Mister Catshit says:

#63, JB,

As for a demonstration, I would have thought the magnificence of the existing universe or the design of the human body was a pretty good demonstration, even if it is in a state of disrepair after the biblical curse in Genesis.

The existing universe? Do you mean that cold nothing between hot suns and uninhabitable worlds? Where invisible cosmic rays sterilize whatever they bombard? Where gravity is so weak it doesn’t exist? Where black holes eat everything that comes near and exploding stars burn all that around them with gamma radiation?

Where is the demonstration that this was created by a superior being, “god”? Just pointing your finger in the sky and saying “god made this” doesn’t show anyone anything.

If “god” made us in his own image why did he give us an appendix? Why would he give us cancer. Or body odor? Or ingrown toenails? Or a life where our teeth don’t last as long as we do? Or arthritis? If that is your idea of a good design, it is pretty easy to see “god” didn’t learn from the mistakes in his own body.

If “god” loves us so much, why torment us? Is he like the kids who use a magnifying glass to burn ants? What kind of loving father treats his children like that? What kind of a father punishes his children because of what happened generations ago? What kind of father would allow his only son (although I’m told we are all his children, but that is another story) to die a slow, torturous death when he has the power to right a wrong?

And you profess love to some being that does this to us? Ya, right.

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

#63 JB writes, “However I imagine that for anyone wanting to avoid accountability to a higher power, then nothing short of a act outside the laws of physics would be considered a truly believable demonstration. Am I correct?”

Actually, I think you’re correct in assuming that something outside the natural laws (such as physics) is required to prove the existence of a supernatural being, almost by definition alone. You’re very perceptive.

You also stopped just short of making the out-and-out accusation that many in the Christian community don’t hesitate to make. Namely, that atheism is merely a disingenuous attempt to avoid accountability to a higher power. It’s ludicrous on its face to make any presumption that someone who actually requires credible evidence rather than relying on blind faith is automatically driven by their own selfish agenda.

I think this is an attempt by Christians to downplay the possibility that genuine disagreement with their beliefs is at all logical. It’s also an attack on the intellectual integrity of people who question their god’s existence. One thing I’ve noticed about Christians is they have an obsession with claiming the moral high ground, and they won’t hesitate to “go negative” on anyone who questions their beliefs if it makes themselves look better by comparison.

Mister Catshit says:

#63, JB,

Most people believe Africa exists even though they haven’t seen it. Is it really necessary?

But, the existence of Africa can be amply demonstrated even if not proved to your satisfaction. I can talk to any number of people that have been on its shores. I can see it by looking at pictures taken from space. I can read about Africa in books. I can hear about current events in Africa on TV news or written in the newspaper. There is enough evidence to show Africa exists. That takes Africa from a demonstration to a fact.

If every challenging moment is a test for you and for those around you, whether it is sickness or overwhelming power, it would not be logical for God to intervene every time some sort of a challenge came up.

But they aren’t “tests”. When my wife had an entropic pregnancy she almost died. The baby did die. That is where the fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube instead of continuing down into the uterus. My wife was only an hour or two away from bleeding out. God didn’t save her. It was the obstetrician that had just delivered a baby that saved her. She would have died if they transported her to another hospital.

If “god” created us like him, why would he allow the egg to stick in the fallopian tube? That is a built in defect.

Mister Catshit says:

#69, JB,

But then Adam and Eve chose to consider themselves as God and for that God cursed the creation and Man was condemned to eventually die.

So the guy that loves us cursed us and gave us all the ills in life? Not only that, but he didn’t do that to Adam and Eve, they were already created, he made all the future generations suffer? And you claim this supreme being, this “god” loves us?

Sorry JB, that ain’t love. That is just old fashioned possessiveness. Vindictiveness. Petty comes to mind as well. And he thinks we were bad?

And he not only created us, he created Adam and Steve too. But now we have to hate Adam and Steve because “god” thinks they are abhorrent. But hey, my niece is just peachy to love. But if the Manic-Depressive gets out of control and does something while in a deluded state of mind, that is wrong.

JB says:

I know it sounds almost like a cop-out (logically) to brush aside every bad thing today as a result of people doing things that God doesn’t approve of. And on the surface it’s easy to think that an all powerful God should force everyone to be nice.

