Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Actor

pauldla wrote: »

Well, as I stated above, I don’t believe because I see no reason to believe, and you’re certainly not winning me over with this.

Do you believe there's something supernatural about the fact that you are actually alive? Or do you believe that it's just some unexplained biological process, the essence of which we just haven't "discovered" yet?

pauldla

Actor wrote: »

Do you believe there's something supernatural about the fact that you are actually alive? Or do you believe that it's just some unexplained biological process, the essence of which we just haven't "discovered" yet?

I believe that field is called abiogenesis, and to answer your question, no, I don't think there is anything supernatural about existence. I don't see how there could be. From the only model we have (admittedly, a sample of one) it seems that life develops pretty quickly, once the conditions are right. It seems to take a lot longer for intelligent life to develop, though.

philologos

indioblack wrote: »

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes Zombrex, I agree but it would seem that atheists divide between the ones who say their is no god at all of any kind and those who say no interventionist gods.
And then their are the ones who say religion is the problem, as if religion came from somewhere outside human invention like a virus, or shock horror; imposed by a outside force.
I think both sides would benefit from being cleared on what they are for and against.

It might be that athiests have the simpler statement to make - "there is no god". Many would go no further than that.
For those who would continue their train of thinking in this business they would deny the possibility of a concious omnipotent god.
As has been mentioned before, one problem is the definition of god - his remit, parameters, properties, abitities. The problem being that this is subjective.
It is possible to cherrypick, conciously or otherwise, the attributes of god - even within an organised religious framework.
Many years ago I had a debate with an elderly relative, a devout Christian, and we wandered onto the subject of the bible. "Oh, we don't take much notice of that". And that was the end of that.
My thinking was, "but where else does your church get it's authority from?"
It can be subjective on the other side, too - "I don't think/believe there is a god"
A definition of god - something asked for on page 2 of this thread, if I remember rightly.

it's worth pointing out that the definition of God is only subjective if we apply atheistic assumptions to the debate. If God has revealed Himself clearly to mankind over millenia then it is no longer subjective.

pauldla: if you've already read the Bible and other Christian writers then you should be able to tell us what you find unsatisfactory about them.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

it's worth pointing out that the definition of God is only subjective if we apply atheistic assumptions to the debate. If God has revealed Himself clearly to mankind over millenia then it is no longer subjective.

pauldla: if you've already read the Bible and other Christian writers then you should be able to tell us what you find unsatisfactory about them.

Without out intending to give a short answer, I'd have to say, pretty much everything. To me, Christian philosophy is recycled Platonism and redundant wordplay; cathedrals in the sand. The premise is missing.

Muslims I find even more perlexing, though I haven't read much of their philosophy myself. Nice enough people to talk to, but very soon turning the conversation to the Prophet, blessing be upon his holy name, the Book, etc

I haven't met many Buddhists, but the ones I have usually announce "I'm Buddhist!" with a bright smile and then a pause, as if they're expecting a round of applause.

If God has revealed Himself clearly to mankind over millenia then it is no longer subjective.

That's a big if, and that clearly is looking a bit ropy, too. Not meaning to butt into a conversation, of course.

philologos

What's Platonistic about Judeo-Christianity? Can you show me clear plagiarism between Plato's works and the Bible. I studied a fair bit of Plato while at university so I should be able to follow it along with you.

However, it would be nice if we'd have some meat on the table.

The context of the discussion is about Christianity, if you want to discuss Islam or Buddhism you might want to try those respective fora.

J C

lmaopml wrote: »

The wise know how much they don't know - but do know a little bit of truth, and acknowledge it, and cling to it for all their worth.

The more you know ... the more your know ... that you don't know !!!:)
The Word of God ... is a 'fast track' to knowledge of the truth.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

What's Platonistic about Judeo-Christianity? Can you show me clear plagiarism between Plato's works and the Bible. I studied a fair bit of Plato while at university so I should be able to follow it along with you.

