millenia of running, it becomes more adaptable to do so. Evolution is the advancement of creatures within their repeated survival patterns. As I mentioned earlier, people are getting taller. This is due to us constantly reaching. Why would any creature develop wings? There is no reason why such a thing would develop. To top it off, birds are in fact allegedly descendants of dinosaurs.

How did we reach this conclusion? Fossils. The few fossils we've found somehow sparks a far fetched idea of a billion year evolution sequence.
This is no different than any other extreme theory in science and shouldn't be accounted for as a dismissal of creationism just yet.

I fear you are incredibly out of date with what evolutionists "think". The theory you refer to was last considered seriously in the 80's. That would be like one of us dismissing what is in the bible because it claims the world is flat - that hasn't been the churches interpretation for a long time now =)

That's right. It was dismissed and no real explanation currently sits on the table.

We can hardly say mars has been explored. That's like saying someone has searched a few dozen square miles of the nevada desert and is now aware of every species of life to ever live on earth. There is no trace because we haven't been able to *look*.

Every part that has been discovered has been found to be completely sterile, devoid of absolutely anything. I was merely putting to light the desperation of evolutionists. The only beacon of possibility of life is marred with extreme lack of evidence. Trenches and traces of sodium can easily be accounted for with other theories.
The icecaps have been proven to be made of carbon dioxide, which makes a whole lot of sense. Every element carried a color-coding that can be observed by astronomers. This is how we know that hydrogen, for example, is the most common element in the universe.

There is no supporting evidence the earth is 6,000 years old. No dating techniques show this. No geology, physics, chemistry or biology suggests this is the age of the earth.

Please feel free to show some if there is any, but i've never been able to find it

This concept is commonly ill-made. There is no proving the Earth is only 6000 years old. This was already the general assumption. the aim is to disprove it, which is poorly done on all scientific accounts. As I said before, with educated reasoning, no dating technique has been proven to be competent. It's comparison built on theory.

There are a few things I really want to settle before I continue with the broad discussion.
First, atheists have a natural tendency to be insulting when their beliefs are compromised in the slightest, just like theists. Agnostics do not feel the need to insult anyone unless they are insulted first. I am practically a one man army on this entire thread, and have been straw-manned, ridiculed, and taken abroad on every single word I have posted. This is an indirect insult in itself, as I feel intuitiveness is being replaced by brash argument.
Second, it insults my intelligence to see the Bible being treated like a science book when it clearly isn't and used against me every time the term Bible is mentioned.
So when I say that that most atheists clearly lack a certain amount of depth, the phrase being an insult is heavily misguided. It is more an observation than anything. And in lieu of what I stated above, it seems that there is obviously some degree of truth to it.
Things such as this being used to in debate concur:

And God said, let us make man in our image. Genesis 1:26
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12

The Bible is quite clear from beginning to end the concept that God created man in His own image, and that he will judge any who deny him as the one and only God. If you must declare than that He is talking of other existing Gods, you must declare that He did not make man and all of existence.
You have posted a straw man argument. Everything you say in accordance of it is also, by extension, a straw man argument.

This is the logic I have been playing at through the course of the thread. In physics, the standard model of atoms only works if there are variables. But it is practical, even if it may not answer the other phenomena of physics.
Divine works do not need to speak the language of science, as it needs nothing to prove itself. Quoting texts from the Bible to attack it's own claims is quite asinine, and will not stand in any debate. Religion has the luxury however to question scientific claims, because science is designed to compete not only with other claims, but it's own as well.



EVOLUTION
The base of scientific intrigue on the advancement of life sits on a mighty mountain built on natural selection. Through natural selection, a species either adapts or becomes extinct.
This sounds really convincing when you look at a cat or a wolf. They have every aspect of a a survivor. Their prey either becomes extinct or learns to survive. A rabbit becomes really good at running. His legs become built for speed. Their ears become larger to be wary of predators. They maintained with the advancement of cats and wolves. They survived.
Again, it sound really convincing in a specific setting.

