Evidence for God from Science

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:

August wrote:Why go there if you are Christian?

I told you, to broaden my education.

So you think people with a preconception against Christianity is appropriate to broaden your education? What education do you mean?

Well, I provided some of the editorials that have shaken my faith.

That does not answer the question. You have stated other people's reasons, I want your own conclusions.

I explained how horrible those passages are ...

No you didn't, you just asserted they were without accounting for the standard you used to assert, like I asked.

I think killing 70,000 people is mean.

So it is your personal standard? Where did it come from?

Why would it be in the Bible if it didn't happen?

If you believe that Bible is true, then do you belive in John 3:16?
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Because copy-pasting an entire argument here doesn't help - I wanted to show the original.

But you are the one asking, the least you can do is present the core of the argument. I have no desire to read through reams of nonsense to get to the same arguments we have seen here before.

Because that site has intelligent editorials I'd like answered.

Then give us the 3-line version and we will answer it.

Well, giving us unnecessary organs, like the tailbone, third eyelid, and things that Nick_122 listed seems unintelligent ...

That does not answer the question. By what standard do you judge it to be unintelligent? Where did that standard come from?[/quote]

Ok, Darwin said those things ... but that doesn't make him wrong about everything ... besides, he lived a long time ago ... and the Bible isn't exactly kind to women ... I think ...

Not just women... What about people of other races...?

Darwin's "bulldog" Thomas Huxley once stated, "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Hey, if we can only teach evolution in public schools, might as well teach it correctly, eh?

The spiritual realm is dissolved in the naturalistic world. According to the Bible men and women and all the races of the world are the same spiritually... Evolution deviod of spirituality cannot make this claim. It just teaches that we are simple mechanisms... Someone maybe a porsche and someone maybe a yugo.. Ouch. My car is better than your car... etc...

Here is how the Bible defines equality:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28.)

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:Ok, Darwin said those things ... but that doesn't make him wrong about everything ... besides, he lived a long time ago ... and the Bible isn't exactly kind to women ... I think ...

Can't admit he was a racist?

Gman wrote:

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:Ok, Darwin said those things ... but that doesn't make him wrong about everything ... besides, he lived a long time ago ... and the Bible isn't exactly kind to women ... I think ...

Can't admit he was a racist?

And an atheist?

So you think people with a preconception against Christianity is appropriate to broaden your education? What education do you mean?

I think that any person with differing beliefs has something to teach me, whether I like it or not.

That does not answer the question. You have stated other people's reasons, I want your own conclusions.

I agree with the editorials' basic principles: why would God make us with unecessary organs? Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

No you didn't, you just asserted they were without accounting for the standard you used to assert, like I asked.

I'm sorry, I assumed most people thought the murder of 70,000 people was cruel. You want a standard I use to assert? Ok ... how about ... killing anyone is mean. God's done it 70,000 times.

So it is your personal standard? Where did it come from?

It is my personal standard, but I'm sure most people would agree with me. It came from the fact that death hurts people - 70,000 deaths hurts 70,000 times as much.

If you believe that Bible is true, then do you belive in John 3:16?
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The whole thingy we're discussing is whether or not I believe in the Bible - sure, I think John 3:16's a good verse, but that doesn't mean I believe it ...

But you are the one asking, the least you can do is present the core of the argument. I have no desire to read through reams of nonsense to get to the same arguments we have seen here before.

They're not nonsensical ... by not reading them, you're showing that you don't want to learn about opposing views - I consider that narrow-mindedness. And before you ask, that is a standard that I, and I'm sure a lot of people, hold. It came from the fact that that you should try to broaden your horizons - even if they don't agree with what you currently believe.

Then give us the 3-line version and we will answer it.

1. Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

2. Intelligent design is a good concept, but it doesn't seem so intelligent if God's making unecessary organs.

That does not answer the question. By what standard do you judge it to be unintelligent? Where did that standard come from?

They're unecessary, so giving us them is unintelligent. That standard came from the fact that anyone would agree that all all-knowing, all-loving God would do not give us something that disadvantages. And no, that standard did not come from God, it came from common sense. I don't even know if I believe in God ...

Gman wrote:

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:Ok, Darwin said those things ... but that doesn't make him wrong about everything ... besides, he lived a long time ago ... and the Bible isn't exactly kind to women ... I think ...

