We know there's a God because...

I attack you and Dr. Scott becasue Dr. Scott's "refutation" is a large pile of feces. He hasn't refuted anything. So do I. The crazy cannot be explained, it must be observed. Which is stupid. Literally, you're saying that (not accepting miraculous creation from God) is a punishment for (not acceptinf miraculous creation from god). He's saying we're going to jail becasue we went to jail, Ray.He hasn't refuted any observations. He hasn't introduced new evidence. He hasn't falsified any laboratory results. He hasn't published a scientific paper.He's not even a scientist - he's a televangelist. A very angry, loud, greedy one at that. He loves to yell at his viewers and rant and rave until they give him money - it would be amusing if it didn't work so well at getting vulnerable and gullible people to send him money hand over fist.To falsify evolution, Ray, he has to falsify something, not throw around idiotic accusations that a theory is somehow a punishment from god. Is the theory of gravity a punishment from god, too, Ray? ...except that the model works, and makes highly accurate predictions that are verified through testing and observation. That makes it pretty convicing to rational people. People who are not like Dr. Scott. Or you. And now ray again says that accepting evolution is a punishment. How is it a punishment? I mean, the evolutionary model has produced a great deal of knowledge in the fields of biology and medicine, including new treatments and a greater understanding of why certain treatments can stop working. If knowledge and treatments for diseases are considered punishments, by all means, punish me more! Mmmm hmm. This isn't anger, Ray - this is amusement. I take pleasure in pointing out utterly retarded arguments. I'm not angry at Dr. Scott - he has more than enough anger for ten people. I'm laughing at him, and I'm laughing at you for buying his BS. No, we deny that organised complexity necessarily implies design, at all. We give you examples of naturally organised complexity, like snowflakes, that are clearly not designed and thus require no designer, and you conveniently ignore them. You don't post anything of substance, Ray. You never have. The only thing you have ever done is extol the virtues of your moronic mentor, repeat your claim to have refuted evolution and that you will "soon" publish a paper and change science forever, and call everyone who disagrees with you an atheist. That sums up the totality of your time here - until we found out what your "refutation" of evolution was.Then, your "participation" became funnier.In any thread where it is relevant and you pop up, I fully intend to remind everyone exactly what your premise is, so that everyone else can laugh as loudly as I do. It's really not fair to keep the joke to myself, after all.

quote:

---

You posted evidentially vacuous subjective opinion & claimed the rest of us can't see the evidence.

---

Would it hurt you to be accurate? I doubt it. Might hurt your ability to feel like you've made an impact.I never said that. I said those who don't open their eyes and minds won't see it. I didn't place you in that group - you identified yourself as a member. If you choose to be a member it's one thing, but who do you mean by "the rest of us"?

quote:

---

My point is that your "evidence" is entirely subjective, you have no idea whatsoever what the non-miracle state is compared to the miracle state. As such, you are utterly unable to claim anything as evidence of the miraculous.

---

It's not very subjective - that's just your cop-out. It doesn't take a lot of brainpower to assess this. When driving, simply keep track of how much of the time it is safe to have a blowout, and how much the time it isn't. If you want precision, ride along with someone else, take notes, and use a stopwatch. Also, one shouldn't count any time when the vehicle is traveling under 35 M.P.H. because there's not enough stress on the tire for it to blow if it's properly inflated.As you advocate blindness, it is not surprising that you advocate a false method for studying the issue. Comparing statistics on how many people are injured due to blowouts vs. how many people are injured due to blowouts will give a null answer. Statistics on what the number would be in the absence of Providence aren't kept to my knowledge, and if they are I doubt one would be inclined to have much confidence in the agency publishing them.Of course this is only one example of the type of events an observant person can notice and evaluate. There are countless others; some are easier to evaluate and some are more difficult.

Your personal perception is that you had a thought 5 seconds ago and as far as you are concerned your personal perception is sufficient for you to know you had a thought 5 seconds ago. That thought occurred "inside"Another personal perception is that there is an objective reality "outside" you. That is to say: your personal and subjective perception is that reality is objective and outside you. Again and as far as you are concerned, your personal perception is sufficient for you to know this is the case.Twice we have your personal perception being deemed sufficient as a way to determine what the case is: one deals with what goes on "inside", and one refers to what goes on "outside". Your root reference in both cases is this personal perception. This... ..cannot be demonstrated. At least not without hauling yourself up by the bootstraps.Now, if always relying on personal, subjective perceptions and a perception happens to be added which fits neither in "inside" nor "outside" categories then a third category is perceived. The fact we can differentiate between inside and outside lends support to the notion that a third would be perceivable as a third.If God happens to be perceived in the third then it can be decided that God exists. Just like thoughts and "objective" reality are perceived in the first and second categories. That God is perceived to exist doesn't mean he does of course - the perception is like any other - it's subjectiveThe issue is not whether this can be proven to another. The issue is, failing a way to test what is objectively the case for any class of root perception, do I assume them all to be true and follow where that leads. Or don't I.Do I trust what I perceive or don't I.

quote:

---

I’m hoping that my response to the question wouldn't be epiphany but more questions.

---

Fine. Here are some questions:
How do you know the motive of your "It"?
How do you know guts aren't desired, the best mechanism is desired, dictating your actions is desired, answering to your wishes is desired, etc?The last two seem to be in conflict. Have you rigged the result?

