Was at least the first life form created?

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes, just like evolution-deniers have the burden of proof on them when they reject it. Because there's tons of evidence for evolution.

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Actually, just to correct something Eilonnwy:

It's fairly simple, you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. You reject a claim, then you don't have the burden of proof, it doesn't matter when you you've used the word "believe" or not. Basic logic.

If you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. If you provide the proof, and someone rejects the claim, they have the burden of proof.

A person who doesn't have the burden of proof has the benefit of assumption, but once the burden of proof is fulfilled, the claimant has the benefit of assumption, and the burden of proof is passed on (to anyone who disputes the claim further).

Yes, you're correct. I was basically super simplifying it, but that is an important point not to forget.

[rjh4 is back]

Actually, just to correct something Eilonnwy:

It's fairly simple, you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. You reject a claim, then you don't have the burden of proof, it doesn't matter when you you've used the word "believe" or not. Basic logic.

If you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. If you provide the proof, and someone rejects the claim, they have the burden of proof.

A person who doesn't have the burden of proof has the benefit of assumption, but once the burden of proof is fulfilled, the claimant has the benefit of assumption, and the burden of proof is passed on (to anyone who disputes the claim further).

I agree with what you said. The only thing I disagree with is Eilonnwy's comment that "it doen't matter when you've used the word 'believe' or not". I think it does because it changes what is being said. "I believe in God" is not saying the same thing as "There is a God".

---

Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory and the general use of the word theory?

I do.

[Eilonnwy]

I agree with what you said. The only thing I disagree with is Eilonnwy's comment that "it doen't matter when you've used the word 'believe' or not". I think it does because it changes what is being said. "I believe in God" is not saying the same thing as "There is a God".

It does change what's being said to a degree (although in essence if you believe in something you think its true), but I'm not arguing that point.. We are talking out burden of proof, and it doesn't shift the burden of proof if you use the word "believe".

I do.

Okay, I just wanted to be clear on that because too often I see people don't know the difference and try to claim evolution is false because of it.

[rjh4 is back]

It does change what's being said to a degree (although in essence if you believe in something you think its true), but I'm not arguing that point.. We are talking out burden of proof, and it doesn't shift the burden of proof if you use the word "believe".

Then maybe we do agree on this. I was not trying to imply that when someone says "I believe in God" that somehow this shifts the burden of proof to another to prove that God does not exist. I agree that it does not. I guess what I was really trying to say/suggest is that if two disagreeing individuals want to get into a discussion of the reasons why each think the way they do, maybe using the phrases "I think" or "I believe" is better than "God is" or "gods are not" as the latter seems to invoke the whole burden of proof thing. As I said (or hopefully at least implied) before, I am not here to formally argue things to shift any burden of proof as I think it is pointless as the following type conversations would result:

Christian: "God exists."
Atheist: "Prove it then."
Christian: Provides arguments X, Y, and Z.
Atheist: "You have not met your burden of proof so I reject your claim."

and/or

Atheist: "Gods do not exist."
Christian: "Prove it then."
Atheist: Provides arguments A, B, and C.
Christian: "You have not met your burden of proof so I reject your claim."

This type of thing is apparent in many of the threads I have read. I, personally, am more interested in hearing an atheist's justification/reasons for thinking the way they do and providing my justification/reasons (if asked), rather than formal arguments back and forth trying to shift the burden of proof. Maybe this did not really come across with my initial post and maybe/probably I only came to this conclusion subsequent to my initial post, but that is really where I am at this point.

[Darwinian]

A Christian is someone who reads the Bible and believes it is the inspired word of God.

An atheist is someone who reads the Bible and believes it is entirely the work of man.

I suspect that on most things we think in very similar ways, however, when it comes to the supernatural an atheist, such as myself, has a mechanism which cuts in and says "Hang on a minute, where's the evidence? Why would you think that's true? Isn't there a simpler or more logical explanation? That doesn't make sense though!" etc. etc.

For example, yesterday I read the first page of Mathew and at the very beginning it said that it was found that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit!

The first thing I thought was, "Hang on. Who says? Were there any witnesses to this or are we just supposed to believe it because it was written in this book?"

[Minimalist]

or are we just supposed to believe it because it was written in this book?"

Yes.

And therein lies the problem.

[rjh4 is back]

or are we just supposed to believe it because it was written in this book?"

Yes.

And therein lies the problem.

While you might run into many Christians that would answer "yes" to that question as Minimalist says, I would not say that. If you really want to find out whether or not the Bible is trustworthy and Christianity is worth anything, do the research for and against and decide for yourself. I agree that if Christianity and the Bible cannot stand the scrutiny, then why believe or trust it. From the things I have read for and against, I have concluded that it does stand up to scrutiny (I already know some of your are thinking: "What an idiot.", so feel free to refrain from actually responding that way.) (Please note here that if you have already done that and concluded that the Bible is not trustworthy and Christianity is not worth anything, then there is no need to read any further.) Anything I could tell you regarding these subjects you would not accept anyway because you are skeptical to begin with (and I am not saying that in a negative way that is just how it is, or seems to be). I think that in doing the research that you should read the Bible in its entirety, research what people say are contradictions in the Bible, read the proposed answers for the issues and make a decision. Much has been written on both sides of this issue so if you want to make a reasonable decision, I think you need to consider both sides. On the Christian side, I would suggest the writings of anyone who set out to prove Christianity and the Bible wrong and ended up changing their mind. Josh McDowell is one author that I can think of that would fit this description and the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In fact, that book will also provide references to authors on the other side of the issue. I think you should start out by seeing whether the Bible is trustworthy on issues that can be confirmed in history. If it is not trustworthy there, then choose not to believe it in other areas. You might say at this point that even if it is trustworthy on these points there is no reason for me to believe it on the other issues because the Bible could be wrong on those other issues anyway. Maybe so and if you take that position, I'm not sure I can say any more. I think it should be kept in mind that any Bible in English is a translation and if you run into troublesome sections finding out what the Greek or Hebrew actually says can help. Furthermore, to be fair and reasonable, the standard for confirming or denying the trustworthiness of the Bible should be the same as one would use for other ancient writings.

Note, I answered above taking Darwinian's question at face value. If Darwinian was being sarcastic, you can ignore all of the above because if I had known this, I would not have responded at all.

[Darwinian]

No sarcasm intended

But even if we do read the Bible from cover to cover and do our research and after our efforts discover that the Bible is a far more coherent work than we had otherwise suspected, what does this mean?

Surely it simply means that it is far more structured and well written that we thought. I still fail to see just because we have a beautiful collection of texts on our hands that you can make that leap from stories written down ages ago to a belief that they somehow have any basis in the real world and contain 'truths' that are divinely inspired.

No matter how much research anyone does it does nothing to lend any verisimilitude to the actual stories.

[Rhizomorph13]

I think it should be kept in mind that any Bible in English is a translation and if you run into troublesome sections finding out what the Greek or Hebrew actually says can help.

Because God is powerful enough to convey his message directly to many people knowing that it will be cobbled into one coherent tome, but NOT powerful enough to guide a translator to do a good job translating that work? This has been my greatest problem with the people who want me to accept an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God. Apparently he seems only to speak Greek or Hebrew even though he is omniscient, and he can only do a bang up job getting His word across when it is directly dictated.

When I was a Christian I wrote off even discussing it because it seemed ludicrous that God would fail to guide the translators, who had a book to start with, any worse than he guided holy men who had nothing but their own thoughts to go on.

Rhizo