But according to the bible that was the original design. It was only after we (the human race) made an attempt to be like God that he took measures to “put us in our place” (so to speak.)

As to why the curse punishment is passed down to genetic descendants, I have no idea. Going on the assumption that there is a soul, then the fallout of the curse on the descendants would logically imply that there must also be a physical genetic link between body and soul. That’s purely my hypothesis at the moment.

#70 When I say that perhaps every challenging moment is a test, that is in reference to the idea that this small moment in time is a proving ground of whether in the end you choose to follow God or choose to follow self. If God is looking at the big picture, knowing that anyone choosing him will be given a new perfect body and a new paradise like world to live in for eternity, then how bad is it really to let someone experience some discomfort if it forces them to choose one way or the other.

#71, I did say “…supposed to work” In the old Testament, the obvious list of rules that was approved by God was the ten commandments. After that it looks like things became a partial mix of truth and man’s attempt at clarifying the truth. From what I can tell, it didn’t always end up with perfect results. The “…supposed to work” should have implied that Jesus was clearing up problem issues like having slaves, 1000 wives, etc.

As for Adam and Steve, I’m pretty sure God loves them and only hates the “abhorrent” act. Other humans should not hate Adam or Steve either.

I’m not sure I can accurately comment on some of the other motivations behind the mind of God. It’s starting to venture into the realm where you need to have access to inner thoughts and global awareness of what everyone is doing before a determination can be made about Godly choices of right or wrong and how it relates to the grand scheme of things.

JB says:

Ummm. I said “As #65 hinted at” That should have been #68. Must be getting late.

Cursor_ says:

#4

Who said I believed in God?

Wow you assume too much, and that carries the weight of the word.

I said that people are nortoriously WRONG.

Just because some falty human said there is a God doesn’t mean there is one and for the same reason some foolishly falliable git says there is NO God.

So who would I believe? A guy who says there is a god and can’t prove it in a lab? Or one who says there is NO god and can’t prove it in a lab?

Heresay. I don’t go by heresay. Its not logical.

The LOGICAL conclusion is that we have a history of not identifying shit until years and years after the fact. Ergo, we cannot rule for or against a god. So until then, it is a possibility like anything else we have not yet identified. But the probability is questionable.

Humans, despite what Shakespeare wrote of them, are still brilliant children with about as much sense as a turnip.

Cursor_

QB says:

#76 Nice circular argument. You can’t disprove a belief system, therefore it must exist. You claim that people can’t make an argument against creationism, but that also means that you can’t make an argument for creationism.

It’s a belief system, plain and simple and from an anthropological and sociological point of view has interest. From a scientific point of view it has little to offer – no testable hypotheses, no lines of research, nothing really to offer actually. I hope for your sake that if you ever get treated for a disease which has mutated that your doctor has studied evolution.

Mister Catshit says:

#75, JB,

As for Adam and Steve, I’m pretty sure God loves them and only hates the “abhorrent” act. Other humans should not hate Adam or Steve either.

Oh, I’m sure your “god” does love Adam and Steve. If he hates the act he (“god”) designed or programmed them to do, then why doesn’t he hate my nieces crooked back or off centered walk? They are not normal either?

But hey, I don’t know anyone who hates my niece. She is a beautiful, intelligent, considerate, wonderful 13 yr old. What qualifies her to be loved by “god” more that Adam and Steve?

Or if “god” does hate Adam and Steve’s actions, why not stop making homosexuals? Or if spina bifida creates a horrendous condition, why won’t “god” stop making babies with the condition? Although many still claim homosexuality is still a matter of choice or free will, there can be no argument that spina bifida is not.

the Three-Headed Cat™ says:

Before JB starts wearing his typing fingers to the nub, I would like to gently remind him the the Bible, the Torah and the Quran, are evidence of exactly nothing whatsoever – except that some person or persons wrote those words that those books contain.

They are books. They were therefore written. That is everything that they provide evidence of. Nothing else.

