Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

tommy2bad wrote: »

I'm going to assume the second link was intended to be Colin Blunstone, otherwise we are both more attractive than average.

The miracles accounted in the gospels are not Jesus only miracles, they say he performed many others, these ones are the ones with symbolic significance.
You don't think God could override The laws of physics, I would think that's a prerequisite for someone claiming the title.
However it's irrelevant to the argument, unless we had Jesus here to do rct's on, we can never know one way or the other. It boils down to if you believe Jesus was God then miracles are well within his remit if he wants to. If you don't believe he was God then either he faked the miracles, people made them up to bolster the story or they are legends exaggerated over time.
As Paul is given to hyperbole, I think the second one is definitely possible, the last unlikely as these story's have remained the same since their first account.
I don't think a fake would play down the miracles as Jesus did, more likely he would have done it for the attention it could generate!

there is nothing special about miracle claims see below. I'd wonder why someone who could feed an army for free wouldnt have come to the Roman's attention much quicker?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

athya Sai Baba (born as Sathya Narayana Raju; 23 November 1926 – 24 April 2011[4]) was an Indian guru, spiritual leader and philanthropist.[5] He claimed to be the reincarnation of Sai Baba of Shirdi (died 1918), who was also considered by his followers to be a saint and miracle worker.[6]

Sai Baba's reputed materialisations of vibhuti (holy ash) and other small objects such as rings, necklaces, and watches, along with reports of miraculous healings, resurrections, clairvoyance, bilocation, and alleged omnipotence and omniscience, were a source of both fame and controversy; devotees considered them signs of his divinity, while sceptics viewed them as simple conjuring tricks.

jaffusmax wrote: »

If you beleive in Aliens or Religion then it is best keep it a private belief until evidence is proves otherwise.

Funny this rule doesn't silence the people that do believe. It's not North Korea yet, and if this evidence 'rule' is to be implemented then it equally applies to everything else without evidence, including non belief.

jaffusmax wrote: »

Computing the Probability of God (take of this what you will so far it stands at zero 10–36
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/computing-the-probability-of-god/

That's pretty good odds then compared to the probability of our universe existing with it's current set of physical properties, calculated by Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose as one part in 10^10^123

Cen taurus wrote: »

That's pretty good odds then compared to the probability of our universe existing with it's current set of physical properties, calculated by Oxford University mathematical physicist Roger Penrose as one part in 10^10^123

Difference is that our universe does exist, the jury is still out on a God that supposedly created it!

As for your North Korea reference you will find that they have their own Religious Belief system and theirs provides more evidence then Christianity as their Gods grandson Kim Jong Un is alive and well. But I will go out on a limb and say that Kim Jong Sung did not create the universe! The similarities between religion and North Korea actually run deep as both demand indoctrination and the suspension of rational thought including total obedience to their God!

marienbad wrote: »

Do you believe the walking on water or the marriage feast or the loaves and fishes were actual historical events ?

Cen Taurus , any chance of an answer to this please ?

jaffusmax wrote: »

Why? Have you evidence that Kim Jong Song is not a god? And do you have evidence the universe does not exist?

Because according to you, your belief should be kept private.
I've no interest if people believe Kim Jong Song is a deity or not, you could try a North Korean forum.
North Korea's policy is state atheism, where Christians who don't toe that same line are jailed or worse.
As for any belief the universe does not exist, its an established fact that it does.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Cen, I have to ask...just what makes a state 'atheist' in your view? With the wording of your second sentence there, it's almost like you're saying "N. Korea is atheist, because Christians are jailed".
Is that what it takes to make a nation atheist? What about Saudi Arabia, a country whose legal system is all about the Islamic Quran, worship of Allah and where distributing a bible is punishable by death? Is that country atheist? It too jails Christians. What about other countries, both now and in the past that promote Christianity, and jail(ed) those of other religions? Was 1700s France 'atheist' because they promoted Catholicism and persecuted Protestants? What about Ireland after the 1800 Act of Union, that promoted Protestantism and discriminated against Catholics?
The point I'm getting at is that from what I read of that post, it seems like you consider someone or somebody or some group atheist for either not worshipping the same god as you, or for worshipping some other entity all together.
Look at North Korea from our perspective (the actual atheist perspective). We see a nation that is dominated by one family, the Kim family. So far, it has had three generations of leaders, and each and every one of them has been claimed by their followers to have done all sorts of miraculous and magical feats. Jong il was said to have written 3,000 books in a year and that he scored dozens of holes in one in a single game of golf, as reported by his bodyguards. They are literally worshipped in that country (seriously, there are statutes and paintings of the Kim men everywhere, and the first Kim leader, despite the little handicap of being dead is still technically in office). Should a person in North Korea disparage the Kim family, even so much as dispute their oh so obvious greatness they and all their family are sent off to gulags.
To me, and to the other atheists here, that is exactly the same as many of the claims made about Jesus. Jesus's followers said that he was a god, that he did magical, miraculous things and that, despite the little handicap of dying, he is considered to still be around, large and in charge. There are various passages in your religion's holy book that promise all sorts of nastiness if one doesn't believe Jesus to be all that great.