Can't admit he was a racist?

Actually, at the time I wrote that post, no-one had even mentioned races, or that negro quote, at all. It's pretty silly to ask me to predict what you're going to say so I can refute it in advance. I'm happy to admit that he was racist, if that's the case (which it doesn't seem to be, seeing as that quote wasn't even from Darwin), but that doesn't make him wrong ... I hate smokers and cigarettes, and Albert Einstein smoked - does that mean that all of his brilliant theories are wrong? I hope not ...

I wouldn't think that neither racism nor the idea of evolution started with Darwin. Both are manifestations of basing one's thinking on a non-biblical foundation. However, Darwin's writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a 'scientific' justification for it. His book's subtitle referred to the 'preservation of favoured races'.

However, evolution provides no moral basis for treating women well — since it provides no basis for morality at all. In fact, it seems to be a well-kept secret that Darwin and the founders of modern evolutionism consistently taught that the alleged physical and mental inferiority of women was strong proof of evolution by natural and sexual selection. This can't simply be dismissed as just a product of their cultural prejudices they went out of their way to try to prove female inferiority to bolster evolution."

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:

So you think people with a preconception against Christianity is appropriate to broaden your education? What education do you mean?

I think that any person with differing beliefs has something to teach me, whether I like it or not.

What did you learn that benefit you?

I agree with the editorials' basic principles: why would God make us with unecessary organs? Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

You keep asserting that the organs are unneccesary, but how do you or anyone else come to that conclusion?

What proof for evolution are you talking about? Please describe your understanding of evolution, just so we are taliing about the same thing.

I'm sorry, I assumed most people thought the murder of 70,000 people was cruel. You want a standard I use to assert? Ok ... how about ... killing anyone is mean. God's done it 70,000 times.

So whatever most people think is the correct opinion?

When you say killing anyone is mean, that is not a standard, it is your personal opinion. If someone attacks your baby sister with a baseball bat, and you shoot that person and kill him, is that mean?

It is my personal standard, but I'm sure most people would agree with me. It came from the fact that death hurts people - 70,000 deaths hurts 70,000 times as much.

Where did your personal standard come from? Also, why should we care about your personal standard any more than we care about Pol Pot's or Hitlers?

The whole thingy we're discussing is whether or not I believe in the Bible - sure, I think John 3:16's a good verse, but that doesn't mean I believe it ...

Ah, ok, I understand the logic now. When the Bible says something that according to your personal standard is "mean" and does not meet with your approval for what God is supposed to be, then it is true. But when the Bible says some thing that does not agree with your personal opinion that God is "mean", then the Bible may not be true.

Either way, you cannot pick and choose out of the Bible what you wish to belive or not. Either the whole Bible is true, or it isn't. If you accept that the whole Bible is true, then you need to put as much truth value in John 3:16 as in any other of the verses you quoted.

If not, then please don't quote any Bible verses to try and disprove the existence of God.

They're not nonsensical ... by not reading them, you're showing that you don't want to learn about opposing views - I consider that narrow-mindedness. And before you ask, that is a standard that I, and I'm sure a lot of people, hold. It came from the fact that that you should try to broaden your horizons - even if they don't agree with what you currently believe.

So now you are resorting to personal insults?

You do not know anything about me. Regardless, I have told that we have seen no new atheist arguments in the 16 years that we have been doing this. I read every link you posted here, and there still is not anything new.

1. Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

2. Intelligent design is a good concept, but it doesn't seem so intelligent if God's making unecessary organs.

1. What specific proof?

2. How do you know that it is unintelligent?

They're unecessary, so giving us them is unintelligent. That standard came from the fact that anyone would agree that all all-knowing, all-loving God would do not give us something that disadvantages. And no, that standard did not come from God, it came from common sense. I don't even know if I believe in God ...

What is common sense? Where did you get it from? How did you come to learn anything? Please describe the exact process.

And no, "anyone" does not agree with you, no-one has conclusively shown that those organs have disadvantages or are uneccessary. Or do you believe we know everything there is to know about the human body?

Now for some more questions:
1. Where did logic come from?
2. Where do moral standards come from?
3. How do you know things?

