@RickeyHoltsclaw

Our Creator has no genesis..

So logically it would follow that all things came from your creator? Including evil. Or it's a myth because after all life can't come from non life. 

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Our Creator has no genesis..

So logically it would follow that all things came from your creator? Including evil. Or it's a myth because after all life can't come from non life. 

I don't understand your logic.  While God may have created people with free will, free will means that people were free to make their own choice.  We are each responsible for our own conduct.  While god is alive, He is not a created being.  It seems that if you reject the possibility of an uncreated Creator than you get thrown into an infinite regress of Creators creating Creators. This would suggest that our universe could never be created because there would need to be an eternal regress of Creators created before it could happen.  If you think I'm wrong, count to eternity, and then the next number would be the God who created this universe.  In philosophy, as I tried to explain to @Bogan, God is not just a sufficient cause but a necessary one and is eternal.  

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Zeus, I think the most you can derive from creation of the universe and of the complexity of life, is that there is a God. 

So if creation doesn't highlight any specific god, what's the point of deriving at a non fact asserting a god at all? After all we only have natural evidence, as you admit, no godly evidence of any distinct qualities.

Oh, I'm not saying there is no evidence for God outside of the creation of the universe and the creation of life.  I am merely pointing out that you cannot determine the specific God from that information alone.  I would argue that there are several lines of evidence for God from which you could arrive at a more specific God claim.  Historical events - such as the resurrection of Jesus if true would strongly suggest his message is true.  Fulfilled prophesy may be another.  Sacred texts may be another - such as the gospels in the New Testament.  

And again I would say the bible is not evidence as it's obviously fallible.

I would observe that one's personal opinions of the Bible does not change the historical content of it and that it should be judged historically as anyone else would judge any other historical document.  As I have pointed out before there are 42 historical documents that reference Jesus within 100 years of his death.  It seems prejudicial to say that the ones that were written by his enemies are acceptable, but the one's written by eye witnesses are not because they believed in him.  Image making that argument to a judge in a court case 'I'm sorry your honor, this man can not testify to whether Jesus actually rose from the dead because he knew Jesus personally and has positive views about him, we can only accept testimony from people who didn't know him."  

I don't want to detract from this discussion, but I will very briefly point out some f the evidence of Jesus' resurrection:
1) Eye witness accounts - we see this directly in the books of James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, John (also1, 2, 3rd John), and Matthew.  We see it indirectly in books like Luke, Mark, Acts.
  
2) Even Jesus' enemies acknowledge that he was a real person, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that he predicted the future, and that he did miracles - they also are early attestations to the fact that the disciples believed the resurrection happened.  

3) The empty tomb.  The fact that Joseph of Arimathea, someone who was both a Pharisee and member of the council is named as the owner of the tomb and the one who physically buried Jesus, along with Nicodemus, another council member - provides strong credence to the claim.  Anyone could simply ask Joseph, or go to his tomb and look for the body if Jesus had not been risen.  It is hard to explain how Joseph of Arimathea, who was not only a follower of Jesus, but is recognized as a saint by the Catholic church, could be specifically named and it not refuted if he had not buried Jesus and either saw him resurrected or heard early on of his resurrection.

4) James conversion - Jesus' brother became the leader of the church in Jerusalem.  Odd for a guy who grew up in Galilee to start a religious movement claiming his brother was the son of God in Jerusalem.  While someone may be a martyr for story they believe to be true, no one dies for something they believe is a lie - which Josephus records in his history that James did rather than recant that his brother had risen from the dead.

5)  The reference of the women as the first witnesses.  The Torah did not allow women to be witnesses in court cases - they were considered unreliable.  If you are making up a story, you don't point to people that the culture would have considered unreliable as the first sources.  The mentioning of Mary Magdalene whom most  ancient historians acknowledge as a real person also gives credence to the message.  Why invent someone's name when you can just be vague?  The fact that she was a missionary indicates she believed Jesus was resurrected. 

6) Early attestation.  I Corinthians 15:  3-3 contains a early creedal hymn that historical scholars date to within 18 months of the resurrection at to no more than 3 years after it.  It says "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.  He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. "
Not only is there a lot of early attestation, there is a lot of specifics about the event and the witnesses who saw it, but this is vey early after the resurrection.

7) Paul's conversion.  Something dramatic had to have happened to take someone who was opposed to Christianity enough to kill Christians into making him the number 1 spokesman for the movement.  Weak evidence would not have done this.

8) The transformed lives of the apostles - all but one is said to have died a martyr's death.  It is hard to explain their zeal and the hardships they endured if they did not believe in the resurrection.  

This is just a few historical points that indicate that the resurrection happened.

@Bogan
If this man who was executed wanted to impress the entire Roman world with His divinity, all he had to do when he came back to life was to march up the steps of Herod’s palace and say “See numbnuts?  I am divine.  You can’t kill me!”      Then do the same with Pontius Pilate.   Then stuck around for another 30 or so years doing miracles.          That would have converted the entire Roman empire in quick time.       The fact that so few people claimed to have seen him wandering around the place, and then he disappeared for good in a few days, is indicative that the whole story was made up. 

