Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Parallellism is atheological and theistic arguments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You have not coherently cited the above to support this argument.
    Then it appears you have not watched many debates between atheists & theists. Most debating theists know all the arguments used by atheists, and if you just spend a little time on youtube watching Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Barker, Shermer etc.., you will find extensive evidence of my statement.

    I believe you are still grossly misrepresented atheists here including the above mentioned. They reject all different God(s) of any possible definition. You will need to cite specifics if you continue to assert this claimthat the God(s) atheist do not believe in do not include your God..
    That's a nonsensical and false statement. They can't possibly reject Gods "of any possible definition" because the original definition of God (Elohim) denotes any position of authority over someone else. As I said the Hebrew judges were called Elohim, as are human men is Psalms 82. God (Elohim) denotes a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position and not a person. The fathers proper name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God (capital G)

    I find it assuming you think atheists can better define the term God, rather than the theists that the term originated from.

    A common tactic of atheists is to define God as a "square circle" (a illogical concept), then explain how "square circles" can't exist, and think they have given a rational argument for Gods non-existence.

    God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE, which you have no logical argument against
    Last edited by IDScience; 06-12-2014, 04:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      The possible outcomes of a coin toss are established by empirical science. Principles of logic have nothing to do with it except insofar as we need logic to discover and describe empirical reality.
      Thats like saying the principles of gravity have nothing to do with objects falling, except insofar as we need it to describe empirical reality. We use logic to conclude what the results of empirical science are. Deductive logic tells us through observation all coin flips will fall on either heads or tails, therefore we can logically deduce any coin flip will fall on either heads or tails

      What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.
      Don't assume because you have never heard of the terminology I personally invented it.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:On_Logical_Absolutes

      http://logical-critical-thinking.com...cal-absolutes/

      And up to this point, by the way, I might agree with you. If I understand your assertion correctly, I would restate it thus: It either is or is not the case that the universe, including life on earth, was created by a cognitive mechanism using intent. If that is what you mean, I have no problem with it. The logical form of such a premise is "A or not-A," and if we can demonstrate the impossibility of not-A, then we have proved the truth of A.
      Yes that is my assertion, and its nice to find an atheist (I assume) that actually understands this. Most atheists I debate do not

      Right. Logicians call that the Law of Excluded Middle.
      Which is in the category of logical absolutes (See Rational Wiki) The definition of the term should be self evident because absolutes do exist within logic & reason (I fully understood it when I first heard it). Quibbling over systematics only makes one appear at a loss to address the argument being made

      This accusation is akin to claiming that many electricians don't recognize Ohm's Law. The LEM is about as basic as anything gets in philosophy.
      Not even close. Ohm's Law (the little I know of it) is a precise mathematical equation, subjective philosophy is not, hence the preface "subjective".

      Maybe. Maybe not. But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.
      Of course it does, the many worlds (multiverse) of quantum physics is proposed specifically to prevent the first law from being violated. There is no empirical testable evidence at all of these other unseen undetectable worlds

      The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.
      That is not what I am saying. ID does not posit any supernatural mechanisms nor does it claim to identify the designer, or even care who the designer is. Its true Creationism (the biblical Genesis account of ID) does claim to identify the designer, but ID does not, so don't confuse the two as most atheists do. And supernatural abilities are not needed to create life, only an intelligence capable of assembling the cell with over 300 molecular machines, and writing specific codes in DNA for specific species, thats all, nothing more. Craig Venter and George Church predict science will eventually ID life. And ironically this will come from the same scientists that claim "ID is not science". Creationists always laugh at that one.

      Also, life created by science in the lab is biogenesis not abiogenesis because it originated from another life. Only life that originated from non-sentient mechanisms is abiogenesis

      Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.
      Correct, but from your posts you seem to understand that without chemical abiogenesis, atheistic evolution has no foundation to stand on. I find atheists that use observable evidence of minor fluctuations within phenotypes as sufficient evidence that no intelligent designer is needed, to be irrational "subjective" philosophers void of critical thought
      Last edited by IDScience; 06-12-2014, 04:25 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        What you are asserting is just an exclusive disjunction. You don't need to invent any new terminology to do that.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        Don't assume because you have never heard of the terminology I personally invented it.*
        OK, so you didn't invent it yourself. Instead you're just parroting it. Nice catch, but I didn't learn my philosophy by surfing the Web, especially not by reading websites whose authors won't even identify themselves.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        We use logic to conclude what the results of empirical science are.
        Empirical science uses many tools. Logic is one of them. This tells us as much about the relationship between logic and science as the observation that a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        Of course it does
        Not just because you say so, it doesn't.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        the many worlds (multiverse) of quantum physics is proposed specifically to prevent the first law from being violated.
        Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        That is not what I am saying.
        In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        Its true Creationism (the biblical Genesis account of ID) does claim to identify the designer, but ID does not, so don't confuse the two as most atheists do.
        The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        And supernatural abilities are not needed to create life, only an intelligence capable of assembling the cell with over 300 molecular machines, and writing specific codes in DNA for specific species, thats all, nothing more.
        Right. For all ID cares, it could have been space aliens, right? If the space alien hypothesis were proved, the folks at the Discovery Institute would just say, "We told you so," gloat for a few days and then shut up, eh?

        Originally posted by Doug Shaver
        Strictly speaking, evolution is not about the origin of life. But, just for the time being, I'll put that quibble on hold.

        Originally posted by IDScience View Post
        Correct, but from your posts you seem to understand that without chemical abiogenesis, atheistic evolution has no foundation to stand on.
        It's time to take the hold off of my quibble. If it were proved that life could not have originated through natural processes, my views on evolution would not be affected in the least.
        Last edited by Doug Shaver; 06-12-2014, 08:20 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
          Then it appears you have not watched many debates between atheists & theists. Most debating theists know all the arguments used by atheists, and if you just spend a little time on youtube watching Sam Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Barker, Shermer etc.., you will find extensive evidence of my statement.
          Please cite atheists specifically to support your argument, and not the general shotgun approach. I have read their books and watched their debates.

          That's a nonsensical and false statement. They can't possibly reject Gods "of any possible definition" because the original definition of God (Elohim) denotes any position of authority over someone else. As I said the Hebrew judges were called Elohim, as are human men is Psalms 82. God (Elohim) denotes a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position and not a person. The fathers proper name is Yahweh, but his position in the universe is the most high God (capital G)
          Yes, they reject ALL possible God(s), because of a lack of evidence.

          I find it assuming you think atheists can better define the term God, rather than the theists that the term originated from.
          No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.

          A common tactic of atheists is to define God as a "square circle" (a illogical concept), then explain how "square circles" can't exist, and think they have given a rational argument for Gods non-existence.
          Please cite atheists making this claim. The claim of atheists is that there is no objective evidence for any possible God(s).

          God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE, which you have no logical argument against
          Your making an unsubstantiated claim. Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-12-2014, 08:56 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Your selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution.
            What you mean to say is my selective citations grossly misrepresent the science of evolution you believed was true

            Every prediction Darwinian evolution has made, that I'm aware of, has been falsified. The conserved elements (functional elements that can't evolve) have already falsified the theory, but science will not admit it, therefore science does not treat evolution like a real scientific theory, they treat it like a religion. The main tenet of science is based in falsification, or "attack the theory", if your not trying to prove the theory wrong, your not practicing real science as its defined. But evolutionary science knows very well if they applied "attack the theory" principles to Darwinian evolution, it would fold like a house of cards, and the egos in science along with it. This is why "Teach The Controversy" (teaching the problems with evolution is schools) proposed by ID proponents, has been rejected by science

            The Journal of theoretical biology said

            "Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78,

            Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified because the only other theory to replace it with is ID, and evolutionary science has arrogantly claimed ID is not science, long before the science was even settled. These are huge egos that climbed out on a limb and they are trying to prevent the inevitable crash

            'We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . ."
            Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.


            If your not aware of it yet, look up "The Altenberg 16 meeting" ,it was a recent meeting of 16 top evolutionists that are quietly trying to salvage a theory on the ropes

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
              If your not aware of it yet, look up "The Altenberg 16 meeting" ,it was a recent meeting of 16 top evolutionists that are quietly trying to salvage a theory on the ropes
              I looked it up and found a summary of what all 16 participants had to say. I found no evidence in their comments that evolutionary theory is on the ropes.

              Source: Professor Jerome Lejeune

              We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time.

              © Copyright Original Source


              Why should I take his word over that of at least hundreds of geneticists who disagree with him?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                ......... Darwinian evolution is not allowed to be falsified because the only other theory to replace it with is ID, .............
                ID is a theory about the use of magic performed by a magical magician (therefore doubly magical) for which no explanation can be given even in principal. It is not scientific and therefore cannot compete with a scientific theory. It is such a mad idea that only the lunatic fringe is still interested in it.

