(November 5, 2014 at 3:51 pm)LostLocke Wrote: Which is why a 4-cylinder, a straight 6, a V-6, and a V-8 are all the same size, shape, and length.
This is why a straight 6 and a V-6 are both perfect and have no advantage or disadvantage of one over the other.

You ever heard of "organ donation"? That is possible because a few parts of the human body are interchangable, just like auto parts can be interchangable. But regardless of that fact, each part is designed specifically for a certain human and/or automobile.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You ever heard of "organ donation"? That is possible because a few parts of the human body are interchangable, just like auto parts can be interchangable. But regardless of that fact, each part is designed specifically for a certain human and/or automobile.

So how do you explain the numerous flaws and nonsensical design elements of the human body, in the face of this supposed perfect design? Why do my eyes project images upside down, for example? Why are human spinal nerves better suited to a forward facing, quadrupedal gait- say, like our evolutionary predecessors had- than an upright one? Why do we have an extra set of toes that do nothing to help support our weight? Or knees that bend at just the right angle to incite arthritis? Why is there a blind spot in every human eye?

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. And those are just general human design flaws, I'm not even taking into account all the ones specific to individuals; if the human body is designed so specifically and exactly then why do I have to wear glasses?

Still waiting for Majesty to acknowledge his wrongness on the BGV theorem as Esqui has requested.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You ever heard of "organ donation"? That is possible because a few parts of the human body are interchangable, just like auto parts can be interchangable. But regardless of that fact, each part is designed specifically for a certain human and/or automobile.

Even if you find a perfect donor, your damned to special medication for life, since your body still tries to reject the strange organ. That's not how the body works.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And those are just general human design flaws, I'm not even taking into account all the ones specific to individuals; if the human body is designed so specifically and exactly then why do I have to wear glasses?

Not flaws, remnants of evolution.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-s...odern-man/

(November 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 5:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You ever heard of "organ donation"? That is possible because a few parts of the human body are interchangable, just like auto parts can be interchangable. But regardless of that fact, each part is designed specifically for a certain human and/or automobile.

So how do you explain the numerous flaws and nonsensical design elements of the human body, in the face of this supposed perfect design? Why do my eyes project images upside down, for example? Why are human spinal nerves better suited to a forward facing, quadrupedal gait- say, like our evolutionary predecessors had- than an upright one? Why do we have an extra set of toes that do nothing to help support our weight? Or knees that bend at just the right angle to incite arthritis? Why is there a blind spot in every human eye?

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point. And those are just general human design flaws, I'm not even taking into account all the ones specific to individuals; if the human body is designed so specifically and exactly then why do I have to wear glasses?

I've mentioned before that if there is a designer he was stoned or incompetent.

Not to mention, it's only in relatively recent times that transplants have been possible, thanks to medical science.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 5:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because there are multiple scenarios for which the math works.

Yeah but the math wont get you an infinite universe, according to the BGV theorem.

You absolutely don't understand the BGV theorem. The theorem doesn't make a case for a finite universe.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, if I was a naturalist and I found out the universe had a beginning, I would too.

But as a theist you lost interest as soon as you heard something that seemed to confirm your worldview?

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, if the end solution to the problem is just "more nature"...I don't see what the excitement is about.

Most scientists think nature is amazing and are eager to learn more about it, regarding new mysteries as thrilling challenges. YMMV.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The difference is a past-eternal God wasn't in time, but a past-eternal universe was in time.

There's a Nobel Prize waiting for whoever can prove that must be the case. How about this alternative: At the Planck level of reality, there is a constant 'fizzing' of tiny bubbles of space-time popping into and out of existence, any one of which has the potential to expand into a full space-time continuum, but the whole of the quantum foam is effectively timeless. Quantum foam outside of a universe does not exist within a time dimension. And that's just one possibility.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Quantum fluctuations are described by physical law and operates within the domain of quantum physics...and within that domain there is constant change...things are happening...and as long as things are happening, these things are in time, because something can only happen in time.

Time is a feature of a space-time continuum, quantum foam does not require a space time continuum in order to exist. Interestingly, it seems to possess the property of necessary existence. You can worship it if you're so inclined, because it shares features often described as belonging to the creator of the universe. Not that I'm particularly attached to this explanation, it could be Branes for all anyone knows right now, and that's a different kettle of fish.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So you are basically saying that the universe (all physical reality) is infinite.

Were the words too hard for you? I said causality is a property of things within the universe and causality might not apply to the origin of the universe.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The only way causality cant apply to the whole is if the whole itself is infinite. You have an infinity problem, which means that if time is infinite, no event can possibly come to pass if there was an infinite numbers of events which preceded it.

You have a mere assertion problem. None of that follows from a noncausal origin of the universe.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The fact that events do come to pass would only suggest that there is a past-boundary somewhere on the timeline.

There certainly is to the space time continuum we find ourselves within. It doesn't necessarily follow that the concept applies to whatever the universe came from.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: And unfortunatley for you, there cannot be a naturalistic explanation that can explain the origin of time itself. Whatever caused time had to transcend time itself.

If that's the case, it does not follow that the cause is supernatural. At the moment, it certainly seems to be a poorly understood natural cause. I'm not sure what you mean by 'transcend time', but a quantum foam doesn't have to be contained in time. At Planck size, time can be another spatial dimension.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: No it isn't the fallacy of composition. If the parts within the universe can not possibly be true (because of the infinity problem), then the whole cannot be true.

'Nuh uh!' doesn't resolve the fallacy. Rules that apply within the universe do not necessarily apply TO the universe. They don't necessarily NOT apply either, it's an unknown right now.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, I've yet to see you point out a false premise.

I've yet to detect something in your posts that can reasonably be called a premise at all.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: God: A supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevlent being.

Thank you. I think that's a reasonable defintion in line with what most people have in mind when they say 'God', and I appreciate you not being coy. I think some of those qualities are at odds with each other, but that's a topic that deserves a thread of its own.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, judging by the fact that I've been defending the Christian God throughout my brief tenure on here...unless you don't know the definition of the Christian God?

Sadly, we have a lot of visitors who are very cagey about what they think God is. Not all Christians agree with your definition. 'New theology' types, for instance, make concessions regarding God's omnipotence and omniscience.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: If there is no God, then where do we get the standard from in the first place?

If there are objective standards, they would be inherent to our nature as a species, but not universal. That is, what's wrong for a human wouldn't necessarily be wrong for a nonhuman, but there doesn't seem to be a contradiction involved in the idea of a standard that applies to all humans.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The idea that things like rape is wrong...where does this standard come from?

Empathy and reason are good candidates. We feel we wouldn't want it to happen to us. We reason that we should agree among ourselves to punish it in order to reduce the risk of it happening to any one of us.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The moral law of God is just as necessary as God himself. If God doesn't exist, then where does objective moral law come from?

Our nature as human beings, though it's not hard to find an atheist who thinks morality is entirely subjective, I think some ways of ordering our society are objectively better than others taking only that people being healthy and happy is good and needless suffering is bad as my axioms.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Kings? Presidents? socieities? civilizations? But that can't be true, because Kings change, Presidents change, and civilizations and societies change. But true objective standards never change...which is why God doesn't change.

Really? He seems to have had a profound personality change between the Old and New Testaments, and reading the Old Testament he certainly seems to evolve as the story progresses; going from the god of a particular tribe who lives in a particular mountain to a god more powerful than the gods of other tribes, to the only god. Then all of a sudden he abandons the prophet model and goes to procreating an incarnation. Once you had to sacrifice animals to him, later you don't. Once slavery was okay, now it isn't. I have trouble imagining a source for morals that's less subjective.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Either way you put it, it still contains instructions...how can you get instructions from something that can't think??

How can you call them instructions when no one has to understand them to follow them?

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Right, because usually when something is specified, if you change the specifications, whatever goal that was to be accomplished wont work.

But in a code you can designate anything as meaning anything else.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Automated molecular factory? The odds of this "molecular factory" producing one just one molecule by this mindless and blind process called "nature" is so astronomical, to believe it happened by mere chance is utilizing as much faith as any theist could ever use.

An RNA strand long enough could do it. Short RNA strands form spontaneously in conditions simulating what is believed to have been the case in the Hadean era. There would have been billions of opportunities a day for such a long strand to form, and it only had to happen once. The odds of any given hand of Bridge are about six billiion to one, but if you deal enough Bridge hands long enough, any specified hand you name will come up eventually, and millions of hands of Bridge are dealt every day. We don't know the odds of such a molecule forming spontaneously under the right conditions, but if it was a trillion-to-one, that's practically the same as inevitable given a planet with thousands of places it can happen and hundreds of millions of years for it to happen in.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Scientist Stephen Meyer, in Lee Strobel's book "The Case for a Creator" on page 229, said that the odds of a protein molecule being produced by random chance would be "one chnace in a hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion".

Protein molecules form by chance all the time. It turns out that rather than being entirely random, the laws of organic chemistry apply. And you probably should have said 'Discovery Institute 'scientist' Stephen Meyer, whose training is as a geophysicist, not an organic chemist, says some nonsense Lee Stroebel found convenient to repeat as though he had any authority on the subject'. The odds of getting a particular protein by chance are slim, the odds of getting some kind of protein, not so bad.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: That is a ten with 125 zero's after it. And that is just one protein molecule out of the minimum of 300 molecules needed.

There are plenty of proteins smaller than that, and smaller protein chains can spontaneously connect to form chains that long. That's what chains that long are.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, informaton has informats, and instructions have instructors.

Instructors also have students, and there's nothing analogous to that in DNA. It's a dumb process that auromatically cranks out proteins. It's 'instructions' without an instructor or a student. In other words, it's not really instructions, it's chemistry.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Who said "just because it is in the Bible, it is true"? I am saying the Bible (Particularly the Gospels and some of Paul's letters) should be treated with the same historical criterion that any other book or piece of work that has names, dates, and geographical locations. And once you apply that criterion to it, it becomes very reasonable to accept at face value.

You made sense up to that last sentence. Can you think of a non 'Judeo-Christian' historical document that historians accept at face value, including the magic bits?

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I will be glad to give my evidence in a separate thread. Stay tuned.

Sure.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Actually, William Lane Craig's website has a feature at which you can see the testimonials of people that converted to Christianity based on his work.

That's truly sad, given the flaws in WLC's arguments.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So in other words, it works on whom it will work and vice versa.

You've got that right. If it worked on rational skeptics, I would be impressed.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I never claimed to "know" anything. I believe that the arguments for theism are persuasive and out of the two options that are presented to me, I am going with what I think is the best (more reasonable) explanation. The God hypothesis, in my opinion, has more explanatory value than the contrary.

Yet you seem completely mystified by people taking the same position in reverse.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: That is your opinion. To the billions of Christians in the world, we feel differently than you.

And I don't grudge them their comfort, as long as they keep within their bounds regarding mixing government and religion. I don't go looking for Christians to persuade, enough come to us that I feel I'll be informed when they come up with something noteworthy.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So God made Dahnmer eat people? Got it.

I don't think God made Dahmer at all. You're the one who think Dahmer is a product of an omnibenevolent omniscient creator. I've got no reason to think there won't be an occasional Dahmer. I just note that Dahmer (not to mention a planet and a universe largely inimical to life) seems pretty shoddy work if he was the product of divinity.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: A cosmologists can come up with any scenario he/she wants too...but if a cosmologists can come up with a scenario that is the exception to the BGV theorem..or an exception that will allow infinity to be traversed...not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed. hock:

You really should stop pretending to understand that theorem. Frankly, I don't completely understand it myself, but the authors flat-out state it does not mean what YOU think it does.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The bible is only a claim? Well, so was the statement "The Bible is only a claim."

Do you think that the statement that 'the Bible is the claim, not the evidence' can't be backed up? It's whether the Bible is true that's in question. In it's favor is that it's demonstrably at least partly historical. Against it is that it's just as demonstrably not always historically and geographically accurate, and some of its claims are demonstrably counterfactual. For instance, Egypt and China had thriving civilzations at the time the global Flood is supposed to have happened, which they never noticed; and the sun standing still for Joshua for hours was not noted by either the Egyptians nor the Chinese, who were keeping detailed astronomical records at the time. Not to mention that whoever wrote Mark doesn't seem to have known his way around Palestine.

If each part of both cars and humans were designed for a specific car or human, doesn't that sort of undermine the whole concept of organ donation right from the off?

The simple fact is that car designers don't create every component for every car the plant makes. Screws, bolts, washers, seat covers etc are for the most part interchangeable precisely for the purposes of mass production. Even the more specialised components don't have to be specially designed for every single car.

This is all a huge red herring anyway. I just thought it needed clearing up before it stinks the place out.

(November 5, 2014 at 5:30 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And those are just general human design flaws, I'm not even taking into account all the ones specific to individuals; if the human body is designed so specifically and exactly then why do I have to wear glasses?

Not flaws, remnants of evolution.

http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-s...odern-man/

Well, yes, you and I know that. But then, we're not the ones claiming that the human body was intentionally designed, in which case these things which make perfect sense under an unguided evolutionary model suddenly become glaring, unexplainable issues.

