Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hank

New member
Re: solar system

Re: solar system

Originally posted by LightSon
Is this a trick question? I feel like you are ready to pounce. When I answer you may say "HA, See there! evolution is true and God doesn't exist."

Nevertheless, I'll play. I believe the Earth moving around the sun is the best model we have. Copernicus proposed his system somewhere back in the 16th century. Various sciences purport to confirm this, not to mention recent empirical observations by astronauts and extraterristrial monitoring devices (satellites and telescopes, etc.) Did I miss anything?

Not to fear LightSon, it’s not a trick question. You said that macro-evolution is NOT observable so there was no scientific reason to accept macro-evolution-dogma. I am simply pointing out that the earth rotating around the sun is not observable, however most people today believe it does, not because we observe it but because from the evidence we infer it. Back in the 17th century Christians, along with most people, believed the opposite because the Bible said so. (No need quote all the vague verses that might be interpreted otherwise since if they had been so clear there would never have been an argument to begin with).

We cannot observe macroevolution, depending on your definition, but scientists certainly infer it based on the evidence. Just like we infer the earth rotates around the sun based on the evidence. Like you said, “it’s the best model we have”. Creationism is certainly not the best model we have. In fact it’s not even a model, just a belief.

BTW I believe that God does exist.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Psycho Dave
One eyed Jack wrote:

Yes, but your interpretation is based on ignorance of science.

No, it isn't.

Earlier I said:

They don't radiometrically date fossils.

Oh, really?

Really. They don't radiometrically date sedimentary rock either, for the same reason they don't radiometrically date fossils.

So what did those machines I used to date fossils in college actually do, then?

You never radiometrically dated any fossils in college.

I'm terribly sorry, but you do not know what you are talking about.

You're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. Here are a couple links you might want to check out.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/01SprgClass/geo104/Lectures/lecture6.html

Note where they say that fossils are not radiometrically dated, and why. Educate yourself.
 
Last edited:

LightSon

New member
Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by Hank
I am simply pointing out that the earth rotating around the sun is not observable...
I thought that might be your destination, which is why I was careful to include the following in my earlier response about heliocentrism:

Originally posted by LightSon
Various sciences purport to confirm this, not to mention recent empirical observations by astronauts and extraterrestrial monitoring devices
So it may not be observable by me directly, but other men have observed it and given testimony to the fact.

Nevertheless, I see your point and do concede that some people of Christian faith have not always been heliocentrists.

Originally posted by Hank
(No need quote all the vague verses that might be interpreted otherwise since if they had been so clear there would never have been an argument to begin with).
I said "some people of Christian faith have not always been heliocentrists". Just because an argument occurred with the established mega church of the day, doesn't require that all Christians millenia past rejected the truth of heliocentrism.

But again,,,

I acknowledge your overarching point about working to devise the better model.

Originally posted by Hank
Creationism is certainly not the best model we have. In fact it’s not even a model, just a belief.

I will admit that creationism colors my thinking. It forces me to raise the standard before accepting changes to my current understanding of how man came to exist.

I raised the specter of the missing link, after which someone informed me that such a concept is passé. I confess that I haven’t studied this stuff for a couple decades, but I still understand process and that if man evolved from slime, there must be some demonstrable progression. The fossil record ought to demonstrate the various stages of this. Does it? Is this not what natural selection postulates? Please educate me - a link would be fine.


Originally posted by Hank
BTW I believe that God does exist.

That’s just great! So instead of saying "HA, See there! evolution is true and God doesn't exist," you say, "HA, See there! evolution is true and God DOES exist."

Aaawww.... You theistic evolutionists get me every time. :doh:

Let me ask you Hank, why do you believe in God? Are there any assertions about His nature you can make, and on what do you base those assertions? I guess this would be your worldview in a nutshell. Thanks.
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by tenkeeper
how can a spiritless animal
write the wail & groan & moan
of a man's heart?