                By the way, it is not true that the universe is fine tuned for life. As far as we can tell, practically its entire vastness is extremely hostile to life and we helpless, hopeless and insignificant beings are trapped on this tiny insignificant speck we call mother earth. The earth is already getting quite old at about 4.5 billion years. In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect in the beginning, similar to the runaway warming on Venus. But then the Earth’s atmosphere will dry out as the water vapour is lost to space, never to return. And life will disappear from the earth – this is not fine tuning for life so much as it is fine tuning for sterility. The way we are going, it’s not likely that we’ll survive another 1000 years let alone a billion.

                “And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up …” – the end will come but it just ain’t gonna happen like that.
                “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                “not all there” - you know who you are

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                  OK, so you didn't invent it yourself. Instead you're just parroting it. Nice catch, but I didn't learn my philosophy by surfing the Web, especially not by reading websites whose authors won't even identify themselves.
                  Every word or phrase used to describe some aspect of reasoning was originally coined by one single individual, including the Law of excluded middle. And 50 years from now philosophers may be arguing using the term "logical absolutes". Learn to "evolve"

                  Not just because you say so, it doesn't.
                  Thats not a rebuttal, you must explain why I am wrong

                  Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.
                  The "whatever" was your statement "That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics."

                  And Darwinian evolution is the easiest scientific theory to dismantle, so I can stick to it

                  In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.
                  You said "The origin of life was either natural or supernatural.", which I in response said the supernatural is not needed to create life, because Criag Venter said natural science will eventually do it

                  The dilemma that many atheists are unwittingly setting themselves up for is when they insist that ID and religious supernatural creationism must be synonymous. They don't realize by making this claim they will be forced by their own words to become religious creationists if abiogenesis is proven false and the cell is proven to be intelligently designed, and believe me it will. So I suggest unless you want to be forced by your own words to convert to religious creationism at some point, drop the "ID must equate supernatural creationism" arguments now.

                  As a creationist I believe God is the intelligent designer, but that can not be empirically proven therefore the identity of the designer is out of the scope of empirical science and should not be entertained by them. The identity of the designer is an argument for philosophers & religions, not scientists. The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity, even when its clearly out of the scope of ability to observe and test. We need to get the subjective philosophers (pseudo intellectuals) out of science and replace them with objective critical thinkers (real scientists)

                  The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.
                  The blame goes to people who stereotype (ironically the same people who argue against stereotyping). The problem is the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists, this is due to the fact the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) believe in the Genesis account, and they are the most out spoken proponents for ID, this makes it appear as if they are synonymous. But Hindus, Bahai, Deists, Shintoists, Shamanists, ALIENSDIDIT atheists, etc., are not Creationists

                  All popular creationist ID proponents do not advocate identifying the designer should be included in the ID hypothesis, because that alienates ID proponents that do not believe in the Genesis account of ID, including the atheists that believe aliens created life. But because most people will believe the God of the bible is the designer, science throws the proverbial baby out with the bath water because of their stance on the bible.

                  Right. For all ID cares, it could have been space aliens, right? If the space alien hypothesis were proved, the folks at the Discovery Institute would just say, "We told you so," gloat for a few days and then shut up, eh?
                  Thats it. I personally could care less who someone wants to believe the designer is, that is a job for religions and philosophers to battle over, not empirical science. But to throw out valid a hypothesis just because it has religions overtones is not objective science, its subjective philosophy

                  "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." Physicist Leonard Susskind

                  It's time to take the hold off of my quibble. If it were proved that life could not have originated through natural processes, my views on evolution would not be affected in the least.
                  Thats fine, but your views on intelligent design can not if your honest with yourself. Also once you accept life was ID, your views on how evolution works, its limitations and its mechanisms will almost certainly change
                  Last edited by IDScience; 06-14-2014, 02:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    Please cite atheists specifically to support your argument, and not the general shotgun approach. I have read their books and watched their debates.
                    I already did cite specific atheists by name, if you missed that blatant specific response you will miss everything else I post

                    Yes, they reject ALL possible God(s), because of a lack of evidence.
                    Thats good, just as long as you stay consistent and reject 100% of everything else that has a "lack of evidence" for its existence.