Ah the Ghost of Rikuo returns . .were you away shopping at Brown Thomas

I'm not sure you understand what state atheism is, state atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, North Korea being a prime example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Cen taurus wrote: »

So exactly what part of Christianity has failed scientific tests as you claim, and can you provide us with a copy of this scientific research ?

A scientific claim is a theory that makes a testable prediction. That prediction can then be tested and seen if it matches observation. By repeating this process the accuracy of the model/theory is improved, as it gets closer to correctly predicting more and more of the phenomena being studied. Or, if it repeatably fails the tests it is discarded for a theory that does successful match prediction.

This is the only systems humans have ever come up with that can produce a high degree of confidence in the accuracy (or lack of accuracy) in a claim about reality. Any improvements on this system are incorporated by into the system and the methodology is tweaked (which is why I keep asking why Christian theology has yet to be incorporated into the scientific method)

I have never seen a Christian claim about the universe that can be examined for testable predictions in order to verify its accuracy. And I've looked quite a bit. (perhaps you have one)

Despite this Christians hold these claims to be very accurate. Some claim they are certain of them. How have they done this? What system have they used that they can be confident of the accuracy of the theory? And why isn't this system incorporated into the scientific method if it can produce confidence in the accuracy of claims about nature?

I'll give you a hint. They haven't used any such system. They have instead abandoned the idea that you need such a system in the first place. That is anti-science, since science says you do need such as system to have confidence in the accuracy of a claim.

Cen taurus wrote: »

Life on earth is evidence of . . life on earth.
Alien life, is life that has not originated on earth, and to date no evidence of alien life has been found.

I'm running out of ways of explaining this to you.

Lets use an analogy. The moon rotates a particular way in line with the Earth so that we never see from Earth the far side of the moon.

We have observe mountains and craters on the near side of the moon for thousands of years but until 1958 we had never observed them on the far side until the Russian Lunar probe photographed them.

Despite that people were very sure that there would be craters on the other side of the moon.

Why you ask? How could they think that if they had never seen them!!

Well because the craters and mountains on the near side were understood and the systems that produced them were understood and they were evidence that there would be craters and mountains on the far side as well, because we were sure that the same systems must work on the far side as well.

We could reach this conclusion without ever having to physically observe these.

Were they 100% certain? Nope, it was still confirmed by Lunar 3 probe.

But that doesn't stop the near side features being evidence for the far side features existing.

Same with 'alien' life. In this analogy life on Earth is craters on the near side of the moon, which we can see, and 'alien' life is craters on the far side of the moon, which we couldn't see, and the moon is the universe.

We know that the systems what work here on Earth (nearside moon) work across the universe (the moon).

We know that these systems produce life (craters) on Earth (nearside moon).

The existence of this life (craters) is thus evidence that life (craters) probably exist in other parts of the universe (far side of moon)

Cen taurus wrote: »

Because according to you, your belief should be kept private.
I've no interest if people believe Kim Jong Song is a deity or not, you could try a North Korean forum.
North Korea's policy is state atheism, where Christians who don't toe that same line are jailed or worse.
As for any belief the universe does not exist, its an established fact that it does.

Private does not mean you cannot discuss it! Just don't expect people to believe it or expect to have social policy adjusted to accommodate it!
The parallels between the Cult of Personality around Kim Jong Sung and the Cult of Personality around Jesus Christ are far to similar to ignore!

"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government"

and in the North Korea section "Their ideology has been described as "state-sanctioned atheism"

This was the same tactic used by Christian Countries with state religions especially during the inquestions that removed competition to their own beliefs. North Korea does not want competition to the Cult of Personality surrounding Kim Jong Il.