So you think that because history didn't happen the way you wished it to happen, that makes it fake?  That makes no sense to me.  Your imagined scenario does not in any way invalidate what happened historically.  That's like saying that because you can think of better way to paint the Mona Lisa that da Vinci never painted her at all.  There is no profundity of thought in that claim at all.  Your imagination does not make reality less real.  

I think it is important to mention that there are at least 22 persons in the New Testament verified by other historical documents, among these are Jesus, Peter, James, John the Baptist, Philip, among others.  Peter's home has been found in Galilee.  Just from Jesus' enemies we can say that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that he could predict the future, that he performed miracles, and that his disciples spread a curious superstition about him after the crucifition which caused them to see him as a Christ. These extra-biblical incidents help confirm that the resurreciton is a historical event which mentions historical persons. 

Jacob bar Joseph may have been a real person, but he could not claim to have been the son of God, because he was Jewish, and saying that would have been against his religion.     As for “miracles”, that is a recuring theme with every religious cult.       Jacob bar Joseph was a Jewish pacifist philosopher who got himself executed for claiming to be the Jewish messiah, (one of many) and therefore the real king of Judea.      Saying that the existing king is illegitimate, and that you are the real king, was a great way to get yourself executed in those days.    In addition, the Jews have never accepted that Jacob was their messiah.     Which is the main reason why the Jews were hated by the Christians.      By not accepting “Jesus Christ” as their messiah, the Jews were delegitimizing the whole fantasy dreamed up by the early Christians.  

Why does the historical fact of Jesus resurrection depend on Jewish acceptance?  This would be a good debate topic - it is certainly beyond the bonds of a debate on abiogenesis .  I would argue that the Jews conflated Jesus' second coming with his first, and that many of the issues lie there.  I would also point out that since the temple was destroyed in AD 70 with all geneologies, that the Jewish Messiah had to be born before AD 70 or he could not prove he was a decendant of David. 

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Our Creator has no genesis..

So logically it would follow that all things came from your creator? Including evil. Or it's a myth because after all life can't come from non life. 

I don't understand your logic.  While God may have created people with free will, free will means that people were free to make their own choice.  We are each responsible for our own conduct.  While god is alive, He is not a created being.  It seems that if you reject the possibility of an uncreated Creator than you get thrown into an infinite regress of Creators creating Creators. This would suggest that our universe could never be created because there would need to be an eternal regress of Creators created before it could happen.  If you think I'm wrong, count to eternity, and then the next number would be the God who created this universe.  In philosophy, as I tried to explain to @Bogan, God is not just a sufficient cause but a necessary one and is eternal.  

Let me explain it for you. Your claim is non life can not produce life. Therefore a creator had to provide the proper codes and create life from its sheer will to do so. Am I right so far? God being life solves your life from life concept except where god is concerned. Now you claim that problem is solved by an assertion that if god had a beginning it would need more creators in an infinite regression to be possible? But that doesn't have to be the only possibility and as you know, there is no evidence to suggest it would be the only possibility. The big crunch for example could explain that aspect with the universe being in a pattern of infinite regression and expansion. And that could possibly solve some issues of abiogenesis. Who knows what will be discovered probably long after we're gone?

So that puts us back to the idea of an eternal creator if one chooses to ignore the above. Well, evil existed before you and I. But nothing existed prior to god, correct? So evil comes from god, no doubt about it. Even an 'evil by default' excuse doesn't absolve this god as it created one day knowing its actions would cause evil to unfold. I agree we all make choices and should be accountable for our actions, in a perfect environment. But we do not, and as a species never have had that perfect environment. The bible narrative tells us that. The garden eden was 'very good' it says. Not the level of confidence to reach perfection or it would have said so. No because we were not giving the ability of understanding the full ramifications of gods original command/law not to seek after the knowledge god didn't want us to know. Yet it impugned everyone with the desire to know such knowledge. I know I don't have to quote scripture with you, I've seen some of the gymnastics you're applying in response to @Bogan. Suffice to say the bible testifies to the fact that its narrative reveals god to be the architect behind the fall of man. God knew supposedly, we would need a 'messiah' long before the day it began to create. What it knows is set and can not change, how is one purposely subdued in this way ever supposed to escape this irreversible foreknowledge? Nah, that ain't freewill buddy.

But if god is to be a myth, well then we have the issue of evil remaining. So god being myth then our moral concepts and standards must be the result of ethical,  societal, and evolutionary cognitive attitudes over time adapting. A logical hypothesis. And would fit into over all evolutionary theory quite well. 

The big crunch for example could explain that aspect with the universe being in a pattern of infinite regression and expansion. 

That has been debunked for a couple of reasons. 1) There isn't enough mass in the universe for a big crunch - and that's including the 96 percent of the missing dark energy (about 69%) and dark matter (about 26%).  2)  The first 2 laws of physics tell us that just like you can't have a perpetual motion machine you can't have a perpetual universe, because even in a very efficient universe there is some loss of energy with each expansion and contraction.  That means the universe would have ceased to exist an eternity ago.  