Which sets the stage for this argument:
I'm a dinosaur. My arm is turning into a wing. This in no way advances my survival affinities. I have no use for this, it only mars my performance.
Millions of years later, I have come back from the dead to see my descendants scour the skies. What take of evolution explains why my species has evolved into birds? Why would any creature even undergo a process to obtain wings if it did not help them from the start?

Natural selection has it's own follies, and evolution is built on this concept.


It is believed that since their are so many variations of species and species themselves, massive evolution must be true nonetheless. This, to, is likely an inaccuracy and evolutionists try to hide this in every way.
There are many missing links between species. Humans, for example, have many things distinct with apes, monkeys, etc.
Evolutionists line up the most promising skeletons of past human-like animals and say that this must be the evolution of man, filling in massive evolutionary gaps with theoretical creatures to account for their differences.

Evolutionary links are not only theoretical, but patched with even more theory to be made true.


Single-cell organisms.
According to evolutionists, this was a chanced happening brought on by something such as:
Lightning struck a pond of water. With the right ingredients of life (water, energy, carbon, etc.) molecules gathered and miraculously formed life.

This should be relatively simple to accomplish, but cannot be done in even the most sophisticated laboratory.

The basis of life beginning itself is compromised.

Mars.
Mars has been shown by evolutionists to have had at some point all the ingredients and conditions for life. Yet there are no trace of life anywhere. No fossils, structures, anything.
Not only that, it becomes more and more likely every day that we are alone. Unless there is vast conspiracy going on which us normal people are unaware of (another subject for another time), we can safely conclude that it may not be mere coincidence that we are alone here, alive on Earth.

Creationism gains appeal.

These things simply cannot go ignored, and in no way should evolution be considered more likely than creationism.
It really just comes down to what flavor you like more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acer Ecthelion
Anyone care to have a stab at explaing how Superfluids are helping scientist understand the inner workings of high density structrures like nuetron stars?

I will be more than happy to oblige. This will be my break from creationism, because I know it's gonna get extreme

Superfluid matter has no viscosity. If you put a superfluid into a cup that so much as had one molecule-size hole at the bottom, the liquid would pour out. Or if you left it there long enough, the liquid would eventually climb the sides of the cup and pour out. If you stirred the fluid, it would never stop spinning.
This is all due to the lack of friction between the atoms. These traits are noticed with helium gas when it is extremely cooled into liquid form.
Since hydrogen and helium are strong counterparts, it becomes palatable that superfluids become a strong influence in the density of neutron stars. With temperatures around -400 degrees, these stars can be super dense because of the lack of friction that repels the atoms from each other. Thus, gravity has no force to contend with.

This is the rounded interpretation of it. Personally, I think it makes a lot of sense, as the basic logical idea of collapsed stars and black holes has to do with the compaction of matter.

Atoms are 99 percent empty space and stars are giant nuclear bombs that constantly violate that space. Add that in with superfluidity and great density,, and you got yourself a nice, solid theory

Alright, there a few things that are, admittingly, becoming quite irritating for me. Because this is a theological discussion, I will give these few things one last go, and then I'm moving on with the broader subject.

Laws
Newton's Laws of Gravity, for example, are infallible in their setting. If you are on the ground and you suddenly jump in the air, you will fall back down. There is nothing that will prevent this. It's as simple as that. On our scale and setting, this is our law of gravity.
There is a reason why there is no 'law of white swans'. Otherwise, anything could be a law.
This is semantics taking a nose-dive into insanity.

Natural & Supernatural
When it comes to the origins of time/space/matter, these two terms bear no differences. The beginning of existence, stated by the big bang theory, was an infinitely small, super dense singularity that suddenly expanded, creating all of existence, including space itself. There is no way of knowing where this singularity came from, only that it came to be.
Think about what affinities something must have to be deemed natural or supernatural.
The terms become obsolete in the matter of where existence came from, and it is essentially something science will never answer. If there is such thing as a law, that is the king of all of them.

Now that I've stated where I stand on all that, back to the discussion

seeing as Creationism is based on the Bible, doesn't the shared amino acids conflict with 1 Corinthians 15:39?