Plato - Plotinus - Augustine? Obession with numbers, in particular 3? You studied Plato in uni and you didn't see any comparisons with Christian thought?

Maybe I read him wrong.

The context of the discussion is about Christianity, if you want to discuss Islam or Buddhism you might want to try those respective fora

Understood. Intended as an aside.

Sin City

philologos wrote: »

What's Platonistic about Judeo-Christianity? Can you show me clear plagiarism between Plato's works and the Bible. I studied a fair bit of Plato while at university so I should be able to follow it along with you.

However, it would be nice if we'd have some meat on the table.

The context of the discussion is about Christianity, if you want to discuss Islam or Buddhism you might want to try those respective fora.

I think it was the two worlds

They physical and metaphyiscal worlds.

philologos

pauldla wrote: »

Plato - Plotinus - Augustine? Obession with numbers, in particular 3? You studied Plato in uni and you didn't see any comparisons with Christian thought?

It's clear that people like Augustine used Platonism to explain Christianity because Platonism was the language of the culture at the time. Likewise in the future with Aristotle. Personally, I don't think the use of Greek philosophy to explain Christianity was useful.

Biblical Christian thought on the other hand is what I'm interested in.

Sin City: That's true for the Greek stuff. In the Hebrew way of thinking there wouldn't have been as much of a distinction between the metaphysical and the earthly realm. In terms of both Jews and Christians they believe that God is also active, here amongst us rather than being far removed. The Jewish law showed that God was pretty much involved in each and every aspect of their daily lives on earth, and wasn't something far removed.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That's not how regression or correlation works.



You can obviously see there is a slight increasing trend in a lot of that picture.

I think the point you're trying to make is right, whole thing is completely flawed - for a lot of reasons - but come on JC...

... nothing seems to be proven by the graph ... except, that there is no correlation between religiosity and IQ ... and vice versa!!!:)

This is a graph of two distinct patterns ... countries that have less than 5% who don't believe in God ... where average IQ's range from 60 to 100 with a vertical trend line i.e no correlation between IQ and religiosity ... and countries that have 5-80% who don't believe in God ... where the trend line is horizontal i.e. no correlation between religiosity and IQ

Trend lines at zero and ninety degrees have zero correlation between the x and y factors ... while trend lines at 45 degrees have a correlation of one i.e. they are perfectly correlated.:)

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... nothing seems to be proven by the graph ... except, that there is no correlation between religiosity and IQ ... and vice versa!!!:)

This is a graph of two distinct patterns ... countries that have less than 5% who don't believe in God ... where average IQ's range from 60 to 100 with a vertical trend line i.e no correlation between IQ and religiosity ... and countries that have 5-80% who don't believe in God ... where the trend line is horizontal i.e. no correlation between religiosity and IQ

Trend lines at zero and ninety degrees have zero correlation between the x and y factors ... while trend lines at 45 degrees have a correlation of one i.e. they are perfectly correlated.:)

More of your characteristic dishonesty JC, from the actual study:

Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations wrote:

We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000238

J C

zenno wrote: »

This is interesting.., Might be of interest to you folks...

A few points ...
... people are just as capable of denying God ... and the evidence for His existence (when they are 'trained' to do so) ... as they are to believe all sorts of different concepts of 'god(s)' ... when they are 'trained' to do so.

People are more likely to behave in accordance with laws, when they think they are being observed by somebody who can enforce the law ... or even if there is a remote possibility of such a person doing so.
This is what everything from 'Big Brother' in Orwell's '1984' ... to modern CCTV surveillance cameras and low % audit systems are based.