Other theories of eternal inflation fail because of the Borde Guth Vilenken Theorem which says that if a universe, or multiverse, has on average, been expanding throughout its history, it cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.  In essence, there isn't infinite energy to power infinite expansion.  

Who knows what will be discovered probably long after we're gone?

Is that part of the 'even when science says its impossible, trust me, science will make it possible.' song?  You and May should put it on TikTok.

Well, evil existed before you and I. But nothing existed prior to god, correct? So evil comes from god, no doubt about it.

Not exactly.  Evil is not a created thing.  It is the absence or privation of good.  Evil is more like darkness.  Darkness has no material being, it is the absence of light.  So evil isn't really a created thing, but exists in the absence of good.  It would be better to say God permits evil in the universe than to claim He created it. 

Even an 'evil by default' excuse doesn't absolve this god as it created one day knowing its actions would cause evil to unfold. I agree we all make choices and should be accountable for our actions, in a perfect environment. But we do not, and as a species never have had that perfect environment.  

I think you might be asking the why would God allow evil to exist question.  Its beyond the scope of a debate on abiogenesis to fully answer.  I'll just mention a few things briefly.  It is possible God could have created a universe without evil.  To do so would mean that he would have to create a universe without free will.  If free will exists then the potential of evil will always exist and the larger the number of moral agents the greater the likelihood evil would exist (this is the many world's theory of evil).  Without free will you can't have love.  Love that isn't freely given isn't true love but compelled behavior.  If love is the highest good, and many would say it is, then it makes sense that God would create a world with love in it, even if it meant evil was possible.  That may not be God's actual reason.  It is sufficient to say that if we can not rule out the impossibility that God has a good reason to allow evil, then we can not say that it is wrong for God to allow evil.

I know I don't have to quote scripture with you, I've seen some of the gymnastics you're applying in response to @Bogan. 

Gymnasts are short.  I'm too tall for that, but i do swim at least 3 times a week.  It would be a more accurate expression to say I swim laps around @Bogan.

But if god is to be a myth, well then we have the issue of evil remaining. 

I do not believe that God is a myth.  If God did not exist, then there really isn't anything objectively evil - its just personal preferences.  You may not like something, but you can't say something that comes from chaos is doing anything but being like that which made it.  Nature just simply follows natural processes. You can't say any single act is objectionably evil unless you borrow the morals of Christians or Jews, etc.  How can nature, behaving naturally be objectionably evil.  Something may displease someone else, that's about the most you can say - no matter how evil the act is.  Without a good lawgiver (source of good) there really is no true objective evil in the world.

@just_sayin

Other theories of eternal inflation fail because of the Borde Guth Vilenken Theorem which says that if a universe, or multiverse, has on average, been expanding throughout its history, it cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.  In essence, there isn't infinite energy to power infinite expansion.

If all that you say is with 100% certainty, which you do not possess the ability to know; There would still be NO EVIDENCE for your baseless god of the gaps answers. NONE. 

Is that part of the 'even when science says its impossible, trust me, science will make it possible.' song?  You and May should put it on TikTok.

Two things here. You've been corrected on his statement previously made by @MayCaesar so I know you are not being sincere. Secondly blind faith in a god is your delusion, projecting your symptoms onto others doesn't move the needle at all. Science may know, or may know after we're gone, or may never know. One thing is only certain, you do not know, you believe without reason except the nonlogical possibility of universal redemption concerning your personal secrete state of psychosis, desires and perverse thoughts. 

 It would be better to say God permits evil in the universe than to claim He created it. 

Not when you claim nothing exists without god. That makes god the de facto cause of evil. Being omniscient it would know that and still allowed it. Can't give it credit for the human gnome only to give it a pass on all the evil that followed. Evil exist cause god does if one has faith in such nonsense of gods in the first place. Unless you want to invoke special pleading? Something like "god is good and it is always everywhere unless it's not so evil can exist"? Still goes back to god. You use that type of illogic consistently. Like claiming god wanted to make the universe look much older just so the errors in the bible won't be real errors?

 It is possible God could have created a universe without evil.  To do so would mean that he would have to create a universe without free will. 

Nope, not a sufficient answer. Your book says 'with god all things are possible' matthew 19:26. He could have created a perfect universe with no evil and done so with freewill. Or are you saying the bible lied?

@elijah44 ; Evolution is a lie of the Devil...why would I believe it...seeing that I have NO respect for its adherents?

@just_sayin

look back over my comments.  I'm the guy who is constantly referencing science, evidence, news reports, medical records, and eye witness reports, while my atheists friends are either changing the subject to attack people of faith or denying the evidence, while never producing any evidence of their own.  And you know that's the truth.

An expanding universe does not say god did it. Only if one is inclined to start with that particular premise but still, no evidence of a god. Your premise is god did it. Mine is we do not know how the universe came to be. That appears to be an affront to your belief system but it is not the intent of unbelief. I just don't believe in god. I really don't care that you do. 

