Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Tiberius]

Exactly, follow the best evidence to find the most likely position. Just don't pretend it's an absolute truth along the way

[Purple Rabbit]

My view is that there is such a thing as truth, otherwise the operation of the universe would be impossible. Something, at some time, has to "be", has to "happen". My contention is that we are unable to know these truths, only make educated deductions in hopes of finding a possible explanation that fits.

I agree. Truth exists since something clearly IS, i.e. reality IS. But to have access to truth is another thing. Scientific truths are tentative ones, there is no real hard test to find out whether we have arrived at these.

---

And yet, at the same time, operating under the idea that we live in a Matrix is fundamentally useless in our day to day lives, so we must do our best with what we have. Therefore if all these other people and other evidence points to a cat in the room, we are justified in believing it to be so until evidence proves otherwise.

Shit, I have to agree again. The criterion science implicitly uses is simply "what works best", meaning something like: wich model of reality gives the best result in describing and predicting the phenomena in it. Even if we are minds in a jar on which some movie of reality is projected, we can only hope to understand the movie, maybe even get a glimpse of something behind the movie if there is inconsistency in the movie, but it is pretty useless to start with supposing a reality behind the reality we can observe. Yet this is what religions do for a living.

[rjh4 is back]

How are they remotely similar? You presuppose the existence of the biblical God and then base your world view around that with absolutely no way of being able to verify it as true where as i base my world view on repeatable, verifiable, testable observation and change my opinion if the observed evidence changes whilst withholding judgement on the things that are outside of my current scope of knowledge. I work from the ground up piecing together the puzzle along the way where as you already know what picture you are trying to make and select the pieces that support your preconception.

You presuppose that matter and energy are all that exists and build your world view around that with absolutely no way of being able to verify it as true.

Do you get it now?

I am not trying to make the picture. God has already done that through the Bible which indicates some of the things that happened in the past, e.g., God created the universe, man sinned and the consequence was a fallen man and universe, there was a global flood, Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life and then to take the punishment that man deserved because of his (man’s) sin, and then rose from the dead. There is no need to reinterpret that which God has already interpreted for me. The fact is, you want to test God by your standards instead of subjecting yourself to His standards. You think you are a higher authority in the universe than the creator of it. You can do that but in the end, you will still be subject to His standards and you will be without excuse. See Romans 1:18-32. You see, this passage of the Bible indicates pretty clearly that everything in the universe points to God and that while everyone knows this (it is self-evident), some, like yourself, suppress this knowledge (hence no excuse).

When you discover what this standard of evidence is that allows you to separate multiple contradictory supernatural claims of origin from each other please do present it, but until that point in time you have demonstrated nothing more than picking one amongst a myriad of carte blanche explanations for no rational reason.

I’ll trust the God who came to the earth, died for my sins, and rose from the dead. I don’t think any others have done that in history.

Evidence of the global flood? Sure, God flooded the world in such a way that all of the fossils would represent apparent geological time. He also modified the topology of the radioactive elements in the strata so their would be more heavily decayed radioactive isotopes the further back in the strata you reach. The strata would also be layered into distinct geological regions descending into the earth in an extremely uniform way to give the illusion that the layers of strata themselves formed over time from different materials in different atmospheric conditions.

If this is the case then God is the ultimate swindler, liar and fraud. If he did not want to make it seem as if these events happened in such a uniform and predictable manner over time then he would have simply have left the usual chaotic flood to disperse and fossilise the animals as you would expect from a flood scenario, by weight, surface area any buoyancy rather than tampering with his own natural laws. It would have made the existence of a global flood being responsible for such formations likely and expectable rather than his expecting that people believe other people who wrote a book that they claimed without proof was inspired by God outlining the details of the flood....

Just a repeat of what I said earlier in this thread:

God creates the universe and all that is in it and tells us (reveals to us) that He did it and provides enough specifics in history to determine approximately when this happened.

Man rejects what God says and determines that he can discover how the universe came to be without God's help.

Man comes up with an answer that contradicts what God says.

Man determines that he is correct and God is wrong.

Based on man's determination, man accuses God of dishonesty by deceiving us with His creation.

Isn't man brilliant...in his own mind?