I write: “Jesus voted for George Bush in the last election.” How is that evidence of what Jesus did or did not do?
A: It isn’t. It’s nothing more than what someone said. And that is all the Bibble is. What some someones said. Zero evidence of anything. Zero proof of anything. No scientific theories. No conjectures. No hypotheses. Only some claims that certain things happened – that people of the time believed, because they did not have sufficient knowledge to realize the fact that those things were not possible. And they are not possible, and they never were.

There is not a Biblical “theory” of anything. There are folk tales, which – not coïncidentally – are just like folk tales from prescientific peasants all over the world. The one and only theory – meaning “explanation which takes into account all we know” – regarding humankind’s development. NOT origins.

The ToEbNS is the scientific explanation
– proven to be fact, but not yet 100% complete, which is why it is called a theory, NOT because, as you mistakenly think, alternatives exist, because NO alternatives exist
– of HOW we developed, NOT what we came from or why. That is something, at present, for philosophers to argue about. Since no evidence is available, it is not a subject for scientific theorizing.

JB says:

#83, you missed the point somehow. If the description of origins from the Bible were true, what would you expect to see today? I’m saying that the evidence we see is better explained by the events described in the Bible.

Both Evolutionist and Creationist have the same exact evidence. The argument is not over the evidence but how either side uses their presupposition to extrapolate a path from the unprovable starting point to the present day proof. Evolutionists tend to start with the presupposition that there is no God. Creationists tend to start with the presupposition the the Bible is true.

To consider the logic from either side of the argument you have to acknowledge the presupposition to be true (at least temporarily). That’s not saying it needs to become your belief. But in any debate or discussion you have to consider the presupposition no mater how outrageous it seems. Normally that would be called “thinking outside the box”.

I should say that I might get one more post in before the end of today, but I won’t be able to post for about four days (three if I’m lucky) after that. So, don’t assume I’ve abandoned the discussion. Keep posting and I’ll catch up.

the Three-Headed Cat™ says:

#87 – Syngensmyth

“The questioning of macro-evolution within the scientific community grows continually, not on theological but on scientific criteria.”

Working from that assertion, which I am going to assume (a) to have come from you, and (b) to read the way you intended for it to read, we add one additional premise, which is demonstrably true: your assertion is utterly false.

Therefore, only one of two possible conclusions can be drawn.

Either:
(1) You sincerely belive that demonstrable falsehood and are therefore an idiot,
or,
(2) You are aware of the falsity of your assertion, in which case, you are a liar.

You are either ignorantly or dishonestly confounding the use of the term “macroevolution” by two different groups, for which it has two distinctly different meanings and connotations.

To scientists, the macroevolution controversy is about different theories relating to particular aspects of the evolutionary process, which is in no way shape or form questioned or threatened. The issue is simply a normal scientific debate regarding exactly how evolution by natural selection functions in certain aspects. It is not, as religious idiots and knaves try to pretend, any expression of doubt or dissent regarding the accepted fact of evolution.

The term has been deceptively injected into the debate by the creationist forces, as part of their attempts to put a false “scientific” veneer on their religious contentions.

They now concede, having been repeatedly and thoroughly proven wrong on many individual facets of evolution, that what they choose to call “microevolution” is OK – bacteria changing form, birds changing color, toothed fish becoming toothless fish, etc, etc, usw, ad infinitum. They now make the claim that although such (their term) “microevolution” is true, that (their term again, not the scientific one) “macroevolution” – basically, one species evolving into another – is not possible.

And there has been, despite what said idiots claim, no change in the scientific consensus regarding evolution. It is still universally recognized and accepted as the fact that it is.

“Macroevolution controversy” – another pathetic creationist attempt to gain scientific legitimacy for antiscientific beliefs.

Pathetic.

the Three-Headed Cat™ says:

#88 – JB

“#83, you missed the point somehow. If the description of origins from the Bible were true, what would you expect to see today? I’m saying that the evidence we see is better explained by the events described in the Bible.”

That is utterly meaningless.

First, you keep insisting on bringing up “origins.” The ToE does not, and is not intended to address origins, except the origin of species, from other species. And it works just fine.

Secondly, a book of patched-together prescientific folk tales, containing accounts of absolutely false and impossible phenomena, does not even remotely constitute evidence of anything, except as I said, evidence that someone wrote it.