That verse in no way venturing upon an idea that they are not of the same elementary materials. It is simply saying they are different in their constructs. The Bible is not a biology book, a lot of it does not need to be examined literally.
The beast from the sea is the anti-Christ, for example. The book requires a certain amount of depth, something that most atheists clearly lack to the point where it's almost annoying.

You are providing no explanation for the speed at which evolution occurs, even if it's not relevant to Emyu's question (I believe he was pointing out the issue with the common Creationist claim that all life set on earth was immutable in its type)

Do I really need to explain that viruses change rapidly, some being so fast that they change soon after we finally make vaccines?
Creationists do not believe life on earth is immutable. This is a ridiculous misconception. God said that animals reproduce according to their kind. This is in the book of Genesis, not hidden away in some deep corner of the Bible. It does not imply anything about evolution.

So are you saying that all life evolved from the same original life, or that a creator powerful enough to create a universe was not powerful enough to create different building blocks for living organisms?

I haven't been taking a side. I've only been speaking in the best interest of logic throughout the whole thread.

No, God would surely be powerful enough to create whatever He wanted.
And yes, if He made life, He made them with the same building blocks so that there would be a cycle of nature.

the fossil record seems to imply otherwise

There is no need to post the rest of the context_
Not to be condescending, but I don't care what it implies to be honest. And this is why:
The fossil record is a record based upon the theoretical dating of whatever the fossils are encased in. Somehow the given stratum of where a fossil was located is enough to claim the fossils age, or even the encasing itself. The key phrase here is 'theory built on speculation of yet other combined theories'. Evolutionists are forced to belly-flop into geology and quantum physics and still to little avail.
In laymans terms: fossil records don't mean shit as of right now

If you want to challenge it, I will be happy to get into all the specifics. It's actually something I wouldn't mind doing in lieu of where this debate is going, though I'm obviously not fond of the subject.

Creationism puts the age of the earth at 6000 years.

This is based soley on the genealogy of the Bible. The entire timeline from Adam and Eve to Jesus is thought to be roughly 4000 years. The New Testament adds another 2000 years.
4004 BC is actually the exact time of Adam and Eve according to the chronology.
We as a species have had no need to drastically evolve. Sharks, according to evolutionists, have been around for millions of years. We are the dominant species of Earth, but yet we still change in little ways. We are considerably taller than we used to be. Girls asses are getting bigger, our pinky toes are starting to curl, among other things. And this is all over the course of a couple centuries.
But since fossils seems to be the crux of all this seeing how they are the only thing that remains of then and now, I will fully explain my rationale on all of it as well as evolution the next time I post. I can guarantee you will find a significant amount of holes in the concepts of both despite your enthusiasm.


And I just want to clear this last thing up before I finish this post:

In its origins, Judaism was henotheistic. That is to say, they worshiped only one god, but acknowledged the existence of many. Why do you think that god demands he be worshiped first in the ten commandments? Why do you think there were so many rules against worshiping other gods?

The Isrealites made a golden calf from their melted jewelry and began worshiping it as Moses climbed the Mount Sanai to obtain the Commandments.
1000's of years before Christ. In ancient, barbaric times when common people were relatively stupid. Judaism was Moses' religion, not theirs. He served the exodus and converted them to it.

Woah this thread boomed since my last post. With that being the case, quoting everything I want to post is a chore I'd rather not take on. Instead, I will talk generally on most of the things that have been brought up.

First, I want to simplify thermodynamics.
Hot and cold is only the acceleration/deceleration of atoms. They interact with each other and cause particles to ricochet and such. Depending on the 'recipe' of particles, things such as water not heating above boiling point become possible. There are not enough of certain particles to accelerate each other. This is why gasoline goes KABOOM! when one spark hits it. It's particle recipe is set for chaos.
Absolute zero is impossible, because an atom has to completely stop. Every attempt to make an atom literally freeze has failed.
This does, however, remind me of one of my favorite paradoxes:
"At any given point in time, an object is actually at rest."