The concept of 'god' (as an ultimate law-enforcer') has been used by many institutions and states down the years, to get people to behave in accordance with rules that led to the smoother running of society ... and often to the considerable benefit of the institutions and rulers themselves as well.
The continuing attachment of people to this idea of God as 'enforcer' is often seen in their dismay ... when Saved Christians, like me, say that God will not punish past sin (no matter how reprehensible) when the Sinner repents and believes on Jesus to Save them ... they get even more upset ... if they are told that Salvation applies to future sin as well!!!:)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

More of your characteristic dishonesty JC, from the actual study:

Originally Posted by Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations
We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.

The graph clearly has two distinct phases ... both of which have a zero correlation between so-called 'religiosity' and IQ ... the only way a 0.6 correlation could be arrived at, is to draw a trendline between both phases ... which would largely be running through space without any data points - and therefore should not be done.

... and I would ask you to withdraw your unfounded allegation of dishonesty against me ... please keep your postings civil and honest.:(

... the fact that the graph doesn't support your bias against people of Faith ... is no reason for you to start using 'unparliamentary language' againt me on this Forum !!!

sponsoredwalk

No, look - he's clearly not human. He is ⅛ arm & ⅞ something else - but not human. He is made of two phases, ⅛ arm, ⅞ something else.

JC Regression & correlation extend beyond linear regression, for all we know the graph is displaying a hyperbolic correlation trend - that's why you need the math to actually find out, not just dogmatically assert 'oh it looks like two different trends' therefore my ideological biases are correct. Pathetic, & no we have 9258 posts, about 0.60 of which are yours, as evidence of shameful dishonesty (just go back to that thread to see how far I went trying to get you to face up to your own claims, I mean the sheer amount of referenced & colour-coded responses I gave you, let alone everyone else, my god...). I can't believe the one time I click on this thread & see the first post of yours I come across containing complete & utter nonsense, lying about scientific papers, unbelievable...

Also:

J C wrote: »

which would largely be running through space without any data points - and therefore should not be done"

You really shouldn't post with any detail because the second you offer a bit of detail you betray your complete ignorance of the topic.

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

A few points ...
... people are just as capable of denying God ... and the evidence for His existence (when they are 'trained' to do so) ... as they are to believe all sorts of different concepts of 'god(s)' ... when they are 'trained' to do so.

People behave in accordance with laws when they think they are being observed by somebody who can enforce the law ... or even if there is a remote possibility of such a person.
This is what everything from 'Big Brother' in Orwell's '1984' ... to modern CCTV surveillance cameras and low % audit systems are based.

The concept of 'god' (as an ultimate law-enforcer') has been used by many institutions and states down the years, to get people to behave in accordance with rules that led to the smoother running of society ... and often to the considerable benefit of the institutions and rulers themselves as well.
The continuing attachment of people to this idea of God as 'enforcer' is often seen in their dismay ... when Saved Christians, like me, say that God will not punish sin (no matter how reprehensible) when the Sinner repents and believes on Jesus to Save them.:)

You may have missed the point of the video. The experiments show that we are pre disposed as children to believe in supernatural agents that aren't there. It takes the very slightest of "training/indoctrination" to flesh out this bias into a watchful god with a mind of its own.
It also shows how pre disposed we are as children to attach intelligent agent like properties to inanimate objects and random events.
It is quite literally child's play to invent gods and have humans believe in them wholeheartedly even when we know they are made up.

What you didn't mention in the video was the natural explanations for spurious pattern recognition, especially when people are in stressed and vulnerable states. Anyone who has ever witnessed grief or stressed believers will know that it is at these times people pray and look for signs the most.


Also your "Saved Christian" concept of a god which will not punish sin is no different to "God the enforcer". You are forced to repent, and presumably not sin again or else you will be punished in hell. The outcome is the same as Orwell's 1984 (a change in behaviour for the better)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, look - he's clearly not human. He is ⅛ arm & ⅞ something else - but not human. He is made of two phases, ⅛ arm, ⅞ something else.