BTW, are you actually so dim and self-absorbed that you think that readers here haven’t noticed you avoiding the points I made to you as if they were radioactive? Just pretending they’re not there, and thereby weaseling out of attempting any vain response, ain’t escaped anyone’s notice. You have been nailed. And you can’t come up with a shred of rebuttal. So you (cleverly, you think) try to change the subject. You must think you’re addressing a bunch of creationists.

“Both Evolutionist and Creationist have the same exact evidence.”

That is a lie. And I proved that it is a lie. Evolution has all evidence. As new evidence is discovered, it is integrated into the ToE. Creationist have their pathetic book of stories about an invisible man in the sky who snapped his fingers and made everything appear. That’s not evidence, that a fairytale. And not a very good one at that.

“The argument is not over the evidence”

Oh, yes it is. Science is about nothing but evidence. And you don’t have one atom of it.

“…but how either side uses their presupposition to extrapolate a path from the unprovable starting point to the present day proof.

No, it isn’t. You really are dim, aren’t you? The theory of evolution by natural selection does not posit any starting point. It is about a process.

Creationism is about flailing about trying to find or concoct some kind of superficially believable claim that some ridiculous book of fairytales is on an equal footing with demonstrable scientific fact.

“Evolutionists tend to start with the presupposition that there is no God.”

Another flat-out lie. Do you ever get tired of spewing lies? Science offers exactly ZERO assertions, whether hypotheses, conjectures, or theories, related to the existence of anything outside of the observable physical world.

No scientific chain of reasoning starts with rejecting “God” or any other product of human imagination. It isn’t necessary.

Any valid scientific reasoning FAILS TO INCLUDE GOD, THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER AND SPIDER-MAN, AMONG AN INFINITY OF OTHER THINGS THAT DO NOT EXHIBIT ANY EVIDENCE OF POSSESSING THE QUALITY OF ACTUAL EXISTENCE.

Creationists tend to start with the presupposition the the Bible is true.

That is correct. They do. And they do so unscientifically, since they have zero evidence to even remotely suggest that the Bibble is anything other than what is appears to be; to wit, a ridiculous book of silly stories.

“To consider the logic from either side of the argument you have to acknowledge the presupposition to be true (at least temporarily).

Neither I nor anyone else has to do anything of the kind. I begin to suspect that you may benefit less from reading an introduction to elementary logic than by institutionalization.

“That’s not saying it needs to become your belief. But in any debate or discussion you have to consider the presupposition no mater how outrageous it seems.”

No you don’t. Absurdities are absurdities. Hell of a world this would be if we had to re-prove every premise in every argument. The world would come to a screeching halt in about 7 minutes.

Once we have settled simple straightforward matters, we move on. And the only people who are willing to squander their lives vainly attempting to impart legitimacy to your book of fairy stories are idiots and lunatics. The rest of us have the world of reality to contend with.

“Normally that would be called “thinking outside the box”.

No, that is typically called “being a credulous, irrational fanatic.”

“I should say that I might get one more post in before the end of today, but I won’t be able to post for about four days (three if I’m lucky) after that. So, don’t assume I’ve abandoned the discussion. Keep posting and I’ll catch up.”

That’s the sort of thing often heard from those unfortunates who have been backed into rhetorical corners that they find themselves unable to escape. 🙂

JB says:

#93, my gosh it seems like you just stepped out of reality there for a moment during that whole post. I could take the entire post and disclaiming each line, the way you did. But since I’m almost out of time today, I’ll just take the most amusing one.

I said, “Both Evolutionist and Creationist have the same exact evidence.”

The response was… “That is a lie. And I proved that it is a lie. Evolution has all evidence. As new evidence is discovered, it is integrated into the ToE. Creationist have their pathetic book of stories about an invisible man in the sky who snapped his fingers and made everything appear. That’s not evidence, that a fairytale. And not a very good one at that.”

You seriously think that the same evidence, the same empirical facts, will vary between the two groups? Talk about not thinking scientifically.

Perhaps you are confusing the theory or “fairytale” as you put it, with the evidence.

JB says:

#93, “That’s the sort of thing often heard from those unfortunates who have been backed into rhetorical corners”

I agree the statement had the potential to have it’s motives questioned. But then so would a lack of response for four days. So it was a toss up.