Biblical Miracles

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

How disingenuous of you, given that Jesus did not claim that we are all the son of God, just him.

Do you believe Jesus performed supernatural miracles, such as curing sickness by expelling demons?

I don't care what he is supposed to have said, I'm telling you what I think. I could have sworn he said we were all made in God's image or was that someone else?
I truly believe reasonably sytrongly we all are products of a creator.

I have no idea what he did or if he did anything.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I don't care what he is supposed to have said, I'm telling you what I think. I could have sworn he said we were all made in God's image or was that someone else?
I truly believe reasonably sytrongly we all are products of a creator.

I have no idea what he did or if he did anything.

So when you called the idea he was lying a conspiracy theory that was an argument from ignorance?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

So when you called the idea he was lying a conspiracy theory that was an argument from ignorance?

I think the idea that he was a con man is a conspiracy theory as there is not much to back it up other than someone convincing themselves it is true from shaky evidence.
Look, you can convince yourself of anything. What makes you think HAD really exists in humans the way it is claimed. It could be some theory that will be overturned eventually. I honestly think a lot of what is assumed about the brain's function is wrong, it is a very rapidly moving area of science.
Did you ever listen to Henry Stapp?

pauldla

Zombrex wrote: »

I think it is highly likely he existed, nothing in the NT is particularly unusual for a cult. The stories probably came from some where and the most likely explanation is an egomaniac cult leader who ended up being executed and who was replaced by an imposter for a short time after his death. This fits with the Biblical account and is entirely plausible.

Well, like I said, I have my doubts. Consider this series of events, for instance: Jesus, a preacher famed through Judea and, indeed, as far afield as Syria, visits Jerusalem, and half the city turns out to welcome him; a week later he has a series of high-profile trials in front of local religious and political leaders that end with the local populace screaming for his death; he is then put to death, again very publicly, but three days later he rises from the dead, accompanied by such omens as terrible earthquakes, the dead rising, etc; and local contemporary records make no mention of any of it.


Take Philo of Alexandria as an example: a writer, philosopher, and Jewish statesman who had strong links to Jerusalem, whose family was connected to the royal house of Judea, and who wrote extensively on current Jewish society and politics (he died in 50 AD). It’s hard to think of a First Century writer who would be better placed to at least mention Jesus, but not one word does he say about the Nazarene, not even of the ‘stoopid jebus put to death lol’ variety. Now, obviously this does not prove that Jesus didn’t exist, but imo it certainly puts a big fat question mark over the fact of his existence.

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

"God did it" is the ultimate non-answer.

Or "God did it" may be the ultimate answer. Just because you find this unpalatable doesn't make a difference.

Life has the appearance of design and a reasonable inference is that a creative intelligence is involved. To totally rule out the hypothesis, on principle, isn't logical.

Improbable

mickrock wrote: »

Or "God did it" may be the ultimate answer. Just because you find this unpalatable doesn't make a difference.

Life has the appearance of design and a reasonable inference is that a creative intelligence is involved. To totally rule out the hypothesis, on principle, isn't logical.

You have been shown again and again multiple lines of evidence all of which point to the fact that evolution by means of natural selection can lead to biological organisms which have the appearance of design yet come about entirely through natural forces. You make absolutely no effort to follow the rules of discussion. Unless you wish to change your approach and actually participate in real discussion, I will consider anything you have to say as beyond useless.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Or "God did it" may be the ultimate answer. Just because you find this unpalatable doesn't make a difference.

Life has the appearance of design and a reasonable inference is that a creative intelligence is involved. To totally rule out the hypothesis, on principle, isn't logical.

'God did it' is not the ultimate answer. It is however the ultimate abdication of any responsibility to figure out how it happened, let alone why. It avoids the question, ultimate or otherwise. It stunts reason.

I don't find it unpalatable. I find it intellectually lazy. I don't rule out the hypothesis. I just don't rate it. As a hypothesis. Barely even as an answer.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

Or "God did it" may be the ultimate answer.

Er, no it isn't for the reasons I already explained. It answers nothing, gives no explanation of actually what happened. It is simply an excuse to stop asking.