CTD, Oh, please! No, you said: Would it hurt to be accurate? What would this show? Does it test how often it should happen with miracles & without? If not it's still a subjective opinion.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

We explain your slander of Dr. Scott to be caused by anger due to the inability to refute what he says: the "success" of Darwinism is a punishment from God for denying Him credit as Creator. That is why you are lashing out in red-face rage and hatred.This rage corroborates that Rahvin perceives that an invulnerable refutation has taken place.How else does one explain the insult of a very successful Stanford Ph.D. to be a moronic televangelist? The former and latter are antonyms. This is why we recognize Rahvin to be in a state of hysteria explained by the fact that he perceives Dr. Scott to have refuted evolution; and he has no answer except a nonsensical poison-the-well attempt.Scholars, like Dr. Scott, have always known that evolution is false. But not until the 1990s, beginning with Michael Behe, and in 2001 with Dr. Scott, did they decide to forsake the Christian approach and not be gentle anymore, but break the bad news bluntly. Rahvin's reaction, like I said, corroborates.In addition to the refutation of evolution, the reason Rahvin resorts to invective and slander is because Atheists and evolutionists have always slandered Theist scholars, especially Dr. Scott. So we do not feel slighted. We are glad that these kind reject Dr. Scott. The approval of Atheists and evolutionists would surely prove him wrong.[I might add that both Atheists and Fundamentalists accept microevolution and Fundamentalists have a long history of rejecting Dr. Scott.]Rahvin has evaded every single point and fact in my last message, so I will not repeat them and comfort my self that the reason he did this is because he cannot refute.For other persons who may read these exchanges, here is the link to the message of mine that Rahvin, an Atheist-evolutionist, could not address:http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is Rahvin's "reply". I urge you to compare each message and see that he evaded and misrepresented because he cannot refute (even though this message is a reply to the link below I did not address most of what he said because, like I said, he misrepresented everything I wrote because he cannot refute):http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is the link to the message that refutes the claim of this topic that I wrote in which Rahvin and other evolutionists could not refute, but like I predicted, in the post, that they would misrepresent because they cannot refute:http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Here is Rahvin's "reply". Compare and see the misrepresentations caused by the inability to refute.http://EvC Forum: We know there's a God because... -->EvC Forum: We know there's a God because...Ray Martinez - Creationist-Designist, student of Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University.

It would really help discussion if participants would take the time and effort to say what they mean and mean what they say, and to make sure that it is on-topic. If necessary I'll issue short suspensions to whoever ties up this thread, and at least one other that I've noticed so far, with off-topic side-discussions of what they really meant.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That was already admitted, as was the fact that before, in Africa, having no exposure to religious texts or monotheism, they concluded reality looked like it was produced by a Creator.After coming to America and becoming literate they learned who the Creator was. But the fact reamins: based only on observation of nature, before any exposure to texts or monotheism, they deduced the same was produced by a Creator. That is what they said.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Did they also conclude that the earth was flat, and that the stars, sun, and moon went around the earth?Seems like most, even all, cultures concluded that the earth is flat, and that the sun, moon, and stars go around the earth without having any exposure to religious texts or monotheism.It is entirely possible for cultures to reach the same conclusions without those conclusions being true.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Well, you've got one believer who says you have to wait for God to find you, almost literally walk through the door, another who sees evidence in an L.A. preacher "refuting" evolution by declaring that its widespread acceptance is God's punishment for its widespread acceptance, and, even better IMO, another who sees evidence of God every time a tyre blows on his car and he doesn't die.Who needs scriptures when you've got the religious imagination?

I vaguely recall Percy saying once that he is a theist or deist. Could be wrong - but if not, you could add his imagination into the mix.

Yes, I understand the story, and was just pointing out that they were Christians when they wrote their accounts, whereas you had answered "nope" to the question of whether the biographies were written by Christians.So, your point is that they had independently thought of the idea of a creator. Nothing new there. Many cultures have, sometimes one creator, sometimes a team of Gods. Others have religions without Gods. This shows us that our species has a definite tendency to invent religious explanations, nothing else. There are plenty of other examples of the independent invention of a creator God/spirit.

quote:

---

Would it hurt to be accurate?

---

Indeed! I said both things in the same paragraph in msg #48. Now you pretend I said one and not the other.ME:

quote:

---

These things are habitually dismissed by those who desire another conclusion. In fact, there's not much choice: dismiss them or give up something they cherish. But it wasn't so long ago there was acknowledgement of "Providence" even among those who weren't keen on any "religious texts". It's a matter of opening one's eyes and mind, or at least declining to close them.

---

This concludes my responses to your posts for now. I'm tired of this.

Certainly, although I left him out because I'm replying to his O.P. asking about the approaches of others.Theist of the variety who believes in a benevolent God, he seems to be, judging by the O.P., as he seems to see the troubles of the world as possible evidence of the absence of his God.And I left out suggestions from myself and others about looking for teleology in general, and from people who see apparent design and complexity as evidence for some kind of God.I just picked out the more unusual ones, as we hear those I've just listed all the time.

You are conveniently omitting or forgetting the already established fact that they arrived at the existence of a Creator through observing nature in Africa - the whole issue of this thread, that is, can a Creator be deduced to exist if no religious texts existed.But I cannot find this source or book. I believe it was called "Slave Stories" - I do not remember and I have lost the book.Ray