Excellent question my enigmatic friend; it depends who you ask. Some would argue that our longings are a byproduct of an unplanned and accidental evolutionary process. I would argue we are crying to be reconciled to our creator.

"My heart is stirred whene'r I think of Jesus,
That blessed name, that sets the captive free,
The only name, through which I find salvation.
No name on Earth has meant so much to me."
 

Psycho Dave

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, it isn't.

Earlier I said:

They don't radiometrically date fossils.



Really. They don't radiometrically date sedimentary rock either, for the same reason they don't radiometrically date fossils.



You never radiometrically dated any fossils in college.



You're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about. Here are a couple links you might want to check out.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html

http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/01SprgClass/geo104/Lectures/lecture6.html

Note where they say that fossils are not radiometrically dated, and why. Educate yourself.


OH! I get it. You're nit picking!

So I dated the rocks surrounding the fossils, and not the fossils.

So how does dating the rock surrounding the fossils not infer the date of the fossils? Oh, my troll-o-meter is starting to make a noise...
 

Psycho Dave

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by tenkeeper
how can a spiritless animal
write the wail & groan & moan
of a man's heart?

Easy. There are no spirits. Spirits were never neccesary for anything. It's like the lion, the tin-man, and the scarecrow in the Wizard of OZ. the power was with them all along. They THOUGHT they needed some magical powers, but there was no magic. It was in them all along.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Psycho Dave
OH! I get it. You're nit picking!

So I dated the rocks surrounding the fossils, and not the fossils.

I don't think so. Backpedalling doesn't help your case any.

So how does dating the rock surrounding the fossils not infer the date of the fossils? Oh, my troll-o-meter is starting to make a noise...

It should, considering that's what you are.
 

mindlight

New member
Zakath says:
The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:

1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.

2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.

3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.

Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.

What about freewill?! Any one who has ever been a teacher or indeed a student will know that without the hunger for learning the learning process itself can be stunted. That learning is often more a matter of will than intellect in many cases

I agree that disunity in the church can be a bad witness to the values Christians aspire to. But similarly there is in fact considerable unity between the churches whether Pentecostal, Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox on basics such as
1) The existence of God
2) That this God is All Powerful, All knowing, loving, honest and just

Indeed Muslims and Jews, Sikhs and some Hindus could even agree with the united church on the existence of such a God and what debate there is between these groups is about what this might mean rather than the facts themselves.

In the end honest debate is a sign of a healthy church as people are unafraid of exploring the issues in a place where there is an honest debate and also get to work through the issues when there is such. Unhealthy debating is about ego and is divisive in nature by contrast.

I believe Bob is winning this debate for two reasons - partly because he is on the easiest side to argue - i.e. the Truth and partly because the unity of his own church is demonstrated in his answers as he can draw on dialogues with his church members to assist him. In the end the failure of the atheist "community" to act with as much force through their own representative - Zakath is illustrative of the problematic nature of its own presuppositions and interpretative grids and the lack of camaraderie between its own members even when given the chance to assert their central doctrine and to dispute the existence of God.
 

Psycho Dave

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
It should, considering that's what you are.

That a laugh. the troll is accusing me of trolling. I don't know if you've read the last dozen or so posts of mine, buddy, but I've been doing anything but trolling. If this is the kind of stuff I should expect from you, I'll just ignore all future posts from you, so that I don't waste my time needlessly.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Why don't you tell us more about the machine you "used to date fossils in college?" :chuckle:
Wow! they musta been old to go one a date with a MACHINE!
 

Scrimshaw

New member
Hi Avatar,

Here are my thoughts on this....

Originally posted by avatar382
The existence of pain and suffering in this world is simply not compatible with the existence of a six point God.

You make that claim based a some unsupported assumptions, as I will demonstrate below.

First:
Have you ever noticed that our biological nature is almost totally opposite to what God supposedly wants us to be?