You talk science but when it comes to subjects like this you have a very low threshold for what you consider evidence. You've yet to produce a shred of empirical evidence directly linking the universe to your god. Also it hasn't gotten passed anyone of your desperate attempts to both ridicule and praise science depending on if you belief it can fit into your faith or not. 

Lastly you have no excuse for continuing to misrepresent @MayCaesar's remark, he has told you what he meant. Despite whether you choose to believe him or not, it's deceitful on your part. There is no 'science of the gaps' because it makes no specific assertions before they're known. Your 'god of the gaps' arguments on the other hand does make a specific assertion just because a thing is unknown. An assertion of ignorance. Your inability to recognize the factual difference between the two is on you. Someone's rejection of your faith, or dismissal of your conclusions based on both your faith and the fact science hasn't discovered all the answers are not 'assaults on faith'. That you see it that way suggest some personal self evaluation on your part is in order.

Just-sayin quote   For my first set of questions, I'll be focusing on the contention that the Bible must be assumed to have no historical value because of its fantastic, supernatural, or seemingly mythical claims.  I will label this section 'Atheists are hypocritical or stu-pid'.

I did not say that it had no historical value.    I wrote that it “may have some accounts which are more or less historically accurate.” 

 

Just-sayin quote   Question 1: Is it your contention that any falsehood or exaggeration, or if an ancient document contains any mythical element then it can not be considered beneficial for historical study and events?  For example - Josephus, Suetonius, and all the histories of Egypt, Greece, China, Rome, Caanan, etc. have parts that are considered either false, mythical, or supernatural.  Can these documents which are regularly used by historians, contain any historical truth in them? Just which documents could be used from antiquity that meet your criteria?

Your old Testament bible was supposed to be written by your god himself, so yes, I would expect it to be historically accurate.  Unless, of course, you think that your god is fallible and needs an editor?     And, if it can be proven to be not historically accurate, then that questions whether your god even exists?   Could I add something here?   As a smart 15 year old who began reading the bible, there was something I picked up on straight away in Genesis.        Your god claimed to have created the earth, the animals and plants, and Adam and Eve, in six days.    From memory, the bible claimed that your God created the stars in the heavens like some sort of afterthought, in one afternoon.      The clue that Genesis was written by ignorant men who knew nothing of the universe is right there in front of you.       To people 2-3000 years ago, the earth was immense.    But the 3000 stars that they could see with their naked eyes in the night skies were just tiny twinkly things which were nothing compared to the earth.   But reality is that earth is nothing compared to the immensity of the universe.      So, whoever wrote Genesis claimed and that the universe was created in a few hours had no knowledge at all of the universe, or the earth’s place in it.          Could I also submit another observation?   If your god was smart, then instead of writing “In the beginning”, he should have written “the sun is a star.”        That would have kick started the human race into thinking straight, 3,000 years ago. 

Question 2: If the Bible is to be considered without any historical value, why do historians reference it in their histories of ancient events so much?

I had no idea that they do today?    I read history, and I can recall nobody quoting the bible about ancient events.     At best, it can attest to the existence of already known historical figures like Caesar.  

 

Just-sayin quote    For example there are 44 historically confirmed persons mentioned in the Old Testament alone, most were named long before any historical documents were found elsewhere to confirm their existence.   

 That was before the scientific discipline of History was even invented, or that the dissemination of history was widespread among the non clergy European populations.       Even by the 1500’s. most people, and that included aristocrats, were illiterate.  Gutenberg’s printing press (opposed vehemently by the church) was instrumental in educating people about subjects which the church preferred that they know nothing about.     The only commonplace historical record in the middle ages of the ancients was the bible, which was written in Latin (or Greek) , and could only be understood by educated members of the clergy.     

Question 3: Since you allow other ancient documents with statements in them you do not believe to be considered appropriate for historical study then aren't you being hypocritical or displaying a true ignorance to the historical research process?  So which is it Bogie are you a dumb-a or a hypocrite?

I am neither.    Which “historical documents” are you talking about?  

just-sayin quote   Now, having humiliated in you in that 3 minute round, let me makes some off the cuff observations - 1) You don't have to believe all of the Bible to recognize that some of it is true,  2)  I acknowledge that I believe in miracles and that Genesis 1-11 could all be true and that God has given the appearance of age to the universe, however, I don't think that is the only option for Christians.  I've tried to explain this to @Factfinder but he isn't interested in differing views on Christian belief and thought.  For example William Lane Craig believes in an old universe and in evolution.  He sees Genesis 1-11 as mythos-history.  He says those chapters have the classic elements that other ancient documents have that use mythos-history, where stories are put to principles of importance, but are not to be considered literal events.  Could he be right?  Maybe.  But the point is, Bogie, you don't have to believe every word in the Bible is literal, to recognize that the major historical events like the resurrection are true.  

