The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

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.

Oh, so I'm lacking evidence, but you don't know what evidence is needed for conviction? Some help you are; it sounds more like you just don't like that atheists don't accept claims of divinity that aren't in the form of empirical evidence. But since you asked nicely, simply put, the Bible is evidence for Yahweh the same way LOTR is evidence for Gandalf. If you don't accept that, then that's your own personal problem.

Besides, I never said you couldn't use the Bible as your evidence; I simply said that you shouldn't because, well, you and others that proceed in this manner will get laughed at. Oh, and it doesn't get you anywhere in trying to convince an atheist that there's a god.

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.

And that's a fallacy called argument from personal incredulity; he can't imagine it'd be any other way, so he presumes creation. If you're going to advocate for someone, make sure they're innocent before you pronounce them not guilty.

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.

Linguistic relics do not an argument make.

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...

Stop. Read the bold in Esq's quote. If RNA can come to exist in any condition (we're talking countless variables), then it's proven. The exact conditions of our own planet at the time of the first RNA sequences will never be available for study, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Again, I repeat, it doesn't matter. Why do you think we say that it doesn't matter?

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.

It is different. Know why? Because we don't say that.

...science itself boldly assumes that God exists as well.

I truly wonder who is doing the assuming here.

Denying God leaves everything open to question.

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

What does the admittance or denial of a god have anything to do with studying or measuring these things?

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.

And a fine specimen of this brand of thinking you are, SW. Thank you for showing us as much.

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 did? Never? If I didn't, then there's nothing to be worried about. But if I did, then it totally makes sense why you would be so adamant in your position against this thread as you are now. Are you afraid that what I posted is going to take flight and infect the minds of those who never thought of the Bible as merely a claim? Newsflash! It wasn't originally my idea! In fact, so many atheists before me have stated just as much. Is that just a coincidence, or is it possible there's actually something of note in what they are saying?

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.

Do you not accept that any of the things he said were true? If not, then stop arguing, but if you do, then is it because he is using this circular logic you claim him to be, or is it because the evidence he has provided (and, indeed, evidence was definitely provided) was sufficient. I vote for the sufficiency of evidence in his argument. Anyone else agree?

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

I believe it is the words of men. What the fuck are you on about here? Doesn't your book that you hold to so dearly tell you that lying is bad? If you're going to misrepresent the countless individuals that give fuck all about the Bible and whether or not you claim it's the word of god, then you need to reread the forum rules.

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?

You are. Why? Because, based on this comment, you apparently don't like it when people state facts.

---

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.

Well, now you hear it from the horse's mouth. Thanks for justifying what I just said.