If your God manifested himself in nature in any way, such as answering prayers for example, then we would be able to measure a statistically significant correlation between praying to a particular god and positive outcome when compared to the control groups of an equal number of people praying to a different god as well as a group that did not pray at all.

Every single double blind clinical trial involving prayer ever conducted has shown absolutely no positive statistical trends compared to the control group.

This means either:

1) Your God does not answer prayers

2) You were praying to the wrong God

3) God chose not to answer the prayers

or

4) There is no God

This method could easily be used to establish the positive effect of prayer compared to the control groups, but thus far no results.

I thought truth claims in you world view were analyzed through the scientific method? So how did you come to the conclusion through the scientific method that your initial premise is true? (If your God manifested himself in nature in any way, such as answering prayers for example, then we would be able to measure a statistically significant correlation between praying to a particular god and positive outcome when compared to the control groups of an equal number of people praying to a different god as well as a group that did not pray at all.) The fact is, I reject you premise altogether and you have not provided the scientific evidence to support the premise from within your own world view.

He is talking about the logical absolutes:

1) The law of identity : P = P, P ≠ ¬P (A car is a car, it is not a fish)

2) The law of non contradiction: ¬(P ^ ¬P) (A car is not not a car)

3) The law of excluded middle: P ∨ ¬P ("I am alive" is either true or false)

There is not a single instance of any imaginable reality anywhere, natural or supernatural, in which these laws will not be true.

I understood which laws Adrian was talking about. I just did not get the proof and you have not helped. You have merely made a statement that is unsupported in and of itself. So that is your alleged proof? That is no proof. Remember, this whole line of argumentation began when I said that all proofs go back to some unprovable premises. Adrian said I was wrong and cited the proof of the laws of logic. I have yet to see any proof or argumentation showing that I was wrong. Note, I am not trying to say that they are not true. I am merely saying that we take them as self-evident without any proof.

It is logical proof, you cannot get around it, but i would love to see you try.

For example:

Green and Purple spotted comets exist.

It does not matter whether or not Green and purple spotted comets actually exist physically or not because we have defined them into existence as a concept, and since Concepts exist, Green and Purple spotted comets exist conceptually, the attributes being that of a comet that is coloured in green and purple spots.

I challenge you to find a single thing that does not meet these conditions (Hint, you can't, as soon as you think of it then it will at the very least exist as a concept).

Logical proof???? I thought all truth claims in your world view needed to be established with the scientific method. Even at that, you have not proven that “anything with an attribute exists in some form”…you merely take this as self-evident or definitional. This is not a proof.

Furthermore, I entirely reject your view that something exists just because you think about it. In other words, I think your conditions are ridiculous. You are equating the concept of something with that something. I do not think that is valid. There is quite a difference between the “concept of a perpetual motion machine” and “a perpetual motion machine”. The concept certainly exists (in someone’s mind) but the machine does not. Can you imagine what would happen if people talked like that? I say to man A, “A pool in my back yard exists.” He come over to visit and asks about the pool because he does not see one in my back yard. I say, “It does exist…as a concept in my mind.” You see, saying “A pool in my back yard exists.” is clearly saying something different than and more than “The concept of a pool in my back yard exists.” The former implies an actual pool whereas the latter implies just a concept.

One of the problems with the great flood that alot of people tend to over look.. Other than the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary (fossil) you couldent possibly get thousands of years of sea bed fossils (in the case of the US midwest) due to a flood that supposidly lasted a year. But dont take my word for it do some real research and read up on articles from REAL geologist. But one of the big problems would be that if there was a huge flood all the water on this planet would be 1 large body of water.... Think about that for a second..........nothing comming to mind..... go buy an assortment of fresh water fish from any pet store ... now get a second tank fill it full of 90% sea water and about 10% fresh water.... now transfer the fish over to the second tank.. oh and pray real hard that they will live ...... granted the 10% fresh water would be a stretch but even with that NONE of the fresh water fish would survive.... So other than maybe salmon, nothing of fresh water speices would survive..

Fallacies:

True Scotsman Fallacy: “REAL geologists”

Argument from ignorance and/or argument from personal incredulity: The rest of your post.

Salt water is also denser than fresh water so that might be a key to the issue you raised. One large body of water does not necessarily mean that it is homogenous.

