My Beliefs- GDR

I'm sure Tiger Wood's dad said all those things about him too.Yeah I guess there is legend written about him, which I of course don't believe. But other than that, his history is nothing supernatural.Can the same be said for Jesus? Was he a regular guy that a few people decided to write legends of?- Oni

Listen, you don't have to keep repeating something that is obvious in all cases. ALL evidence is such that you can accept or reject it.What we are discussing is the evidence itself. Neither QM or Relativity operate in any place other than reality. So it doesn't go against your sense of reality. It's just something you've probably never understood. But that is not the same thing as saying this stuff defies physics. Well where the fuck did it take place?! How can basic chemistry and the emergence of single celled organisms defy our experience of reality? You're not making sense man.We see planets develop we see evolution on this planet, we see chemistry at work, we've even understood the crazy world of QM. Elements bonding to form a simple organism are no more complex than any of that. It's probably happened countless times throughout the universe.Or is it that far fetched of a process to you that the only way you can imagine it happening is to invoke an invisible being that can magically make it happen? You operate in a world of strict materialism. Admit it. You wouldn't take to jump off a building and pray for wings, right? You don't go around thinking the Sun won't come up or gravity will ever cease, right?Where on the spectrum do you fall when it comes to flying unicorns? You should have gone with your initial feelings of not making this argument as it is a mess of things you once read or heard while here at EvC. Before T=0 the laws of QM apply. Still laws. Still very much centered in reality.So again, the laws of physics have never been suspended. So why would you start with the premise that they can be suspended? Remember, we're talking about the macro world also, not the micro world. I'm talking about the laws as they relfect on the macro world where relativity applies. I don't know if you know how this works but a single source can't confirm it's own claims. Sure we do. Because it wasn't on this planet at one point, then it was on this planet. The fossil record shows this.What else are we to conclude?Your answer can't be anything you can imagine or believe exists without any evidence. So, with the evidence at hand, you see no living cells, then you do. What do you concluded? As complex as you feel life and intelligence are, saying they came about from basic chemistry and a gradual process of evolution is not improbable, since there is evidence for evolution & chemistry.Imagining an invisible intellegent being that just appeared out of nowhere and created the universe is so improbable that it is ridiculous. However improbable you feel natural processes are supernatural processes are even more improbable since we have not a single piece of evidence for something supernatural. I'm glad you see it is circular. That has been my point the entire time. Glad you finally admit it.I don't start off with the premise that flying unicorns exist either. Just because you can imagine it doesn't mean I now have to accept or reject it. You're the one making the claim therefore the burden is on you to show proof for it. I don't think you understand what you wrote. I asked you about single celled organisms and you brought up humans and consciousness.That's why I had to ask you the question again.From single celled organisms to humans there is a very evidenced fossil record of a gradual evolution. I hope you're not disputing that evolution happens. So we know how humans and intelligence emerged.My question is dealing with the period BEFORE that. The emergence of non-conscious single celled organisms.So again I'll ask, for the third time and think about it before you answer so you don't answer something I'm not asking about.Do you think basic chemistry that leads to single celled organisms is more complex than what it takes for planets, stars and solar systems to form?And if you say yes again, then please explain what is it about their process that makes it less complex than basic chemistry? We can move on past this. You have already admitted that the stories originate in mythology and that the story of the Jesus' resurrection is not unique to Jesus. So I feel I've done what I set out to do initially.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Let's be clear, all I said the Bible was evidence of was that a collection of people wrote some stories. I agree it's evidence but only of that and that alone.When you say "The Bible is evidence you can accept or reject" you're not telling me what it's evidence for. Do you see that?You can say "The Bible is a book that has stories about god that you can either accept or reject" - Ok, I can understand that. But not the way you're saying it. Sure it is simple. As a whole it's obviously complex, but when you break down the cell you can see it's made up of a combination of smaller bits of chemical reactions.When you look at a massive Sun burning fuel it is a complex machine generating an insane amount of energy, creating heavier elements and when it explodes (if it explodes) the energy that produces creates every other heavier element in the universe, that then go on to create solar systems and planets, that hold the building blocks to life. That is the process of a Sun. Complex as a whole. But, what it actually starts off as is hydrogen. A single, simple element.When you see a cell, what you're actually looking at is simple elements and a combination of various chemical reactions, that, in combination create a cell. But, what it actually starts off as is basic elements. Unicorns aren't a religion, so the word atheistic doesn't make sense. You simply don't start with the premise that unicorns exist because...? Care to answer that? What I'm saying is you can't present the Bible as a confirmation of the stories in the Bible. Surely that bit of logic doesn't escape you? Yes, and your answer is basically an argument from incredulity - a logical falacy. You can't imagine it happening naturally so therefore it couldn't have happened.You've just lost the argument. Do you think saying that differently makes it less improbable?However improbable you feel the chemistry that fomred life is, it is way more improbable that an intelligent agency has always existed created by nothing and needing no explanation as to it's origin. Yes, we do disagree. But lets note that my position is based on chemistry and natural selection, for which there is a ton of evidnce. Your position remains the stuff of mythology. Starting off with the belief in a god before any such god has been proven to exist is NOT a rational point of view. It is the whole point of our discussion.But now I see that your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, therefore it isn't rational or logical. Again, this is an argument from incredulity. I mean for fuck sake now your saying that single celled organisms have the knowledge to evolve into sentient beings. More and more having debates here it just makes me realize how little science most of you actually understand. Just because they changed it from a plant to a human doesn't make it unique. It just means someone took an old story and changed it to make it their own. Like I said when I first posted in this thread, it's plagiarism. It's the very definition of it.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It could very well have been written after the fall of Jerusalem to make it seem like a prophecy. Especially considering that for all intent and purposes the authors wanted to make Jesus look like a prophet. It could also have a lot to do with the guy coming back from the dead, like in mythology.- Oni