But part of our "biological nature" is our conscience and intellect. Our conscience and intellect can override any impulse at any time, so we can still be held accountable for our decisions.


Biblically, there can be no free will, because we only have one choice - evil.

Asinine. There are many that do works of righteousness and the Bible identifies that fact over and over again. You are submitting a false conclusion based on your misinterpretation of a verse you isolated from it's context. Furthermore, the notion of "only one choice" is logically flawed because the term "choice" implies that there is more than one possible option. You can't "choose" only one "option". For, if there is only one possibility, then it's not an option OR a choice! It would simply be an unavoidable condition.


Second:
God is purported to be a perfect being. By default, then, all of his creations should also be perfect – why would a perfect being beget imperfection? Yet, one of his first creations, the angel Lucifer, was created with an imperfection.

The flaw in your arugment here is that you equate "perfection" with "immutability". But the actual definition of perfection is "completeness; wholeness". There is nothing in the definition of "perfection" that includes the attribute of "immutability". Something mutable can be perfect. Something mutable can begin it's existence in a state of perfection, and self-corrupt over time. To be immutable (in a permanent, unchangable state) is a separate and distinct condition.

Yet, the larger issue is, why didn't God give Lucifer a perfect free will? A perfect free will is a free will that always, yet freely and of it's own volition, chooses good. Such a free will exists; God's own free will is perfect.

Your idea of a "perfect" free will is a logical contradiction. "Free will" only exists when it is *possible* for a creature to make an evil choice. If God rigged a reality where Luficer would only make "good choices", that means that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for him to make evil choices. But if it is impossible for him to make evil choices, then he would not be free at all. He would merely be a good-choosing puppet that resides in a reality that God jerry-rigged just for him.

As an all-powerful being, God would have the power to endow his creations with such a free will, since he is all loving and personal, he has the motivation to do so.

So why didn’t he??

Maybe it's because God isn't a fan of logically impossible self-contradicting worlds, like the one you are proposing.

1.) God is evil and wants us to suffer

2.) God is impersonal and doesn't care or get involved with us

3.) There is no God, everything that has transpired in history is a product of the laws of nature over an infinite duration of time.

The classic error in this argument is there is a fourth option that is deceptively and purposefully omitted. And that is -

4) God is good, and has an appointed time when he will defeat evil.


So the terminal flaw in your argument is it makes the arrogant assumption that since God has not defeated evil YET, he never will. But this assumption implies that you have some inside information about the future. Secondly, you should consider the fact that evil cannot be "destroyed" without destroying freedom, since freedom is the cause of evil. But Freedom is also the cause of LOVE. According to the Bible, God considers love to be the greatest good for all free creatures. Therefore, to destroy evil would be evil itself, because it would mean destroying free will which is the catalyst of LOVE. It would be evil to destroy love since love is mankind's greatest good. So evil cannot be destroyed, but it can be defeated with good.

Furthermore, we can reformulate the argument with the correct assumptions; and the argument would actually become a vindication for God:


1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.

2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.

3. Evil is not yet defeated.

4. Therefore, it is inevitable that God will defeat evil at some point from now.


So in other words, God isn't finished. The plan of God is still running it's course. (And yes, He would have a "plan" if he is a 6-point God!)

Apparently God would rather wrestle with our rebellious wills than to reign supreme over rocks and trees.

Scrim
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
And there is this alternative

a. God does not exist

b. 'Evil' still exist

c. We have to defeat 'evil'

But this places us in the position, how to define 'evil' in the first place.

In fact, the current state of the world, makes us to be quit suspicious of those, who in the 'name of God' want to defeat 'evil', and give us a definition of 'evil' which is not a truthfull projection of reality.

That is, we can raise sufficient doubt against the 'coalition of forces' that urged us to use military power to beat 'evil', since they have provably deluted us in the reasons for doing so.

