Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

There is really not much to it Bryan. In my opinion

"Creation science" - GOD DID IT

Astronomical fail and straw man to boot.

Does Creation Science say that Yahweh poofed us out of nowhere magically in it's current state?
If so, I fail to see the strawman here.

Now, answer the question of your evidence.

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I dunno, seems about right to me.

But about that definition of evidence.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

No, "God did it" isn't even close to an accurate definition of creation science. It's sort of like saying that all evolution is is "genes did it". More on this later in the debate.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Ad hominem's don't help anything Squawk, esp. when I'm writing things very rushed before classes and having numerous people demanding answers to questions that I have a commitment to present to Inferno in the debate. Your definition of evidence is fine, and other points about analyzing evidence are good as well, but mine was far more specific even if you want to denigrate as it a "word salad". I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did. And he had a very important reason for it too. I can talk/write in the ivory tower academic/way, but I prefer other styles when possible.

Your definition of belief I would agree with. Your definition of faith is atrocious though and has nothing to do with biblical faith although it does match the modern understanding of the word fairly well. I'll explain why soon in the debate, in the section on definitions.

To others, I've already given you guys at least 5 separate pieces of evidence already to check out and those links have much evidence and scientific references in them, many from secular journals. If you refuse to go check them, that's your fault not mine. But, lying that it's just fluff isn't rational at all and betrays the name of this site. Oh, by the way, by atheist leaders, I meant people like Dawkins, Hitchens, major atheist websites, etc.

On Pascal, here's a short video that I made late one night. Check at least the references in the notes to see how wrong you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UmnWQ1c4Pw

Pascal's wager basically follows this Bible verse:
"Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come." 1 Timothy 4:8

In it's simplest form, it is that there is so much evidence and so many benefits in this life from following Christianity plus good evidence for eternal life, that you can't lose by being a genuine Christian.

I'm signing off for this board for a while to focus on finishing the sections on what counts as evidence (my definitions post is already done) so we can get to the actual evidence. Inferno has asked me to not post here as well. I've told him that I can't commit to not posting, but will try to limit my posts here..and I have a lot of classes as well the next couple days, so I'm going to focus on just the debate with Inferno for a while, since he deserves to hear the evidence first as he is the one who agreed to debate and since most of the questions here are just slowing us down in getting to the evidence.

Sayonara for a bit ya'all and God bless and open your minds, whether you believe he exists or not .
Bryan

 

[nasher168]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

To others, I've already given you guys at least 5 separate pieces of evidence already to check out and those links have much evidence and scientific references in them, many from secular journals. If you refuse to go check them, that's your fault not mine.

What? Where?
Humour us. Post them again, please.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Ad hominem's don't help anything Squawk, esp. when I'm writing things very rushed before classes and having numerous people demanding answers to questions that I have a commitment to present to Inferno in the debate.

Here we go again... :facepalm:

We don't want excuses, we don't care how busy you are or what you're doing outside of this forum. Next you'll start bleating on about court cases again. If you can't find the time to post here, in the debate with Inferno and pretend to be a competent educator IRL then pick one and do that. I'm sure we will all cope if you chose to give your time to the 'debate' with Inferno.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

No, "God did it" isn't even close to an accurate definition of creation science. It's sort of like saying that all evolution is is "genes did it". More on this later in the debate.

So God DIDN'T poof the Universe out of absolutely nothing in it's current state?
:lol:
The Bible disagrees with you.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

So God DIDN'T poof the Universe out of absolutely nothing in it's current state?
:lol:
The Bible disagrees with you.

Well, he's either lying about "creation science" or he's ignorant of the Bible... or both!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Ad hominem's don't help anything Squawk, esp. when I'm writing things very rushed before classes and having numerous people demanding answers to questions that I have a commitment to present to Inferno in the debate. Your definition of evidence is fine, and other points about analyzing evidence are good as well, but mine was far more specific even if you want to denigrate as it a "word salad". I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did. And he had a very important reason for it too. I can talk/write in the ivory tower academic/way, but I prefer other styles when possible.