Mister Agenda Wrote:You absolutely don't understand the BGV theorem. The theorem doesn't make a case for a finite universe.

Now, don't let him argue back on this point. He's been given interviews with the authors of that theorem saying exactly what you said, he's got no excuse for persisting. And no, I'm not going to let that go, because I know that admitting wrongdoing or acknowledging how little research they actually do before making up their minds is poison to a creationist.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You can't honestly say atheists in general believe in magic at all.

If you believe inanimate matter came to life, that is worse than magic..that is voodoo.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are no facts that resemble 'space debris->life suddenly appears'. You skipped some steps.

Ok, what steps?

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You seem intelligent, so I'll do you the courtesy of inferring that you did so on purpose.

I will give you courtesy of asking you to provide me of the mysterious steps that you claim I missed, instead of just flat out assuming that you don't know the steps.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And even so, not all atheists accept abiogenesis.

Well, the atheists that don't accept that God did it, nor that abiogenesis did it...what are they left with?

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: A hypothesis is potentially falsifiable, by definiton. Whatever God may be, a hypothesis it certainly isn't.

The God hypothesis can be falsified. If you postulate a God that is based on a logically incoherent concept...that makes that God false.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Then it doesn't cost you anything to report the abiogenesis position accurately, does it?

yeah, because I challenge the notion that it happened at ALL.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Pretending my point sailed over your head is deliberate stupidity: the worst kind.

Oh, I definitely understood it..I just didn't grant it.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Your incredulity isn't an argument for the correctness of your position.

Well, that is my standard.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Some atheists believe in ghosts. An atheist can believe in any supernatural being except for gods. I don't think they're being rational either, but they exist. You probably don't agree with the theology of pagans, but they're still theists. And don't get me started on the Raellians, who believe in transcendant aliens.

But whatever they believe in has to have explanatory value. As I think I've demonstrated, a timeless cause is needed. So unless the atheist believe these "ghosts" transcended time before the universe, then there position suffers from a virus called "irrationatitis". These ghosts would also have to be able to create from nothing, thereby being extremely powerful.

And my goodness, when you take away all the fluff and feathers, the being(s) that they call "ghosts" is just another name for....God.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: To see someone come to an atheist board and think that the atheists on it are a representative sample of all atheists is pretty ridiculous.

Well, the vast majority I've come across believes "naturedidit". That is from about almost 15 years in to apologetics.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or a supernatural cause that isn't a god.

So please define a supernatural cause that creates a universe/time from nothing and not fit the definition of "god". What would you call such a being? We call such a being "god". They may call it something different, but the fact of the matter is...it is the same entity being called a different name.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or 'I don't know'.

Which would still give rise to the POSSIBILITY of naturalism.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's not a game. It's us acknowledging that not all atheists think the way we do, and you not liking it.

It is a game. Sure, there are people out there that believe all sorts of crazy things...but the vast majority of atheists I've come across in my years, none of them ever expressed to me that they believe in a supernatural reality with at ALL.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: What you learned in grade school isn't the be-all and end-all of the scientific method. In cases where an experiment isn't possible, we see if a model can make predictions that can be tested. We didn't conduct an experiment with the orbit of Mercury to confirm Einstein's theory, we took a closer look to see if what it was doing matched what Einstein said it should be doing. That's the kind of 'experiment' that is done with evolution: we use it to make predictions of what we should find if it is true and look where the model says they should be. That's how we found Tiktaalik and countless other fossils that evolution predicted should exist (and which strata they should exist in) but which we hadn't found yet.

Regardless of what you did to validate a theory, something was done. Nothing has been done yet to validate the origin of consciousness, OR abiogenesis.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet. Science doesn't know everything. What science doesn't know doesn't add a whit to the odds that you're right.

I think Jesus hasn't made his return to earth, "yet".

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are not theories. They are hypotheses. Evolution, on the other hand is a scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are falsifiable and could turn out to be wrong. Maybe for the first time ever we'll find an unnatural cause for something in nature.

You do realize that an unatural cause is a supernatural cause, right?

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

Oh, then it should be trivial for you to get your research that shows this published. You'd win a Nobel prize, and all the money you'd earn from that you could keep for yourself, or donate to the needy if you don't want it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain, so get to it!

Quote:You do realize that an unatural cause is a supernatural cause, right?

No it's not. If a robot causes something to happen, it's not a natural cause or a supernatural cause. It's an artificial cause.

Oh, and any idea when you're going to admit you were wrong about the BGV theorem, yet?