The 'weapons of mass-destruction of Iraq', which some have interpreted as the word of God, coming directly out of the mouth of Mr president George W. Bush, was the evil causing 'us' to go to Iraq in the first place, and defeating the 'evil' regime of Saddam Hussein.

But it is clear now, that that 'evil' was just a phantom of the thought, and a fication of mere imagination (although some 'attempts' were made to create some proof beyond all reasonable doubt..), and did not exists at all.

So the question remains as to what 'evil' we have to combat...

I got my own opinions about that!


----

Run for shelter, save women and children first! "Democracry" coming to your neighbourhood soon!
 

Hank

New member
Re: Re: Re: solar system

Re: Re: Re: solar system

Originally posted by LightSon
I thought that might be your destination, which is why I was careful to include the following in my earlier response about heliocentrism:

But I wasn’t trying to trick you. Just pointing out that we take for granted that the earth rotates around the sun and often don’t think about the fact that we don’t observe that.

So it may not be observable by me directly, but other men have observed it and given testimony to the fact.

No one has ever observed the earth rotating around the sun. You would have to be a long way off, much further than the moon which is as far as man has traveled, and looking through a powerful telescope to observe that.

I said "some people of Christian faith have not always been heliocentrists". Just because an argument occurred with the established mega church of the day, doesn't require that all Christians millenia past rejected the truth of heliocentrism.
Well almost everyone thought the sun rotated around the earth because it appears that way to us on earth. Christians had an extra incentive because the Bible made reference to that illusion. In Joshua it refers to the sun stopping in the sky. That verse was used in Galelio’s trial to convict him of heresy. Now today that verse is either overlooked or explained away as a figure of speech even though no one has ever seen the earth rotating around the sun. My point is you do believe the earth rotates around the sun because of a scientific model that fits the evidence even though the Bible explicitly contradicts this, yet you reject evolution even though a similar scientific model fits the evidence just as closely. I don’t understand the reasoning.

I will admit that creationism colors my thinking. It forces me to raise the standard before accepting changes to my current understanding of how man came to exist.

Thanks for your honesty. I have no problem with people believing what they want. The problem I have is when it is pushed into the classroom as science. But this is a debate forum so it’s fun and informative to discuss it.

I raised the specter of the missing link, after which someone informed me that such a concept is passé. I confess that I haven’t studied this stuff for a couple decades, but I still understand process and that if man evolved from slime, there must be some demonstrable progression. The fossil record ought to demonstrate the various stages of this. Does it? Is this not what natural selection postulates? Please educate me - a link would be fine.

I’m a long way from being an expert in these fields. I have just read enough to realize that the scientific model fits the evidence much better than the creationist model, if that’s what you call it. I think most people on this forum who believe in evolution use www.talkorigins.org for a lot of their information if they are not an expert in a certain field.

That’s just great! So instead of saying "HA, See there! evolution is true and God doesn't exist," you say, "HA, See there! evolution is true and God DOES exist."

Aaawww.... You theistic evolutionists get me every time.

I’m not sure what you are saying. I was just pointing out the evidence and how science uses it. But I do believe that God exist and that he used evolution to create all of life. To me evolution is not evidence there is no God, but evidence of how amazing and powerful he is.

Let me ask you Hank, why do you believe in God? Are there any assertions about His nature you can make, and on what do you base those assertions? I guess this would be your worldview in a nutshell. Thanks.

I was raised a Christian but when I got older and the facts I was taught didn’t seem to fit the evidence I went through a difficult time of what I did believe. I read everything I could about what people believed about God and even though I came close to atheism, I never went all the way. What did it for me was something you might not expect or even understand. When I read about the lives of Jesus, Gandhi, St. Frances, George Fox and all the other great men who had a profound belief in God, I realized that other people were drawn to them in a dramatic fashion. To me it showed that there is something in mankind that is sparked when the right person comes along and touches that part of his life. Because of this I believe in a loving God. I probably haven’t explained it very well but I hope you get my meaning.
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
Evolution is to be understood as the theory describing in the best possible way, without there being an alternative theory, what actually happened.
As such, evolution does not require any one of you, to believe it is true, to be true, neither as one has to belief the theory of gravity to be true, for the occurence of objects falling to the earth when in free fall.

