Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3426 Jan 1, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The references Gillette has made to Tim Callahan aren't related to beliefs, they're related to arguments.
Gillette is asking you to respond to Tim Callahan's argument about prophecy, not believe some stories that Callahan is telling.
Why can't any of you do that?
Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent. Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism. They seem to think they are not subject to anywhere near the skepticism they place on the Bible. What is their agenda? What are their qualifications? An honest evaluation would assume innocent until proven guilty with the burden of proof being on the skeptic. They have not met that standard. Christianity is falsified by disproving the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is the standard Paul has set down. That burden has not been met. Naturalistic assumptions which exclude God from the get go does not cut it, in part because most in all of human history has believed in God. That adds weight. In othe words it is natural for humans to assume God is there. Atheism is the minority report and always has been. They can laugh and claim they are smarter than others but at the end of the day they are either right or they are wrong.

From Justin. 12.

We are in fact of all men your best helpers and allies in securing good order, convinced as we are that no wicked man, no covetous man or conspirator, or virtuous man either, can be hidden from God, and that everyone goes to eternal punishment or salvation in accordance with the character of his actions. If all men knew this, nobody would choose vice even for a little time, knowing that he was on his way to eternal punishment by fire;...there are some who merely try to conceal their wrongdoing because of the laws and punishments which you decree, knowing that, since you are only men it is possible for wrongdoers to escape you; if they learned and were convinced that our thoughts as well as our actions cannot be hidden from God they would certainly lead orderly lives, if only because of the consequences, as you must agree. But it seems as if you are afraid of having all men well behaved and nobody left for you to punish; this would be the conduct of public executioners, not of good rulers...but if like thoughtless men who prefer custom to truth then go ahead and do what you can. Rulers who respect reputation rather than truth have as much power as brigands in a desert.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3427 Jan 2, 2013
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you care what Gillette wants?
I don't; but your post was nonsense.
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
Why should we respond to Callahan's argument about prophecy, it is up to him and you to respond to the Bible and neither of you have.
We have.
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
Actually, you are lying, in India and the Middle East skeptics don't face off at all.
Of course they do.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_CSICOP
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
It is clear that sartan is your real life tormenter and your chosen daddy.
Give up your childish fantasies.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3428 Jan 2, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent.
The proper cliche you're looking for is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Christianity makes extraordinary claims and doesn't back them up, so they should be rejected by any rational person.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism.
Impossible standards? They're the same standards that YOU apply to everything other than your religion.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Christianity is falsified by disproving the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is the standard Paul has set down. That burden has not been met.
The burden is on believers to prove such an event happened, not on skeptics to disprove it.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Naturalistic assumptions which exclude God from the get go does not cut it, in part because most in all of human history has believed in God.
Actually, naturalistic arguments are very effective because supernatural claims haven't been validated. They have the worst track record in the world.

If I told you I could fly like Superman, you'd think that was BS until you saw some damn good evidence of it. Why? Because people don't fly like Superman.
lightbeamrider wrote:
That adds weight. In othe words it is natural for humans to assume God is there.
It doesn't add any weight; it's a cultural phenomenon that primitive peoples have used to explain the world. Why is there lightning? Angry god! Why do our crops grow? Happy goddess!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3429 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The proper cliche you're looking for is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Christianity makes extraordinary claims and doesn't back them up, so they should be rejected by any rational person.
What is the nature of the "extraordinary evidence"? What exactly is this and who says this is "extraordinary evidence"?
After all if Christians need to produce "extraordinary evidence" we need to know exactly what it is and who says.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3430 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the nature of the "extraordinary evidence"? What exactly is this and who says this is "extraordinary evidence"?
After all if Christians need to produce "extraordinary evidence" we need to know exactly what it is and who says.
Extraordinary evidence would be a large amount of high quality evidence, such that it surpasses any counter evidence and unlikelyhood of the claim.

For example, if I were to tell you that I owned a car, that would be a completely unextraordinary claim. Cars exist. Many people own them.

You would probably accept that claim at my word.

But, if I said I owned a magic flying carpet, that would be another story. We don't know of any flying carpets that exist. We don't know of any magic flying spells that exist. They have no legitimate means of flight. That claim is extraordinary.

Would you accept that claim at my word? No way.

I might send you a picture of me in the sky on my flying carpet as evidence.

Would you accept the claim at this point? No. The likelyhood that I used Photoshop to make the picture is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because Photoshop is known to exist and known to be capable of making fake pictures.

I might get my buddy to tell you he saw me flying around on it.

Would you accept the claim at this point? I doubt it. The likelyhood that my buddy would lie for me is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because liars are known to exist.

You'd probably want to see it in person, or ride around on it, or at least see some documentation made by numerous independent news organizations or scientific groups.

