(March 25, 2017 at 3:51 pm)Orochi Wrote: So that makes what 4 time "biblical archeology " has claimed to find the two cities  but guess 5 times the charm just like how they keep  "finding " noahs ark .This is like saying that if 3000 years from now archeologist found the ruins of new York it was destroyed by Dr Dooms heat ray . Sorry fundies a bunch of stones does not a whole narrative make.

Yup it marches on and on finding a mountain of pebbles and then boasting the one in a million times it manages to find something no one disputed as possible in the first place and no more confirms the bible as a narrative as shown above . And scream" bible confirmed " . Mean while secular  archeology and the rest of human knowledge keeps forcing your kind to continue the cop out "we don't take it literally "sometimes"

It really goes to show how easily and unknowingly our minds can fall prey to confirmation bias. For every piece of "evidence" in the Bible there are 20 pieces of evidence against the Bible. An individual without belief in Christianity is quite unlikely to become a Christian solely from reading the Bible, but for Christians it is the Bible that often reinforces their beliefs. Same applies to Muslims and the Quran.

(March 26, 2017 at 12:37 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 3:51 pm)Orochi Wrote: So that makes what 4 time "biblical archeology " has claimed to find the two cities  but guess 5 times the charm just like how they keep  "finding " noahs ark .This is like saying that if 3000 years from now archeologist found the ruins of new York it was destroyed by Dr Dooms heat ray . Sorry fundies a bunch of stones does not a whole narrative make.

Yup it marches on and on finding a mountain of pebbles and then boasting the one in a million times it manages to find something no one disputed as possible in the first place and no more confirms the bible as a narrative as shown above . And scream" bible confirmed " . Mean while secular  archeology and the rest of human knowledge keeps forcing your kind to continue the cop out "we don't take it literally "sometimes"

It really goes to show how easily and unknowingly our minds can fall prey to confirmation bias. For every piece of "evidence" in the Bible there are 20 pieces of evidence against the Bible. An individual without belief in Christianity is quite unlikely to become a Christian solely from reading the Bible, but for Christians it is the Bible that often reinforces their beliefs. Same applies to Muslims and the Quran.

Holy books tend to be choose your own adventure

(March 26, 2017 at 5:44 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(March 26, 2017 at 12:37 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: It really goes to show how easily and unknowingly our minds can fall prey to confirmation bias. For every piece of "evidence" in the Bible there are 20 pieces of evidence against the Bible. An individual without belief in Christianity is quite unlikely to become a Christian solely from reading the Bible, but for Christians it is the Bible that often reinforces their beliefs. Same applies to Muslims and the Quran.

Holy books tend to be choose your own adventure

I'd say more like  "Chose your own delusion". It is more understandable when your a kid to choose Superman over Batman or Star Wars over Star Trek, but religion as an adult, it simply looks silly to me that you'd hang out in fantasy land at that age. I don't hate the religious, not one bit, but I cannot take it seriously outside when it tries to interject itself lawmaking or global conflict. In that context I do have to take adults seriously because they can seriously affect my life with their delusion.

Indeed. When was the last time someone got beheaded for preferring DC over Marvel?

The 2nd best argument is when you talk about virtues that supposedly the Creator cannot take, because he doesn't have the limitations of creation. Thus how can he be the source of all virtues or the embodiment of all perfections?

This was a strong argument.

The best argument is simply the assertion that struggled earned value is greater then value that was not struggled for. This is true almost universally, so it seems paradoxical.

Those shook my faith once upon a time till I disbelieved. But they are easily refuted now.

---

The 2nd best argument is when you talk about virtues that supposedly the Creator cannot take, because he doesn't have the limitations of creation. Thus how can he be the source of all virtues or the embodiment of all perfections?

This was a strong argument.

The best argument is simply the assertion that struggled earned value is greater then value that was not struggled for. This is true almost universally, so it seems paradoxical.

Those shook my faith once upon a time till I disbelieved. But they are easily refuted now.

(March 25, 2017 at 8:46 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(March 24, 2017 at 1:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. 
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale.  The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds.  You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little.  They only have to please you.

But I have a question for you.  Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power.  But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c?  [2]

Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether.  Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is.  Simpler still. [3]

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason). 
2. You would have to develop the entire argument. Perhaps I will start a thread soon on (d). (E) has been beat to death recently and I have no interest in bringing that topic up again anytime soon.
3. The universe's existence and fine tuning being a brute fact is not simplicity. It defies all reasoning with no explanation (or hope of one). That does not sit well with most people.

(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 8:46 am)Whateverist Wrote: Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds.  You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little.  They only have to please you.

But I have a question for you.  Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power.  But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c?  [2]

Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether.  Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is.  Simpler still. [3]

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason). 
2. You would have to develop the entire argument. Perhaps I will start a thread soon on (d). (E) has been beat to death recently and I have no interest in bringing that topic up again anytime soon.
3. The universe's existence and fine tuning being a brute fact is not simplicity. It defies all reasoning with no explanation (or hope of one). That does not sit well with most people.

