Answers in Genesis and fractals

[Jarhyn]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

I mean in an even worse way - amongst many fellow Christians.

I mean... I can't help but think this is still already the case.

I think both are against a young earth and Lennox at least is well respected - I mean Christians have given me books of his. I get the impression that mainly the only Christians against them are young earthers and flat earthers.

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

 

[excreationist]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

It is difficult to make a proof for God water-tight when God doesn't exist (or my belief - that it exists but intentionally is impossible to prove to skeptics)

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Though I'm not sure how he argues that God is "personal" (which I also believe in)

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

It is difficult to make a proof for God water-tight when God doesn't exist

Which is why they are, in many ways, laughing stocks.

 

[lostone]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist; it is all a best guess, based on how we interpret the evidence, and even what we consider to be evidence. Much of the logic that makes people adopt theism seems to me to be based on a desire to make it personal. IMHO, the description of the properties of the being most people give of what God is sounds like a description of a being who likely does not exist, by people who very much want such a being to exist.

 

[bilby]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

If those guys don't want to be a laughingstock, I have some very bad news for them.

 

[bilby]

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox ... they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

I mean, they already are laughing stocks.

GMTA

 

[bilby]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist

Yeah, we can.

I mean, as much as we can say anything exists or doesn't exist. Amateur and novice philosophers might find solipsism appealing, but ultimately reality is real, and Gods aren't.

 

[excreationist]

We cannot say God exists or does not exist....

So then watertight arguments that "prove" that God exists can't be made.... ? (or that "prove" that no gods exist)

 

[lostone]

Watertight arguments of any sort are hard to come by - I have none of them, have heard none of them, and have my doubts about the claims of those who claim to have such. Every argument I have ever heard can be challenged sufficiently to throw some doubt on it.

 

[bilby]

Watertight arguments of any sort are hard to come by - I have none of them, have heard none of them, and have my doubts about the claims of those who claim to have such. Every argument I have ever heard can be challenged sufficiently to throw some doubt on it.

But why is 'some doubt' the standard?

'Reasonable doubt' is a better alternative. Maybe even 'a preponderance of evidence'.

We don't acquit someone of murder because their lawyers argue that the twenty eye-witness accounts of them doing it, and the dozens of pieces of forensic evidence, could have been convincingly faked by a sufficiently powerful, but currently unknown, party or parties.

It's impossible to prove that the whole thing isn't a set up to frame the defendant; Yet despite this, murderers are routinely convicted by juries.

God claims are typically far less convincing than that pathetic travesty of a legal defence.

If something could be true, but only if we discard General Relativity or Quantum Field Theory, then in sane layman's terms, it's false.

No reasonable person accepts that Russell's Teapot exists. There's no evidence to support its existence, and for it to exist would require a lot of things that are very well established as almost certainly true, to in fact turn out to be false. Gods, as described by current Abrahamic sects, are less plausible than Russell's Teapot. They require contraventions of scientific law that the teapot does not.

You would be considered a nutter, if you appealed for others to at least respect the beliefs of those who think there really is a teapot orbiting somewhere in the asteroid belt. And yet appeals to respect the beliefs of those who think gods are real are somehow immune from ridicule.

But such appeals are ridiculous.

When the absolute BEST evidence for the existence of a hypothesised entity is "We cannot prove with complete certainty that it doesn't exist", the only sane provisional stance to take is "it doesn't exist". That's just as true of gods as it is of cosmic teapots.

Watertight arguments are an absurd and unreasonable standard. That gods do not exist is WAAAAAY beyond a reasonable doubt. That ought to be good enough for anyone with the slightest respect for reality.

 

[excreationist]

I mean Craig's butchery of logic in his Kalam Cosmological argument presents such that a half-braindead high schooler could recognize the circularity of it.

Though you can't have a watertight argument for the existence of God maybe you could at least have an argument that is less circular than Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument... or are all arguments for the existence of God circular?

 

[Learner]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

 

[excreationist]

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

They tend to prioritize mainstream science over always taking the Bible literally - so they would reject the possibility of a flat earth. On the other hand there are people like Young Earth Creationists, etc (who take the global Flood, etc, literally). Then there is the late Bishop John Shelby Spong who disbelieves in the virgin birth due to science, etc. Same with Martin Luther King Jr.

John Shelby Spong - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[steve_bank]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

No rational person can believe interpretations of cosmology and physical realities from the bible are truths. The literalist who believes the bible is all literal truth have to find ways to interpret scripture to match realty, or claim reality matches the bible.

 

[Learner]

Well there are many who don't believe in the flat earth. Quite a few well known preachers are publicly rubbishing it.