It is up there with "It just happened, don't ask why" as an explanation.

mickrock wrote: »

Life has the appearance of design and a reasonable inference is that a creative intelligence is involved. To totally rule out the hypothesis, on principle, isn't logical.

Life has the appearance of design compared to what exactly? What are you comparing it to when you say it looks designed?

What does non-designed life look like? Can you give an example?

Zombrex

pauldla wrote: »

Well, like I said, I have my doubts. Consider this series of events, for instance: Jesus, a preacher famed through Judea and, indeed, as far afield as Syria, visits Jerusalem, and half the city turns out to welcome him; a week later he has a series of high-profile trials in front of local religious and political leaders that end with the local populace screaming for his death; he is then put to death, again very publicly, but three days later he rises from the dead, accompanied by such omens as terrible earthquakes, the dead rising, etc; and local contemporary records make no mention of any of it.


Take Philo of Alexandria as an example: a writer, philosopher, and Jewish statesman who had strong links to Jerusalem, whose family was connected to the royal house of Judea, and who wrote extensively on current Jewish society and politics (he died in 50 AD). It’s hard to think of a First Century writer who would be better placed to at least mention Jesus, but not one word does he say about the Nazarene, not even of the ‘stoopid jebus put to death lol’ variety. Now, obviously this does not prove that Jesus didn’t exist, but imo it certainly puts a big fat question mark over the fact of his existence.

Well that is working under the assumption that those stories are not exaggerations of the influence of Jesus. To me it is more plausible that there was a Jesus but he wasn't nearly as famous as the early Christians liked to pretend. That to me makes more sense than there being no Jesus figure at all.

mcmoustache

mickrock wrote: »

Or "God did it" may be the ultimate answer. Just because you find this unpalatable doesn't make a difference.

Life has the appearance of design and a reasonable inference is that a creative intelligence is involved. To totally rule out the hypothesis, on principle, isn't logical.

Are you just copying and pasting rubbish from the Discovery Institute?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I think the idea that he was a con man is a conspiracy theory as there is not much to back it up other than someone convincing themselves it is true from shaky evidence.

Shaky evidence? You have repeatably said, when pressed, that you don't care and haven't read what Jesus said, which appears to be a way for you to avoid having to give an opinion either way. But you know that the evidence he was lying is shaky?

nagirrac wrote: »

What makes you think HAD really exists in humans the way it is claimed. It could be some theory that will be overturned eventually.

I think HAD really exists because there is a ton of support for it. This support isn't invalidated by merely invoking the famous last refuge of the pseudo-scientists, oh well other things have been wrong in the past. Yes things have been wrong, and things have been right. Saying it could be wrong is not a valid argument that it is. It is merely an admission that you don't have a valid argument that it is wrong.

nagirrac wrote: »

I honestly think a lot of what is assumed about the brain's function is wrong, it is a very rapidly moving area of science.

HAD isn't "assumed". And you seem to only think a lot of what we know about the brain's function is wrong because it doesn't fit with the supernatural stuff you like to believe in.

nagirrac wrote: »

Did you ever listen to Henry Stapp?

No, can you summarize his point, if he had one. The personal opinions of individual scientists, as I explained, are largely irrelevant.

mickrock

Zombrex wrote: »

Life has the appearance of design compared to what exactly? What are you comparing it to when you say it looks designed?

If you can't even acknowledge that it has the appearance of design, then there's no hope for you.

Galvasean

Oh good Mickrock is here. This is gonna get interesting.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

No, can you summarize his point, if he had one. The personal opinions of individual scientists, as I explained, are largely irrelevant.

So, you call me lazy for not reading a book you havn't read.. but you are not willing to listen to a guy talk for 10 minutes. He has a point, its a very good one. Listen to the last few minutes at least.

As for science, love the stuff but it will not lead to truth. Nor will math using symbols we cannot understand like infinity. Truth only comes from logic and logic says it is intelligence that drives evolution not random events leading to speciation. All the chickens in my yard would look the same to you but because I observe them I see that theres one bird who is overly friendly and eats up a storm (she is a bit on the plump side) and is becoming very friendly with my big black rooster. He is too young to mate yet but she is going to be at the top of the line when he is does.