TheLurker wrote: »

A scientific claim is a theory that makes a testable prediction. That prediction can then be tested and seen if it matches observation. By repeating this process the accuracy of the model/theory is improved, as it gets closer to correctly predicting more and more of the phenomena being studied. Or, if it repeatably fails the tests it is discarded for a theory that does successful match prediction.

This is the only systems humans have ever come up with that can produce a high degree of confidence in the accuracy (or lack of accuracy) in a claim about reality. Any improvements on this system are incorporated by into the system and the methodology is tweaked (which is why I keep asking why Christian theology has yet to be incorporated into the scientific method)

I have never seen a Christian claim about the universe that can be examined for testable predictions in order to verify its accuracy. And I've looked quite a bit. (perhaps you have one)

Despite this Christians hold these claims to be very accurate. How have they done this? What system have they used that they can be confident of the accuracy of the theory? And why isn't this system incorporated into the scientific method if it can produce confidence in the accuracy of claims about nature?

I see you've tried to reword your previous claim :

TheLurker wrote: »

If you hold a belief about reality as being accurate but which fails the scientific test you are being anti-science. More specifically you are saying that the philosophy of science is wrong, that you can hold as accurate a belief about reality without the support that science says is necessary. And if you are saying science is wrong you are by definition being anti-science.

The same answer applies, any word on those failed scientific tests yet for Christianity ?

TheLurker wrote: »

I'm running out of ways of explaining this to you.

And you'll continue to, because the definition NASA and Science holds for alien life is life that has not originated on earth, and to date no evidence of life that has not originated on earth has been found.

TheLurker wrote: »

North Korea people worship the members of the Kim family as God and believe that anyone who doesn't believe in this will be harshly punished for their lack of faith in the family.....

....just saying :pac:

Sound very familiar to Christians burning Heretics at the stake!

Cen taurus wrote: »

I see you've tried to reword your previous claim :

-EDIT-

Nope, you tried to reword it (I just noticed your slight of hand, though I will be charitable and assume you don't know enough about science to know the difference).

I did not say Christians have scientific tests that have failed.

I said Christians beliefs fail the scientific test, ie the test that determines if claims are scientific or not.

To be a scientific claim a claim must make predictions that can be tested. Christians claims do not, and thus fail to pass the scientific test.

The same answer applies, any word on those failed scientific tests yet for Christianity ?

And as I said, there are not any tests to fail. Or pass. Despite having no testable theories Christians hold that their beliefs are highly accurate. This is anti-science Did you not understand that the first time?

Cen taurus wrote: »

And you'll continue to, because the definition NASA and Science holds for alien life is life that has not originated on earth, and to date no evidence of life that has not originated on earth has been found.

Before 1958 when the far side was photographed there was no evidence for the existence of mountains, craters or any other surface features on the far side of the moon.

Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?

Cen taurus wrote: »

I did, but according to this post, you didn't

See edit above

-EDIT-

Nope, you tried to reword it (I just noticed your slight of hand, though I will be charitable and assume you don't know enough about science to know the difference).

I did not say Christians have scientific tests that have failed.

I said Christians beliefs fail the scientific test, ie the test that determines if claims are scientific or not.

To be a scientific claim a claim must make predictions that can be tested. Christians claims do not, and thus fail to pass the scientific test.

Cen taurus wrote: »

but thanks for clarifying Christianity has not failed any scientific test.

Christianity has never produced a failing scientific test. Which is easy when you do not produce any scientific test in the first place

Which is needless to say, very anti-science.

Cen taurus wrote: »

And, before there was evidence, some people believed they existed, and some people believed they didn't.

It is a pretty simple question. Before 1958 was there any evidence that the far side of the moon contained mountains or craters similar to the near side of the moon?

Yes or no?

TheLurker wrote: »

To be a scientific claim a claim must make predictions that can be tested. Christians claims do not, and thus fail to pass the scientific test.

And as I said, there are not any tests to fail. Or pass. Despite having no testable theories Christians hold that their beliefs are highly accurate. This is anti-science Did you not understand that the first time?

This is interesting, so some atheists demand scientific evidence for Christianity, while other atheist claim nothing can be tested.

So what scientific evidence and tests would you like for Christianity, give us an example.

TheLurker wrote: »

Before 1958 when the far side was photographed there was no evidence for the existence of mountains, craters or any other surface features on the far side of the moon.

Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no?

No, there was no evidence either way, and therefore some people believed the craters existed, and some people didn't.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Timmy never failed any tests! He therefore must have passed them! (just ignore that he failed to turn up to take the tests)

So what scientific test would prove Christianity and why ? Give an example . .