The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Statler Waldorf]

Poor phrasing there. There is no 'good' or 'bad,' in the process. Either a change is beneficial for the particular environment the organism finds itself in or it is not.

When our distant ancestors were climbing around in trees a mutation which allowed bi-pedalism would have done them little good. But once the trees die out do to climate change and they find themselves on a grassland such a change to bi-pedalism becomes useful in terms of increasing their field of vision. Same change. Useful in one instance and not useful in the other.

Fairy tales.

Barring my explanation at the start of this thread, where exactly is this missing evidence of mine, SW, or are you merely making an indignant assertion because we atheists get a little sleepy-eyed when you try to prove god with the Bible?

How do I point you to evidence you have not provided? You have done nothing to support your assertion that Christians are somehow disallowed from appealing to the authority of scripture. Merely asserting that they are does not do the job, I am sorry.

Your first sentence here is called the argument from personal incredulity, and it's a logical fallacy:

He did not commit that fallacy. He was merely saying that creation is a more likely explanation for what we observe. There is nothing logically fallacious about making such a probabilistic claim.

I understand, but to call the universe "creation" is to imply that it was created.

As is using the term creature, but it is used quite often in Biology.

Because to prove RNA can spontaneously exist, all that need be done is to prove that RNA can spontaneously generate: no matter their knowledge of the initial conditions, if it's proven to have happened, then there's no more excuse to posit a god, merely because spontaneous generation seems impossible. It's not.

This is ridiculous. You’d first have to demonstrate that you know what the conditions were at the time the RNA supposedly spontaneously generated which is impossible to do. Secondly, proving something is possible does not prove it in fact happened. You will never be able to bridge that gap. You’re living by faith yet again.

Likewise, when you get the chance, please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist.

This is no different than saying, “Well prove that God does not exist.” I imagine you have no difficulty seeing the problem with this when it is the theist who does it.

Science will never provide the glib, seamless explanation to all life's big questions that boldly assuming God for no reason can.

This is correct. In fact, science itself boldly assumes that God exists as well.

Denying God leaves everything open to question.

…except apparently common descent, the age of the Earth, and anthropogenic climate change.

Assuming God allows you to get on with acting like you already know everything.

We do not know everything, but He who does has revealed many things to us.

You made the claim that the thread's title was unsupported by evidence without supplying any of your own in support of that claim.

Read the thread. He never provides anything other than his own opinion to support his claim that Christians cannot appeal to the authority of scripture.

I have evidence that my eyes are reliable. I see a wall. I can reach out a touch the wall. I can lean something against it. Obviously the only evidence I can gather comes in via my senses, so as a collective they can only evidence themselves via themselves.

Yes, you are appealing to your senses in order to try and justify your belief that your senses are reliable. That is no different than a Christian using the Bible to justify his belief that the Bible is what it claims to be.

I operate under the assumption that my senses work.

And I operate under the assumption that scripture is the infallible word of God. Fair is fair.

The fact that I am still here, able to walk and haven't crashed my car, is a form of evidence for the reliability of my eyes.

We’re talking about your senses. If your senses were unreliable there would be no way to know that you were here, walking, and driving your car so that is still begging the question. This is no different than a Christian using the Old Testament to support the New Testament or the writings of Paul to support the writings of Peter.

It is the way we study for tests. I read a textbook, try and remember the content, and then see if I can remember it. I can test my memory by answering questions on the topic. If I get stuff correct (I check by referring back to the book) my memory seems to be functioning.

How do you know you read the textbook? Do you remember doing so? How do you know you took a test? Do you remember doing so? How do you know how many questions you got correct? Do you remember the number? Again, you are appealing to the reliability of your memory to justify your belief that your memory is reliable. It’s no different than saying that the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God.

Logic doesn't really exist, it is a concept. The validity of logic is hard to examine; in order for logic to function it requires you to accept its axioms.

You’re trying to give a logical argument as to why you use logic? Circularity again. We accept the Bible’s axioms.

On accurately perceiving reality, I refer you back to the idea that I haven't crashed my car, fallen down the stairs or burnt my house down.

How do you know that you have not done any of these things? Circularity again.

I appear to reliably interact with my surrounding and perceiving them accurately would seem to be a necessary condition.

How do you know that you accurately interact with your surroundings? You perceive that you do? Circularity again.

None of these things is like using your senses to read a book and then divorcing yourself from reality and believing it is true without evidence.

Sure they are! You did not provide any actual evidence for believing any of the things above are true. Yet you believe that they are all true.

Using the book itself to justify the book is circular reasoning in that you have to assume your conclusion in order to make your argument.

As is using your senses to justify the reliability of your senses, using your memory to justify the reliability of your memory, making logical arguments to justify your use of logic, appealing to your perception of reality in order to justify the reliability of your ability to perceive reality. Why is it okay for you to use circular reasoning but not for the Christian to?

We cannot operate in any way, physical or mental, without operating under the assumption our senses are reporting reality. The same is in no way true about the bible.

Sure it is, everyone assumes the Bible is the word of God in one way or another.

Fair? What the hell are you on about. Are you a kid appealing to the teacher? Its [sic] not FAIR!?! MIIISSSS! the nasty people are asking for evidence for my ludicrous belief in an invisible sky god! Its [sic] so mean!

No, when I used the term fair I meant in a rational sense. If you are allowing yourself to engage in something (i.e. circular reasoning) that you do not allow the other side to engage in then you are committing the fallacy of special pleading. I was operating under the assumption that you valued rationality.

Scripture has no authority, and there is no reason to attach any to it.

Sure it does, it is the ultimate authority of all people.

There IS reason for our senses.

You have yet to provide any.

There is no justification to attach authority to scripture.

Sure there is, reality only makes sense if we do so.

It is just a sanctimonious pile of self serving BS that has caused pain, misery, suffering and death for 2000 years.

Now who is whining?

I will warn you that engaging SW in a discussion can lead to both sides spinning for countless posts, but more power to ya, all the same. The secret is that he considers himself the victor in any argument prior to reaching its conclusion, much like he considers god to be real before he has reached sufficient evidence. Good luck!

I am not the victor in every argument. You certainly have never gotten the best of me however.

Waldorf is a huge fan of appealing to solipsism, because if his belief system is wrong, then by Jesus, so must everybody else's.

My belief system cannot be wrong, that’s the whole point. I do not appeal to solipsism, I merely point out that anti-Christian Theism reduces to it. Fortunately Christian Theism is true and we actually can possess knowledge.

An apt analogy, Duck. Waldork is quite childlike. He is terrified that his fairy tales might not be true.

Why would I be terrified of that? If it is not true then I am merely future worm food like you. You’re a lot closer to feeding the worms than I am. Obviously you are the one who is terrified. You are terrified that I am right and that you will continue to exist after you die. This is why you treat people of faith with such unfounded animosity and rudeness; it’s so plainly obvious. You have my sympathies.