A great religion?

Not according to reality.

(November 20, 2018 at 10:48 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: A great religion?

Not according to reality.

Or even fiction

(November 20, 2018 at 10:26 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 20, 2018 at 10:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If making rational sense of your arguments is the bar, then there's no hope for anybody.  But seriously, just summarize, what is wrong with Lawrence Krauss' hypotheses if space-time already exists?  None of this deflection, troll.

If you expect me to bore myself reading some morons hypothesis that I already know ahead of time is worthless crap, think again. Read Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and tell me what's wrong with his theory (not saying I agree with it)

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and your objections to Krauss' hypothesis are based in ignorance. That basically guarantees that your objections aren't rational. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Quote:If you expect me to bore myself reading some morons hypothesis that I already know ahead of time is worthless crap, think again. Read Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and tell me what's wrong with his theory (not saying I agree with it)

So she admits she knows nothing and turn to a crackpot as a counter

Interesting.
There were executions of witches, and the evidence for the resurrection is actually FAR LESS than the evidence for .... guess what ?

I present to you a series of events that occurred in what is now, one of the United States of America.

The Governor of the state in question became involved.
A court was established.
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day.
Evidence was gathered.
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court.
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings.
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate.

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ?

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true.
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true.
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day.
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made.
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal.
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts.
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today.
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel.
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later.
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission.
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exist at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today.
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened today, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and a reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept :

That of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, The Witches of Salem, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

LMFAO

(November 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Grandizer Wrote: There was a question I asked a while back which I believe neither Everena nor CDF ever responded to. So I'll ask again:

Is there anything we have observed in this world that we would expect only if creationism is true?

Yes, information in DNA.

---

(November 20, 2018 at 10:09 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 20, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Grandizer Wrote: There was a question I asked a while back which I believe neither Everena nor CDF ever responded to. So I'll ask again:

Is there anything we have observed in this world that we would expect only if creationism is true?

Consciousness, food, all living organisms even existing, comfortable weather patterns, a sun, a moon, water, correct placement of our planet, gravity, air to breathe and also plants and trees to make more clean air, a sex drive, a will to live, emotions, intelligence, an immune system, medicines, electricity, oil, fire, coal, metals, tatste buds, vision, hearing,smelling, feeling, orgasms, other pleasures, pain, legs. arms, an attraction to the human body, and a whole bunch more.

That's a good list.

---

(November 20, 2018 at 10:02 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(November 20, 2018 at 9:42 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I believe Jesus rose from the dead on the third day.  I believe the earth is round.   I believe miracles, such as raising the dead, were performed by Jesus.  I believe the genital cutting is for a covenant between the Lord and Israel.  I believe in the laws as stated here in the United States which I follow.  There are no stonings of witches and non-believers.

What historical evidence do you have to support the allegation that Jesus was crucified rose from the dead?

Why do you believe the earth is round when the Bible clearly indicates that the earth is flat?

By what mechanism did Jesus raise anyone from the dead?

I didn't ask what the ritual genital mutilation was for, I asked if you think it was a moral or immoral practice.

Do you believe that slavery is a noble enterprise?

I have news for you. Witches and non-believers are being stoned to death  and murdered based upon Biblical principles in Africa even now; i.e., https://www.africanexponent.com/post/is-...-real-3155

How you feel about the laws in the US is irrelevant. I asked you whether or not certain Biblical laws/practices are moral or immoral.

---

(November 20, 2018 at 9:51 pm)Everena Wrote: If you can't make rational sense of my arguments, then there is probably no hope for you. You should just worship Stephen Hawking and Larry Krausse and Dick Dawkins instead of God like you already do, and spend the rest of your life believing inanimate objects can create universes.

---

I can't, but it is in you.

That's right, you can't prove it, so your claims are bogus. You're also arguing from assertion, which is a logical fallacy.

The Bible and from historians.

The Bible doesn't teach the world is flat.

It was the practice God directed so moral.

No, I don't think slavery is a noble practice, come on.

Moral.

Did this young chap get some of the extra special DNA? 

(November 20, 2018 at 11:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 20, 2018 at 10:26 pm)Everena Wrote: If you expect me to bore myself reading some morons hypothesis that I already know ahead of time is worthless crap, think again. Read Biocentrism by Robert Lanza and tell me what's wrong with his theory (not saying I agree with it)

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and your objections to Krauss' hypothesis are based in ignorance.  That basically guarantees that your objections aren't rational.  Thanks for playing.  Better luck next time.

I am not the one of us who needs luck. And here is what  Professor of Philosophy Edward Feser thinks of loser Larry's lame argument: 

Lawrence Krauss’s “argument” for atheism is like that of an artist who confines himself to using black and white materials and then concludes that, since color doesn’t show up in his drawings of fire engines and apples, it follows that fire engines and apples are not really red.

The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:

science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .

Is this a good argument? Only if this parallel piece of “reasoning” is also a good argument:

Checkers is an atheistic enterprise. My practice as a checkers player is atheistic. That is to say, when I move a game piece across the board, I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my career as a checkers champ. In my more than thirty years as a checkers player, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned at a checkers tournament. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of the game.


So, it isn’t just science—even checkers proves atheism! Who knew?

Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.

Edward Feser ..... LMFAO.
A greater fool (if that even is possible) than Woo princess.
At least Krauss can get a job at a university ... Feser teaches at a Community College. LOL
He's a VERY angry very conservative ultra Roman Catholic "Aristotelian" who can't write even one page without whining his lips off about "New Atheists".

Thanks for the copy-pasta ... of course you never read anything Krauss wrote, (or Feser for that matter), and could not discuss it if you did.

(November 20, 2018 at 10:36 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(November 20, 2018 at 10:09 pm)Everena Wrote: Consciousness, food, all living organisms even existing, comfortable weather patterns, a sun, a moon, water, correct placement of our planet, gravity, air to breathe and also plants and trees to make more clean air, a sex drive, a will to live, emotions, intelligence, an immune system, medicines, electricity, oil, fire, coal, metals, tatste buds, vision, hearing,smelling, feeling, orgasms, other pleasures, pain, legs. arms, an attraction to the human body, and a whole bunch more.

Most, if not all, of what you listed are expected under evolution/naturalism.

Consciousness is a tricky thing to grasp exactly, so you need to be clear on what we have observed about consciousness that creationism alone could have expected. The capacities to think and rationalize and reflect and all that have been linked to the nervous system in our bodies, and the correlations have been experimentally demonstrated.

Nope, none would be expected without an intelligent creator. ZERO. Evolution is a process that does not explain ANY of it and is not a first cause. And define naturalism. Be specific.