 Without countering you sentence by sentence, I would have to say that the thrust of your argument here is that you are claiming that science and religion can co exist?    I do not think that premise is possible.     To begin with, if you claim that your god exists, then the onus is upon you to scientifically prove his existence with supporting evidence.        This you can not do.     There is more direct evidence to believe in extra terrestrials in flying saucers exist, than there is to support the idea that an all powerful, all knowing god, self created himself (why would he even need a gender?) and made the immensity of the universe out of nothing.

 

Just-sayin quote          If you need every question to be answered for  everything, then how in the world can you be an atheist?  This seems like you are either incredibly dumb or hypocritical.

 As a rational person, I need to believe in concepts which make sense.     No religious explanations about anything make any sense to me.    I find it amusing that you are smart enough to know that a man can not be a woman just because he wants to be, and then tell me that all life needs a creator, except your god, who created himself out of nothing.    

 

Just-sayin quote  Most of the theorized steps for abiogenesis are scientifically unproven, and that is being kind. 

When I was in high school, my religious teacher (yes, we have them in Australian schools) tried to tell me that the idea that humans evolved from lower order apes was wrong, because scientists “could not find the missing link.”      Within a few years, Doctor Timothy Leary discovered the remains of a proto human being which he named “Lucy” in Olduvai Gorge, Kenya.       Today, anthropologists are discovering that there were many species of human beings, and many more species of proto human beings.      The more science advances, the more it pushes religious superstition and their magical explanations backwards. 

 

Just-sayin quote   But you believe only in the natural, and science says what you believe is crap, yet you still believe.  Why is your crap, better than the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

Because your crap does not make sense, and there is no direct evidence of the resurrection.  It is all 2000 year old hearsay by self interested people.          If your god wanted to make people believe that he was real, then having his supposed “son” return from the dead and make that knowledge public far and wide, especially to the authorities, would have converted the entire known world to Christianity very quickly.      The best explanation for the fact that he did not choose to do that, is because the whole thing was made up by Jacob’s followers.   

 

Just-sayin quote   So you think that because history didn't happen the way you wished it to happen, that makes it fake? 

No.    I am saying that the whole story of the resurrection is much more consistent to that of a fraud perpetuated by Jacob’s followers than to that of reality.        It does not make sense that a supposed god would not prove his divinity only to a small circle of people who were his followers.

 

Just-sayin quote  That makes no sense to me. 

Then don’t toss in your day job and try and to become a police detective. 

 

Just-sayin quote  Your imagined scenario does not in any way invalidate what happened historically.  That's like saying that because you can think of better way to paint the Mona Lisa that da Vinci never painted her at all.  There is no profundity of thought in that claim at all.  Your imagination does not make reality less real. 

 The story of the resurrection is consistent to that of a myth invented by people desperate to claim that their dead leader was divine.       It is not consistent with that of a divine god trying to prove that his divinity is real.

 

Just-sayin quote     I think it is important to mention that there are at least 22 persons in the New Testament verified by other historical documents, among these are Jesus, Peter, James, John the Baptist, Philip, among others.  Peter's home has been found in Galilee.  Just from Jesus' enemies we can say that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that he could predict the future, that he performed miracles, and that his disciples spread a curious superstition about him after the crucifixion which caused them to see him as a Christ. These extra-biblical incidents help confirm that the resurrection is a historical event which mentions historical persons.

 It is 2000 year old hearsay, and the story is much more consistent to that of a fraud than to reality.  

just-sayin quote Why does the historical fact of Jesus resurrection depend on Jewish acceptance? 

The whole fable of “Jesus” being the messiah depends upon his acceptance by the Jewish people that he was the messiah.     The Jews do not accept that Jacob was the messiah.      If they had, Jacob would be called “the Jesus Christ” by the Jews, which is not a name, it is a title.      So, after Jacob was executed, his followers went into overdrive trying to prove that he was in some way a god.   They invented the story of the resurrection which is so obviously contrived that non Christians laugh at it.    Then they tried to say that Jacob was the son of God.      But he wasn’t.    He was the son of Joseph and Mary.     And if God knocked up Mary, then God was an adulterer.      So, they invented the claim that Mary was a virgin, which if you ever bothered to think about it, is absurd.    Married women are not virgins.   But you can make people believe anything if they really want to believe it.      Next came the problem of the fact that according to the old Jewish legend, “the Jesus Christ” had to be born in Bethlehem.    But Jacob was “Jesus of Nazereth”, he was a Nazerene.     So, they invented the story of Joe and Mary going to Bethlehem for their sons birth.     Next came the date of Jesus’s birthday which we are told was the 25th of December.     Gee?    Whadyaknow?     Which just happened to be the exact date of the Roman Saturnalia holiday which had been celebrated for 700 years.   

The whole thing is obviously a myth.    But people believe it who desperately want to believe that somehow, their conscious mind will never die and will somehow, live on into infinity.    

 

Just-sayin quote   This would be a good debate topic - it is certainly beyond the bonds of a debate on abiogenesis .  I would argue that the Jews conflated Jesus' second coming with his first, and that many of the issues lie there.  I would also point out that since the temple was destroyed in AD 70 with all geneologies, that the Jewish Messiah had to be born before AD 70 or he could not prove he was a descendant of David. 

 There you go.   You just taught me something I did not know. 

@MayCaesar

After reading through some of these comments I think one of the issues among disrespecting the other person by mis characterising  their position is also the lack of understanding regarding science vocabulary. I see lots of equivocation errors due to the misunderstanding that certain terms in science mean very different things than what they do in every day colloquial terms.  

@just_sayin

Hey Zeus, glad I caught ya.  I've provided evidence of the scientific difficulties of showing that life came from non-life.  So I'll ask you the questions that none the other atheists either could answer, or were to busy making personal attacks to answer:

See? why lie? I answered those questions the best I could and rejected your ensuing conclusions. https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/176248/#Comment_176248 Any affront you feel towards your faith just might be becuase of your attitude like this, being turned back onto you. Ever think of that? 

@just_sayin

Why don't you answer these questions? I answered yours...


When the wind blew in ancient times and the ignorant thought it was a spirit god did science discover the correct reason?

When people thought the earth was flat did scientific observational techniques discover it wasn't?

When people thought the sun was 'god' did science disprove that myth?

When people thought the sun orbited the earth was science responsible for discovering it was the other way around?

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

@Factfinder

Any physical, empirical evidence directly leading to an intelligent creator definitively discovering some super life form?

The undeniable fact that even a single celled organism is complex and the inability for nature to replicate this, nor science to even theorize the specific steps needed to make it happen is a positive evidence that intelligence is needed to create complex life forms.  It would be like if you found a message that said 'Do your homework, Mom!'  That's a fairly simple message, but you immediately recognize that an intelligence is behind it.  Even the simplest one celled creature has a DNA structure that is much much more complex than that.  You wouldn't say that nature produced such a note.  And you wouldn't appeal to a 'mom of the gaps' theory either.  Complexity is a good indication of an intelligence.  And the code of DNA strongly suggests a coder, especially since nature has shown it is unable to do it.  

@just_sayin

especially since nature has shown it is unable to do it.  

That is an unknown premise. You really like going off based on those so you can assert ignorance i.e. god did it.

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

especially since nature has shown it is unable to do it.  

That is an unknown premise. You really like going off based on those so you can assert ignorance i.e. god did it.

Nature has not shown, after 100 years of research, that it can create life from non-life.  Is that better?  Still holding out for that science-of-the-gaps rescue?

Yawn. Religion has not shown after 10,000 years of research that a god can create life from non-life. Is THAT better? Still holding out for the god of the gaps?

Your attempt to elevate blind faith to the same intellectual bar as critical thought is both silly and amusing. I feel no compulsion to fill in the gaps, why are you so desperate to?

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

especially since nature has shown it is unable to do it.  

That is an unknown premise. You really like going off based on those so you can assert ignorance i.e. god did it.

Nature has not shown, after 100 years of research, that it can create life from non-life.  Is that better?  Still holding out for that science-of-the-gaps rescue?

Yawn. Religion has not shown after 10,000 years of research that a god can create life from non-life. Is THAT better? Still holding out for the god of the gaps?

Your attempt to elevate blind faith to the same intellectual bar as critical thought is both silly and amusing. I feel no compulsion to fill in the gaps, why are you so desperate to?

I have given positive reasons for linking God to creation, such as complexity needs intelligence argument.  Claiming that it takes a coder to make something like code (DNA) is a logic based argument.  Saying rocks made people is a science of the gaps argument.  I mean after the 'well, one rock asks the other out on a date, and then...' part, no one can explain the precise way in which non-life created life.

Positive reasons aside, no empirical evidence of a god exists. It's like claiming the circumstances exist in the multiverse for non life to produce life in this universe. Based on what we know of this universe. Possible but useless knowledge and based on an unknown premise when it comes to the search for evidence of abiogenesis. Though it suggest a positive outlook. In either case the arguments are not convincing because both depend on unknown premises. Things we see from our perspective is compartmentalized automatically in our brains based on our limited knowledge. Before we had a modern understanding of geography, meteorology and gravity, people thought a mountain top was a god that provided rain water and distributed it to the faithful down in the valley below. Had to have been by design. But it wasn't, it was just the forces of nature continuing on naturally. 

ZeusAres42 said:

@MayCaesar

After reading through some of these comments I think one of the issues among disrespecting the other person by mis characterising  their position is also the lack of understanding regarding science vocabulary. I see lots of equivocation errors due to the misunderstanding that certain terms in science mean very different things than what they do in every day colloquial terms.  

I would accept this possibility was the misunderstanding corrected when I clarified my position. But with these guys, I can explain my position multiple times, say plainly that the particular belief they attribute to me I do not hold, that the particular argument they ascribe to me I do not stand beside - and they will still keep on with it as if nothing happened. So no, I do not think genuine misunderstanding is the case here.

Unlike many other people in academia, I actually do everything I can to get out of our shell and talk to out-of-academia people - hell, I am in the process of leaving academia right now, talking to industry folks all the time. I think that I have gotten pretty good at communicating scientific ideas to the general audience, although, naturally, there is always plenty of room for improvement. And I do not find such stubborn resistance to very simple corrections among other people that I do among heavily religious ones.