Gman wrote:I wouldn't think that neither racism nor the idea of evolution started with Darwin. Both are manifestations of basing one's thinking on a non-biblical foundation.

Maybe, but remember, the KKK is based on thinking on a biblical foundation.

Gman wrote:However, Darwin's writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a 'scientific' justification for it. His book's subtitle referred to the 'preservation of favoured races'.

Isn't that natural selection? I don't know ... I don't know too much about it ...

However, evolution provides no moral basis for treating women well — since it provides no basis for morality at all.

No, it doesn't. But most people who believe in evolution also realise that the law is a good enough basis for morality.

In fact, it seems to be a well-kept secret that Darwin and the founders of modern evolutionism consistently taught that the alleged physical and mental inferiority of women was strong proof of evolution by natural and sexual selection.

Really? Could you give me a quote or something please?

This can't simply be dismissed as just a product of their cultural prejudices they went out of their way to try to prove female inferiority to bolster evolution."

No, it can't, and no-one is trying to dismiss it. I'm not even a Darwinist, why are we having this conversation? You should be attacking evolution, not Darwin.

I Used 2 Be Christian wrote:Maybe, but remember, the KKK is based on thinking on a biblical foundation.

You have to quote bible verses here... Many people can say something, but they have to back it up Biblically.. Do you think that all Christians are white? If the KKK were right about all Christians being white, you would see no other ethnic groups involved in it..

Isn't that natural selection? I don't know ... I don't know too much about it ...

Yes, the survial of the fittest wins...

No, it doesn't. But most people who believe in evolution also realise that the law is a good enough basis for morality.

Based on whose terms? Where did our current laws stem from? Also, what is wrong with the ten commandments?

Really? Could you give me a quote or something please?

Darwin states in his own Introduction his reason for writing Descent of man: “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.” Darwin continues, “…As I shall confine myself to these points, it will not be necessary to describe in detail the differences between the several races [of man] — an enormous subject which has been fully discussed in many valuable works” (p.2).

From the start (of Descent) it is clear that Darwin viewed these racial differences of man as profoundly dramatic. He, in fact, states (still in his “Introduction”) that the lower forms of man differ less from the “anthropomorphous apes” than do these same apes from the lower forms of their own species (p.2).

No, it can't, and no-one is trying to dismiss it. I'm not even a Darwinist, why are we having this conversation? You should be attacking evolution, not Darwin.

What do you believe in there? I'm attacking evolution in a moral sense.. If you want to attack it scientifically, that can easily be done too..

August wrote:

I Used 2 Be Christian =( wrote:

So you think people with a preconception against Christianity is appropriate to broaden your education? What education do you mean?

I think that any person with differing beliefs has something to teach me, whether I like it or not.

What did you learn that benefit you?

I learned that accepting Christianity blindly, without taking into account the evidence, is ridiculous. Oh, and please don't tell me that you have taken into account the evidence until you have watched every single one of those videos. Thankyou!

I agree with the editorials' basic principles: why would God make us with unecessary organs? Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

You keep asserting that the organs are unneccesary, but how do you or anyone else come to that conclusion?

Well, the fact that they have no use suggests to me that they are unnecessary. Was I wrong in thinking that?

What proof for evolution are you talking about? Please describe your understanding of evolution, just so we are taliing about the same thing.

This is a good way to get started.

I'm sorry, I assumed most people thought the murder of 70,000 people was cruel. You want a standard I use to assert? Ok ... how about ... killing anyone is mean. God's done it 70,000 times.

So whatever most people think is the correct opinion?

I'll answer that question just after you've answered this one: do you agree with the killing of 70,000 people? After you've answered, feel free to throw anything at me. I'll answer.

When you say killing anyone is mean, that is not a standard, it is your personal opinion. If someone attacks your baby sister with a baseball bat, and you shoot that person and kill him, is that mean?

No, it's -- wait a minute ... I almost walked right into that one! Like the Old Testament says, an eye for an eye, right?

It is my personal standard, but I'm sure most people would agree with me. It came from the fact that death hurts people - 70,000 deaths hurts 70,000 times as much.

Where did your personal standard come from? Also, why should we care about your personal standard any more than we care about Pol Pot's or Hitlers?

It came from a little thing called common sense - and it had nothing to do with God, stop trying to get me to say that it came from God - you don't need to get morals from God, they come from a myriad of other places. A law book is a good place to start.