Galvasean

nagirrac wrote: »

As for science, love the stuff but it will not lead to truth. Nor will math using symbols we cannot understand like infinity. Truth only comes from logic and logic says it is intelligence that drives evolution not random events leading to speciation.

Absolute bollocks TBH.

Mark Hamill

nagirrac wrote: »

As for science, love the stuff but it will not lead to truth. Nor will math using symbols we cannot understand like infinity. Truth only comes from logic

Lets say you have two methods for examining reality. One method explicitly requires you to test your ideas and get other people to examine your work to ensure as little bias as possible. The other method admits to purposely ignoring things it doesn't understand and inserting contradictions. Logically speaking, which one do you think will actually reach any kind of truth?

nagirrac wrote: »

and logic says it is intelligence that drives evolution not random events leading to speciation.

If evolution was intelligently directed you would expect the human body to be better designed.

nagirrac wrote: »

All the chickens in my yard would look the same to you but because I observe them I see that theres one bird who is overly friendly and eats up a storm (she is a bit on the plump side) and is becoming very friendly with my big black rooster. He is too young to mate yet but she is going to be at the top of the line when he is does.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

If you can't even acknowledge that it has the appearance of design, then there's no hope for you.

For an all-knowing, all-powerful creator, you must admit some of his designs are fairly crappy. IKEA now, there's some good design. No appendix on an IKEA desk.

King Mob

nagirrac wrote: »

Truth only comes from logic and logic says it is intelligence that drives evolution not random events leading to speciation.

Except your "logic" leads us to a dead end which you have admitted cannot be known or understood.
And all while you ignore the fact your logic has been repeatedly torn apart and shown to be completely hollow.

How does Intelligence drive evolution, by what mechanism and why?

nagirrac

Improbable wrote: »

This is, as I have stated previously, a logical fallacy. It is a god of the gaps argument. The fact that we may not know something about a topic does not mean that you can rationally claim that it was the work of a supernatural entity.

You asked to narrow the subject down to the one area you are most most knowledgable in, which is a classic scientist mistake. As you get too absorbed in one area of science your worldview gets too narrow based on that particular field fo study. I specifically said I would not imply a creator in the example I gave of adaptive mutation (which has been replicated in many labs, check out Barry Hall's papers), it is not one of the big 5 questions that make up my argument.

mickrock

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If evolution was intelligently directed you would expect the human body to be better designed.

A certain model of car might not be as well designed as another but that doesn't mean that it came about by a blind, unguided process.

Design inferences are not restricted to optimal designs.

Sarky

This is why we can't have nice things.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

A certain model of car might not be as well designed as another but that doesn't mean that it came about by a blind, unguided process.

Design inferences are not restricted to optimal designs.

So then did god design all of the nasty horrible bacteria and viruses that result in unimaginable suffering which often affects children?
Like this little piece of perfect design and engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis

endacl

King Mob wrote: »

So then did god design all of the nasty horrible bacteria and viruses that result in unimaginable suffering which often affects children?
Like this little piece of perfect design and engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onchocerciasis

Course he did. Mysterious ways and all that.

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

So then did god design all of the nasty horrible bacteria and viruses that result in unimaginable suffering which often affects children?

I can almost hear a violin playing in the background.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

I can almost hear a violin playing in the background.

lol, how amazingly Christian of you.

So did he design those things, yes or no?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I can almost hear a violin playing in the background.

OK. Something more prosaic. Chickenpox. Why did he create chickenpox? What's the point of chickenpox? Or hiccups? I know they're not living creatures, but they don't serve any function either. Chickenpox and hiccups. Both created? Why?

mickrock

King Mob wrote: »

lol, how amazingly Christian of you.

So did he design those things, yes or no?

I'm not a Christian and of course they were designed.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a Christian and of course they were designed.

And that's the limit you set on your own imagination and curiosity, is it?

joseph brand

mickrock wrote: »

I can almost hear a violin playing in the background.

I can almost hear a towel being thrown in.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not a Christian and of course they were designed.

So then I take it you believe that the magic man or aliens that designed it are evil bastards then?