"God cannot create a square circle"

[atrib]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

Wrong again! We don't have faith that natural processes caused the diversity of life we observe on this planet. We KNOW what these natural processes and mechanisms are and can describe them in great detail. This is called science. The science that specifically deals with the mechanisms that caused the diversity of life on this planet is called evolutionary biology. We know a lot of stuff that the authors of the Bible did not know. You should try to keep up, especially if you are going to be debating on an online forum.

Evolutionary biology has put forth speculations about how biological processes could take some imaginary first life form and create the diversity of life we observe today. Lacking are the empirical experiments to back up those speculations and actually demonstrate that those speculations are valid.

Our understanding of how biological evolution works is based on an enormous body of empirical evidence that has been gathered over the past century by researchers. There are many, many textbooks and scientific papers that discuss the evidence. Apparently you haven't read any of them. Or perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the evidence because such an acknowledgement would contradict your faith.

 

[atrib]

Now if you believe that life somehow appeared through natural means apart from God, that would be very great faith.

Or it's just considering other possibilities, which you don't do.

I don't mind other possibilities. I guess we have to wait until science can say something definitive about them. Until that time, current proposals remain valid.

In order to claim that life was created by a supernatural entity you would first need to demonstrate that said entity exists and has the ability to create life. Or at the very minimum, you would have to demonstrate that it would be impossible for life to come about through natural processes. You have done neither.

God is a placeholder invented by our ancestors who did not know any better. With every passing day we learn a little bit more about the universe we live in, and the holes in which you can hide your god get a little bit smaller.

God's existence is demonstrated in the Bible through the accounts of His interaction with people. That the universe exists is also testimony to His existence.

"The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe watever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument. I'm sure you understand why. Or do you need us to explain?

 

[atrib]

God is a placeholder invented by our ancestors who did not know any better. With every passing day we learn a little bit more about the universe we live in, and the holes in which you can hide your god get a little bit smaller.

God's existence is demonstrated in the Bible through the accounts of His interaction with people. That the universe exists is also testimony to His existence.

More and more, like attrib said, the gaps in which one can hide from true knowledge are growing smaller. God's existence will be revealed, and it will be revealed that it is only bad attitude that causes one to deny the existence of God- there is work to be done, but this is no reason to disbelieve.

The reason to not believe that your preferred god exists is the same reason you do not believe that Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad and the creator of the universe exists. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for Bantu, which is to say, none.

 

[atrib]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

Your faith in your preferred god carries just as much weight as does Jamal's faith in Allah, Anil's faith in Vishnu, or BaoTung's faith in the kami.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your faith in your preferred god carries just as much weight as does Jamal's faith in Allah, Anil's faith in Vishnu, or BaoTung's faith in the kami.

My cousins were raised rather more fundamentally than i was.
I took them to see a movie that included some vikings who made the standard viking movie big deal about dying with a sword in their hand so they'd go to Valhalla.
They didn't quite get that, so we discussed it on the way home.
That led naturally enough to other culture's versions of the afterlife. They nodded, they discussed it intelligently (for their ages), and asked good questions. And when we were all done, they nodded once more and said, "But they're all wrong and going to Hell for not being Christains, right?"

Do not underestimate the Theist's ability to special case his religion before all others of the same or similar foundations.

 

[rhutchin]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

Your faith in your preferred god carries just as much weight as does Jamal's faith in Allah, Anil's faith in Vishnu, or BaoTung's faith in the kami.

...and your faith that there is no God.

 

[rhutchin]

The reason to not believe that your preferred god exists is the same reason you do not believe that Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad and the creator of the universe exists. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for Bantu, which is to say, none.

The reason to believe is based on the claims of those who say such gods exist. There is much to support the claim that God exists - this is found in the Bible: multiple consistent accounts over thousands of years. No other position has such support, including the no God position.

 

[rhutchin]

"The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe whatever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument. I'm sure you understand why. Or do you need us to explain?

The Bible presents multiple consistent accounts which speak to the involvement of God in human history. Whether one believes it to be "true" is a matter of faith.

What is there to explain?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The reason to believe is based on the claims of those who say such gods exist. There is much to support the claim that God exists - this is found in the Bible: multiple consistent accounts over thousands of years. No other position has such support, including the no God position.

Except that the 'no gods' position works.
We don't need a god to explain computers.
We don't need a god to explain life (save only that your IOU for evidence is ever presented).
We don't need a god to explain thunder, lightning, four color map theory, war, belief, faith, con men, religious strife, conflicting revelations claimed by men of faith, world history, locusts, and the failure of prayer to reverse amputations.

The Faithful, of any faith, have to work very hard to justify their gods' continued existence in the face of plague, war, drought, starvation, Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Dan Quayle and Honey Boo Boo. Mostly, they either find a way to hide their gods' influence where it can't be disproven, or justify gods not lifting a fucking finger to stop gross injustice, unnecessary suffering, and pointless stupidity.

It's far less complicated to just stop pretending that the universe notices us, much less cares enough to not do dick...

 

[atrib]

Believers confusing their faith with evidence. What else is new?

If you have evidence, you do not have faith - faith becomes active when evidence is lacking.

Your faith in your preferred god carries just as much weight as does Jamal's faith in Allah, Anil's faith in Vishnu, or BaoTung's faith in the kami.

...and your faith that there is no God.

I don't believe in your preferred god because I see no evidence that would make me conclude that he/she/it exists. This is also why you, rhutchin, do not (likely) believe in Allah, Vishnu, the kami or Bantu (The Supreme Cosmic Toad from whose flatulence this universe was created, as some believe). The question of your god's existence is interesting to me only from an anthropological viewpoint, because a large segment of the world's population believes in some kind of supernatural entity/s, just as you do, with absolutely no evidence to support their belief.

