The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

antiskeptic · 19-01-2017 12:32AM

Advbrd wrote: »

Feeling or sensing something is not evidence.

That might well be empiricism speaking there.

And it is not a problem for me, there simply is no evidence.

..of the kind specified by the philosophy you adhere to .. is the unspoken but necessary addendum to your sentence.

It's worth pointing out that the written testimony of the Bible is evidence. The question is whether or not you take it as authentic or not. The issue becomes one of how you evaluate evidence and what kind of standards / philosophy are you going to apply to it.

The problem for you is the inability to be able to calibrate your philosophy against anything which says it's true. In that you sail in the same ship and the theists.

antiskeptic · 19-01-2017 12:43AM

hinault wrote: »

You're wasting your time because the atheists/anti-theists who frequent this part of the Board (and why they're permitted to post here is a separate problem) regard all faith as being blind.

They can regard it however they like. It's their justifying their regarding it so that I'm interested in examining.

So even when you present empirical evidence to justify your faith, the atheists/anti-theists refuse to examine the evidence or will cite a lack of evidence from another source as verification that your evidence isn't impartial.

To be fair, the spectacular claims of Christianity require spectacular evidence. And the Bible is hardly that - especially given one of its core claims (regarding the blindness of the lost).

Folk will never be argued into the Kingdom - heck, you had Jesus performing miracles and the blind of his day just wanted him dead!

Even if folk had the expertise to really grapple with the texts themselves so as to evaluate all the arguments it still wouldn't change anything: the theologians in TCD for example are nigh on all unbelievers!

The only thing that will convince anyone is the lights going on for them too.

hinault · 19-01-2017 12:48AM

Absolam wrote: »

Does that actually matter? The evidence, such as there is, is that those parts of the universe have the potential to provide the perfect conditions to allow life to exist, to nourish and flourish to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth. And that's before we consider other kinds of life.
That Earth is (reasonably) unique is as true as it is for every other planet, and that diversity provides no information to inform the question of whether God is the catalyst for creation; it can be the case with or without a God.

I think it matters if we are asked to weigh one set of evidence against another set of evidence.

One set of evidence presents Earth flourishing with life.
Another set of evidence presents vast quantities of objects outside of Earth containing no trace whatsoever of any life.

Weighing both sets of evidence, one can only conclude that Earth is unique.

Whether the cause of the evidence disparity is at the will of God, I'll accept that there can be credible debate around that issue.

All I ask is that people look at the evidence, look at the precision of the Universe and look at the Earth, and then contemplate that God created all of it.

hinault · 19-01-2017 01:04AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

They can regard it however they like. It's their justifying their regarding it so that I'm interested in examining.

I agree.

One could be as cynical as they are and demand they prove incontrovertibly that there is no God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To be fair, the spectacular claims of Christianity require spectacular evidence. And the Bible is hardly that - especially given one of its core claims (regarding the blindness of the lost).

Folk will never be argued into the Kingdom - heck, you had Jesus performing miracles and the blind of his day just wanted him dead!

Yes, the claims made by Christianity are extraordinary.

You read the Passion of Jesus Christ in the gospels. Subject a human body to what is described in the torture in the early verses of the Passion. Then after the torture is completed, subject the same tortured body to the ordeal of crucifixion as described in the gospels. Then put the tortured and crucified dead body in a tomb and leave it there for three days.

If that tortured, crucified and entombed body can be revived to live, to walk, to eat, to speak, to thrive as before - then one can credibly claim that Christianity claim is not extraordinary and is in fact a lie.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 01:15AM

hinault wrote: »

I think it matters if we are asked to weigh one set of evidence against another set of evidence. One set of evidence presents Earth flourishing with life. Another set of evidence presents vast quantities of objects outside of Earth containing no trace whatsoever of any life. Weighing both sets of evidence, one can only conclude that Earth is unique.