I have come to believe that religion, serious religion (and not what some people practice just as a part of their culture, without meaning it on a very deep level), corrupts one's thinking on a very deep level. They do not just become intellectually dishonest when talking about religion - they become intellectually dishonest in all aspects of their life. And over time personal intellectual dishonesty turns into dishonesty in interactions with other people. They turn into liars, deceivers and backstabbers. This is a pattern I have observed far too many times, despite my limited interaction with religious communities, so I do not think that it is something attributable to ignorance or deviation of particular individuals: it is a universal phenomenon. And how can it not be? A corrupt epistemology is bound to corrupt one's entire thinking process, it is not going to just be a small localized effect.

I will add that religion is not the only kind of ideology that does that to people - but its effects are probably deeper than effects of any other totalitarian ideology, such as fascism or communism. Fascism and communism, with all their flaws, at least do not encourage believing in fairytales. The idea that a nation cannot survive without a Fuhrer is ridiculous and demonstrably false, but it is not as deranged as the idea that 6,000 years ago a talking snake tempted two naked humans in the primal world to eat a forbidden apple, and the creator of the Universe got mad over it and infused all future humans with "sin".

Bogan said:

"Just-sayin" lives here.

Bogie,

Thanks.  It still doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing.  Can you tell me how the universe made itself?  

@just_sayin

Thanks.  It still doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing.  Can you tell me how the universe made itself?  

No, but at least I can see a lot of it so I know it exists.   Could you please show a photographic image of your god?     And then explain he he made himself with powers that let him make matter out of nothing?  

@just_sayin ;     Hey, I don't know what happened that you are mad at God, but I am praying for you. 

Praying is a waste of time.  

I just had an incredible exchange with ChatGPT on the topic of "directed panspermia": the hypothesis that life on Earth (or, at least, human genome) did not evolve naturally, but was seeded by an extraterrestrial civilization in the past. ChatGPT suggested a few types of evidence that could support such a theory, as well as acknowledging that it would not really address the question of possibility of life emerging naturally and merely shift it to the question of the origin of that extraterrestrial species.

This is the kind of conversations I would like to have on this topic. Not stone age fantasy nonsense.

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

The troglodytes made it all from the distant planet dyteses in the multiverse. First they brought matter into this universe and then terraformed earth after they created it. I have a book, and a historian causally mentioned it in one paragraph out of thousands of pages, plus my faith. That’s all you need for proof.

So a panspermia theory of abiogenesis.  You know al lot of biologists and chemists have adopted this view - mainly because they have given up trying to find a way to create life from non-life on earth.  I've repeatedly mentioned that Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA famously said that decades ago because he recognized that the complexity of DNA code was beyond any known natural method of creation.  

Now, your troglodyte is from the multiverse, huh.  Well, he/she/they/it must be, outside of space-time, so they can't have space, time, or matter, since those are all connected to space-time - our universe.  They would need to be intelligent to create universes that can not immediately self-destruct and that can sustain life.  They would also need to be incredibly powerful to create a universe, and able to achieve a low entropy level while doing it.  So we can deduce that your troglodytes are intelligent, powerful enough to create universes, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless.  Sounds like what we think of God.

 Hey, I don't know what happened that you are mad at God, but I am praying for you. Dios te bendiga.

Correct. Troglodytes and god are on equal footing. Neither have empirical evidence for support and are similarly not likely to have created life on earth.

If I were mad it wouldn't be at god as it don't exist that we know of. It would be the primitive age concept that has caused large scale destruction and mayhem throughout our history. That the notion persists enough in this day and age to the extent people in advanced countries are brought up encumbered upon to believe blindly that such a thing exist. That would be the object of frustration more than the myth itself.

I'm not going to ask you any more.  Its obvious you don't want to talk about it.  I'll respect that.  You and I both know that you were not persuaded by the arguments of atheism to abandon your faith. You'd share some of those persuasive arguments if you did.

Your troglodytes would have the problem of infinite recess.  If your troglodytes were created then you would have to keep going back until you found the uncreated troglodyte that started it all.  The problem with an infinite regress is if there were an infinite number of troglodytes before the troglodyte that you say created the universe would not have been born yet because it could only be born after an infinite number of predecessors existed.  You act like the person of faith just makes up stuff, but if you look over the debate, the one ignoring the evidence and making faith appeals is the atheist.  just sayin

Bogan said:

@just_sayin ;    Bogie!

Yes there is a lot of space and matter out there - most of it missing 96% - Dark matter and dark energy if the cosmologists are right.  And according to the big bang theory, all that space, time, and matter fit into a area no bigger than a Planck width - literally no space.  How much stuff can you fit in zero space?  And how do you get it all in there when entropy would have it spread out?  This isn't the creation from nothing debate, but you are making useful observations, mi amigo.