Your definition of belief I would agree with. Your definition of faith is atrocious though and has nothing to do with biblical faith although it does match the modern understanding of the word fairly well. I'll explain why soon in the debate, in the section on definitions.

To others, I've already given you guys at least 5 separate pieces of evidence already to check out and those links have much evidence and scientific references in them, many from secular journals. If you refuse to go check them, that's your fault not mine. But, lying that it's just fluff isn't rational at all and betrays the name of this site. Oh, by the way, by atheist leaders, I meant people like Dawkins, Hitchens, major atheist websites, etc.

On Pascal, here's a short video that I made late one night. Check at least the references in the notes to see how wrong you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UmnWQ1c4Pw

Pascal's wager basically follows this Bible verse:
"Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come." 1 Timothy 4:8

In it's simplest form, it is that there is so much evidence and so many benefits in this life from following Christianity plus good evidence for eternal life, that you can't lose by being a genuine Christian.

I'm signing off for this board for a while to focus on finishing the sections on what counts as evidence (my definitions post is already done) so we can get to the actual evidence. Inferno has asked me to not post here as well. I've told him that I can't commit to not posting, but will try to limit my posts here..and I have a lot of classes as well the next couple days, so I'm going to focus on just the debate with Inferno for a while, since he deserves to hear the evidence first as he is the one who agreed to debate and since most of the questions here are just slowing us down in getting to the evidence.

Sayonara for a bit ya'all and God bless and open your minds, whether you believe he exists or not .
Bryan

Time for all this nonsense, no time for a simple statement of evidence as requested?

You're the most dishonest person imaginable. It is obvious that you're a Christian, by all the lying you do.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did. And he had a very important reason for it too. I can talk/write in the ivory tower academic/way, but I prefer other styles when possible.

Jesus never wrote anything. At best, what we have in the bible are people's memories of what Jesus said, not quotes. This means, at best, we have a paraphrase of Jesus actual words and teachings. Thus, there really is no reason to write so simply. Please give us your ivory tongue. It would not be anything that we could not handle.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did.

Well apparently you're failing him.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

What in the shadow of seven ordinary mountains... :shock:

When will it end?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did.

I contend that you cannot produce a single example of anything Jesus wrote. If you can, by all means don't waste your time here, you should inform academics the world over.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I intentionally try to write very simply when possible for a very important reason. Jesus did. And he had a very important reason for it too. I can talk/write in the ivory tower academic/way, but I prefer other styles when possible.

Jesus never wrote anything. At best, what we have in the bible are people's memories of what Jesus said, not quotes. This means, at best, we have a paraphrase of Jesus actual words and teachings. Thus, there really is no reason to write so simply. Please give us your ivory tongue. It would not be anything that we could not handle.

Not to mention that the writers of the New Testament were clearly well educated people (in all likelihood Greeks) with an apparent background in rhetoric.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

What in the shadow of seven ordinary mountains... :shock:

When will it end?

Seven days.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

You guys know, the Bible IS evidence. :lol:

It is evidence that the writers had heard the folklore of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians. It is evidence that some groups of people were telling those stories, and that those stories had value. Bits of the Bible probably describe people who existed in some way, even if not in the exact ways described. There's certainly evidence in the Bible that there were people who were part of the culture described within. It is even evidence that the people spreading the stories had engaged with other known historical groups on some level.

What the Bible is not, what it cannot be, is evidence that any of the stories contained within are actually true. It isn't even evidence that the people who spread the stories or wrote them down believed that the stories were literally true and not just cultural fables.

 

[Aught3]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I've told you MULTIPLE times places to start in terms of evidence. Here are 3:
1) Dr. Craig vs. Hitchens debate (more in the philosophical area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

2) Evidence for the global flood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Dr. Silvestru's presentation, Geology and Deep Time)
start around minute 36 or so. From around minute 54 he shows how plate tectonics has quite a bit of evidence that integrates very well with the biblical flood.