I don't know that we are being asked to weigh one set of evidence against another set of evidence. Particularly given that you appear to be weighing what we know about one thing (the Earth) against what we don't yet know about everything else (the Universe), and aren't exactly setting out what the purpose of such an imbalanced comparison could be, since it doesn't bear on the question of God as a catalyst for creation.

hinault wrote: »

Whether the cause of the evidence disparity is at the will of God, I'll accept that there can be credible debate around that issue.

I don't think anyone has put forward the notion for debate; I'd say most people can see that the disparity is entirely down to the fact that we have yet to collect the level of evidence about the rest of the Universe that we have collected about our planet.

hinault wrote: »

All I ask is that people look at the evidence, look at the precision of the Universe and look at the Earth, and then contemplate that God created all of it.

Why bother with the first three? Why not simply ask people to contemplate that God created all of it, since none of the rest seems to have any bearing on the notion?

hinault · 19-01-2017 01:25AM

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know that we are being asked to weigh one set of evidence against another set of evidence.

:rolleyes:

You were asked several times to weigh both sets of evidence in the last few posts.

Brian? · 19-01-2017 01:31AM

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You were asked several times to weigh both sets of evidence in the last few posts.

You realise that you haven't actually presented any evidence for the existence of God.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 01:39AM

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes: You were asked several times to weigh both sets of evidence in the last few posts.

And I'm saying that what you want to compare does not seem to be two sets of evidence.... nor yet two comparable sets of evidence. You're trying to compare what you know to what you don't know, to no apparent purpose.

hinault · 19-01-2017 01:52AM

Absolam wrote: »

And I'm saying that what you want to compare does not seem to be two sets of evidence.... nor yet two comparable sets of evidence.

..................because one set of evidence betrays the truth :rolleyes:

OK, lets leave it there.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 01:55AM

hinault wrote: »

..................because one set of evidence betrays the truth :rolleyes: OK, lets leave it there.

I don't know, I don't think you've managed to offer any assertions about the 'truth' from the evidence and/or lack of it you want us to consider, other than that in some nebulous fashion you seem to think the fact that evidence that exists is connected to the idea that God is a catalyst for it's creation.

hinault · 19-01-2017 02:13AM

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know, I don't think you've managed to offer any assertions about the 'truth' from the evidence and/or lack of it you want us to consider

And you persist in willfully ignoring the truth that one set of evidence produces abundant proof of the uniqueness of Earth compared to other set of evidence namely the entire dearth of proof which pertains to, how many did you say earlier, 80 billion objects in the Universe.

Absolam wrote: »

you seem to think the fact that evidence that exists is connected to the idea that God is a catalyst for it's creation.

I said to you directly earlier that I recognise that one could have a credible debate around that point (about God being a catalyst for creation).

Anyway, I'll leave it at that as regards our individual exchange.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 02:32AM

hinault wrote: »

And you persist in willfully ignoring the truth that one set of evidence produces abundant proof of the uniqueness of Earth compared to other set of evidence namely the entire dearth of proof which pertains to, how many did you say earlier, 80 billion objects in the Universe.

But the truth of the evidence is that we've seen one set of evidence from one place, and not seen any of the sets of evidence from the other 40 billion. Why do you want us to weigh what we have seen against what we haven't?

hinault wrote: »

I said to you directly earlier that I recognise that one could have a credible debate around that point (about God being a catalyst for creation). Anyway, I'll leave it at that as regards our individual exchange.

Actually, you said that you'd accept that there can be credible debate around whether the cause of the evidence disparity is at the will of God, which is a different thing entirely, and assumes a disparity in evidence we don't have access to yet.

hinault · 19-01-2017 02:38AM

Absolam wrote: »

But the truth of the evidence is that we've seen one set of evidence from one place, and not seen any of the sets of evidence from the other 40 billion. Why do you want us to weigh what we have seen against what we haven't?
Actually, you said that you'd accept that there can be credible debate around whether the cause of the evidence disparity is at the will of God, which is a different thing entirely, and assumes a disparity in evidence we don't have access to yet.