I hope you do not think I am dodging the question by saying that I have never accepted "the Big Bang" myself?     The flaw I see in the "Big Bang" is that if an explosion occurred in a vacuum, then the resultant particles would be hurled into space in an expanding bubble.     So, if the Big Bang" is valid, what I think that we would see today is a thin line of expanding galaxies circumnavigating the night sky, expanding outwards and away from each other..    From the direction the matter came from, we should see a hot spot which would indicate the residue of the explosion.    In the direction the bubble is expanding into, we should see absolute zero.  This does not seem to be the case.    And the fact that many galaxies are clumping together and even colliding together seems to invalidate the claim that the universe is expanding.  

Bogie!
I never think you are dodging my questions.  I had to laugh though  when one atheist sent his AI out, which is complex code created by intelligence, to argue for him that complex life, that has a complex code (DNA) ,was created by non-intelligence.  Can't make this stuff up.  I don't even think he got the irony.

As I understand it, the big bang did not happen in one location of our universe but everywhere all at once.  So Bogie, according to the Big Bang theory, you literally were the center of the universe (but then again everything in the universe was the center of it).  I don't know enough about the mechanics of the big bang to know why everything is not on the edge of the universe as you mentioned, I'd guess that there are lots of things happening like gravitational pull from galaxies as they form and spin.  The red shift evidence of the stars seems to suggest our universe is expanding, and even speeding up.  That suggests a much smaller universe in the past which can be run backward to at least Planck length. At that point it becomes too small for the current laws of physics to explain.  

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

The troglodytes made it all from the distant planet dyteses in the multiverse. First they brought matter into this universe and then terraformed earth after they created it. I have a book, and a historian causally mentioned it in one paragraph out of thousands of pages, plus my faith. That’s all you need for proof.

So a panspermia theory of abiogenesis.  You know al lot of biologists and chemists have adopted this view - mainly because they have given up trying to find a way to create life from non-life on earth.  I've repeatedly mentioned that Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA famously said that decades ago because he recognized that the complexity of DNA code was beyond any known natural method of creation.  

Now, your troglodyte is from the multiverse, huh.  Well, he/she/they/it must be, outside of space-time, so they can't have space, time, or matter, since those are all connected to space-time - our universe.  They would need to be intelligent to create universes that can not immediately self-destruct and that can sustain life.  They would also need to be incredibly powerful to create a universe, and able to achieve a low entropy level while doing it.  So we can deduce that your troglodytes are intelligent, powerful enough to create universes, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless.  Sounds like what we think of God.

 Hey, I don't know what happened that you are mad at God, but I am praying for you. Dios te bendiga.

Correct. Troglodytes and god are on equal footing. Neither have empirical evidence for support and are similarly not likely to have created life on earth.

If I were mad it wouldn't be at god as it don't exist that we know of. It would be the primitive age concept that has caused large scale destruction and mayhem throughout our history. That the notion persists enough in this day and age to the extent people in advanced countries are brought up encumbered upon to believe blindly that such a thing exist. That would be the object of frustration more than the myth itself.

I'm not going to ask you any more.  Its obvious you don't want to talk about it.  I'll respect that.  You and I both know that you were not persuaded by the arguments of atheism to abandon your faith. You'd share some of those persuasive arguments if you did.

Your troglodytes would have the problem of infinite recess.  If your troglodytes were created then you would have to keep going back until you found the uncreated troglodyte that started it all.  The problem with an infinite regress is if there were an infinite number of troglodytes before the troglodyte that you say created the universe would not have been born yet because it could only be born after an infinite number of predecessors existed.  You act like the person of faith just makes up stuff, but if you look over the debate, the one ignoring the evidence and making faith appeals is the atheist.  just sayin

I don't mind talking about it but at the same time I don't want to waste my time talking about it to a closed mind. You're wrong, it was arguments against theism that persuaded me, though it was a long journey. Not something somebody said once and bingo, I left the faith. No it doesn't happen like that. It's an accumulative effect denying and dismissing arguments atheist made much like you do today. Over time though no matter how many apologetic websites I went to or how much I delved in the bible, learned of it's ancient languages and what not, one small truth kept resonating within me and growing. More on that later.

I told people and myself I didn't have the faith to be atheistic, I made several arguments you make now, using mental gymnastics and special pleading. Thinking creationism was just as scientific as secular science using the scientific method; but what I couldn't shake was that I had began trying to resist doubt that had formed. Somewhere along the line, no definitive moment really, I just realized I was trying to reassure myself. Afterall I put a lot of time and study to the scriptures and felt a small sense of euphoria when I read some philosophical truism like pride going before the fall. But the reality that some truths gleaned from the bible doesn't equate to the bible being 100% accurate and true became more and more apparent till I just had to admit to myself I just didn't believe it anymore. Since then there is no internal pressure to be right. I'm perfectly happy with discovering what's to be discovered despite any implications there may be. And if I don't know I don't know. 

The reality is I don't "act like a person of faith makes this stuff up" I realized people for millenniums have been making this stuff up along the way and others always fall for it. It is a pattern of human behavior that's documented enough to be considered fact under the standard of empirical evidence.