                    No in general atheists do not try and define God(s). They just do not believe that there is not any evidence for ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions.
                    If your going to reject "ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions" You don't have any choice but to define them. You can't reject something you have not properly defined and determined does not exist

                    And by your own rules of evidence, you must reject the many dimensions of string theory and the multiverse. What tells me you don't debate scientists about the lack of evidence for string theory or multiverse?

                    Please cite atheists making this claim. The claim of atheists is that there is no objective evidence for any possible God(s).
                    Sorry, I did not think to write down their name or ask for their personal information so I could have it handy upon request. However I am writing down your name so If I'm ever asked again to "Please cite atheists making this claim", in reference to a point you made, I will give them your name

                    Your making an unsubstantiated claim. Atheists would justifiably claim there is no evidence for this 'God is simply BIG INTELLECTUAL LIFE.'
                    I agree there is no direct observable evidence for God, but there is clear indirect evidence for his existence. And I have no problem with atheists rejecting things with no observable evidence, I can respect that you require a certain level of evidence to believe in things. The problem lies in the atheists contradictory stances in accepting things like abiogenesis by faith with no empirical evidence its even possible, but then require a different level of proof when it comes to Gods existence

                    Its the hypocritical nature of atheism that is the problem here.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      ID is a theory about the use of magic performed by a magical magician (therefore doubly magical) for which no explanation can be given even in principal. It is not scientific and therefore cannot compete with a scientific theory. It is such a mad idea that only the lunatic fringe is still interested in it.
                      And you must keep believing that in order to rationalize your arguments against it. Wake up, ID is the future of science, Craig Venter already predicted science will eventually ID life. No magic is needed to create life, but I realize the process may appear as magic to simple minds

                      Its funny that the exact same scientists that parrot "ID IS NOT SCIENCE", will verify the hypothesis is valid. Ironic isn't it?

                      By the way, it is not true that the universe is fine tuned for life. As far as we can tell, practically its entire vastness is extremely hostile to life and we helpless, hopeless and insignificant beings are trapped on this tiny insignificant speck we call mother earth. The earth is already getting quite old at about 4.5 billion years. In 1.1 billion years from now, the Sun will be 10% brighter than it is today. This extra energy will cause a moist greenhouse effect in the beginning, similar to the runaway warming on Venus. But then the Earth’s atmosphere will dry out as the water vapour is lost to space, never to return. And life will disappear from the earth – this is not fine tuning for life so much as it is fine tuning for sterility. The way we are going, it’s not likely that we’ll survive another 1000 years let alone a billion.
                      You have no idea what your talking about. And your operative words are "As far as we can tell". You don't know what conditions exist in the next nearest galaxy to us, let alone the billions of galaxies throughout the universe

                      The unfalsifiable non-verifiable muliverse hypothesis is entertained by science strictly to explain the fine tuning problem. The hypocrites in science reject God because he is "unfalsifiable", they are then forced by the teleological argument (the main argument for ID) to have faith in an equally unfalsifiable multivetrse hypothesis just to explain the fine tuning problem. The irony in evolutionary science runs deep

                      Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multivese
                      http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec...ligent-creator

                      “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr

                      “If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning … I think you’d really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse.“ Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg,

                      The cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (1 10/120) or life in the universe can not exist

                      "The fine tunings, how fine tuned are they. Most of them are one percent sort of things. In other words if a thing is one percent different everything gets bad. And a physicist could say maybe those are just luck. On the other hand this cosmological constant is tuned to one part in ten to the hundred and twenty, one hundred and twenty decimal places. Nobody thinks that accidental. That is not a reasonable idea. That something is tuned to one hundred and twenty decimal places by accident. That's the most extreme example of fine tuning" Atheist Physicist Leonard Susskind - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4T2Ulv48nw


                      "The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is "something behind it all" is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists..," Physicist Paul Davies

                      "The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it." Boslough, Hawking's Universe, 121.

