Satan Disproves Christianity

[gilbertc06]

I'm sure I do. Likewise, you probably have vastly lower standards of evidence for things such as evolution and abiogenesis than I do.

Wrong. There is undeniable evidence for evolution. And don't try the "Evolution is a theory" argument. By the time something becomes a theory in science it is rock solid and is highly provable and it has yet to be proven untrue.

Whereas religion is unprovable to say the least. And no one has to prove it to be false. Things that cannot be proven to be true by virtue do not need to be disproven because there is nothing to disprove in the first place. You might as well say I cannot prove that there are invisible butterflies that can go through any solid material when you can't even prove that they exist in the first place.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

It seems to me the whole premise of a very powerful Satan who can delude you into believing a lie and you won't know it undermines the entire religious enterprise.

The thing about being deceived by Satan is,
you don't know your deceived!

How does a fundamentalist Christian know that aren't deceived and should be Jews or Muslims, or Hindu's or whatever?

I've been thinking about blogging on this point.

It seems that Christian demonology undermines Christianity because even if they say the evidence looks good to them they can't disprove that Satan is just deceiving them.

Just as no one could really prove that Satan is not deceiving them when apologists make the claim that they are, Christians cannot disprove that they are deceived.

The witness in their spirit just might be the devil.

So since by their religious claims there is an equal chance that their religious claims are crap their religious claims are crap!

It is an interesting point.

God exists and is certainly infinitely more powerful than Satan.

For God to judge people He must have declared His laws and the basis of salvation.

So God's truth must be somewhere.

The Bible does prove itself.
So that argues strongly for it is the truth.

[John V]

I guarantee you, the people who believe in those other things are saying the same thing about your religion. I guess that was what I was asking: given that faith exists solely to excuse those things you don't have evidence for, how far does the evidence need to retract from your position before you'd give up your faith?

Funny that you guys say that we shouldn't accept testimonial evidence, then you expect me to accept your guarantee. I don't. Show me others saying the same things I've said and we can discuss the merits.

Oh, hush: evolution has a vast panoply of real, verifiable evidence supporting it, over many cross-corroboratory disciplines. We've made it happen ourselves, seen it in action in the wild, gotten nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record, and each of those things could have put a serious dent in the theory.

That's interesting - you really believe we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record? What exactly do you mean by that, and what evidence do you base that on?

Hell, my family breeds dogs; I've literally seen evolution happen, litter by litter. My standards could be crazy high and I'd still be able to satisfy them there.

What did your family breed these dogs into? I'm guessing...more dogs.

And I don't accept abiogenesis completely. It has enough evidence behind it to merit consideration, but I'm not in the habit of accepting things until the evidence bears them out completely. So... hey. Kind of a divergence, but I'm happy to sort that out.

No faith needed.

If you don't accept abiogenesis completely, you do accept it partially. My Christian faith isn't perfect, so apparently I accept Christianity partially. Seems like semantics at this point.

[Esquilax]

Funny that you guys say that we shouldn't accept testimonial evidence, then you expect me to accept your guarantee. I don't. Show me others saying the same things I've said and we can discuss the merits.

Are you saying that followers of other religions aren't thinking that theirs is the religion that has the most evidence? Seriously? They'd follow a religion despite acknowledging that others have more evidence?

Oh right, you're just deflecting because you don't want to answer the question. I understand. But fine: here's what I could be bothered to find.

I look forward to your dismissive response wherein you claim that because this quote isn't precisely the same as yours, this person somehow believes that christianity has more evidence than the religion he's a part of.

That's interesting - you really believe we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record? What exactly do you mean by that, and what evidence do you base that on?

Here's human chromosome 2, evidence for human common ancestry with apes in genetics. Here's a list of observed speciation events. Here's a list of transitional forms from the fossil record.

All on their own enough to prove evolution to be occurring, but if I wanted to, I could also mention bacteria, nylonase, or any number of other confirmatory concepts. That's the kind of evidence I base my statements on, and it's exactly the kind of evidence that no creationist could ever hope to provide or rebut.

What did your family breed these dogs into? I'm guessing...more dogs.

And here we have proof that you're either dishonest, or don't understand evolution in the slightest. Clearly, you're in a good place to be arguing against it, not even understanding its basic mechanisms.

If you don't accept abiogenesis completely, you do accept it partially. My Christian faith isn't perfect, so apparently I accept Christianity partially. Seems like semantics at this point.

Except christianity has no evidence, in the sense that abiogenesis does. You don't get to pretend that anything you've got matches up to, say, the results of the Miller-Yurey experiment. They're not even close.

[John V]

Are you saying that followers of other religions aren't thinking that theirs is the religion that has the most evidence? Seriously?

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to show that they're saying the same things about Christianity that I say about their religions, and then we can discuss the merits of each position. Maybe there are more martyrs among fairy believers than among Christians. Are they claiming that? Let's see it.

They'd follow a religion despite acknowledging that others have more evidence?

I'm not saying they'd acknowledge it, I'm saying let's examine the claims.

Oh right, you're just deflecting because you don't want to answer the question. I understand. But fine: here's what I could be bothered to find.