[chatpilot]

rjh4 you are making all these truth claims from the bible, be careful! It sounds like preaching to me and you could get in trouble for that here. Secondly, I am surprised that everyone else here has been drawn into your so called claim of evidence when the onus is actually on you the believer making these claims to prove to us that what you claim is true. That being the case you have not proven anything based on what I have read so far.

"God creates the universe and all that is in it and tells us (reveals to us) that He did it and provides enough specifics in history to determine approximately when this happened."

First prove to us that God exists. Then share with us some specifics as to how he has revealed that he has created all things in the universe, and don't forget some of those "specifics in history" you claim to know of.

"God has already done that through the Bible which indicates some of the things that happened in the past, e.g., God created the universe, man sinned and the consequence was a fallen man and universe, there was a global flood, Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life and then to take the punishment that man deserved because of his (man’s) sin, and then rose from the dead."

Once again, prove it!! First start by showing me how the bible is the word of god beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was the son of god and that he actually existed, and most importantly to your faith that he rose from the dead. You are aware that as atheists the bible has no authority nor validity in our worldview? The bible is nothing more than a book of myths and legends created by man and nothing more. For us to believe anything the bible says we would have to abandon our abilities of logic and reason over the inferior beliefs you foster through faith.

[Purple Rabbit]

You presuppose that matter and energy are all that exists and build your world view around that with absolutely no way of being able to verify it as true.

Science does nothing of the sort. When evidence of god is found he will be absorbed in naturalism. Like a Purple Rabbit from the 26th dimension will...if evidence was found.

I am not trying to make the picture. God has already done that through the Bible which indicates some of the things that happened in the past, e.g., God created the universe, man sinned and the consequence was a fallen man and universe, there was a global flood, Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life and then to take the punishment that man deserved because of his (man’s) sin, and then rose from the dead.

A purple rabbit from the 26th dimension accidentally created this universe. You're so sure about your story. Then proof me wrong on this or crawl back in your iron age illiteracy.

There is no need to reinterpret that which God has already interpreted for me.

If you rely on blind faith only that is. If you look around in this place it tells another story.

The fact is, you want to test God by your standards instead of subjecting yourself to His standards.

The fact is that you are making wild assumptions. A person that has no believe in your specific fermented immoral god concept or in any god concept at all has no reason whatsoever to want anything from your god. For to him this god does not exists. And in general it is not very fruitful to want anything from entities that do not exist. By this same reasoning you are just testing the Purple Rabbit in the 26th dimension with your bible crap. You should know better and kneel before me now. Hurry up and sacrifice your son to me if you have one.

You think you are a higher authority in the universe than the creator of it. You can do that but in the end, you will still be subject to His standards and you will be without excuse. See Romans 1:18-32. You see, this passage of the Bible indicates pretty clearly that everything in the universe points to God and that while everyone knows this (it is self-evident), some, like yourself, suppress this knowledge (hence no excuse).

If you are speaking on behalf of that alleged authority then proof that to me. But keep in mind that I shut the door on snakes oil salesmen.

I understood which laws Adrian was talking about. I just did not get the proof and you have not helped. You have merely made a statement that is unsupported in and of itself. So that is your alleged proof? That is no proof. Remember, this whole line of argumentation began when I said that all proofs go back to some unprovable premises. Adrian said I was wrong and cited the proof of the laws of logic. I have yet to see any proof or argumentation showing that I was wrong. Note, I am not trying to say that they are not true. I am merely saying that we take them as self-evident without any proof.

So what is your problem with unprovable premises? The thing is that science works. Ever been in a hospital? Your god cannot count to two for me. Eons of theology have brought us zilch. Well almost zilch, it brought us more theology. Science fights kid cancer since your god is too miserable to lift a finger. He really is the prototype of the bystander doing nothing at all. In my country that's a felony. Did you know that prayer has a slight detrimental effect on healing?

Logical proof???? I thought all truth claims in your world view needed to be established with the scientific method. Even at that, you have not proven that “anything with an attribute exists in some form”…you merely take this as self-evident or definitional. This is not a proof.

Oh holy Rabbit, the guy doesn't know shit. Logic is part of science.

Dear holy Rabbit, free us from satanic circular bible thumpers with bananas as evidence.
Free us from the slavery of mind that they defecate.
Free us from the megalomania they radiate and from the abject moral of death they advocate.
And dear holy Rabbit, do not show yourself for the time being so they have to kneel for your virtual realism with their logic from ignorance.
Amen.