Now apply the same reasoning to the Resurrection or prophecies or other claims made by your religion.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3431 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Extraordinary evidence would be a large amount of high quality evidence, such that it surpasses any counter evidence and unlikelyhood of the claim.
For example, if I were to tell you that I owned a car, that would be a completely unextraordinary claim. Cars exist. Many people own them.
You would probably accept that claim at my word.
But, if I said I owned a magic flying carpet, that would be another story. We don't know of any flying carpets that exist. We don't know of any magic flying spells that exist. They have no legitimate means of flight. That claim is extraordinary.
Would you accept that claim at my word? No way.
I might send you a picture of me in the sky on my flying carpet as evidence.
Would you accept the claim at this point? No. The likelyhood that I used Photoshop to make the picture is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because Photoshop is known to exist and known to be capable of making fake pictures.
I might get my buddy to tell you he saw me flying around on it.
Would you accept the claim at this point? I doubt it. The likelyhood that my buddy would lie for me is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because liars are known to exist.
You'd probably want to see it in person, or ride around on it, or at least see some documentation made by numerous independent news organizations or scientific groups.
Now apply the same reasoning to the Resurrection or prophecies or other claims made by your religion.
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself. How about the origin of life? Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.

BTW- what qualifies as "high quality evidence" for a given issue? Who is the one that decides what this is?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#3432 Jan 2, 2013
Not a priest.
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself. How about the origin of life? Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.
BTW- what qualifies as "high quality evidence" for a given issue? Who is the one that decides what this is?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3433 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself.
Science works to provide the best possible explanation, not give you a single answer that you must accept no matter what.

The available evidence shows us that the universe is ever-expanding. If you go back in time, the universe was once very small.
Jeff wrote:
How about the origin of life?
What about it? Theories involving the formation of complex chemicals are the best explanations we have.
Jeff wrote:
Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
We don't need extraordinary evidence for that. We've seen it directly.
Jeff wrote:
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.
Why was it impossible?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3434 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Science works to provide the best possible explanation, not give you a single answer that you must accept no matter what.
The available evidence shows us that the universe is ever-expanding. If you go back in time, the universe was once very small.
<quoted text>
What about it? Theories involving the formation of complex chemicals are the best explanations we have.
<quoted text>
We don't need extraordinary evidence for that. We've seen it directly.
<quoted text>
Why was it impossible?
The claim that the "universe is ever-expanding" is a claim that requires extraordinary proof since it something that is never observed in our world. You didnt give any evidence for it. By your criteria you are not justified in believing because it fails the “extraordinary evidence” principle.
Science tries to give an explanation for something. No way to ultimately if it’s the best possible explanation. For that claim to be true science would have to know that the claim made is absolutely true.
The origin of life will require also “extraordinary evidence” since it’s never been observed and so much is at stake. Must not have happened since we have no “extraordinary evidence”.
What has been observed by the human eye one specie changing into another?
Alexander was outnumbered in many of his battles. He should not have been able to win like he did.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3435 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that the "universe is ever-expanding" is a claim that requires extraordinary proof since it something that is never observed in our world.
That's not true. It is observed, via the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion...
Jeff wrote:
Science tries to give an explanation for something. No way to ultimately if it’s the best possible explanation.
We can determine the best possible available explanation through testing.
Jeff wrote:
The origin of life will require also “extraordinary evidence” since it’s never been observed and so much is at stake. Must not have happened since we have no “extraordinary evidence”.
I agree that it would take a significant amount of evidence to bolster any particular theory of abiogenesis.
Jeff wrote:
What has been observed by the human eye one specie changing into another?
Many new species have been created in labs or seen arising in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciatio...
Jeff wrote:
Alexander was outnumbered in many of his battles. He should not have been able to win like he did.
Being outnumbered does not make a victory impossible. Numbers are only one factor in a battle. There is also leadership, military tactics, quality of troop equipment, quality of troop training, environment, morale, supplies, etc.

So explain again what was impossible.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3436 Jan 2, 2013
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
<quoted text>So, bud, who is Callahan, is he your demon? If not, then what is the logic behind your application of any of his questions? In the end, all you have is your garbage in and garbage out reality. The only thing that Callahan figured out is that you would be coming and that is all he needs is another fool who uses no reasoning.
Aside from posing as a really distasteful and repulsive person, you tend to say a lot of unintelligent, illogical things.

I gave you Callahan's completely logical and rational questions one should ask (or CAN ask) when evaluating so-called "Bible Prophecies." The reason for their application in such a discussion as this should be rather OBVIOUS, don't you think?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3437 Jan 2, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent. Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism.
C'mon, you are smarter than this.

Take the Documentary Hypothesis, for example. Modern translating and text analysis skills of the last century have now given scholars the ability to pull apart the 4 strands of different author's stories in the Pentateuch, plus the later anachronisms, which would seem to argue against one author of that time, i.e. Moses.

So what does academia do with this knowledge? Ignore, it? Sit on it? Say, no this is different from what our parents and pastors taught us, do it must be wrong?

Scholars follow the textual and historical clues wherever they lead. Christian apologists work another agenda and will say pretty much anything to defend the received truth or interpretation that has been passed to them.

As far as Bible prophecies, what is wrong with making the intelligent observation that many of the scriptures that have Jesus fulfilling prophecies or foreshadowings were written AFTER Jesus by men working a positive agenda to promote Jesus and his Messiahship or divinity -- i.e. people who WANTED TO SHOW JESUS fulfilling prophecy?