But are there any Bible verses that are against a flat earth? I think Christians that are against a flat earth are basing it only on science

Verses against flat earth? Well that depends, how one sees it, for example the Christians against the flat earth, like W.C.Lane or John Lennox, also base their views of the bible on 'allegory, figure of speech, a manner of speaking'. Do you remember those debates on some of the earier threads or rather the previous forums where there were atheists who would argue that the bible was far more Allegoric than literal? The bible has it ALL, on many levels.

I'd say William Lane Craig and John Lennox would say it isn't literal because their belief in a round earth is from science so they have to say that. Otherwise if it is literal and the Bible is true then they'd have to conclude that the earth is flat - which would make them a laughing stock.

Possibly yeah, if that were the case.

And on that....

... Do you think, they believe in the flat earth and they're are pretending they don't ?

"No case 'me lud'... wasting court's time".

No rational person can believe interpretations of cosmology and physical realities from the bible are truths. The literalist who believes the bible is all literal truth have to find ways to interpret scripture to match realty, or claim reality matches the bible.

Even if the bible is true... you'd be exactly in the same position. Cosmology and the current understanding of the cosmic universe just isn't enough, either way!

Theists don't usually claim, if at all, that the reason they believe in the bible is "because of physics". Trying to argue through physics (theoretical), for or against the bible is a dead-end debate. Now with the tangible things in our hands i.e., history, pyschology, archeology, geology,, biology and chemical processes, That's where the argument will be etc..

 

[bilby]

Cosmology and the current understanding of the cosmic universe just isn't enough

Well it's all we have, and pretending otherwise is infantile and pointless.

 

[steve_bank]

Just isn't enough in what way?

No one says we can uncover and know everything. Those of us on the science side are content with saying I do not know.

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultutal civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

 

[excreationist]

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultural civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

According to creationists what happened after the Tower of Babel is the explanation for the different races.

How Many Races Did God Create?

Some people think the Bible justifies their racist attitudes. Yet when we examine what the Bible says about the origin of different people groups, we find a different story.

answersingenesis.org

And they talk about genetics:

 

[bilby]

If all humans necked down to those on the Ark as the bible flood story says, how did all the racial and cultural civilizations arise in so short of a time post flood? Not just that, a global flood would have destroyed the entire ecosystem.

According to creationists what happened after the Tower of Babel is the explanation for the different races.

How Many Races Did God Create?

Some people think the Bible justifies their racist attitudes. Yet when we examine what the Bible says about the origin of different people groups, we find a different story.

answersingenesis.org

And they talk about genetics:

That's not talk, it's a cartoon that portrays something that is absolutely contradicted by even a cursory glance at reality.

It's got less relationship with actual genetics than a South Pacific Cargo Cult mockup has with a modern international airport.

This is like what a five year old would come up with if he was trying to copy his thirteen year old cousin's genetics homework. It says nothing whatsoever about genetics, except "The originator of the graphic doesn't know shit about genetics".

It's a massive insult to everyone since Mendel who has ever given a moment of thought to how inheritance of traits might work.

 

[excreationist]

And they talk about genetics:

That's not talk, it's a cartoon that portrays something that is absolutely contradicted by even a cursory glance at reality.

It's got less relationship with actual genetics than a South Pacific Cargo Cult mockup has with a modern international airport.

This is like what a five year old would come up with if he was trying to copy his thirteen year old cousin's genetics homework. It says nothing whatsoever about genetics, except "The originator of the graphic doesn't know shit about genetics".

It's a massive insult to everyone since Mendel who has ever given a moment of thought to how inheritance of traits might work.

What about this:

Are different human skin colours explained by Adam and Eve having a mix of dominant and recessive genes?

The original question was: How can you explain all the different skin colours if the whole human race is descended from one couple? I heard a creation speaker claim it is because Adam and Eve…

askjohnmackay.com

Parents Genes: AaBb and AaBb
Possible Re-combinations in next Generation:

I think that's how alleles or whatever can work. It also distinguishes between dominant and recessive genes or something like that.

Can a couple have a baby that is significantly darker or lighter than either individual? - The Tech Interactive

www.thetech.org

“Can a couple have a baby that is significantly darker or lighter than either individual?”
The short answer is, yes!

Similar to the creationist chart - though it is saying that they wouldn't have the full range from very light to very dark - just significantly lighter and darker.

Also:
"Here, even though the child has the same number of black and red cards as either parent, the child is much, much lighter than either parent because of those two queens of hearts."

Though according to creationists this double queen of hearts wouldn't be in the first generation and the point is that all of the skin colours could have descended from Adam and Eve - though creationists were saying that you could have very light and very dark in a single generation.