[theVOID]

[quote='rjh4' pid='51133' dateline='1263932376']
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
How are they remotely similar? You presuppose the existence of the biblical God and then base your world view around that with absolutely no way of being able to verify it as true where as i base my world view on repeatable, verifiable, testable observation and change my opinion if the observed evidence changes whilst withholding judgement on the things that are outside of my current scope of knowledge. I work from the ground up piecing together the puzzle along the way where as you already know what picture you are trying to make and select the pieces that support your preconception.
[/quote]

You presuppose that matter and energy are all that exists and build your world view around that with absolutely no way of being able to verify it as true.[/quote]

No I do not, I operate under no presuppositions, I simply chose the explanations for events based on the weighing of evidence and thus far there is absolutely no measurable manifestation of the supernatural known, nothing that can be demonstrated as statistically significant. When there is no evidence to support a particular hypothesis over any other, such as the existence of God, I simply withhold judgement and will do indefinitely until such evidence emerges.

Should a sufficient amount of convincing evidence arise for the existence of any supernatural phenomenon I wouldn't be able to ignore it, that would be breaking my own standards.

[quote]
Do you get it now?
[/quote]

I could ask you the same question.

[quote]
I am not trying to make the picture. God has already done that through the Bible which indicates some of the things that happened in the past, e.g., God created the universe, man sinned and the consequence was a fallen man and universe, there was a global flood, Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life and then to take the punishment that man deserved because of his (man’s) sin, and then rose from the dead. There is no need to reinterpret that which God has already interpreted for me.[/quote]

How can you prove God had anything at all to do with the authorship of that book?

[quote]
The fact is, you want to test God by your standards instead of subjecting yourself to His standards.[/quiote]

They aren't God's standards, they're the standards of barbaric, illiterate, superstitious sand dwellers from the ancient middle east! There are so many simply disgusting injunctions in that book that allow things such a slavery, stoning children to death, being able to rape and then buy women etc. I have more information at about reality at my disposal than these ancient Jews and Christians ever did and as such I am in a better position to assess reality.

I don't believe any of them had revelations of any kind, this is a man made religion just like the tens of thousands of religions in history that you reject yourself.

[quote]
You think you are a higher authority in the universe than the creator of it. You can do that but in the end, you will still be subject to His standards and you will be without excuse. See Romans 1:18-32. You see, this passage of the Bible indicates pretty clearly that everything in the universe points to God and that while everyone knows this (it is self-evident), some, like yourself, suppress this knowledge (hence no excuse).[/quote]

You know preaching is against the rules right?

Ask yourself this ; If I don't believe that book is anything more than the product of primitive men then why on earth do you think making arguments from it is going to impress me in the slightest. Prove it is the inspired word of God and then, and only then, will I take seriously a single argument drawn from it.

[quote]
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
When you discover what this standard of evidence is that allows you to separate multiple contradictory supernatural claims of origin from each other please do present it, but until that point in time you have demonstrated nothing more than picking one amongst a myriad of carte blanche explanations for no rational reason.
[/quote]

I’ll trust the God who came to the earth, died for my sins, and rose from the dead. I don’t think any others have done that in history.[/quote]

Oh, the God who fathered himself and then sacrificed himself to himself in order to offer redemption from the sin he created when he, the omnipotent fucktard, put naive humans in a garden with a forbidden tree and a talking snake creating a situation that he knew the outcome of before he created it, only to rise from the dead in 3 days and become the ruler of the universe in eternal paradise... Yeah, some sacrifice.

[quote]
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
Evidence of the global flood? Sure, God flooded the world in such a way that all of the fossils would represent apparent geological time. He also modified the topology of the radioactive elements in the strata so their would be more heavily decayed radioactive isotopes the further back in the strata you reach. The strata would also be layered into distinct geological regions descending into the earth in an extremely uniform way to give the illusion that the layers of strata themselves formed over time from different materials in different atmospheric conditions.