Why should that not be taken into consideration? How is that setting an "impossible standard' for prophecy?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3438 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. It is observed, via the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion...
<quoted text>
We can determine the best possible available explanation through testing.
<quoted text>
I agree that it would take a significant amount of evidence to bolster any particular theory of abiogenesis.
<quoted text>
Many new species have been created in labs or seen arising in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciatio...
<quoted text>
Being outnumbered does not make a victory impossible. Numbers are only one factor in a battle. There is also leadership, military tactics, quality of troop equipment, quality of troop training, environment, morale, supplies, etc.
So explain again what was impossible.
The red shift does not qualify as “extra ordinary” evidence. Who has ever seen a red shift anyway?
No one i have ever met or read has ever observed one specie changing into another. I've read this is possible. In fact, its my understanding that there are no transitional fossils that clearly show such changes.
I didn't say it was impossible but that if you compare what Alexander had with some of the armies he faced he should not have won. There is no “extra ordinary” evidence that shows why he won.

If people want to demand that Christians have “extra ordinary” evidence for their beliefs then we will insist the same principle applies to other claims in science and history. What we have seen is that many scientific and historical claims cannot live up to this principle either.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3439 Jan 2, 2013
Flygerian wrote:
<quoted text>
I get it and you know "the real god" lmao. Till he reveals himself to someone; I dont believe you you need more people
Which makes no sense and has nothing to do with my post. So here, try again:

"You answered it with a lie though.

Man made "gods" are purely mythical, including Israel's fake "god". "
pearl

Syracuse, UT

#3440 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense. The Bible has influenced the thinking of people for centuries. Its wisdom unparallelled. Just look at how influential the teachings of Christ are in billions of peoples lives in whom many are way smarter than you. The trap is atheism and skepticism because both offer nothing for the betterment of a person's life.
It's not about the betterment of ones life. What about the betterment of the world in general. That a very selfish perspective. That's the problem with Monotheism, your world is about you, and your salvation. Let the earth and all on it be damned, as long as your are saved? And yet you claim wisdom. The influence of the "teachings" is just blind obedience, and blind obedience has been shown to be asking for trouble. Monotheism controls the world, and it's not doing a very good job. Where's the wisdom?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3441 Jan 2, 2013
pearl wrote:
<quoted text>It's not about the betterment of ones life. What about the betterment of the world in general. That a very selfish perspective. That's the problem with Monotheism, your world is about you, and your salvation. Let the earth and all on it be damned, as long as your are saved? And yet you claim wisdom. The influence of the "teachings" is just blind obedience, and blind obedience has been shown to be asking for trouble. Monotheism controls the world, and it's not doing a very good job. Where's the wisdom?
There is no doubt that millions of people's lives are improved when they follow the teachings of Christ. Those who are screwing up the world are not following the teachings of Christ.

What wisdom do you live by?
Lisa

Washington, DC

#3442 Jan 2, 2013
Atheism is an arrival. It is an ultimate knowledge of truth. A pure atheist doesn't judge theists because they are at peace with themselves. Atheism is freedom from chains that theists grip around their hopeful limbs. For some, the journey leading to the fresh air of atheism begins with the honest answer to the question: "Is it possible, POSSIBLE, there is no god?" And from there, the enlightening step is made.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#3443 Jan 2, 2013
Lisa wrote:
Atheism is an arrival. It is an ultimate knowledge of truth. A pure atheist doesn't judge theists because they are at peace with themselves. Atheism is freedom from chains that theists grip around their hopeful limbs. For some, the journey leading to the fresh air of atheism begins with the honest answer to the question: "Is it possible, POSSIBLE, there is no god?" And from there, the enlightening step is made.
Atheism is merely a position regarding deities.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#3444 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Who has ever seen a red shift anyway?
"Redshift surveys of galaxies definitely serve as the central database for observational cosmology."

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open...
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No one i have ever met or read has ever observed one specie changing into another.
"A new study finds that a change in a single gene has sent two closely related bird populations on their way to becoming two distinct species."

"Speciation, the process by which different populations of the same species split into separate species, is central to evolution. But it's notoriously hard to observe in action. This study, led by biologist J. Albert Uy of Syracuse University, captures two populations of monarch flycatcher birds just as they arrive at that evolutionary crossroads."

http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/research/St...

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#3446 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
No one i have ever met or read has ever observed one specie changing into another.
Not surprising.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's talk about God's definition of love 3 min Jake999 540
The Dumbest Creationist on Earth 4 min passerby 398
After CIA torture report: rebuilding a culture ... 8 min Passing thru 143
Jesus Is Not The Reason For The Season 16 min dollarsbill 67
Why doesn't God let its believers know who has ... 19 min dollarsbill 723
Christian Topix forum? 23 min dollarsbill 121
Creeationism is a mental illness 24 min dollarsbill 220
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 48 min loveismygoal 17,946
More from around the web