No motive? The motive is to make Jesus look like a prophet. To do that it makes sense that they would write about an event that already happened. Yeah. I mean, Jesus didn't actually write anything himself. Is it? Really? People making up stories sounds ridiculous to you? I'm sorry, do you know these people personally or something? Oh please. You believe a guy came back from the dead. Talk about believing in the most nonsensical things.- Oni

They had all the motive to do so since they believed he was the son of god.- Oni

You have not shown why it couldn't have all been written after 70AD. I don't know what any of the above that you wrote has to do with that point.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

It is evidence that a collection of people wrote a STORY about a person named Jesus. It's not evidence that such a person actually lived, and certainly not evidence that any of the stories are true. Huh? What about the components of a cell leads you to think there is more than just a material world? Look, if there is information in the cell's DNA for sentience and morality, one of which isn't even something tangble, then please present it.Otherwise I'll go with the fact that sentience is something evolved, and morality is the by-product of living in a social grouping. Talk about evading a question. I'll ask for what the 3rd time now? Do you start with the premise that unicorns exist, OR, do you need evidence of unicorns first? sigh...Is there any evidence outside of the Bible that can confirm any of the accounts in the Bible about Jesus, his life, death and resurrection? Who said I can't imagine that? Of course I can imagine that; I can imagine A LOT more than that, like a matrix or computer program, or being the creation of scientists that learned how to make universes, etc.But what I can imagine and what there is evidence for are two enormously different thing. That's why I've only stated that with the evidence we have the only fact that we know of is natural causes. This is of course keeping in mind that EVEN IF god did it, how god did it was through natural causes. God could have guided evolution, assembled the first living cell, designed every single galaxy and planet and more than likely life on those planets as well. All of that could be the case. But currently, there is no evidence for such a being with that kind of power. It isn't even logical to think that such a being can exist without some method of development itself. Because sure, humans are intelligent, but we came to be after billions of years of evolution and experience.Now, can it be the case that something with that power exists? Sure. Who knows what's out there for us to discover. But at the moment, the only thing we have objective evidence for is natural causes that act on their own.Now, can you imagine there being no god and chemistry and evolution and the whole thing just happens naturally free of any invisible agent? And do you agree that the only thing we have objective evidence for is that and that alone? Yours too, you just make excuses for why it's not when it comes to this one particular story of Jesus that you've decided to put faith on. Otherwise, if I said pink unicorn that creates universes, you'd be of the opinion that it is more improbable than things just happening naturally, as you know them to do. You have a problem believing those things happened on their own. You then invoke a god. Which, is the stuff of mythology. Good luck?! What? It's just survival out here. There are sooo many dead - many who never got a chance to even see a few years - not to mention 99% of the organisms that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct! This is trail and error, man. We're here standing on the sholders of soooooo many failed species that we owe them our life. If not for them failing and life still finding a way to survive, our pathetic bodies wouldn't have been around to see today. I guess it is kind of good luck that we happen to be here, when so many aren't. Since that is what the evidence shows us happened. But 4 billion years is a particularly long enough time to get some of it right so that humans had a chance for survival. I don't know what you mean by information, and I don't think you do either. I think you're just repeating some argument you read here. Explain what you mean by that. I noticed, and you've been trying to explain why you disagree this enitre time. We are back to square one that you disagree.- Oni

Yes, but how is this evidence that it couldn't have been written after 70AD. All you're saying is they wouldn't behave that way. Well what evidence do you have that they didn't behave that way? Or should I just believe anything you write 'cause you're the smartest person ever? The claims of a few people is not evidence. You have faith, Faith, that is all. I don't have faith in these stories. I don't usually make it a habit to believe anything that there isn't proper evidence for and Christianity is just one of the many things that I don't believe in.You do too, for other things, like perhaps Big Foot or aliens visiting Earth or stories that talk about dragons. You know exactly what it's like to feel one particular thing doesn't have enough evidence to support it's claims. Just because you decided out of your own will to have faith that one of those is right doesn't make it so.- Oni

This is ridiculous. You don't have to be an atheist to understand that faking something is more plausible than miracles. I mean, what's easier to fake that you can cure cancer with the wave of a wand or to actually perform that miracle? Even in your stubbornness you must conclude that it's easier to fake it, right? You're committing the fallacy of begging the question

quote:

---

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"; in order to charitably entertain the argument, it must be taken as given "in some form of the very proposition to be proved, as a premise from which to deduce it".[8] One must take it upon oneself that the goal, taken as given, is essentially the means to that end.