If this is the case then God is the ultimate swindler, liar and fraud. If he did not want to make it seem as if these events happened in such a uniform and predictable manner over time then he would have simply have left the usual chaotic flood to disperse and fossilise the animals as you would expect from a flood scenario, by weight, surface area any buoyancy rather than tampering with his own natural laws. It would have made the existence of a global flood being responsible for such formations likely and expectable rather than his expecting that people believe other people who wrote a book that they claimed without proof was inspired by God outlining the details of the flood....
[/quote]

Just a repeat of what I said earlier in this thread:

God creates the universe and all that is in it and tells us (reveals to us) that He did it and provides enough specifics in history to determine approximately when this happened.[/quote]

So you claim, but have you any positive evidence to support the flood hypothesis? Prove it, or i'm not accepting a word of it, i've got standards you see.

[quote]
Man rejects what God says and determines that he can discover how the universe came to be without God's help.[/quote]

Again, prove God said it.

[quote]
Man comes up with an answer that contradicts what God says.
[/quote]

Not what God says, what primitive people claim God said.

[quote]
Man determines that he is correct and God is wrong.
[/quote]

Who do you think you're talking to here? One of your Christian buddies who will gobble up this drool?

[quote]
Based on man's determination, man accuses God of dishonesty by deceiving us with His creation.
[/quote]

I don't accuse a being who I don't believe in anything, it would be rather insane to do so

[quote]
Isn't man brilliant...in his own mind?
[/quote]

We've done pretty well so far, shame about all the silly religions out there.

[quote]
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
If your God manifested himself in nature in any way, such as answering prayers for example, then we would be able to measure a statistically significant correlation between praying to a particular god and positive outcome when compared to the control groups of an equal number of people praying to a different god as well as a group that did not pray at all.

Every single double blind clinical trial involving prayer ever conducted has shown absolutely no positive statistical trends compared to the control group.

This means either:

1) Your God does not answer prayers

2) You were praying to the wrong God

3) God chose not to answer the prayers

or

4) There is no God

This method could easily be used to establish the positive effect of prayer compared to the control groups, but thus far no results.
[/quote]

I thought truth claims in you world view were analyzed through the scientific method? So how did you come to the conclusion through the scientific method that your initial premise is true? (If your God manifested himself in nature in any way, such as answering prayers for example, then we would be able to measure a statistically significant correlation between praying to a particular god and positive outcome when compared to the control groups of an equal number of people praying to a different god as well as a group that did not pray at all.) The fact is, I reject you premise altogether and you have not provided the scientific evidence to support the premise from within your own world view.[/quote]

If god manifests himself in reality in any way his presence would create causation that can be measured and represented statistically as more significant than the control group, denoting a strong correlation between prayer and the desired outcome of the test, whether it be psychic powers, prediction, healing etc etc. This is the kind of evidence i would be interested in and if I was a Christian interested in proving the existence of God I would be formulating hypothesis on where God manifests and what effects that would cause and then run statistical studies to gather evidence in support of the hypothesis.

Many Christian scientists have done exactly this, as well a secular scientists. One particular study (i can't remember the name of it but i'm looking , i'll update if i have any luck) involved people with diabetes who were firm believers in God, the same size was 500 if i remember correctly, and faith healers with a good amount of anecdotes recommending them. The first group was prayed for individually by each religious healer and then by the entire group, the second group was not receiving any prayer. Both groups were told that there was a 50/50 chance they would get the placebo but not a single group knew which group they belonged to, the doctors did not know either as an independent organisation ran the Prayer part of the experiment and the results were sealed away until the end of the experiment, this is done to eliminate all bias from the experiment. There were prayed for a number of times over 6 months, i believe it was once every 2 weeks, so 12 times total, each time the prayer was asking for God to heal their diabetes, which would produce a very easily measurable increase in insulin levels in the body.

No correlation between prayer and recovery was found, but it was good science with a solid methodology, a testable hypothesis that falsified the assumptions used for the trial which were all based on the Biblical description of the procedure of prayer. If Christians want evidence for the existence of God then these testable hypotheses are the way to go, in my opinion the best type of experiment that could provide positive evidence for the existence of God rather than the usual pathetic attacks on the more supported theories and hypothesis arrived at by a rational methodology.