                      "How could this possibly have come to pass (that the laws of physics conform themselves to life)?As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather Agency- must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Atheist astronomer George Greenstein

                      "This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all....Some scientists argue that, Well, there's an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right. Well, that's a postulate, and it's a pretty fantastic postulate. It assumes that there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that our was planned, and that is why it has come out so specially." Charles Hard Townes, Nobel Prize in Physics UC Berkeley

                      "Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan" Nobel laureate Arno Penzias

                      "Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them... A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology" Astronomer Fredrick Hoyle

                      "But an atheist has to regard the orderliness of the universe as an axiom, a proposition accepted without proof, and which bears no relation to his other axiom of atheism. The Biblical theist is in a better position because he can treat the orderliness of the universe as a theorem, derived from his axiom that the Bible's propositions are true, including that the universe was created by a God of order, not confusion. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                        I looked it up and found a summary of what all 16 participants had to say. I found no evidence in their comments that evolutionary theory is on the ropes.
                        Of course not, do you actually think the atheist egos in science will admit the theory is on the ropes? Be real. Its a fact the Neo-Darwinian synthesis is on the ropes, this is what the Altenberg 16 meeting was all about. Of course they have not thrown in the towel for evolution/speciation, but the long held beliefs about the mechanisms for the theory are dead, and the ignorant masses are unaware of it

                        "...The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.... The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution" -"The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" E. Koonin

                        "We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes"-The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis, DJ Depew,

                        Source: Professor Jerome Lejeune

                        We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Why should I take his word over that of at least hundreds of geneticists who disagree with him?
                        Because every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has failed. And a theory is only as good as its predictions. Men with huge egos and a agenda will lie, the results of empirical data will not lie
                        Last edited by IDScience; 06-16-2014, 01:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                          I already did cite specific atheists by name, if you missed that blatant specific response you will miss everything else I post
                          You cited by name, but you did not cite them supporting your assertions.

                          That's good, just as long as you stay consistent and reject 100% of everything else that has a "lack of evidence" for its existence.
                          OK, no problem.



                          If your going to reject "ALL possible kinds and variations of Divine beings called God(s), angels, souls or spiritual beings by any possible definitions" You don't have any choice but to define them. You can't reject something you have not properly defined and determined does not exist.
                          How can you define different kinds of supernatural beings or anything else in the supernatural when you find no evidence that it exists. From an objective perspective you need evidence of something to objectively definite. Yes there are many standard usable definitions in the English language for; God(s), angels, souls, demons, dragons, huge giants (as described in the Bible.), monsters, aliens, but at present there is no evidence for these 'things' outside human imagination and anecdotal claims.

                          Being able to define something based on anecdotal indirect evidence does not justify an argument that it exists.

                          And by your own rules of evidence, you must reject the many dimensions of string theory and the multiverse. What tells me you don't debate scientists about the lack of evidence for string theory or multiverse?
                          These are not my rules. There is evidence for string theory and multiverse. The evidence is not conclusive nor are all scientists in agreement, but these concepts are a direct result of falsifiable hypothesis and models.



                          Sorry, I did not think to write down their name or ask for their personal information so I could have it handy upon request. However I am writing down your name so If I'm ever asked again to "Please cite atheists making this claim", in reference to a point you made, I will give them your name.
                          Again you have made claims about what atheist say and believe, but you have not cited them to support your assertions.


                          I agree there is no direct observable evidence for God, but there is clear indirect evidence for his existence. And I have no problem with atheists rejecting things with no observable evidence,
                          You have presented considerable objections so far. The evidence for God(s) is highly anecdotal. I believe in God, but I avoid these bad arguments.

                          I can respect that you require a certain level of evidence to believe in things. The problem lies in the atheists contradictory stances in accepting things like abiogenesis by faith with no empirical evidence its even possible, but then require a different level of proof when it comes to Gods existence
                          Your knowledge of science appears vey limited and warped. Since you prefer to cite the less then 1% of the scientists that do not support natural evolution. Fully 99% plus of all scientist in the related fields support natural evolution. There is evidence for natural processes that lead to abiogenesis. The field of research is very new, only 20 - 30 years at best. The possible processes of abiogenesis are falsifiable in the real world and research is progressing. If you're interested start a thread and we will discuss the present state of the evidence. The science of evolution and abiogenesis are scientific issues, and nothing to do with the argument for or against theism, or atheism or deism, or any other belief system. Those that believe in Theistic Evolution consider Evolution and Abiogenesis as natural processes of how God created. Based on Methodological Naturalism science is justifiably neutral as tow whether there is a God involved or not.

                          It's the hypocritical nature of atheism that is the problem here.
                          The above does not make sense as part of a logical argument.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-15-2014, 07:35 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            Every word or phrase used to describe some aspect of reasoning was originally coined by one single individual, including the Law of excluded middle.
                            Yeah. When an idea is new, somebody has to invent a label for it. But an idea doesn't become new just because somebody on the Internet sticks a new label on it.