3) I strongly recommend the book "The Greatest Hoax of All" where Dr. Sarfati shatters the claims of Dawkin's book and shows with countless citations how universal common descent has been refuted in many areas and creation science vindicated.

I hope you realise that despite repeated claims you could, you have yet to provide any actual evidence for the existence of gods. Rather than actually providing any evidence you just tell us where to look. I find it strange that there is not even one small piece of evidence that you could post on the boards. Obviously no one here has the time to chase down every video and book that you recommend and you could easily just continue to provide links no matter how flawed they turn out to be. I guess it is up to each individual to decide whether your suggestions have any merit and are worth the time to follow up on. My responses to each of your suggestions:

Craig v. Hitchens: Although I have not seen this particular debate I have watched several Craig debates in the past and he always uses the same five arguments. I have read or devised responses to these arguments and am unconvinced they provide sufficient reason to believe in the existence of a god.

Global flood video: I don't consider it worth my time to watch an hour long video on a purported world wide flood that was not noticed by the flourishing and contemporary Chinese civilisation.

The Greatest Hoax of All: Probably not worth my time unless I get a stronger recommendation from someone with some authority in the area. UCD is demonstrated through the comparison of genetic information between species.

Pensees: I probably will get around to reading this eventually but I haven't heard that it contains any particularly good arguments.

Since you aren't going to post in this thread again I guess that means we will never get to see the evidence you promised. Oh well, thanks for playing.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I find it strange that there is not even one small piece of evidence that you could post on the boards.

You might say, not even... 1% of evidences.

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I'd say that whatever has observations, confirmations or witnesses or artifacts using the scientific method (observational, inferential, historical, explanatory), historical method, methods used in legal courts, logical evidence, evidence from prophecy, miracles, very advanced foreknowledge, etc. count as evidence.

Evidence: An observation or inference influencing the likelihood of a given postulate being true.

Yours is not a definition of evidence. Let me show why, by removing the waffle.

I'd say that [insert things] count as evidence.

You told us, badly, things that you consider to be evidence, not what evidence is. Your definition is self referencing, it could be reduced (admitedly reductum ad absurdum), to

I'd say that evidence counts as evidence.

You have yet to define evidence, I have provided a perfectly succint definition of evidence. You can hardly claim to have used simplicity, I stand by my assertion that what you posted is a word salad.

An ad hom is an attack on a person that serves to divert attention away from their arguments by pointing out non-relevent character traits. Since I'm tackling, head on, an issue at the crux of your argument, your postulate that I am guilty of this is ridiculous.

You failed to define evidence. I have.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I'd say that whatever has observations, confirmations or witnesses or artifacts using the scientific method (observational, inferential, historical, explanatory), historical method, methods used in legal courts, logical evidence, evidence from prophecy, miracles, very advanced foreknowledge, etc. count as evidence.

Evidence: An observation or inference influencing the likelihood of a given postulate being true.

Yours is not a definition of evidence. Let me show why, by removing the waffle.


You told us, badly, things that you consider to be evidence, not what evidence is. Your definition is self referencing, it could be reduced (admitedly reductum ad absurdum), to



You have yet to define evidence, I have provided a perfectly succint definition of evidence. You can hardly claim to have used simplicity, I stand by my assertion that what you posted is a word salad.

An ad hom is an attack on a person that serves to divert attention away from their arguments by pointing out non-relevent character traits. Since I'm tackling, head on, an issue at the crux of your argument, your postulate that I am guilty of this is ridiculous.

You failed to define evidence. I have.

This is also a display of why he wants so desperately to discuss definitions, because he plans on defining things as what he needs them to be to make his arguments more or less circular: "I define evidence as whatever it needs to be so that I can include the Bible as being credible, reliable evidence... therefore there is credible, reliable evidence for God/Jesus and everything else in the Bible. Checkmate, atheists!"