[quote]
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
He is talking about the logical absolutes:

1) The law of identity : P = P, P ≠ ¬P (A car is a car, it is not a fish)

2) The law of non contradiction: ¬(P ^ ¬P) (A car is not not a car)

3) The law of excluded middle: P ∨ ¬P ("I am alive" is either true or false)

There is not a single instance of any imaginable reality anywhere, natural or supernatural, in which these laws will not be true.
[/quote]

I understood which laws Adrian was talking about. I just did not get the proof and you have not helped. You have merely made a statement that is unsupported in and of itself. So that is your alleged proof? That is no proof. Remember, this whole line of argumentation began when I said that all proofs go back to some unprovable premises. Adrian said I was wrong and cited the proof of the laws of logic. I have yet to see any proof or argumentation showing that I was wrong. Note, I am not trying to say that they are not true. I am merely saying that we take them as self-evident without any proof.[/quote]

I'll leave it up to someone more familiar with the subject to answer this one, you can argue it with them and i'll just watch the back-and-forth to see what the arguments for and against are, if you don't mind. There is an excellent video by Matt Dillahunty giving a very convincing argument for the absolute nature of these statements, i'll have to watch it again later and freshen up on it, been a long time since i've had to really think about them.

[quote]
[quote='theVOID' pid='50919' dateline='1263836935']
It is logical proof, you cannot get around it, but i would love to see you try.

For example:

Green and Purple spotted comets exist.

It does not matter whether or not Green and purple spotted comets actually exist physically or not because we have defined them into existence as a concept, and since Concepts exist, Green and Purple spotted comets exist conceptually, the attributes being that of a comet that is coloured in green and purple spots.

I challenge you to find a single thing that does not meet these conditions (Hint, you can't, as soon as you think of it then it will at the very least exist as a concept).
[/quote]

Logical proof???? I thought all truth claims in your world view needed to be established with the scientific method. Even at that, you have not proven that “anything with an attribute exists in some form”…you merely take this as self-evident or definitional. This is not a proof.
[quote]

Only scientific claims are proven with the scientific method, logical proofs are used for logical statements, it just coincidentally happens that the majority of our discussions now and in the past have been about science and that may be why you were under that impression.

[quote]
Furthermore, I entirely reject your view that something exists just because you think about it.[/quote]

I made it extremely clear that it exists at the least as a concept, not something in physical reality or even a supernatural reality.

[quote]
In other words, I think your conditions are ridiculous. You are equating the concept of something with that something. I do not think that is valid. There is quite a difference between the “concept of a perpetual motion machine” and “a perpetual motion machine”. The concept certainly exists (in someone’s mind) but the machine does not. Can you imagine what would happen if people talked like that? I say to man A, “A pool in my back yard exists.” He come over to visit and asks about the pool because he does not see one in my back yard. I say, “It does exist…as a concept in my mind.” You see, saying “A pool in my back yard exists.” is clearly saying something different than and more than “The concept of a pool in my back yard exists.” The former implies an actual pool whereas the latter implies just a concept.[/quote]

You've got a straw man of my position here. The concept of Santa Claus exists regardless of whether or not he does, I made this very clear in my original post.

[rjh4 is back]

rjh4 you are making all these truth claims from the bible, be careful! It sounds like preaching to me and you could get in trouble for that here.

Thanks for the concern. I know of the rule not to preach and try very hard not to come across that way as I realize I am merely a guest here. So far no warnings even....

Secondly, I am surprised that everyone else here has been drawn into your so called claim of evidence when the onus is actually on you the believer making these claims to prove to us that what you claim is true. That being the case you have not proven anything based on what I have read so far.

"God creates the universe and all that is in it and tells us (reveals to us) that He did it and provides enough specifics in history to determine approximately when this happened."

First prove to us that God exists. Then share with us some specifics as to how he has revealed that he has created all things in the universe, and don't forget some of those "specifics in history" you claim to know of.

"God has already done that through the Bible which indicates some of the things that happened in the past, e.g., God created the universe, man sinned and the consequence was a fallen man and universe, there was a global flood, Jesus came into the world to live a perfect life and then to take the punishment that man deserved because of his (man’s) sin, and then rose from the dead."

Once again, prove it!! First start by showing me how the bible is the word of god beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was the son of god and that he actually existed, and most importantly to your faith that he rose from the dead. You are aware that as atheists the bible has no authority nor validity in our worldview? The bible is nothing more than a book of myths and legends created by man and nothing more. For us to believe anything the bible says we would have to abandon our abilities of logic and reason over the inferior beliefs you foster through faith.