Do you have faith that there is no Bantu?

 

[Elixir]

What is there to explain?

Why "The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe whatever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument.
I'd say it's not even wrong - doesn't rise to the level of an argument. Yet it is routinely used...

Just for fun, is what the bible says about god any better evidence for god than the Qu'uran is for allah?

 

[rhutchin]

Our understanding of how biological evolution works is based on an enormous body of empirical evidence that has been gathered over the past century by researchers. There are many, many textbooks and scientific papers that discuss the evidence. Apparently you haven't read any of them. Or perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the evidence because such an acknowledgement would contradict your faith.

Take your ordinary Biology textbook. It deals almost exclusively with speciation. The enormous body of research to which you refer supports this. Studying this allows a biology student to understand how the limited number of animals on Noah's ark could generate the great number observable today.

That Biology textbook might have a couple chapters explaining how some people think some miraculous first life form followed an equally miraculous process to get what we observe today. There is zero body of research to support the claims that are made. The usual explanation is that time frames are too long to allow for empirical validation - so accept it on faith. You have nothing in terms of empirical work to support your faith

 

[atrib]

The reason to not believe that your preferred god exists is the same reason you do not believe that Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad and the creator of the universe exists. There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of your god as there is for Bantu, which is to say, none.

The reason to believe is based on the claims of those who say such gods exist. There is much to support the claim that God exists - this is found in the Bible: multiple consistent accounts over thousands of years. No other position has such support, including the no God position.

Fraid not. Somebody has been lying to you. Or you may be lying to yourself. There are are no "multiple consisitent accounts" to support the supernatural stories of the Bible. There is only the Bible, a collection of mythological stories invented by our ancestors who were curious but knew very little of the universe they lived in. Your Bible has just as much evidence to support it as does the Koran or the Gita or any number of hold books that were penned by our ancient ancestors.

 

[rhutchin]

What is there to explain?

Why "The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe whatever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument.
I'd say it's not even wrong - doesn't rise to the level of an argument. Yet it is routinely used...

Routinely used by whom? By atheists posing strawmen arguments?

Just for fun, is what the bible says about god any better evidence for god than the Qu'uran is for allah?

The Qu'uran was written by one man without validation by others. The Bible was written by many people over thousands of years. We have four accounts of the life of Jesus, two by people who claimed to have been with Jesus during his three year ministry and one written by Luke who says he researched the issue by talking to people who had witnessed Jesus in action.

The Bible is the superior evidence by far.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Take your ordinary Biology textbook. It deals almost exclusively with speciation.

Do you have an example?
A particular textbook, a particular version?
A count of the number of pages dedicated to speciation, as opposed to the rest of (i assume you mean) evolutionary theory?
Are your claims supportable or are you just preaching shit you made up?

Second, is a biology textbook exactly the cutting edge of state of teh art in biological research? is that truly a snapshot of what we do and do not know?

 

[rhutchin]

Fraid not. Somebody has been lying to you. Or you may be lying to yourself. There are are no "multiple consisitent accounts" to support the supernatural stories of the Bible. There is only the Bible, a collection of mythological stories invented by our ancestors who were curious but knew very little of the universe they lived in. Your Bible has just as much evidence to support it as does the Koran or the Gita or any number of hold books that were penned by our ancient ancestors.

Claims that neither you nor anyone else has, or could, substantiate.

 

[Elixir]

Studying this allows a biology student to understand how the limited number of animals on Noah's ark could generate the great number observable today.

Doesn't explain how a few thousand (at most) pairs (or sevens) of animals SuperHyperCrevoluted into over 100 million extant species right after disembArking - without anyone even noticing! It does however give lie to the notion of any global genetic bottleneck having occured a few thousand years ago...
Sorry - Evolution as understood via ToE requires far more time to effect what is observed than any creationist meme allows, and totally trashes any literalo biblical account.

There is zero body of research to support the claims that are made.

False. 29+ evidences for macro-evolution

Pick any one of them if you like, and I can SHOW you some of the body of research that supports it.

 

[rhutchin]

Second, is a biology textbook exactly the cutting edge of state of the art in biological research? is that truly a snapshot of what we do and do not know?

Slow as they are to catch up, there is nothing to catch up to. What research has really rocked the world in terms of supporting universal common descent? The latest hope seems to be Lenski's e-coli research, but that is not panning out.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Second, is a biology textbook exactly the cutting edge of state of the art in biological research? is that truly a snapshot of what we do and do not know?

Slow as they are to catch up, there is nothing to catch up to. What research has really rocked the world in terms of supporting universal common descent? The latest hope seems to be Lenski's e-coli research, but that is not panning out.

So...no example to back up your claim, then?

 

[Elixir]

What is there to explain?

Why "The Bible is true because the Bible says so and I believe whatever the Bible says" is not a convincing argument.
I'd say it's not even wrong - doesn't rise to the level of an argument. Yet it is routinely used...

Routinely used by whom? By atheists posing strawmen arguments?

Pay attention: atheists do not tend to use curcular arguments to "prove" god. Creationists do.

Just for fun, is what the bible says about god any better evidence for god than the Qu'uran is for allah?

The Qu'uran was written by one man without validation by others.

So what? Does god need validation from some group of humans?

The Bible was written by many people over thousands of years.

All the more reason to be suspicious of the motives involved. Are you privy to the political considerations imposed on King James' Commission? Did you know that his personal habits gave him the nickname Queen James in his own time? Yet, moralizing creationists wave his "bible" (more of a political treatise) in the face of people they accuse of depravity...

The Bible is the superior evidence by far.

Because you like it better, that's all. Same reason Muslims think that about the Koran.