And I don't recall asking you to care about my opinion, but it might be a good idea, seeing as we're in discussion. The last time I checked, Hitler wasn't part of this debate, so, yes, his opinion doesn't matter. If he was here, though, he'd be arguing for Christianity - he was a Christian.

The whole thingy we're discussing is whether or not I believe in the Bible - sure, I think John 3:16's a good verse, but that doesn't mean I believe it ...

Ah, ok, I understand the logic now. When the Bible says something that according to your personal standard is "mean" and does not meet with your approval for what God is supposed to be, then it is true. But when the Bible says some thing that does not agree with your personal opinion that God is "mean", then the Bible may not be true.

That one went straight over your head, I see. If we are to debate something's validity, then accepting that it is true for the sake of argument and then debunking it from there is a good place to start. I accepted that the killing of 70,000 was true so that we could examine how terrible those killings were. I also attempt to accept John 3:16 to be true for the sake of argument, but it just didn't convince me.

Either way, you cannot pick and choose out of the Bible what you wish to belive or not. Either the whole Bible is true, or it isn't. If you accept that the whole Bible is true, then you need to put as much truth value in John 3:16 as in any other of the verses you quoted.

I already addressed this issue.

If not, then please don't quote any Bible verses to try and disprove the existence of God.

I must have missed the part where I quoted a Bible verse to disprove the existence of God ... no, wait, it never happened. I quoted a Bible verse to show the immorality of the Bible. Get it?

They're not nonsensical ... by not reading them, you're showing that you don't want to learn about opposing views - I consider that narrow-mindedness. And before you ask, that is a standard that I, and I'm sure a lot of people, hold. It came from the fact that that you should try to broaden your horizons - even if they don't agree with what you currently believe.

So now you are resorting to personal insults?

Is calling someone narrow-minded an insult? And here I was thinking it was constructive criticism ...

You do not know anything about me. Regardless, I have told that we have seen no new atheist arguments in the 16 years that we have been doing this. I read every link you posted here, and there still is not anything new.

Wow - there are no new atheist arguments therefore they are all false? I wish I could come up with a comeback for that.

1. Even I don't believe in evolution, but still, there is proof to support it - why did God make that evidence?

2. Intelligent design is a good concept, but it doesn't seem so intelligent if God's making unecessary organs.

1. What specific proof?

2. How do you know that it is unintelligent?

1. I provided the proof, if you refuse to accept it, then I can't help you.

2. I have explained it several times, but listen closely just in case you have a severe hearing / logic deficiency:

If God created an organ that it is unnecessary for us, then it is unintelligent.

Get the logic there?

Don't worry - I didn't expect you to.

They're unecessary, so giving us them is unintelligent. That standard came from the fact that anyone would agree that all all-knowing, all-loving God would do not give us something that disadvantages. And no, that standard did not come from God, it came from common sense. I don't even know if I believe in God ...

What is common sense? Where did you get it from? How did you come to learn anything? Please describe the exact process.

I learnt from experience, I learnt from evidence - there was no God involved, stop hoping that I'll see the light and say "God". It won't happen.

And no, "anyone" does not agree with you, no-one has conclusively shown that those organs have disadvantages or are uneccessary. Or do you believe we know everything there is to know about the human body?

At the moment, I'd say we have a pretty good idea, yes.

Now for some more questions:
1. Where did logic come from?

Here we go again. NOT FROM GOD. Get it? We developed logic through thousands of years of reasoning, a concept obviously unknown to you.

2. Where do moral standards come from?

Well, a few thousand years ago, someone was murdered. It doesn't matter who, I don't even know who. Suddenly, his family got really upset, and someone said: "Hey, you know what? I don't like it when people get murdered. How about we establish a universal set of ethics that outlaws murder? Here's an idea: we'll call it the law." Get it?

3. How do you know things?

The same way that I know I'm about to be banned.

I had a nice time arguing with you all, not that it helped anyone.

Cheers!

It is my personal standard, but I'm sure most people would agree with me. It came from the fact that death hurts people - 70,000 deaths hurts 70,000 times as much.

Are you saying that we should abolish our court system and police force? What kind of society are you promoting? A chaotic one?