Actually, I think you may have missed the point I was at least trying to make. My point was that every worldview is built on some unprovable premises. If you don't think so...just try building a worldview without doing so. You are asking me to prove mine. That would be like me asking you to prove the unprovable premises upon which your world view is founded. Why do you think your unprovable premises lead you to a more correct conclusion as to what reality is than mine? (If you are inclined to answer, it would be nice if you let me know what your unprovable premises are that constitute the foundation of your worldview.)

So what is your problem with unprovable premises?

Nothing. See above.

---

No I do not, I operate under no presuppositions

Sounds like a presupposition to me.

I made it extremely clear that it exists at the least as a concept, not something in physical reality or even a supernatural reality.

You've got a straw man of my position here. The concept of Santa Claus exists regardless of whether or not he does, I made this very clear in my original post.

You did make it clear. My point was just that your position has no correlation or relationship with communication as it normally ocurrs...so why follow your position? It would render communication that is otherwise clear, practically unintelligible.

As an aside...I find it interesting that your posts include many truth claims that do not appear to be testable with the scientific method that you say is required for such claims. Whenever I ask about this, you never respond. Maybe your worldview is not as nailed down as you think it is.

[theVOID]

No I do not, I operate under no presuppositions

Sounds like a presupposition to me.

Do you want to elaborate?

I made it extremely clear that it exists at the least as a concept, not something in physical reality or even a supernatural reality.

You've got a straw man of my position here. The concept of Santa Claus exists regardless of whether or not he does, I made this very clear in my original post.

You did make it clear. My point was just that your position has no correlation or relationship with communication as it normally ocurrs...so why follow your position? It would render communication that is otherwise clear, practically unintelligible.

Cut the spin, I grow tired of it.

Do you disagree that concepts exist or not?

As an aside...I find it interesting that your posts include many truth claims that do not appear to be testable with the scientific method that you say is required for such claims. Whenever I ask about this, you never respond. Maybe your worldview is not as nailed down as you think it is.

I answered this in the last post, you didn't bother to respond, in fact you just dismissed most of my arguments. What's the matter, can't refute them so you just dismiss them without explanation? Intellectual dishonest at it's prime.

[chatpilot]

Let's see how can I begin? The first problem with your worldview is that you are basing everything you claim on a book written mostly by anonymous authors that dates back to at least 6 thousand years. The next problem is that the so called facts in this book have been proven false on many occasions when it comes to the various sciences. For instance such silly assertions that the sun stood still and that the Earth revolved around it. Archaeology has been unable to find physical evidence of the so called Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt or even their so called 400 hundred years of captivity in Egypt. The so called drowning of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea/Sea of reeds whichever interpretation you deem correct, we haven't found not even one chariot wheel in any of these locations. You would assume that there would be buried in these locations golden chariots, weapons, etc. so far we have found nothing, nada, zilch!

To bring this information closer to your beliefs we have not been able to find the tomb of Jesus, he is rarely mentioned by secular historians, the exact location of the crucifixion, in fact all the so called holy sites are symbolic. If we can't find any evidence to support the claims made throughout the bible, then what makes you think that the rest of it is correct and more importantly with so many errors, the word of god?

Most basic scientific assertions have been proven such as evolution by the process of natural selection, the movement of the planets around the sun, the certainty of the existence of gravity etc. etc. Sure scientist get it wrong from time to time but they are open to find other workable solutions. As opposed to theists who make claims that they themselves cannot substantiate.

[rjh4 is back]

No I do not, I operate under no presuppositions

Sounds like a presupposition to me.

Do you want to elaborate?

Really my remark was me just being flippant. You say you operate under no presuppositions. I think you are wrong. One cannot take bare facts and interpret them to mean something without some unprovable premises to begin with. Especially when one talks of origins, all the facts that we observe are put into a framework of unproved premises. For you, you interpret all the facts in using uniformitarian/evolutionary/materialistic/naturalistic premises that you take as your unprovable presupposition and I interpret all the facts in a Biblical framework which I take as my unprovable presupposition. If you think this is an inaccurate characterization of your position, then please indicate how any fact that we see today can shed any light on the question of origins in the absence of a framework within which to interpret the fact.

