Existence of God

What is the evidence you refer to?

quote:

---

I have long held the view that if a person must ask this question then that person is too far gone for me to help.

---

How convenient for you.Someone makes a simple request for an example of the evidence which you seem to know all about, and you refuse to provide it.If you can't show the evidence, then how do we know it exists?Why so coy?I only ask because to this point I've only seen assertions from you, no evidence, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps we're using different definitions of evidence.

quote:

---

Over the years I've become convinced that most Naturalists haven't given the subject of 'evidence' more than a passing thought.

---

So, why not take this opporunity to educate us, Joralex?Since you seem to be saying that you have given the concept of 'evidence' more than 'a passing thought', why don't you explain the concept, and perhaps give us some examples?Do you think saying something like "The evidence for a divine creator is all around us" constitutes evidence?

quote:

---

Absolutely not. It is the actual evidence that is all around us that supports the existence of a purposeful Creator - not the mere act of saying so.

---

Please pick one or two specific examples of this evidence and explain how they are evidence of a creator.

quote:

---

The 'best inference', given our present state of knowledge, is that of 'intelligent, purposeful design'.

---

How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system that we do not understand yet, but may in the future, or that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?

quote:

---

The Creator had the foresight to make organisms "flexible" so that they could adapt to the changes that were to come in a Fallen creation.

---

Except that most of the life that has ever lived on the planet has gone extinct.

quote:

---

The 'purpose' is evident in a creation that, while incredibly diverse, is yet also intricately interconnected/interdependent all the way from the microorganism scale to the giant Redwood scale.

---

This interconnectedness is predicted from a naturalistic viewpoint. It needs no magic to explain it.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2003]

I couldn't have said it better myself. Since intelligent intervention has not been able to create life with the "countless attempts" you speak of, it's reasonable to assume that intelligent intervention was not able to do it in the past. Your evidence makes it pretty clear - life was not created by intelligence. You're joking, right? Or is this maybe some sort of 'New Age' logic that you're using here?On the other hand we've seen time and again how systems employing natural selection + random mutation can give rise to significantly better designs that intelligence, including designs of great emergent complexity and behavior. So it's reasonable to assume that NS + RM are sufficient to produce life, or something life-like. Your "logic" is truly amazing... I am... bedaffled!The wonder is why you can't seem to see that if you're the only one who sees the design, then it's likely that it's just in your head. Design is not a part of objects. It's not a physical phenomenon. It's a quality we ascribe to objects. What's the purpose of a screwdriver in a world without screws? Pllleeezzzz... let's not pretend to be so naive.

​

If you took a hand calculator to the 10th century, everyone there would be clueless as to how this "magic box" works but there would be no doubt in even the most ignorant peasant's mind that this thing is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon. IOW, in this example intelligent design would be obvious even though its origin would be a total mystery.The only way a designer can be "inferred" is by directly observing the designer. You can't infer a designer from an object you believe to have been designed, because objects can be created without design. There's no difference between an object that was designed and one that wasn't. With all due respect, you obviously haven't given this matter much thought.Design may be the most obvious inference to you, but it's certainly not a logical one. Therefore it must be rejected by the logical mind. Using your standards, all forensic-related disciplines are out-of-business, as well as AI, cryptography, archaeology, and SETI.

​

Sorry, Frog, but you are simply way (way!) behind the times.

​

Joralex

I'll just let you compare and contrast those two statements yourself. That's right, Dan - cut and paste quotations so as to make it appear as if there is logical inconsistency. Ugghhh!Regardless... judging by the second statement, your stance seems to be that either there are no contradictions in the bible, That's right.or these intelligent people saw the contradictions and conciously chose to ignore them? Isaac Newton, for example, is known to have spent a great deal of his life studying Scripture (his writings on theology exceed his writings in science/mathematics). Do you seriously believe that an intellect of his magnitude missed what most people easily pick up upon cursory reading?And given that the latter is ridiculous, there must be no contradictions? That is not my conclusion, and you know it.

​

My conclusion is more like this : given that the latter is ridiculous, then it is reasonable to assume that what you regard as a 'contradiction' was examined and resolved in his/her mind and to his/her intellectual satisfaction.

​

I am an example of this - I've resolved (through study) many hundreds of (alleged) Bible discrepancies. I've arrived at the reasonable and supportable conclusion that there is no real substance to the allegations of Bible discrepancies.

​

Failing to arrive at this conclusion you must assume that these people are either outright dishonest or are totally ignoring the facts. If you are ready to do this then be my guest. But I'll tell you, if you do so you are ignoring the truth in the matter whether by accident (ignorance) or by choice (dishonesty).Well then, that's not a numbers fallacy. It's a false dilemna. I see... so when you strike out on one line you shift to another.

​

This is why I seldom spend too much time debating these issues with people such as yourself - you're going to be right no matter what. Once a question is answered you simply twist the question in another direction or you change the subject or you toss out another question (there's an infinite number of those you know). The bottom line is what I call 'invincible ignorance' - there is no possible way to "answer" you to the point where you will admit "Hey, maybe I'm wrong here and maybe I should give the other side some real consideration."

​

I'll move on, thank you.

​

Joralex

Your God has failed all tests I've put to it. Just like the others. And remember, I made these tests when I was still a Christian, like you, and still believed. So you can hardly say I found what I was looking for. I found the opposite of what I was looking for, in fact. Silly Frog - didn't you at least once consider the possibility that the reason why God "failed your tests" was because YOUR tests weren't appropriate? Look and learn...