                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                            Whatever might have motivated the multiverse theory has nothing to do with evolution.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            The "whatever" was your statement . . . .
                            That is the height of absurdity. The scientists who have worked on multiverse theory could not possibly have been motivated by anything I have ever said.

                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                            The origin of life was either natural or supernatural. If it was natural, then it was abiogenic. Therefore, if not abiogenic, then it was supernatural. I'll give you that much.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            That is not what I am saying.
                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                            In that case, I don't know what you're saying, and you will have to make your point clearer.
                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            You said*"The origin of life was either natural or supernatural.", which I in response said the supernatural is not needed to create life, because Criag Venter said natural science will eventually do it
                            The logical form of my statement is "A or not-A." That is true no matter who says what.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            The dilemma that many atheists are unwittingly setting themselves up for is when they insist that ID and religious supernatural creationism must be synonymous. They don't realize by making this claim they will be forced by their own words to become religious creationists if abiogenesis is proven false and the cell is proven to be intelligently designed, and believe me it will.
                            I can just as easily say, "Believe me it won't." Your personal confidence doesn't count for anything more than mine.

                            Other atheists can speak for themselves, but on the day I am confronted with incontrovertible facts that are inconsistent with a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life or its present diversity, I will believe whatever those facts tell me I must believe. I am not afraid to change my mind. I have done it before, and I can do it again.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            So I suggest unless you want to be forced by your own words to convert to religious creationism at some point, drop the "ID must equate supernatural creationism" arguments now.
                            There is no intellectual virtue in trying to make one's position unfalsifiable. Nobody wants to admit that they have been wrong, but I'm willing to do it when I must.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            The problem with science today is, its littered with liberal philosophers that think its their job to answer every single question posed by humanity
                            I have not seen that, and I have been observing scientific discourse for almost my whole life. And if I have not seen it, it isn't because I am a liberal philosopher, because I am not a liberal philosopher.

                            Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                            The ID community has no one but themselves to blame for the confusion. I've read quite a bit of both creationist and ID literature. ID's disavowal of its creationist foundations is disingenuous, to put it as charitably as possible.
                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            The blame goes to people who stereotype (ironically the same people who argue against stereotyping).
                            Not all stereotypes are groundless. "A's are typically B" can be factually true even if "Some A's are not B" is also true.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            The problem is the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists
                            Sure, because it was creationists who invented ID.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            this is due to the fact the three major religions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) believe in the Genesis account
                            It is a certain faction within each religion that thinks the current theory of evolution is inconsistent with Genesis. A majority of each's adherents have no problem reconciling Genesis with modern science.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            But Hindus, Bahai, Deists, Shintoists, Shamanists, ALIENSDIDIT atheists, etc., are not Creationists
                            Every religion has its dissenters from the consensus within that religion.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            But to throw out valid a hypothesis just because it has religions overtones is not objective science
                            I agree, but the hypothesis doesn't become valid just because you use lots of scientific terminology to formulate it. The science is not in the language. It's in the process.

                            Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                            if your honest with yourself.
                            If your argument requires you to impugn the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, then you don't have a good argument.
                            Last edited by Doug Shaver; 06-15-2014, 01:24 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              do actually you think the atheist egos in science will admit the theory is on the ropes?
                              What I think is that your observation is irrelevant. What do you think it would prove if I were to say, "The egos in evangelical Christianity will not admit that evangelical Christianity is nonsense"?

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              the long held beliefs about the mechanisms for the theory are dead, and the ignorant masses are unaware of it*
                              I have heard countless skeptics say the same thing about Christianity.

                              Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                              every prediction Darwinian evolution has made has failed.
                              Show me one such prediction.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                But you are claiming that disproof of the theory of evolution would constitute proof of ID. That has nothing to do with whether any current theory of cosmogony is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

                                Originally posted by IDScience
                                Of course it does
                                Originally posted by Doug Shaver
                                Not just because you say so, it doesn't.
                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                Thats not a rebuttal
                                Yes, it is. What it is not, is a refutation. Do I need to explain the difference?

                                Originally posted by IDScience View Post
                                you must explain why I am wrong*
                                You have not given me a good reason to believe it. That is all the justification I need for not believing it.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Christian3  
                                Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
                                97 responses
                                522 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
                                557 responses
                                3,482 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X