Sounds like an excellent argument against 'Spontaneous Evolution from Mice to Man' ... but that should be posted on this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682&page=56 Its kinda 'died' recently ... and could use a 'shot in the arm' ... if you want to give it one!!!:D

It's IQ and 'religiosity' that has been graphed and under discussion here!!!:eek::D

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

JC Regression & correlation extend beyond linear regression, for all we know the graph is displaying a hyperbolic correlation trend - that's why you need the math to actually find out, not just dogmatically assert 'oh it looks like two different trends' therefore my ideological biases are correct.

... the trendline is clearly not hyperbolic ... it is a 'hockeystick' ... and therefore has a zero correlation between the x and y factors !!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I can't believe the one time I click on this thread & see the first post of yours I come across containing complete & utter nonsense, lying about scientific papers, unbelievable...

... denial is a terrible thing !!!

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Pathetic, & no we have 9258 posts, about 0.60 of which are yours, as evidence of shameful dishonesty (just go back to that thread to see how far I went trying to get you to face up to your own claims, I mean the sheer amount of referenced & colour-coded responses I gave you, let alone everyone else, my god...).

... yes this is the thread that the A & A moved all my posts to.

... and it fizzeled out with this gem as its current last posting:=

spannerotoole wrote: »

"Oh, squiggly line in my eye fluid.
I see you there, lurking on the periphery of my vision.
But when I try to look at you, you scurry away.
Are you shy, squiggly line?
Why only when I ignore you do you return to the center of my eye?
Oh, squiggly line, it's all right. You are forgiven."
-stewie griffin

... anyway that is on a different tread ... on a different forum ... so could you please do all posters a favour ... stay on topic ... while you are on this forum ... and less of the unfounded ad hominems against me, would be a good idea, if you want people to take you seriously.:(

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I mean the sheer amount of referenced & colour-coded responses I gave you, let alone everyone else, my god...)

... which god are you calling on here?

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

You may have missed the point of the video. The experiments show that we are pre disposed as children to believe in supernatural agents that aren't there. It takes the very slightest of "training/indoctrination" to flesh out this bias into a watchful god with a mind of its own.
It also shows how pre disposed we are as children to attach intelligent agent like properties to inanimate objects and random events.
It is quite literally child's play to invent gods and have humans believe in them wholeheartedly even when we know they are made up.

... and the point I'm making is that adults (including Atheist adults) are just as capable of having their behaviour modified by the perception of 'somebody' watching over them!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

What you didn't mention in the video was the natural explanations for spurious pattern recognition, especially when people are in stressed and vulnerable states. Anyone who has ever witnessed grief or stressed believers will know that it is at these times people pray and look for signs the most.

Spurious pattern recognition applies to Naturalism with bells on it!!!.
The fact that grown men can look at a living creature in all of it's inordinate closely specified complexity and high functionality ... and reach the conclusion that an intelligence of even greater capacity didn't create it ... is certainly 'spurious pattern recognition' !!!:D

muppeteer wrote: »

Also your "Saved Christian" concept of a god which will not punish sin is no different to "God the enforcer". You are forced to repent, and presumably not sin again or else you will be punished in hell. The outcome is the same as Orwell's 1984 (a change in behaviour for the better)

... not really ... once you are Saved ... you are always saved ... irrespective of past or future sin ... but that's another thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056736913

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

... and the point I'm making is that adults (including Atheist adults) are just as capable of having their behaviour modified by the perception of 'somebody' watching over them!!!

Agreed, this is a very obvious conclusion. What you have left out is the process where by we examine and remove these incorrect perceptions.

Spurious pattern recognition applies to Natuarlism with bells on it!!!. The fact that grown men can look at a living creature in all of it's inordinate closely specified complexity and high functionality ... and reach the conclusion that an intelligence of even greater capacity didn't create it ... is certainly 'spurious pattern recognition' !!!:D

I'm not even going to dignify that with an actual response. If you want to peddle that nonsense then back to your mega thread with you.