No it is not an argument for your God or any God claim of any religion. If this was a neutral argument it would be a tool everyone could use regardless of label. Now take this list of tripe and subtract your pet god claim and insert that of another and ASK YOURSELF if your own words you use here would work placing someone else's claim into this "formula".

It is not a universal formula, it is your own word salad mental masturbation. Every religion has members who create these word salads. If your argument here only proves your god, well how convenient isn't it? That is not objective it is merely you trying to convince yourself. Things in reality that are provable facts don't require apology, this is not an argument based on empirical data and peer review, it is a sales pitch you have convinced yourself of, nothing more. 

"Got it right" is all this says, and so what, this is a claim, not evidence, none of this is evidence.

(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 24, 2017 at 1:20 pm)SteveII Wrote: The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale. The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

(March 25, 2017 at 8:46 am)Whateverist Wrote: Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds.  You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little.  They only have to please you.

But I have a question for you.  Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power.  But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c?  [2]

Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether.  Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is.  Simpler still. [3]

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason). 

In a cumulative argument, one result is dependent upon the prior result, and so on. These are all independent lines of evidence: none of them reinforce each other. What you have is what is known as a 'rope argument' in which the independent strands are woven together to make one argument. In a rope argument, the whole is only as strong as the strongest individual strand. And in your case, none of the individual strands are particularly strong or convincing. So what you actually have is a weak argument.

(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote:

(March 25, 2017 at 8:46 am)Whateverist Wrote:

---

Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds.  You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little.  They only have to please you.

But I have a question for you.  Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power.  But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c?  [2]

Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether.  Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is.  Simpler still. [3]

---

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason).

But is there any more reason for attributing them to just one entity? Seems tidy and suspiciously convenient, almost as if this is what you wanted to end up concluding in the first place.

(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote:  
2. You would have to develop the entire argument. Perhaps I will start a thread soon on (d). (E) has been beat to death recently and I have no interest in bringing that topic up again anytime soon.

Not sure what more there is to develop. I'm just pointing out that the rush to attribute everything to one entity is gratuitous. Ultimately I believe we can dispense with even one mega, fine tuning entity. But here I only mean to show that even such a creator entity would not have had to deliberately intend every detail of every outcome. The richness of detail we find in the world is better understood as reflecting the inherent nature of what happens to exist than as the premeditated intention of a cosmic watchmaker to put it there.

(March 27, 2017 at 9:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 3. The universe's existence and fine tuning being a brute fact is not simplicity. It defies all reasoning with no explanation (or hope of one). That does not sit well with most people.

What you call "fine tuning" is what I call things arraying themselves as they must given their inherent properties and current trajectory. Why in the world do you want to add in some poor over worked creator to put his stamp on each and every detail. It strikes me as absurd.

(March 27, 2017 at 10:21 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: In a cumulative argument, one result is dependent upon the prior result, and so on.  These are all independent lines of evidence: none of them reinforce each other.  What you have is what is known as a 'rope argument' in which the independent strands are woven together to make one argument.  In a rope argument, the whole is only as strong as the strongest individual strand.  And in your case, none of the individual strands are particularly strong or convincing.  So what you actually have is a weak argument.

Sorry, Jor, but I’m throwing the bullshit flag on that play. You are conveniently avoiding the role of parsimony. For example, what is the best interpretation for the following body of data?:

1) Clyde’s wife, Gertrude, has been coming home unusually late from her job.
2) Gertrude doesn’t answer her office phone on those nights, only her cell.
3) Gertrude has changed her hair style.
4) She has started taking private calls to their home in another room.
5) Gertrude rebuffs Clyde’s advances and making excuses to not have sex.
6) Gertrude has taken to wearing lingerie under her work clothes.
7) in the mail Clyde finds a statement for a new credit card Gertrude opened without telling him.
8) Gertrude comes home smelling like men's cologne.

Now, in each case Gertrude could perhaps make a perfectly reasonable excuse for each:

1) a tight deadline at work,
2) the office phones are messed up,
3) she needs to look good for a presentation she’s been asked to do,
4) not wanting to annoy Clyde's TV watching,
5) headaches and yeast infections,
6) feeling the need to start treating herself,
7) and needing a way to buy surprise gifts for Clyde's birthday.
8) Her co-worker has an obnoxiously powerful air-freshener.

Maybe all those various and independent excuses are valid. Clyde could convince himself that each is plausible and decide that none constitute a conclusive misdeed by Gertrude. Still, it would be obvious to any outsider that the simplest and best interpretation is that Gertrude is cheating on Clyde.

(March 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm)Whateverist Wrote: What you call "fine tuning" is what I call things arraying themselves as they must given their inherent properties and current trajectory.  

And just how did they get just those highly exact inherent properties that so conveniently arrange themselves and why must the various trajectories be preserved according to very precise principles? Mere coincidence? They just do for no reason at all?