---

Your reasoning is questionable because you put the cart before the horse. To be able to approach the Bible from the point of view that there is a god, you must first prove that there is a god. Otherwise it is circular reasoning to say, "Well first believe there is a god then you will believe all the stories about god are true."Are you satisfied with that kind of reasoning?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I can settle for that. So, when you say we can either accept it or reject it, you can see why many do reject it. Because it's not conclusive. This sounds like mystical nonsense.Emotions are chemicals in your body that you experience. Morality is nothing more than a set of guidelines that is group specific - what's moral to you might not be seen as moral by someone from another country. And we don't know what consciouness is yet, so we can't speak either way with any assurance. But here again you put the cart before the horse because you know of no such thing as a non-material world. Whatever these things are they quite obviously exist in reality. Well clearly it had the potential to do so since we're all here. When chemicals react it has the potential to do A LOT of things. Again even IF god did it, chemistry and evolution are clearly the way he did it.Everything looks to play out naturally. The only reason you assume a creator had a hand in it is because you start with the premise that god exists - cart before the horse, begging the question - instead of waiting for conclusive evidence, which you agree doesn't exist.It's like with the unicorns - the only reasonable position is to start with the premise that they don't exist. That evidence would need to be conclusive, right? You wouldn't accept as evidence only stories written about unicorns, right? That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked you NOTHING about why anything exists.You admit that we can observe natural forces, and obviously we don't observe any god guiding anything. So by your own words the only objective evidence is natural forces.Why they are here is what plays out in the world of theoretical physics - the nerdiest of the nerds work there. I'm not going to pretend I fully grasp String Theory or multiuniverse and m-theory, but, I will say from the words of the experts that they have pretty good math to back up their theories. So we may yet know why the laws of physics and reality exist.But again, this has nothing to do with my question about objective evidence. So no evidence outside of the Bible. It then remains non conclusive as far as evidence goes.- Oni

So it's easier to fake it. Now you understand. I would guess not. But this had nothing to do with the question. Flying is hard for me to do without some kind of machinery. But if you're Superman doing it then not so much. Yeah I can create an entity that can do anything too. That's pure speculation on your part. You couldn't possibly know those details. I'm sorry, did Paul actually see the real Jesus or did he claim to see Jesus on the way to Demascus?So you have Paul who says "Oh yeah he appeared to me" which is not evidenced, and 500 people who believed him. And you're saying that's hard to fake? No empirical proof for the non existence of god? That's silly. How do you provide proof for something that has no objective evidence for it's existence? How do you disprove there are no unicorns? You don't. There is no evidence for unicorns therefore it is reasonable to conclude unicrons don't exist.Without conclusive evidence for god, starting with the premise that there is a god and from that concluding the resurrection is possible is putting the cart before the horse. In the face of your reasoning being a fallacy, saying you're satisfied with it is baffling to me.- Oni

I'd rather he not interfere at all. Don't punish anyone. We have our own laws that deal with that. Even the death penalty. So no need for god to send world wide floods and genocide of that nature.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No one knows the answer to a question that is nonsensical - that's probably true. When you say "non-material world" you have no clue as to what that means. It's just a combination of words but it's not anything evidenced.It's like using the term non-reality, or nothingness. Sure they're words, but their meaning is ambiguous and nonsensical. What??? This...I can't even understand what this means. How could you possibly know that? Sure, it's a byproduct of being social primates. You'll find the golden rule in many primate groups.I meant overall morality is group specific. Then your point that a cell should have all the potential in it has been conceded on. I don't start with the premise that an invisible agent, that is unevidenced might exist and therefore magical things can take place. As you have been promoting the whole time. It doesn't make any sense to do so, and you've failed to explain why it does.Your reasoning is very bad in this case. You accept Christianity and believe their is an invisible agent at work ONLY on the basis of the resurrection, and believe the resurrection is possible because you already accept, before having evidence to support it, that an invisible agent, that is unevidenced exists. It is circular reasoning, and a logical fallacy.Is this what faith and belief makes one do? Many scientists have done this very thing and found nothing. You can start off by not accepting something is true then discover it is. Shit, even Einstein did that. If that is in fact the question, then the answer requires evidence. I don't "believe" anything one way or the other. It may turn out that it is unexplainable, but, it may also be answered as a Theory of Everything that theoretical physicist are working on. Who knows. There is no answer at the moment. You see nothing. You imagine god, and really, what do you actually imagine? A force? A person? An energy? What exactly? Just saying the word god doesn't describe anything. The argument against it is the same one you use against mythology.- Oni

So Paul claimed to see Jesus, and Paul says 500 other people claimed this too. And you believe this is hard to fake? Look, god can exist, no one is saying otherwise. What I'm questioning is your circular reasoning and logical fallacy. It makes a difference on how one forms a conclusion. Yes, we have established this is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy.- Oni