​

I want to measure your intelligence and to do so I give you one exercise :

​

"Mathematically prove that any even number greater than 2 may be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers."

​

If you are successful then you are 'intelligent'; if you fail then you are a blooming idiot. Fair enough?

​

Now, did you pass or fail the intelligence test OR is this intelligence test absurd?

​

Quit trying to stick God with YOUR faults and limitations.

​

Joralex[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-19-2003]

Joralex, what is your criteria for evaluating the intelligence of an intelligent design? Upon what basis, for example, do you detect and qualify the intelligence underlying protista design?

quote:

---

Isaac Newton, for example, is known to have spent a great deal of his life studying Scripture (his writings on theology exceed his writings in science/mathematics). Do you seriously believe that an intellect of his magnitude missed what most people easily pick up upon cursory reading?

---

Issac Newton was also into the occult, and practiced scrying.

quote:

---

My conclusion is more like this : given that the latter is ridiculous, then it is reasonable to assume that what you regard as a 'contradiction' was examined and resolved in his/her mind and to his/her intellectual satisfaction.

---

Phlogiston, geocentricity, a flat earth, etc.

quote:

---

I am an example of this - I've resolved (through study) many hundreds of (alleged) Bible discrepancies. I've arrived at the reasonable and supportable conclusion that there is no real substance to the allegations of Bible discrepancies.

---

Ah. So who judges, again? And while we're at it, who incided David to conduct the first census?Also while we're at it, do you realize that the texts that compose the bible were voted on at several occasions? The Bible itself wasn't really fixed in stone until the arbitrary point where Constantine ordered 50 bibles created. It is an arbitrary composite. For example, how do you decide to accept the gospel according to Matthew, but not according to Thomas?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Simply applying the logic you tend to use. Pretty silly, isn't it? Uh-huh.Tell ya what. I'll throw a handful of pennies on the ground. Then I'll take the same number of pennies and lay them out, piece by piece, in the same manner as the first one.One of these piles is naturally random. The other is designed. Maybe you can explain to me how you'd tell the difference? Since according to you there is one? While you're at it why don't explain to me why you don't assume somebody dropped a lever each time you find a stick next to a round stone. That's your best rebuttal? Please. Why would they be? As I said you can't infer design without the presence of designers. For things of human design, we're surrounded by human designers. Or don't they have humans where you live?There's a big difference, of course, between natural intelligences, like humans or potential aliens, and your supernatural god. We know that natural intelligence exists. That means nothing in reference to the possibility of supernatural intelligence. Says the guy promoting the 4000-year-old fairy tale.

Whoah, wait a minute. You said "all tests." I pointed out that he failed mine.Now, if you're going to characterize "pass and fail" on his terms, rather than my terms, well, then I reserve the right to do the same thing on my next driving test. I failed. Guess what? I never claimed I could pass all tests. You did, however, claim God could. I provided a counterexample, so you're wrong.However I expect you'll figure out a way to special plead for god. I'm beginning to see what you mean about your "invincible ignorance".

One usually engages in a dialogue in order to exchange information. If your only response to inquiries is ad hominems, then one can only conclude you're here for the ad hominems and not for useful dialogue. The actual evidence for evolution is all around us, and the evolutionists here will respond to inquiries about it.--Percy

quote:

---

That's right, Dan - cut and paste quotations so as to make it appear as if there is logical inconsistency. Ugghhh!

---

Could you explain how your two statements are consistent? And please do not reply with an ad hominem.In one statment, you defend your beliefs by stating that large numbers of people including a prominent scientist agree with you. In the other statement, you state that the numbers of people who disagree with you is unimportant, and that the opinions of prominent scientists is irrelevant.Seems awfully contradictory. Please explain why it isn't.Also, you've left the discussion hanging over in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye, and I've posted reminders of what the hanging questions are. The discussion was on the verge of making progress on clarifying key points on both sides, so I'd love it if you'd reply over there.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 10-20-2003]

quote:

---

". I've arrived at the reasonable and supportable conclusion that there is no real substance to the allegations of Bible discrepancies.
"

---

And yet you've consistently ignored addressing Rei's posts on specific discrepancies. Much like you've ignored Rei's specific questions on your Evolution of the Eye thread.So allow me to present another discrepancy. I expect you to ignore me as well. Try suprising me.In 3 of the 4 Gospels, Christ is dead before Passover starts. In John, however, the Last Supper is a Passover meal, shortly after which Jesus dies.Dead in 3 Gospels, Alive in the 4th. Pretty tough discrepancy to explain away.(on a side note, my favorite response to this was someone who claimed that in the first three Gospels they were talking about the Jewish Passover, and in John it was the Christian Passover.)

I'm beginning to think that Joralex is Wise (the poster, not that adjective)JustinC

Replies to messages #91 and #92 in this thread would be much appreciated, Joralex.I couldn't help but notice you kind of skipped them over.There's no rush if you've become busy suddenly, but considering your history of non-response, I thought I'd let you know that I have noticed.Just let me know when you plan to repond if you can't right now.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-20-2003]

Isaac Newton was Anti-trinitarion - he believed Jesus not to be god. He didn't believe in the devil, or demons as a real entity.http://members.aol.com/stevesnobelen/How exactly does this support your position?