Seriously? Why'd you even bother posting that? Silence would have been better than that link.

Here's human chromosome 2, evidence for human common ancestry with apes in genetics. Here's a list of observed speciation events. Here's a list of transitional forms from the fossil record.

All on their own enough to prove evolution to be occurring, but if I wanted to, I could also mention bacteria, nylonase, or any number of other confirmatory concepts. That's the kind of evidence I base my statements on, and it's exactly the kind of evidence that no creationist could ever hope to provide or rebut.

When you make a "nothing but" claim, providing a few instances which fit your position doesn't support the position.

Again, I need to ask you what exactly you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record?" I suspect that finding a counterexample or two will be easy, but I need you to clarify so you don't try to weasel out of the position later.

And here we have proof that you're either dishonest, or don't understand evolution in the slightest.

I understand that artificial selection is not equal to natural selection, so I apparently know more than you about it.

Except christianity has no evidence, in the sense that abiogenesis does. You don't get to pretend that anything you've got matches up to, say, the results of the Miller-Yurey experiment. They're not even close.

First, what constitutes evidence is subjective. Second, Urey-Miller has been thought to be based on an incorrect guess of the early atmosphere for some time now. You don't seem to keep up on things.

[Esquilax]

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to show that they're saying the same things about Christianity that I say about their religions, and then we can discuss the merits of each position. Maybe there are more martyrs among fairy believers than among Christians. Are they claiming that? Let's see it.

Well gee, I think it's fairly implicit in the fact that those people adhere to their particular religion that they believe it has more evidence. Are you often around followers of other religions that are bummed out that yours has so much more evidentiary support than yours?

Seriously? Why'd you even bother posting that? Silence would have been better than that link.

So refute it. I'm well aware how spurious it is, as the nature of the site I drew it from should readily attest. I'm just saying, you're not alone in thinking your religion is the specialest, mostest true: everyone thinks that about their church.

When you make a "nothing but" claim, providing a few instances which fit your position doesn't support the position.

Again, I need to ask you what exactly you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record?" I suspect that finding a counterexample or two will be easy, but I need you to clarify so you don't try to weasel out of the position later.

Alright, let me expand: no claim that I have been exposed to, from intelligent design or creationism, has held up to the rigors of science sufficient to be considered evidence against evolution. I fully admit that some might exist, but if they do, I haven't seen them, though not through lack of trying.

I'd be interested in whatever you can find to support that case, though.

I understand that artificial selection is not equal to natural selection, so I apparently know more than you about it.

Which is a red herring, because natural selection is just one mechanism by which evolution can occur, and even if it wasn't, your claim that evolution is one animal changing into another over a single generation ("They're still dogs!") is still completely incorrect.

You know more about evolution? So far you haven't demonstrated that you know anything.

First, what constitutes evidence is subjective.

Agreed. And so far, I've yet to see a piece of evidence for christianity that meets my criteria for actually constituting evidence.

Second, Urey-Miller has been thought to be based on an incorrect guess of the early atmosphere for some time now. You don't seem to keep up on things.

Oh, I know: but it still demonstrates that life can arise from non-living material, in theory. Much more than can be said for miracle claims, or the existence of transcendental beings and their back-from-the-dead avatars on earth.

[John V]

Well gee, I think it's fairly implicit in the fact that those people adhere to their particular religion that they believe it has more evidence. Are you often around followers of other religions that are bummed out that yours has so much more evidentiary support than yours?

So refute it. I'm well aware how spurious it is, as the nature of the site I drew it from should readily attest. I'm just saying, you're not alone in thinking your religion is the specialest, mostest true: everyone thinks that about their church.

You're purposely dodging. I agree that people of other religions think that theirs is best supported (among those that even think about it, anyway). I'm asking for their arguments so we can evaluate whether some are indeed better supported than others.

Alright, let me expand: no claim that I have been exposed to, from intelligent design or creationism, has held up to the rigors of science sufficient to be considered evidence against evolution. I fully admit that some might exist, but if they do, I haven't seen them, though not through lack of trying.

So when you say "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record," you really mean that you find creationism unconvincing?

I'd be interested in whatever you can find to support that case, though.

It's a completely different case, now that you've presumably seen the folly of your previous cheerleader hyperbole.

Which is a red herring, because natural selection is just one mechanism by which evolution can occur, and even if it wasn't, your claim that evolution is one animal changing into another over a single generation ("They're still dogs!") is still completely incorrect.

Artificial selection is not one of the mechanisms by which evolution can occur.

You know more about evolution? So far you haven't demonstrated that you know anything.

I've demonstrated that I know that artificial selection is not the same as natural selection, which is more than you understood until this morning.

Agreed. And so far, I've yet to see a piece of evidence for christianity that meets my criteria for actually constituting evidence.

And that's fine. The problem is when you guys insist that no one should accept certain kinds of evidence.

Oh, I know: but it still demonstrates that life can arise from non-living material, in theory.

No, it absolutely does not show that. Further problems with it are that it removed organic material from the system when produced, as the environment which produced it would have also quickly broken it down. Further still it does nothing to address the chirality problem.

[Esquilax]

You're purposely dodging. I agree that people of other religions think that theirs is best supported (among those that even think about it, anyway). I'm asking for their arguments so we can evaluate whether some are indeed better supported than others.

It's not my job to defend other religions. My sole claim was that you aren't the only one under the belief that yours is the best supported religion, and that what you've offered in support of yours has analogues in all the others. In the end you're hitting up your faith to bridge that gap, and I'm asking what makes your faith more worthy than theirs.

You aren't in quite the different boat you think you're in, when compared to them.

So when you say "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record," you really mean that you find creationism unconvincing?

No, I'm just being intellectually honest; I've not been exposed to an argument or claim from creationist sources that I would classify as evidence, since they all fall down at one key part of the scientific method or another, but I haven't seen everything in the universe, and therefore saying that none exists isn't terribly honest.

It's called amending the record; I'm here to defend what I actually think, not what you might misinterpret my words to mean.

It's a completely different case, now that you've presumably seen the folly of your previous cheerleader hyperbole.

So can you provide any evidence from genetics or the fossil record that disagree with evolution, or are you just being contrarian for fun?

Artificial selection is not one of the mechanisms by which evolution can occur.

What do you think evolution is? It's just change in gene frequencies over successive generations; the mechanism involved can be artificial just as much as it can be natural.

Don't take my word for it, take Berkeley University's!

I've demonstrated that I know that artificial selection is not the same as natural selection, which is more than you understood until this morning.

I am aware that the two are different things, and your lack of understanding as to what evolution is will not change that. But just for fun, why don't you explain why you think artificial selection is excluded as a mechanism for evolution?

And that's fine. The problem is when you guys insist that no one should accept certain kinds of evidence.

Isn't that just attendant to the idea of a subjective view? I'm sure you think everyone should accept your kinds of evidence, given that you think you're correct. Why doesn't that work in reverse?

Who holds an opinion that they believe is incorrect?

No, it absolutely does not show that. Further problems with it are that it removed organic material from the system when produced, as the environment which produced it would have also quickly broken it down. Further still it does nothing to address the chirality problem.

And thus, the goalposts shift back...

[John V]

It's not my job to defend other religions. My sole claim was that you aren't the only one under the belief that yours is the best supported religion, and that what you've offered in support of yours has analogues in all the others.

If you claim that all the others have analogues to mine, it's certainly your job to show that. You're apparently unable to do so.

You aren't in quite the different boat you think you're in, when compared to them.

So you keep saying without support.

So when you say "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record," you really mean that you find creationism unconvincing?

No, I'm just being intellectually honest; I've not been exposed to an argument or claim from creationist sources that I would classify as evidence, since they all fall down at one key part of the scientific method or another, but I haven't seen everything in the universe, and therefore saying that none exists isn't terribly honest.

You're compounding the dishonesty. What do you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record"?

It's called amending the record; I'm here to defend what I actually think, not what you might misinterpret my words to mean.

No, going from we've got nothing but confirmation in genetics and paleontology to an argument against creationism isn't amending the record, it's a red herring. You're apparently afraid to elaborate on and stick by your initial claim, yet you're not willing to retract it, either.

So can you provide any evidence from genetics or the fossil record that disagree with evolution, or are you just being contrarian for fun?

I'm waiting for you to clarify your statement, as I suspect if I go first you'll move the goalposts, as you're already attempting by softening to the ambiguous "disagree with evolution" already.

What do you think evolution is?

I think there are a number of definitions, some broader and some narrower, and the context indicates the one which is (or should be) being used. While simple change in allele frequency is one definition of evolution, discussions of evolution on atheist sites generally go well beyond that to include common descent.

Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

I am aware that the two are different things, and your lack of understanding as to what evolution is will not change that. But just for fun, why don't you explain why you think artificial selection is excluded as a mechanism for evolution?

Sure - in fact, I'll use another page from your source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml
Note that artificial selection isn't listed as a mechanism of evolution. Also note that they use the more restrictive definition of evolution, as I did above: "Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors."

Isn't that just attendant to the idea of a subjective view? I'm sure you think everyone should accept your kinds of evidence, given that you think you're correct. Why doesn't that work in reverse?

Actually, no, I can understand why someone would not accept ancient religious documents.

And thus, the goalposts shift back...

What goalpost shifted?

[gilbertc06]

If you claim that all the others have analogues to mine, it's certainly your job to show that. You're apparently unable to do so.

Pretty much all of them claim a god(s) and the world of a supernatural one. They have not gained one inch in proving any one of them. Therefore they all fail.

No, it absolutely does not show that. Further problems with it are that it removed organic material from the system when produced, as the environment which produced it would have also quickly broken it down. Further still it does nothing to address the chirality problem.

You've single handedly destroyed creationism right there. You admit that life cannot arise from the current natural system in place. That you can't just create a dog, it would have had to have gone through a process called hmmm... evolution?

Actually, no, I can understand why someone would not accept ancient religious documents.

And yet you expect people to accept the one you believe in. Based on people being whipped I might add. Other religions have that too.