I have used the term paradox a lot, so just to be thorough, I will give the definition because their is a general misconception of it.
Paradox- a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true.

Anyways, the laws of thermodynamics are laws because they are infallible in a granted setting. Just like Newton's laws of gravity, they may not exist in the quantum-world, but they are relevant on our scale. This is an important note on what defines a law. Laws do not define every counterpart of reality. Thus, a law is always true within it's boundaries.

Questions posted by Emyunoxious

How can you explain the changes in viruses, yearly?

Evolution. This does not mean over a billion years of it.

How do you explain the shared amino acids between all living things?

Amino acids are vital in protein, which are essential for any living thing. The ingredients for life are somewhat specific.

How do you explain similar systems in distinct species without them being related?
This does not prove a billion year legacy of evolution. And really, how many necessary variations can there be?

How do you explain the process of extinction?
Survival of the fittest. This has nothing to do with anything.

How do you explain fossils?
Certainly not with half-baked theories. There is no proof as to what their ages are. Carbon dating has a mere half-life of 5700 years, which is a theoretical concept in itself. The 'age' of a fossil is determined by what it's encased in. A theory built on theory within an observable thing. This is why I find the whole idea ridiculous.

How do you explain vestigial organs?
Evolution. These organs only need 10000 years or so to be rendered vestigial.

How do you explain literally any subject of biology that evolution has an answer for?
Evolution is only great to the extent that it's stuck up it's own ass. Very little of it is unchallenged, and it's theory built on theory nonetheless. It's an embarrassment to science when taken as far as some evolutionists convey it.

Questions posted by Jquestionmark

- Why can it not have occurred by a natural event? Is the supernatural required to explain this?
The difference between supernatural and natural becomes obsolete when trying to account for the beginnings of existence, because whatever started it has the affinities of divinity whether it is god or not.

- How does this provide evidence for there being only one God?
There only being one god is impossible to determine. Only the concept of divinity holds speculation. However, there is only one specific god spoken of in most religious text.

- Does it provide evidence that God still exists?
You mean, did he vanish from His existence, or did He just turn his back on us? I don't know how to answer this.
- Why would a benevolent being create a universe then fabricate details within that universe to make it appear to be older (if we're talking literal creationism)?
This is simple.

The age of of any elementary particle is impossible to determine. They are the building blocks of matter. How is it that we gauge how old something is? Comparison.

If nothing was fabricated to be 'old', there would be no fossil fuels, diamonds, etc., and the earth would be too volatile for life. Every chunk of lead would still be uranium, volcanoes would engulf many parts of the world.

Take these two base facts and think about it..

- And, my favourite one of all: If the matter needs an explanation for its origin, so does the God that created it. What made God?
This is also simple. It's called divinity.
Either way, scientists will have to accept that whatever the origin of existence may be, there will be no logical construct of where it came from.

Acer: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Donuts are awesome
In all seriousness though, string theory is damn absurd in relevance to what we see in our universe, but it is mathematically beautiful. If it's taken too far, it's because of it's math.
String theory and QLG are contradictory to each other, but they both need the graviton.
When they find it, I'll be waiting man

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acer Ecthelion
Gruj im sure we have this conversation before?

A few times actually

Before I start again on the earlier discussion, I agree with Acer and Dragonbyte. Science is very literal and it's definitions are usually exact. A law is a rule set by a governing authority, it is not the primary attribute of the governing authority itself. Newtons laws of gravity, for example, are laws at our scale. But at the sub-atomic scale, they do not exist. All laws become paradoxes at some point or another when something else is discovered, yet they cannot be discounted as laws because they are true and infallible in a granted setting.

Anyways,, (yes, I color coded stuff lol)


The idea that matter cannot be created or destroyedremains a law despite one huge thing on quarks.
There are several different kinds of quarks which, in the right combinations make up protons, neutrons and so on.
If these quarks are combined a certain way, they can literally destroy each other- or they can create more matter.
This is where the idea of anti-matter comes into play. If a small anti-matter bomb went off, most of it's matter would turn to energy and some would literally vanish from existence. There's a lot of skepticism as to how significant it is, as even small amounts of anti-matter is very hard to make and has not been found naturally.
The significance of anti-matter is closely examined with how existence began. All it would take is a few of the right quarks and boom! We have an entire universe of matter and energy.