Present the proof then that there is no disparity of evidence between the two sets of data.

pauldla · 19-01-2017 02:52AM

hinault wrote: »

......

In terms of Christianity, we have documented evidence of eye witness statements concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, for one.
......

No, we don't.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 02:52AM

hinault wrote: »

Present the proof then that there is no disparity of evidence between the two sets of data.

One is a set of data, the other is an absence of sets of data. How do you know what disparities there are if you have no access to the data yet?

hinault · 19-01-2017 02:59AM

Absolam wrote: »

One is a set of data, the other is an absence of sets of data. How do you know what disparities there are if you have no access to the data yet?

One is a set of data, the other is a set of data too.

The other data set contains the number of planets observed, the other data set also contains the fact that from our observations there is no life commensurate to the sophistication of life on Earth contained on those planets. In fact there is no life at all on those planets.

Now, once again, provide proof that there is no disparity between the two sets of data.

Absolam · 19-01-2017 03:23AM

hinault wrote: »

One is a set of data, the other is a set of data too.

Well, if we say that's true, then we have to say you're no longer talking about comparable data sets, don't we? After all, one is a list of things relating to a planet, the other is a list of planets.

hinault wrote: »

The other data set contains the number of planets observed, the other data set also contains the fact that from our observations there is no life commensurate to the sophistication of life on Earth contained on those planets.

That's simply not true, is it? The data set contains no such fact; we don't know what life is on those planets because we have not yet obtained that data. We only know that they are all goldilocks planets, and have the potential to provide the perfect conditions to allow life to exist, to nourish and flourish to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth. Whether or not they do contain such life is not part of the dataset.

hinault wrote: »

In fact there is no life at all on those planets.
Now, once again, provide proof that there is no disparity between the two sets of data.

In fact, you don't know whether there's life on them, do you? In fact, no one knows. And until they do, you can't know what disparities there are.

marienbad · 19-01-2017 09:36AM

hinault wrote: »

..................because one set of evidence betrays the truth :rolleyes:

OK, lets leave it there.

Take my advice hinault ,he won't go away you know ,so just put him on ignore

Delirium · 19-01-2017 09:42AM

hinault wrote: »

One is a set of data, the other is a set of data too.

The other data set contains the number of planets observed, the other data set also contains the fact that from our observations there is no life commensurate to the sophistication of life on Earth contained on those planets. In fact there is no life at all on those planets.

Now, once again, provide proof that there is no disparity between the two sets of data.

From NASA last year:

Nasa’s astrophysics director Paul Hertz linked Kepler’s mission to one of the space agency’s greatest objectives: the search for life beyond Earth. “One of the great questions of all time is whether we are alone in the universe. We live in a time when humanity can answer this question scientifically,” he said.

Hertz said that the findings show there could be more planets than stars, and Batalha said her “back of the envelope calculation” suggests “tens of billions of potentially habitable” worlds. She admitted that scientists still only have a small sample size, compared to the scope of the galaxy, but said the data so far shows “about 24% of the stars harbor potentially habitable planets that are about 1.6 times the size of the Earth”.

Future missions will significantly add to Nasa’s data: the agency has several new telescopes slated for launch in the coming decade, including one called TESS, which will examine closer stars than Kepler, and another that will be able to detect the atmospheres of exoplanets. Signs of oxygen and water vapor in those atmospheres, Batalha said, would point Nasa toward the discovery of “truly living worlds”.

Source

so how do you still contend that 'tens of billions of potentially habitable' worlds can't possibly have any form of life on them when NASA haven't examined pretty much any of them?

Leroy42 · 19-01-2017 10:21AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That was my stance too - growing up in a land steeped in cultural Catholic Christianity. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible stance you take. And one I took.

You said most. Which leaves the rest.

One day, the evidence turned up for me. And so my views changed in light of that.I have all the evidence I need: compelling, substantial, multi-stranded. Sufficient for me, but not for you.