If you want to discuss the spurious pattern recognition in the video or examples such as "signs from gods" then feel free.

... not really ... once you are Saved ... you are always saved ... irrespective of past or future sin ... but that's another thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056736913

You yourself said that while you can be always "Saved" (not that this is fully agreed on by all Christians)that your future actions still affect your rewards

Christians aren't immune from the effects of sins committed after they are Saved ... they suffer all of the temporal punishments for their sins (which can be severe, up to and including physical death) ...
... and their eternal Heavenly reward will be negatively affected by sins wilfully committed and it will be positively affected by good works ... for which their reward will be great.

So it really makes no difference, your actions are still affected by your belief in a watchful god and the threat that your actions will have effects beyond the here and now. So your doctrine still falls into the exact same category as the child believing in the invisible princess.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

It's clear that people like Augustine used Platonism to explain Christianity because Platonism was the language of the culture at the time. Likewise in the future with Aristotle. Personally, I don't think the use of Greek philosophy to explain Christianity was useful.

This, then, is quite a day, Philo: it appears we are in agreement on something.

Biblical Christian thought on the other hand is what I'm interested in.

Can't say as I blame you, Medieval Christian Philosophy is a whole other ballgame.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Agreed, this is a very obvious conclusion. What you have left out is the process where by we examine and remove these incorrect perceptions.

The point is that we largely don't do this ... we all become much more conscious of staying below the speed limit ... for example, when we see speed cameras ... whether they're working at the time ... or not. We even go slower because of the possibility that there could be a camera around the next corner!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify that with an actual response. If you want to peddle that nonsense then back to your mega thread with you.

The truth may hurt ... but it's still the truth.
I'll meet you on the mega thread ... any time you want to discuss!!!:)

muppeteer wrote: »

If you want to discuss the spurious pattern recognition in the video or examples such as "signs from gods" then feel free.

That's it ... you want to stay in your comfort zone discussing spurious pattern recognition and "signs from gods" ... I want to help you by discussing spurious pattern recognition as it applies to people like you.

muppeteer wrote: »

You yourself said that while you can be always "Saved" (not that this is fully agreed on by all Christians)that your future actions still affect your rewards So it really makes no difference, your actions are still affected by your belief in a watchful god and the threat that your actions will have effects beyond the here and now. So your doctrine still falls into the exact same category as the child believing in the invisible princess.

There are incentives to behave ourselves within most belief systems ... Christianity sets a high standard ... and it makes sense to honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind ... and to love your neighbour as yourself.

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

The truth may hurt ... but it's still the truth.
I'll meet you on the mega thread ... any time you want to discuss!!!:)

That's it ... you want to stay in your comfort zone discussing spurious pattern recognition and "signs from gods" ... I want to help you by discussing spurious pattern recognition as it applies to people like you.

It's not so much outside my comfort zone as it is not wanting to see another train wreck of a thread. Discussions like that were put in box for a reason. I would have nothing to add anyway that hadn't already been pointed out to you hundreds of times before.

There are plenty of other examples of pattern recognition gone wrong that we can explore however. Astrology, physic mediums, miracles, spiritual visions, voices from god etc. These are all just as much in my comfort zone but have the advantage of not leading to posts being moved to mega threads.

All of the above examples I would contend are as equally well documented as being in the spurious pattern recognition spectrum. What I do find strange however is that some Christians can dismiss something like Astrology and mediums while accepting miracles and visions. The evidence for these things is of the same anecdotal quality and all can be equally explained as easily as Pareidolia is explained.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

It's not so much outside my comfort zone as it is not wanting to see another train wreck of a thread. Discussions like that were put in box for a reason. I would have nothing to add anyway that hadn't already been pointed out to you hundreds of times before.

The 'train wreck' you refer to is the wrecking of Materialism ... when critically examined.

muppeteer wrote: »

There are plenty of other examples of pattern recognition gone wrong that we can explore however. Astrology, physic mediums, miracles, spiritual visions, voices from god etc. These are all just as much in my comfort zone but have the advantage of not leading to posts being moved to mega threads.

We're on a mega-thread.
Anyway, I have no argument with you on Astrology, etc ... but how about also discussing the great Materialist 'sacred cows' ... that are pattern recognition gone wrong, as well ... things like the Big Bang ... when nothing supposedly blew up to become everything ... and the non sequitur belief that because there is evil in the World that this somehow proves that a loving God doesn't exist

muppeteer wrote: »

All of the above examples I would contend are as equally well documented as being in the spurious pattern recognition spectrum. What I do find strange however is that some Christians can dismiss something like Astrology and mediums while accepting miracles and visions. The evidence for these things is of the same anecdotal quality and all can be equally explained as easily as Pareidolia is explained.

... perhaps because it fits into their comfort zone ... which is the same reason that Materialists believe that what we can physically sense is all there is ... when virtual phenomena like intelligence and it's effects are an established fact.

muppeteer wrote: »

The evidence for these things is of the same anecdotal quality and all can be equally explained as easily as Pareidolia is explained.

I agree ... but I wouldn't shout too loudly about it ... if I believed that frogs became princes ... with nothing added but accumulated mistakes and other examples of Materialistic spurious pattern recognition ... which we can discuss over on the BCAP thread !!:eek:

muppeteer

J C wrote: »

The 'train wreck' you refer to is the wrecking of Materialism ... when critically examined.

Lol:rolleyes:

We're on a mega-thread.
Anyway, I have no argument with you on Astrology, etc ... but how about also discussing the great Materialist 'sacred cows' ... that are pattern recognition gone wrong, as well ... things like the Big Bang ... when nothing supposedly blew up to become everything ... and the non sequitur belief that because there is evil in the World that this somehow proves that a loving God doesn't exist

We're on a mega thread but not that particular train wreck of a mega thread. There's no need to drag this one down to the level you dragged the other one down to.

As regards the Big Bang, we observe an expansion of the universe to which we try our best to model and make testable predictions. And it isn't so much nothing blew up as something happened at which point time itself began. What that was we don't know exactly, but from what we observe there is nothing to suggest a human like intelligence was involved. The important thing is that in trying to understand the process we eliminate personal human bias as this is shown to lead us down dead ends. What the supernatural proponents do is base their entire theory around person human experience.
Can I ask why you have no argument with me on astrology? What do you see in astrology that marks it as being different to lets say prophecy?

... perhaps because it fits into their comfort zone ... which is the same reason that Materialists believe that what we can physically sense is all there is ... when virtual phenomena like intelligence and it's effects are an established fact.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say intelligence is not based in the material world?

philologos

I don't reject astrology. I think such things can exist. Christians believe that there are dark spirits in the world.

There is significantly more evidence for Christianity because we have eyewitness testimony, secondary testimony, from history, from the way morality works from mere common sense in respect to causation. We have historically authentic accounts that tell us of these things.

The claim that Christianity is baseless and without evidence is simply not true. Faith in Christianity is on trust in evidence. Luke and John in particular make this clear when they tell their reason for communicating the Gospel.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

Lol:rolleyes:
We're on a mega thread but not that particular train wreck of a mega thread. There's no need to drag this one down to the level you dragged the other one down to.

It was/is an excellent thread with record numbers of postings and views!!!

muppeteer wrote: »

As regards the Big Bang, we observe an expansion of the universe to which we try our best to model and make testable predictions. And it isn't so much nothing blew up as something happened at which point time itself began. What that was we don't know exactly, but from what we observe there is nothing to suggest a human like intelligence was involved.

Human intelligence and capacities pale into insignificance when compared to the infinite capacities of our Creator God.

muppeteer wrote: »

The important thing is that in trying to understand the process we eliminate personal human bias as this is shown to lead us down dead ends.

... you haven't actually eliminated the personal bias of a Materialist from trying to understand the process ... you have accentuated the bias by refusing to consider any hypothesis that a non-material transcendent intelligence did it.

muppeteer wrote: »

What the supernatural proponents do is base their entire theory around person human experience.

The supernatural proponents also apply conventional science to all of the issues surrounding origins.

muppeteer wrote: »

Can I ask why you have no argument with me on astrology? What do you see in astrology that marks it as being different to lets say prophecy?

... there is no difference between the two ... unless the prophecy is in the Word of God.

muppeteer wrote: »

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say intelligence is not based in the material world?

What I'm saying is that the actions of intelligence can be definitively identified ... that this has been scientifically established ... but Materialists look the other way and refuse to accept that it can be done in relation to living organisms ... because it doesn't fit in with their Materialistic worldview. So please stop talking about the specks in the eyes of Theists ... while ignoring the great big plank in your own eyes, on the issue of selective reasoning.:D

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

I don't reject astrology. I think such things can exist. Christians believe that there are dark spirits in the world.

There is significantly more evidence for Christianity because we have eyewitness testimony, secondary testimony, from history, from the way morality works from mere common sense in respect to causation. We have historically authentic accounts that tell us of these things.

The claim that Christianity is baseless and without evidence is simply not true. Faith in Christianity is on trust in evidence. Luke and John in particular make this clear when they tell their reason for communicating the Gospel.

First as a Christian I reject astrology and the assertion that it has anything in common with miracles.
The evidence isn't in dispute though, it's the quality and category of that evidence. Any evidence we have for the claims of Christians is just the assertion of a believer. Testimony. What those trying to discredit this testimony should remember is that it never claims to be anything more than personal testimony.
All we have as evidence of God is everything (or nothing, depending on how you interpreted that evidence) What value pattern recognition has I don't know because we may just be imposing different patterns on the same thing and both be wrong. As Phill said faith is based on trust.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

I don't reject astrology. I think such things can exist. Christians believe that there are dark spirits in the world.

There is significantly more evidence for Christianity because we have eyewitness testimony, secondary testimony, from history, from the way morality works from mere common sense in respect to causation. We have historically authentic accounts that tell us of these things.

The claim that Christianity is baseless and without evidence is simply not true. Faith in Christianity is on trust in evidence. Luke and John in particular make this clear when they tell their reason for communicating the Gospel.

Really? You believe the position of the planets on your birthday have an impact on the future and this can be predicted? I'm a little surprised to be honest.

The evidence for Christianity you suggest has been found lacking in the past. Myself and others have picked apart any "evidence" you presented without reply. Most recently in relation to how morality works. I can dig out specific posts if you would like.

I would say that Christianity is baseless but not without evidence. It is just that the standard of evidence is so poor (personal testimony and intuition) that it hardly deserves the name evidence at all.

A prime example is your "common sense" approach to causation. Please tell me how the quantum effects seen in the double slit experiment match up with common sense? If it weren't for the huge volume of experimental evidence for such an effect it too would be dismissed as not matching up with common sense. This shows that common sense is a piss poor way to understand the laws of the universe.

J C

muppeteer wrote: »

A prime example is your "common sense" approach to causation. Please tell me how the quantum effects seen in the double slit experiment match up with common sense? If it weren't for the huge volume of experimental evidence for such an effect it too would be dismissed as not matching up with common sense. This shows that common sense is a piss poor way to understand the laws of the universe.

There are occasional counter-intuitive phenomena that have been discovered by science ... but common sense is always a good guide when it comes to weighing the evidence for all hypotheses (including the counter-intuitive ones).:);)

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

There are occasional counter-intuitive phenomena that have been discovered by science ... but common sense is always a good guide when it comes to weighing the evidence for all hypotheses (including the counter-intuitive ones).:);)

The big one being that the sun doesn't go round the earth.