You say you weigh all the evidence. Have you read everything there is to read on origins from all perspectives? I doubt it. If not, how can you say you have weighed all the evidence. In fact, I would bet in most cases that you have not even been doing the observations. So without knowing the observers (as I am sure you do not know and have not spoken with all scientists or observed how they do science), how do you come to the conclusion that there is no bias in their observations or their conclusions? When scientists come up with competing positions on a subject, how do you choose which one to go with?

Do you disagree that concepts exist or not?

I agree that concepts exist. What is your point?

I answered this in the last post, you didn't bother to respond, in fact you just dismissed most of my arguments. What's the matter, can't refute them so you just dismiss them without explanation? Intellectual dishonest at it's prime.

First, I do not think you really answered my questions. Relative to the prayer thing, you begin with:

If God manifests Himself in reality in any way, then His presence would create causation that can be measured and represented statistically as more significant than the control group.

That is a truth claim and you have not explained how the scientific method has determined the truthfulness of this claim. The testing that was done (and constitutes the rest of your argument) was not establishing the truthfulness of the correlation between the "if" and the "then". The testing was done in a manner so as to deny the consequent so that one can validly conclude that God does not manifest Himself in reality in any way. While the logic may be valid, it does not appear to be sound as the truthfulness of the initial premise has not been established. It may be that God manifests Himself in reality to such a great degree that any measurement we take is a measure of His causation.

So again I ask...How has the scientific method proved the truthfulness of the if-then statement that you use as your starting point?

Based on your previous indication that the scientific method is the appropriate method for measuring truth claims, another question that you never answered was: How does the scientific method evaluate the following truth claims?

“The scientific method is an appropriate method for measuring truth claims.”
“Any statement is either true or false.”

Secondly, I did not see anything in the rest of your post that I thought was worth refuting. If I missed some questions that you really want me to answer, feel free to ask again and I will try to answer.

Lastly, in two previous posts I said the following:

"You seem to hold to an atheistic/materialistic/evolutionary world view. It does not seem to me that such an atheistic/materialistic/evolutionary world view can support anything other than relativistic truth since it seems that truth, morals, logic are accounted for in such a world view as being solely due to the genetics of a person and the electrical impulses in a person’s mind (possibly as a result of other causes, such as environmental ones). If this is the case, from your world view how can you say that any other person’s view or interpretation of evidence is any more accurate than yours? Wouldn’t it just mean that they have merely different electrical impulses in the brain that are no better or worse than yours? Furthermore, it would seem to follow from this that interpretations and conclusions made in the scientific method would be subject to this same relativism. This, in turn, seems to lead to the conclusion that an atheistic/materialistic/evolutionary world view cannot account for any truth claims in any objective sense, even given the scientific method."

Please answer the questions embedded in there and/or explain where I went wrong in characterizing your worldview.

---

Let's see how can I begin? The first problem with your worldview is that you are basing everything you claim on a book written mostly by anonymous authors that dates back to at least 6 thousand years. The next problem is that the so called facts in this book have been proven false on many occasions when it comes to the various sciences. For instance such silly assertions that the sun stood still and that the Earth revolved around it. Archaeology has been unable to find physical evidence of the so called Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt or even their so called 400 hundred years of captivity in Egypt. The so called drowning of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea/Sea of reeds whichever interpretation you deem correct, we haven't found not even one chariot wheel in any of these locations. You would assume that there would be buried in these locations golden chariots, weapons, etc. so far we have found nothing, nada, zilch!

To bring this information closer to your beliefs we have not been able to find the tomb of Jesus, he is rarely mentioned by secular historians, the exact location of the crucifixion, in fact all the so called holy sites are symbolic. If we can't find any evidence to support the claims made throughout the bible, then what makes you think that the rest of it is correct and more importantly with so many errors, the word of god?

Most basic scientific assertions have been proven such as evolution by the process of natural selection, the movement of the planets around the sun, the certainty of the existence of gravity etc. etc. Sure scientist get it wrong from time to time but they are open to find other workable solutions. As opposed to theists who make claims that they themselves cannot substantiate.

You have said all this before but I am interested in finding out more about your worldview, not about how you view mine. So if you would, see the last three paragraphs in my response to Void above and answer the questions there. Thanks.