And that's where the problems start. If your adhere to naturalistic philosophies (known or unbeknownst to yourself) then your notions of what evidence will be shaped by them. Take empiricism for example - you say there is no trace of God, and I assume by that you mean there is no empirical trace of God

Can you see the problem? Folk here aren't arguing against an objective position, they are arguing their religion (on a par with a philosophy, in that it cannot be proven to be correct) against your philosophy.

That is all very reasonable. And yes I do see the problem. As I said, I try to at least consider all opinions. I am the 1st to accept that I have a position and of course I am coming from that viewpoint, but I spent the vast majority of my life with the other viewpoint and understand the thinking behind it.

I fully acknowledge that people have faith, and I have no issue with this from a personal POV. I too had it but when I took the time to consider it I started asking questions and I have yet to be given a reasonable answer. Normally it ends up with "well I can't help if you don't want to believe" or something like that, when in fact I would love to believe, I would love to go back to the time that I didn't have all these questions, when I didn't feel out of step with my friends and family. In fact I did believe, but how flimsy must faith be if it can be skane by simply asking a few questions?

The part that I struggle with is the apparent rejection of the very same notions of evidence you used to satisfy yourself as to your belief but are not prepared to use in terms of other religions. It is the hypocrisy of choosing to accept one standard of evidence for everything in your life, except this. And why not use that very same type of evidence to review the other religions/gods that are offered?

If you are being honest, then you will see that the reason you have opted for the version of God that you accept is that it is the one that you have been told about. Why not believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Santa, or aliens. Even without knowing the particulars of the evidence I would be pretty comfortable that I can give you examples of such evidence to back up all the other forms of religion.

Their God is the right god, therefore all others are wrong, yet I bet that believers across all other religions base their belief on the exact same criteria. People feel they have received a sign, evidence to them that supports God. But have they looked at the alternatives and discounted them all? Have they considered that whatever they think happened could only have been down to a God, or is there a possibility that their desire for there to be a God has allowed them to simply ignore any other possibility?

Leroy42 · 19-01-2017 10:24AM

hinault wrote: »

Nope, but that's over and done with at this point.

I know that he has placed me on ignore but I'll post this anyway.

You are basically calling me a liar. Can you provide proof that I am lying?

It is a pretty big claim to make about a person you know nothing about simply because I question you.

Safehands · 19-01-2017 11:11AM

Delirium wrote: »

how do you still contend that 'tens of billions of potentially habitable' worlds can't possibly have any form of life on them when NASA haven't examined pretty much any of them?

It is statistically unlikely that we are the only life forms in the universe. To tell you the truth I would be scared to find out that there are other planets with life like ours on them. If they are like us, but more advanced, then we could be in grave danger if they came here. Man is aggressive. If we found a more primitve life form on another planet, we would most likely try to dominate them. That's the way we have always behaved. So much for being created in God's likeness!

People are entitled to believe what they like. They are entitled to believe the biblical stories, the Koran, or any other book they choose. This forum, as far as I am aware, is to debate these issues. Debates can get heated. That is normal. If people present a logical argument, which runs contrary to your beliefs, then that is great, argue with them if you want. We should always be prepared to listen to and take on board sound, reasoned points of view. If we ignore these points of view, refusing to even consider them and continue to make unreasonable, illogical arguments, then we can expect to receive some criticism which we may not like. That is debating and it works that way for all sides.

robinph · 19-01-2017 01:13PM

hinault wrote: »

Absolam wrote: »

One is a set of data, the other is an absence of sets of data. How do you know what disparities there are if you have no access to the data yet?

One is a set of data, the other is a set of data too.

The other data set contains the number of planets observed, the other data set also contains the fact that from our observations there is no life commensurate to the sophistication of life on Earth contained on those planets. In fact there is no life at all on those planets.

Now, once again, provide proof that there is no disparity between the two sets of data.