Which brings me to another thing- the blue statement above^^^

There's a lot of theory about matter and energy being the same thing. Generally speaking, matter is only 'knots' of energy. This is necessary for any unification theorist, like me

To declare that all existence came from a single source, unification must be the key. Most of physics is largely bent on this concept. For example, we unified the forces of electricity and magnetism- electromagnetism. But for less specific ones, you could go with all the elements being unified through the idea that they are only different constructs of the same elementary particles, or time and space unification (which still stands impressively unless elementary 'graviton' particles are discovered)
If we find that gravitons do exist, we will be able to work towards unifying gravity with the other forces, which has been the crux of physics for a good long time now as there is no current explanation for gravity other than Einstein's Relativity.

Nonetheless, even if we are to unify all the forces and whatnot, we would still be at a loss to how existence began. We would have essentially only come to understand the workings of it. Creation would still be an inquiry. Even with it only taking a handful of quarks to spring everything into reality, they to have to abide by the same laws of other matter.
This is where things such as string theory come in. In string theory, time is only one of many other dimensions. A given universe without time simply has no beginning or end.
But for this to work, dimensions have to interact with time to create a universe like the one we live in, as the nature of ours demands it.
This brings the idea of dimensional 'strings' that loop and collide, creating universes where they intersect.
This can help explain phenomena such as quantum leaps, where electrons disappear and pop up somewhere else instantly. We could introduce another dimension:
Hyperspace
In hyperspace, the 4th spatial dimension, you could see all sides of a 3D object at once. Accordingly, you could also go from one side of that object to the other without traveling around it.

Despite how extraordinary this is, it will take an extraordinary amount of time to prove/disprove. These theories are made because physicists know the dead end that eventually awaits them if they don't. It will take a theory such as this to find the origin of existence, there's just no way around that. And until that happens, how can a divine god be discounted?
One thing to take into consideration is the idea of divinity. It is not a 'natural' construct as we define it. What I feel it really comes down to is that it's just as hard to imagine a divine god as it is to imagine divine reality, so why count one out?

Creationism seems to be an ideal topic for me. This is a much better way of debating theism vs atheism as it goes back to the beginning of time rather than the future, which in a lot of ways is the direction we should be going anyways if we are to come to some deeper understanding.

Now the literal definition of creationism is the conceptualization that all of existence was brought about by God, but I am not aiming for any side. However, I am going balls out on my conceptualization, as this thread bars none and it's about time one such as this exists. I'm pumped.

~Here it goes~

Science describes the beginning of existence in many different ways. There's the ever so popular big bang theory that is obviously correct in scientific terms. We see the universe expanding from a central point, gravity eventually folds back on itself and everything moves back to the center. Boom! It happens all over again.
It fails to explain where all this matter came from. However, the theory makes no claims of being the beginning of existence. It only states the cycle of our universe.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed.
This is a law, but it is also a paradox. The reasoning is because if something cannot be created, it cannot exist. So where did our universe come from?

There are many things that try to explain this. String theory is one I particularly love. But does any rationale truly negate the idea of creationism? I want to know what the latter has in this respect, as I know a lot about physics and am ready to bring out the flaws as well as the ingenius logic of it.

This is my starting argument.

 

[der Astronom]

TOO VAGUE Yeah, this will definitely be my last post. I have been very competant with my debate. I have not resorted to shallow argument, which is something I can't say for certain other people

Being too vague counts as having a shallow argument. Being able to explain your points and identify fallacies is not indication of a shallow argument, which I believe the majority of other debaters have been doing.

And just to clarify that other post: Sodom and Gomorrah were despicable places that deserved to be purged. God saved lives by doing that.
If God's a murderer by that, maybe you should stay atheist.

And it doesn't matter under what reasons you kill someone; so long as you kill them, you are a murderer. So far as I can tell, you're basing the despicableness of Sodom and Gomorrah based at least in part by the fact that they are homosexuals, and that their sexual lives are in your eyes, unacceptable, and if you think they deserved death because of that, then you are morally apprehensive.
And actually, I find not being a theist is an advantage to analyzing the bible because I am not biased into believing that any character described of in the bible, including god, must necessarily exist, or that they even have good intentions. I don't have to make any assumptions about the truth value or pretend it's good to see what it says. I can evaluate it, based on what I know is good for people in general, and what isn't.
But that's not to say theists can't analyze it this way; I think a few of them have, and decided they don't want to be theists anymore because of it.

Your debate hardly encompasses this amount of detail. Most others have become redundant and grudgingly argumentative. Therefore, you are only speaking of yourselves.

No, you have simply refused to address most of the rebuttals and refutations made by others because you have decided yourself that they are irrelevant, even if they aren't--if you think they are irrelevant, you should point it out and explain why. You have failed to do so. All you have done is make vague statements about the bible being too complicated, which is no argument at all, and basically provided explanations that don't explain anything at all. And when pressed to provide further details about your vague statements, you try to change the subject or complain about our character, and if you ever made any sort of argument, it's rife with fallacies and completely refuted. It's not as if any of your arguments are special or new anyways; trust me, we've seen them all, and we're not impressed. I'm sorry you don't like the format of these arguments because we choose to base them on logical consistency, and that doesn't match with your version of things, but I think that's the only way we're going to get anywhere in debate, and you should start by addressing some of the refutations people have been providing.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Prove what you have claimed about me being vague, or what I've debated is false. You can't, because I have not presented any of that. I'm the only logical consistency on the thread. I have explained every single inquiry. If I say, for example, that a radioactive element is not born within an object, but rather absorbed, how can you determine an age of a fossil? It's a valid argument, no doubt, and yet is argued with being false.
How, dear sir, is this false? Because you want it to be? This has been the entire cycle of this thread. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. Someone comes out the woodwork with some claim. I argue it. It's dismissed. And so on and so on. And why is it being dismissed?
Because no one wants to admit that an agnostic knows a thing or two as well on science. I see no real contending debate and deep down you know it also so don't sit here and act like I'm the imagining things.
Typical atheists..

When I first started typing this post, I was considering maybe loosening up and giving yall the benefit of the doubt, but now that I've stated all this, I see no real reason to stay on here. Bye thread.

 

[der Astronom]

Prove what you have claimed about me being vague, or what I've debated is false.

Instead of complaining about not liking our arguments, how about simply refuting them? That will prove you're not being vague or wrong.
The fact that you bothered to repost up what you said the entire time in the thread makes this all really convenient. If you still don't get it, I'll point it out specifically:

In several of your posts, you accuse people of not understanding the bible because it's too complicated for them. If that's your only argument, then you're being too vague, and it doesn't help your argument at all because it doesn't address the specific concerns I have with your argument. Then you fail to address the issues I bring up regarding slavery in the bible (specifically, might makes right and two wrongs don't make a right), and when asked to explain in detail why you think your perspective of the bible should be accepted as moral, even though we have pointed out several problems with it, you back away. And when several people have demonstrated that the god of the bible supports slavery, you reply back with the assertion that he doesn't, even though you haven't demonstrated it or made any further refutations to the points people make about god supporting slavery.
Then you refuse to agree to using commonly understood definitions of agnosticism, in an attempt to make agnosticism have characteristics that appear to make your position look better (and we have already explained why it hasn't). And when asked to provide a source to back up your definition of agnosticism, you shift the burden of proof on to us--well, we are not responsible for your definition of agnosticism, you are. You have demonstrated to us nothing, and are not required to do your homework for you. Everytime we offer a rebuttal or refutation, you fail to address it, and either switch to talking about something else or come up with some fallacy. I asked you if you think it's okay to allow someone else to take all the blame, and be effectively taken as a scapegoat, and I don't think I got a satisfactory answer from that. In addition, you have not responded to my claims regarding your special pleading fallacy (in other words, why do I have to make a special exception for Jesus being a scapegoat or even what god wants). We have demonstrated that Jesus is being taken as a scapegoat, but rather than pursue that specific avenue, you have ignored the refutation completely (and therefore, we remain unconvinced of your claim that Jesus is not a scapegoat; you provided us with no further rebuttal). As other people have pointed out, you paint generalizations about atheists that are false, either by classification (because nowhere in lacking belief in a god or gods is vanity implied), or just stuff you made up, and when asked to prove your assertion that vanity is equivalent with not believing in god, you refuse to answer that point. You've basically made ad hominem attacks where generalizations where the morality of atheists are concerned.
You also demonstrate that your knowledge of science is severely lacking, and I have not heard a response regarding your misinformation about it, other than to complain I'm wrong without providing an explanation for why.
So basically, if you're just going to complain that we're wrong about you being vague or committing fallacies, even though we've probably already explained that several times, and you're not even going to make a proper refutation (read: I'm not convinced of your reasoning why you think you're not being vague or wrong because you haven't explained it by posting proper rebuttals or refutations), then we're not getting anywhere.
In fact, if you want, I can provide you a list of refutations for which we have yet to receive an answer, and then you can simply provide your rebuttal or explanation for why you think our refutations aren't right.

You can't, because I have not presented any of that. I'm the only logical consistency on the thread. I have explained every single inquiry.

And I just did. In fact, I think you're the only one here being logically inconsistent, as I have pointed out above. If you were being logically consistent, then you should provide a refutation for any rebuttal we might provide. So far, you have failed to provide a refutation that either doesn't contain fallacies, or explains something of significance.

If I say, for example, that a radioactive element is not born within an object, but rather absorbed, how can you determine an age of a fossil? It's a valid argument, no doubt, and yet is argued with being false.
How, dear sir, is this false?

It's because you haven't demonstrated how your argument is valid, let alone phrased it in a way that makes it an argument. I don't even know what you're arguing for or against. Are you arguing that radioactive decay can't be used to determine the age of a fossil, or were you trying to get at something else in a different context? And if you are arguing against using radioactive decay on fossils, you'll have to explain how them being absorbed has anything to do with preventing an accurate indication of the age of a fossil.

Because you want it to be? This has been the entire cycle of this thread. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. Someone comes out the woodwork with some claim. I argue it. It's dismissed. And so on and so on. And why is it being dismissed?

It's quite simple, actually. If you present something and fail to provide a suitable reason for it, it should be dismissed. That's one of the basic rules of debate. And if you're still claiming you have explained it, see above. I provided plenty of examples of where we provided refutations (in other words, if you did try to explain something you presented, we're telling you why your explanation isn't suitable) that you have yet to explain.

Because no one wants to admit that an agnostic knows a thing or two as well on science.

And you have demonstrated no satisfactory understanding of how science works. It's not got to do with what we admit or not (there's another example of an ad hominem attack), and if you think we're wrong, then maybe you should start by addressing these issues:

Do you or do you not believe that science can prove things? If you think it does, why do you expect it to?

What assumptions do you think science is making that you find unreasonable?

Do you think science is infallible or falsifiable? If you believe it is falsifiable, why is it a lie and not simply something that needs to be fixed or improved upon?

Do you expect science to tell us anything and everything about the world? Why?

I see no real contending debate and deep down you know it also so don't sit here and act like I'm the imagining things.
Typical atheists..

No, I am not feeling what you claim I am feeling, and even if I did, it's proof of nothing, as feelings do not provide an adequate justification for an argument, and I would appreciate it if you stopped using these ad hominem attacks. You've just provided more evidence for what you asked me to prove at the beginning.
I don't doubt you're not imagining things; I'm pretty sure you believe all your assertions to be real. What we doubt, however, is that you have a reasonable explanation for any of the assertions you've provided, and if you don't have one, that's fine, just don't expect us to believe you, and we wouldn't have much to debate about. And if you do, fine, just great. You should have no problems whatsoever providing a refutation for the ones we've already provided. But all you've been doing is sidestepping the issue by complaining about how "unfair" we've been, when really, you're the one refusing to explain anything.

 

[Jquestionmark]

I'm the only logical consistency on the thread.

Not to bore you to tears by quoting myself, but:

Number 1:

I see flaws that riddle science in every avenue that opposes the Bible, and yet I do not proclaim the Bible is right.

Your claim: science is flawed in every avenue that opposes the Bible
My response: Genesis 30:37-39

But wait, the Bible isn't a science book, you say? Then, sir, you contradict yourself wholesale.

____

Number 2:

Omniscience obviously only goes so far.

If I assume God is real:
-He is omnipresent and knows all
-He cannot see the future
Being omnipresent and knowing all, however, He can see a little further down the road.

Omniscience only goes so far? Are you familiar with the definition of omniscience?

"infinite knowledge" is an okay definition, and will work for the moment. The thing here is, there is no limit on infinity, that's the entire point. If you're using a different definition of omniscience, please state it. If you are reassigning values to the Christian God beyond what normal Christianity asserts, please explain them. You are once again contradicting yourself, and this time in the space of a single sentence.

____

Logical consistency? There? Where?

Also:

And what is this? I insulted a dead person because I said that Darwin's theory was only correct in it's basic view of natural selection? Well if that is the case, I guess so...
Evolutionists are fabricating information? Nope, never said that. I simply stated that they try to make their theories seem more than what they are,, theories built on theories.

If you'd like, to save time, I'll give you this one (in spite of your use of the word asinine when it wasn't needed or the things you've said about evolution{ists} in general before the comment I was responding to), but where's the third one? The one where you specifically claim you're the most open minded person in the thread? No comments on that one?

Jquestionmark, I find your lack of intuition disturbing.

Nice Star Wars reference. I also liked those movies.

Prove what you have claimed about me being vague, or what I've debated is false. You can't, because I have not presented any of that. I'm the only logical consistency on the thread. I have explained every single inquiry. If I say, for example, that a radioactive element is not born within an object, but rather absorbed, how can you determine an age of a fossil? It's a valid argument, no doubt, and yet is argued with being false.
How, dear sir, is this false? Because you want it to be?

So the accurate dating of a piece of wood from an ancient Egyptian barge by Nobel Prize winning scientist Willard Libby doesn't provide proof of radiocarbon dating's functionality?

This is why we're saying you're incorrect. There is proof of radiocarbon dating working. The crux of the dating method is the absorption of the carbon-14 (due to the reliable amount in the atmosphere – after all, you've said before that if we're in a creationist setting, it would support life from the get go), so saying that the carbon-14 being absorbed is a problem doesn't make sense: that's the thing that makes radiocarbon dating work – and it is a proven method (see above example).

This has been the entire cycle of this thread. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. I present something, and it is dismissed. I present something, its dismissed. Someone comes out the woodwork with some claim. I argue it. It's dismissed. And so on and so on. And why is it being dismissed?
Because no one wants to admit that an agnostic knows a thing or two as well on science.

I admit that lots of agnostics know not only a thing or two about science, but a ton. You don't seem to know anything about science, at least not science as people other than yourself define it. Your posts show a fantastic misunderstanding of science.

I see no real contending debate and deep down you know it also so don't sit here and act like I'm the imagining things.
Typical atheists..

Your ad hominem is peeking out. Also, I've stressed this before, I have yet to admit anything regarding my belief (beyond my admission in the "Do you believe in God?" thread that I do not believe in the Christian monotheistic God – that is not enough information to begin labeling me with).

When I first started typing this post, I was considering maybe loosening up and giving yall the benefit of the doubt, but now that I've stated all this, I see no real reason to stay on here. Bye thread.

We've given you the benefit of the doubt, and still are now if you're willing to back up your claims. Sorry it was too much work for you to reciprocate.