"Truth" is not about what is happening in your head, but about what happens independend and outside of your head. We are able of knowing that "truth", but not in an instantanious or implicit way, we have to look outside for knowing if our mental projection of outside reality match or not.
 
Last edited:

Psycho Dave

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by heusdens
And there is this alternative

a. God does not exist

b. 'Evil' still exist

c. We have to defeat 'evil'

I have problems with that, so here's my version.

A. God does not exist.
b. evil does not exist.
c. S**t happens, just deal with it and prepare for it.

I do not believe in good and evil in the classical theistic sense. I do not believe that good and evil are "forces", "entities", or anything tangible. Good and evil are ADJECTIVES that we use to describe things that we like and things that we don't like. It sounds too simple for some of you, but after looking at this problem, it makes far more sense than a pantheon containing devils, demons, angels, and archangels.
But this places us in the position, how to define 'evil' in the first place.
Like I just said -- evil is whatever we, as individuals or as a society, do not like, and wish to avoid as much as possible. my definition accounts very simply and elegantly for cultural reletivism -- We western people see Islamic societies as evil, and Islamic societies see western culture as evil. This is because our societies have different values, and hence, different concepts of good and evil.

In fact, the current state of the world, makes us to be quit suspicious of those, who in the 'name of God' want to defeat 'evil', and give us a definition of 'evil' which is not a truthfull projection of reality.
Evil is all about interpretation. I believe, due to my experience and perspective (and I am not trying to spread this view to you, I'm just explaining it) that Islamic fundamentalism is backward, dangerous, and incompatible with any view of world peace. However, I see US foreign policy since WW2 to be the cause of modern Islamic Fundamentalist extremism, because the CIA and our armed forces have either invaded, or aided dictators in many of those countries, and their indignation (not their actions) is justified. We invaded Iran in 1957, destroyed their western, DEMOCRATIC government, and placed the Shah in power, who was a cruel dictator. We did this all to protect the control over the oil industry that western corporations had. The result was decades of opression and misery -- all because of our meddling.

So who is realy evil, given the hsitorical facts? Both sides have multiple black marks on their record.
That is, we can raise sufficient doubt against the 'coalition of forces' that urged us to use military power to beat 'evil', since they have provably deluted us in the reasons for doing so.

The 'weapons of mass-destruction of Iraq', which some have interpreted as the word of God, coming directly out of the mouth of Mr president George W. Bush, was the evil causing 'us' to go to Iraq in the first place, and defeating the 'evil' regime of Saddam Hussein.
Exactly. There are few people or tings that are 100% good or 100% evil. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Always has been, always will be. I mean -- what did those tribes think 3000 years ago, as the Hebrews killed every man, woman, and child, and took some of their virgins as brides against ther will? You see a righteous Hebrew guy slicing open your pregnant wife's womb, and spilling her guts and your unborn child onto the ground, and what could you possibly think other than what evil people those Hebrews were.
But it is clear now, that that 'evil' was just a phantom of the thought, and a fication of mere imagination (although some 'attempts' were made to create some proof beyond all reasonable doubt..), and did not exists at all.
Precisely.
So the question remains as to what 'evil' we have to combat...

I got my own opinions about that!
The evil we have to combat is ourselves. Evil is a weakness. It is a weakness on the part of men to follow rules that they proclaim to believe in. Men say they will never drink again, then a few weeks later, they are caught in a bar. People vow to uphold the law, then turn around and abuse it.

In my opinion, the origin of all evil is when people make promises to each other, and then turn around and break them. With some people, it's a pathological weakness, something that needs to be educated and trained away. With others, its criminal; they have no intention to stick by their word, and will resist all efforts to re-educated them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top