Ignoring the fact that we do not yet have the capability to detect an equivalent living planet as earth so your claim that the universe is otherwise lifeless cannot be backed up.

If the earth is the only planet in the universe containing life that is still not evidence of a god. Also, if the universe is teaming with life it is not proof that there is no god.

How populated the universe is has nothing to do with the existence of a god.

hinault · 19-01-2017 02:42PM

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if we say that's true, then we have to say you're no longer talking about comparable data sets, don't we? After all, one is a list of things relating to a planet, the other is a list of planets.

That's simply not true, is it? The data set contains no such fact; we don't know what life is on those planets because we have not yet obtained that data. We only know that they are all goldilocks planets, and have the potential to provide the perfect conditions to allow life to exist, to nourish and flourish to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth. Whether or not they do contain such life is not part of the dataset.
In fact, you don't know whether there's life on them, do you? In fact, no one knows. And until they do, you can't know what disparities there are.

We know that there is life on Earth.

If there is life on the planets that you cite, then there is no disparity between two sets of data, as of now.

In order to prove that there is no disparity, you need to first prove that there is life on any one of the planets that you cite ideally to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth.

hinault · 19-01-2017 02:48PM

robinph wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that we do not yet have the capability to detect an equivalent living planet as earth so your claim that the universe is otherwise lifeless cannot be backed up.

The claim I made is that the Earth is unique.

Earth is unique for a whole series of reasons - for one, Earth is teeming with life, which the rest of Universe lacks.
Earth is located in a precise location which facilitates God's plan for creation.

Safehands · 19-01-2017 02:49PM

hinault wrote: »

We know that there is life on Earth.

If there is life on the planets that you cite, then there is no disparity between two sets of data, as of now.

In order to prove that there is no disparity, you need to first prove that there is life on any one of the planets that you cite ideally to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth.

There are planets which are thousands and millions of light years away. It is not currently possible to do anything except acknowledge that they exist, or rather acknowledge that the stars they are orbiting exist. The light we see from some of them is over 2000 years old, possibly around the same time as Jesus was walking on the Earth. Its like looking into the past, literally. It is not possible to say whether life exists on them or not. It may do. They may be just like Earth, who knows?

Delirium · 19-01-2017 02:50PM

hinault wrote: »

The claim I made is that the Earth is unique.

Earth is unique for a whole series of reasons - for one, Earth is teeming with life, which the rest of Universe lacks.
Earth is located in a precise location which facilitates God's plan for creation.

How did you verify that the Earth is unique? How many planets have humans visited to lead to the conclusion only Earth has life on it?

looksee · 19-01-2017 02:51PM

hinault wrote: »

The claim I made is that the Earth is unique.

Earth is unique for a whole series of reasons - for one, Earth is teeming with life, which the rest of Universe lacks.
Earth is located in a precise location which facilitates God's plan for creation.

I wonder what the purpose of all the rest is, then?

Advbrd · 19-01-2017 03:02PM

robinph wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that we do not yet have the capability to detect an equivalent living planet as earth so your claim that the universe is otherwise lifeless cannot be backed up.

If the earth is the only planet in the universe containing life that is still not evidence of a god. Also, if the universe is teaming with life it is not proof that there is no god.

How populated the universe is has nothing to do with the existence of a god.

That's pretty much it.

Advbrd · 19-01-2017 03:09PM

hinault wrote: »

The claim I made is that the Earth is unique.

Earth is unique for a whole series of reasons - for one, Earth is teeming with life, which the rest of Universe lacks.
Earth is located in a precise location which facilitates God's plan for creation.

I pretty much agree that the earth is unique.
There is no evidence to suggest that the rest of the Universe lacks life or indeed that there is any life out there. We simply do not know. How blinkered do you have to be not to see that?
Your last point is quite simply ludicrous. The earth exists where it is. We exist. Whether or not there is a God, whether he was involved in creation is entirely open to question. This precision theory is simply nonsense.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments