They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[Learner]

Of coursem and that shows ow myths evolve. An 1800s story evolves into a host of movies in modern times with diffent stories and takes.

The underlying plot in the supernatural aspects of the gospel story existed well before the time of Jesus. I read the story in general takes the form of an action adventure fiction of the day.

The NT or gospel of Jesus is an additional & extended part of the much earlier apsects of the bible (depending on who's pov your looking from). There's no problem or contradictions to the earlier theology of God , since it doesn't alter an iota of the main theme in the OT. What it does do is, "expand" on the OT, for example: Descendants of the Israelites (divided into various groups) who are not abiding to the covenants which was "made with" God ...and the introduction to "graft in" the Gentiles into the fold centuries later. There's only so many "covenants" God can make, partically for those who keep breaking them, henceforth; Jesus's two commandments ... the final two.

(History is full of dramatic events that gets portrayed and told in action adventures stories.)

A deity has an offspring with a human female. The offspring has some but not all of the deity's power, a demigod. The demigod sacrifices himself in an heroic act saving the clan or group, then goes to stay with the deity/father. In the case of Jesus he sacrificed himself for Jewish salvation. Greek mythology. The term Christ comes from the Greek. It was not used by the first Jewish followers. The term Jesus is also a general term in Jewish history.



Like Santa Claus the gospel tale undoubted grew out a possible historical Jesus growing in each retelling and embellished by the writers who appear to be Greek influenced.

Was there a flesh and blood Hercules who had above average strength and endurance on which the myth was based?

The "sons of God" had chidren with the daughters of men etc. in Genesis and much earlier book of Enoch, which suggests that the concept of demi-god is "nothing new" to the theology.

Oddly enough , there are some interesting comparisons regarding Greek mythology Zeus and titans and the "sons of God" and nephilim giants. Atheists (generally) sometimes make the assumption that the biblical version is plagarised from other beliefs / mythologies like that of the Greek or Norse mythology. Are they sure its not the otherway round, or that they're (beliefs) not related in some way?

Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

I don't think it matters so much whether HE was called Jesus or by another name , as the importance of the individual was pointed-out that HE was identified as the Messiah (Christos /annointed).

 

[remez]

Discussing the evidence and attempting to make sense of it is what science is all about. Cherry picking specific parts of data that can be colored to support ones belief while ignoring the parts of the data that contradict ones belief is blind faith. You cite a couple cosmological models but apparently only accept what you like in them while ignoring anything what you don't like.

False accusation. I have cherry picked nothing. Present your evidence.

There is only one model that is plausible. And when I say plausible in this context I mean scientifically plausible. The other models mentioned were offered up by others to counter p2. I simply pointed out their SCIENETIFIC shortcomings. No cherry picking. No theology required.

Now if my factual criticisms of those models in defense of why I believe that the SBBM is best model is what you are referring to as cherry picking…..you need to go back and learn what cherry picking means.

At this point I can only guess what you meant because you didn’t have the decency to present any evidence along with your false charge.

You offer a good example. You claim to rely on the Big Bang Theory as support and yet the theory says absolutely nothing about the universe beginning. It describes the current expansion of the universe. You accept the expansion and ignore that it does not describe a beginning. Extrapolation can only evidence a denser universe in the past. Your belief that it describes a beginning is nothing but unfounded insertion of your faith. Or is it that you don't really know what the theory is and are relying on Pop. Sci. articles designed so elementary schoolers can form some sort of mental image?

That is not cherry picking. I’m not ignoring anything. That is ALL YOU not understanding/ignoring what I told you earlier…..post 177 I made that clear………..AGAIN………

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again

How could that be any clearer? You are the one ignoring the facts of my stated reasoning. If you have concerns about that reasoning then by all means express them. But you can’t honestly charge me with cherry picking because you cherry picked my reasoning? Note the evidence is right there.
Further……
My new contention is that you arbitrarily deny me the right to reasonably INFER FROM the evidence. (caution: before you object read on) For if there is any inference in my reasoning you label it wishful thinking. Yet you maintain the right to infer like crazy. Arbitrary skepticism. You are blind to it.

No matter what I offer you will call it wishful thing. Therefore you have already emotionally determined that there can be no evidence for God. Because theists are denied the right to reasonably infer from the evidence. I have no problems with you believing that you are right. However, if you are going to challenge me with that reasoning, I will expose its flaws and leave you to your illusions. For at that point. I’m comfortable leaving that to the jury.

The Big Bang Theory is fairly basic. The other theories offered essentially are only expansions on that model trying to model further than the 'STANDARD model'. You are likely thinking of the 'Big Band Plus Inflation model' which adds a description of a possible inflationary period intended to offer a solution to one of the BBTs serious problems but, even though it offers a solution to one of the problems, it creates quite a few other problems.

Snore……………….

The Cyclic models are attempts to expand the BBT model much, much more.

I gave you the reasons earlier why those are scientifically untenable. Get beneath the pop science and learn why already.

Absolutely, inferences can be made and they are but different professionals make different inferences. Inferences are not knowledge but derived from application of biases. Your bias clearly shows. The bias of others that disagree with your bias also show. Essentially it is opinion (ignorance of truth), not known truth.

I appreciate your attempt to fix your arbitrary skepticism there. But it doesn’t work.

This all boils down to our degree of knowledge. Your skepticism holds to an absolute certainly for there to be knowledge. I and most reasonable people logically find that standard to high. If absolute certainty is the standard for knowledge then basically you can only call math knowledge (which is my area). The rest you cannot reason on because nothing is absolutely certain. See your problem?

We are not absolutely certain about gravity but we certainly can INFER much knowledge from it. Our space program by your standard has no knowledge of what it is doing. Normal people live their lives and form their beliefs on inferential knowledge every day. Including scientists, atheists, theists, doctors, bankers, investors and math geeks. Your standard is highly implausible. Not even you could live up to it…..hence the arbitrary.

So my bias….on your bias….. is that your bias….. is biased. You use bias as a tool to fit your emotions rather than judging the reasonableness of the issue. Thus all theistic reasoning is biased and can have nothing reasonable to infer. So logically we all need to take bias into consideration when we make the choices we have to make. But to reject valid reasoning because you oppose their worldview is itself an act of unreasonable emotional bias.

Nothing you said there can bring your arbitrary skepticism into the realm of the reasonable. Let the jury decide.

I bring up that there are many models to illustrate that the universe is not understood (even though you keep claiming certain knowledge for yourself). The reason that the standard big bang model is called STANDARD is that it is currently the most popular not because anyone thinks it is necessarily fully correct. In fact it is known to have several serious flaws.

I do not claim certain knowledge. So show me where I claim certain knowledge. Before you do remember that standard would also apply to you.

Your down play of “most popular” is amusing. It is reasonably INFERRED as the best model. I do not deny the flaws. KEEP SEARCHING. Should the universe be eternal I would need to modify my beliefs. There is room in my reasoning for modification. I’m not as rigid as your emotions would have me.

Syllogisms that rely on statements of belief as premises rather than known truths are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Is that a known truth?

Absolutely. In fact arguments based on belief rather than knowledge is the definition of 'argument from ignorance'.

Not what I was looking for, but that’s all my fault. First I agree with your presented reply because you interpreted my query as referring to the statement. Which is reasonable.
But
The context was the Kalam
My question was directed at your inference “that it is a known truth” that the Kalam is guilty of that.

Yes, I understand that you really, really believe that the universe had a beginning but then there are a hell of a lot of people who's lifelong career as cosmologists has been an attempt to understand such things that either admit to not knowing or disagree with you.

So what does that really mean?
I can quote you leading atheistic cosmologists that claim time began and that the universe had a beginning.
What would that mean to you?
Aren’t they inferring from ignorance?

Is that supposed to be some sort of claim that atheists believe that anything any other atheist says is deeply thought out and correct? You can't really be that ignorant.

Nice job. You caught my futility
But…
Missed that fact that it was a futility designed to reflect yours.

 

[remez]

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

I do.

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

My view is that human morality is based on a consensus. Gays were once the lowest creature on the planer in the USA, Slowly over time the view shifted to a majority supporting gays. Over the last 30 years or so Strong Christian Evangelical anti Semitism has shofted to being brothers with Jews.

The problem with most Christians is they practice slectve scriptural morality. The only item from Leviticus taken is anti gat.

Clealry Christ in the gospels reinforced the progibition against divorce, yet many Christians divorce. Clearly sex outside of moralmarriage is banned.

The Christian view is that the lack of religious bible based absolute morality leads to chaos. Clearly not the case.
Our vocal Christian bible thumping politicians are about as duplicitous, dishonest, and corrupt as can be. Their so called morality is leading us into serious trouble.

Follow the conversation…….. You lied……. and I called you on it.

And you then took my...... “lighten-the-moment” .......comment about atheistic morally….. to run off on yet another emotional tirade about your emotions on morality.

Seriously get with it. Whenever I have asked you to defend/address anything you have messed up, you to change the topic.

You are really acting like one of those dumb Christians you are always complaining about. Thereby proving my point about Yahzi’s arbitrary outrage against dumb Christians.

Keep going it’s been entertaining and your efforts are modeling my point to farmer Rhea.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is not cherry picking. I’m not ignoring anything. That is ALL YOU not understanding/ignoring what I told you earlier…..post 177 I made that clear………..AGAIN………

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again

How could that be any clearer? You are the one ignoring the facts of my stated reasoning. If you have concerns about that reasoning then by all means express them. But you can’t honestly charge me with cherry picking because you cherry picked my reasoning? Note the evidence is right there.
Further……
My new contention is that you arbitrarily deny me the right to reasonably INFER FROM the evidence. (caution: before you object read on) For if there is any inference in my reasoning you label it wishful thinking. Yet you maintain the right to infer like crazy. Arbitrary skepticism. You are blind to it.

No matter what I offer you will call it wishful thing. Therefore you have already emotionally determined that there can be no evidence for God. Because theists are denied the right to reasonably infer from the evidence. I have no problems with you believing that you are right. However, if you are going to challenge me with that reasoning, I will expose its flaws and leave you to your illusions. For at that point. I’m comfortable leaving that to the jury.

The Big Bang Theory is fairly basic. The other theories offered essentially are only expansions on that model trying to model further than the 'STANDARD model'. You are likely thinking of the 'Big Band Plus Inflation model' which adds a description of a possible inflationary period intended to offer a solution to one of the BBTs serious problems but, even though it offers a solution to one of the problems, it creates quite a few other problems.

Snore……………….

The Cyclic models are attempts to expand the BBT model much, much more.

I gave you the reasons earlier why those are scientifically untenable. Get beneath the pop science and learn why already.

Absolutely, inferences can be made and they are but different professionals make different inferences. Inferences are not knowledge but derived from application of biases. Your bias clearly shows. The bias of others that disagree with your bias also show. Essentially it is opinion (ignorance of truth), not known truth.

I appreciate your attempt to fix your arbitrary skepticism there. But it doesn’t work.

This all boils down to our degree of knowledge. Your skepticism holds to an absolute certainly for there to be knowledge. I and most reasonable people logically find that standard to high. If absolute certainty is the standard for knowledge then basically you can only call math knowledge (which is my area). The rest you cannot reason on because nothing is absolutely certain. See your problem?

We are not absolutely certain about gravity but we certainly can INFER much knowledge from it. Our space program by your standard has no knowledge of what it is doing. Normal people live their lives and form their beliefs on inferential knowledge every day. Including scientists, atheists, theists, doctors, bankers, investors and math geeks. Your standard is highly implausible. Not even you could live up to it…..hence the arbitrary.

So my bias….on your bias….. is that your bias….. is biased. You use bias as a tool to fit your emotions rather than judging the reasonableness of the issue. Thus all theistic reasoning is biased and can have nothing reasonable to infer. So logically we all need to take bias into consideration when we make the choices we have to make. But to reject valid reasoning because you oppose their worldview is itself an act of unreasonable emotional bias.

Nothing you said there can bring your arbitrary skepticism into the realm of the reasonable. Let the jury decide.

I bring up that there are many models to illustrate that the universe is not understood (even though you keep claiming certain knowledge for yourself). The reason that the standard big bang model is called STANDARD is that it is currently the most popular not because anyone thinks it is necessarily fully correct. In fact it is known to have several serious flaws.

I do not claim certain knowledge. So show me where I claim certain knowledge. Before you do remember that standard would also apply to you.

Your down play of “most popular” is amusing. It is reasonably INFERRED as the best model. I do not deny the flaws. KEEP SEARCHING. Should the universe be eternal I would need to modify my beliefs. There is room in my reasoning for modification. I’m not as rigid as your emotions would have me.

Syllogisms that rely on statements of belief as premises rather than known truths are nothing but arguments from ignorance.

Is that a known truth?

Absolutely. In fact arguments based on belief rather than knowledge is the definition of 'argument from ignorance'.

Not what I was looking for, but that’s all my fault. First I agree with your presented reply because you interpreted my query as referring to the statement. Which is reasonable.
But
The context was the Kalam
My question was directed at your inference “that it is a known truth” that the Kalam is guilty of that.

Yes, I understand that you really, really believe that the universe had a beginning but then there are a hell of a lot of people who's lifelong career as cosmologists has been an attempt to understand such things that either admit to not knowing or disagree with you.

So what does that really mean?
I can quote you leading atheistic cosmologists that claim time began and that the universe had a beginning.
What would that mean to you?
Aren’t they inferring from ignorance?

Is that supposed to be some sort of claim that atheists believe that anything any other atheist says is deeply thought out and correct? You can't really be that ignorant.

Nice job. You caught my futility
But…
Missed that fact that it was a futility designed to reflect yours.

All the shit you are throwing at the wall in hope that something sticks avoids the central question. Is the assertion that the universe had a beginning a known truth or a belief? Considering that the people (experts) that have spent their lifelong career trying to find an answer to such questions as if the universe began or is eternal and still have no answer would indicate that anyone who claims either that the universe began or is eternal is making a declaration of faith, not a statement of known fact. Although inconceivable for theists, the answer to the central question is 'we don't know'. Any other assertion about the far earlier universe is nothing but a statement of faith.

 

[steve_bank]

The NT or gospel of Jesus is an additional & extended part of the much earlier apsects of the bible (depending on who's pov your looking from). There's no problem or contradictions to the earlier theology of God , since it doesn't alter an iota of the main theme in the OT. What it does do is, "expand" on the OT, for example: Descendants of the Israelites (divided into various groups) who are not abiding to the covenants which was "made with" God ...and the introduction to "graft in" the Gentiles into the fold centuries later. There's only so many "covenants" God can make, partically for those who keep breaking them, henceforth; Jesus's two commandments ... the final two.

(History is full of dramatic events that gets portrayed and told in action adventures stories.)



The "sons of God" had chidren with the daughters of men etc. in Genesis and much earlier book of Enoch, which suggests that the concept of demi-god is "nothing new" to the theology.

Oddly enough , there are some interesting comparisons regarding Greek mythology Zeus and titans and the "sons of God" and nephilim giants. Atheists (generally) sometimes make the assumption that the biblical version is plagarised from other beliefs / mythologies like that of the Greek or Norse mythology. Are they sure its not the otherway round, or that they're (beliefs) not related in some way?

Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

I don't think it matters so much whether HE was called Jesus or by another name , as the importance of the individual was pointed-out that HE was identified as the Messiah (Christos /annointed).

Your honor...the witness is clearly citing fasts not in evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

I do.

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

My view is that human morality is based on a consensus. Gays were once the lowest creature on the planer in the USA, Slowly over time the view shifted to a majority supporting gays. Over the last 30 years or so Strong Christian Evangelical anti Semitism has shofted to being brothers with Jews.

The problem with most Christians is they practice slectve scriptural morality. The only item from Leviticus taken is anti gat.

Clealry Christ in the gospels reinforced the progibition against divorce, yet many Christians divorce. Clearly sex outside of moralmarriage is banned.

The Christian view is that the lack of religious bible based absolute morality leads to chaos. Clearly not the case.
Our vocal Christian bible thumping politicians are about as duplicitous, dishonest, and corrupt as can be. Their so called morality is leading us into serious trouble.

Follow the conversation…….. You lied……. and I called you on it.

And you then took my...... “lighten-the-moment” .......comment about atheistic morally….. to run off on yet another emotional tirade about your emotions on morality.

Seriously get with it. Whenever I have asked you to defend/address anything you have messed up, you to change the topic.

You are really acting like one of those dumb Christians you are always complaining about. Thereby proving my point about Yahzi’s arbitrary outrage against dumb Christians.

Keep going it’s been entertaining and your efforts are modeling my point to farmer Rhea.

Lied about Christian anti Semitism? Lied about harsh treatment of gays based on Leviticus while ignoring all other rules? And then there is slavery and blacks reduced to syb human based on a passage about Ham?

 

[Lion IRC]

Is the assertion that the universe had a beginning a known truth or a belief?

That the universe began to exist is a fact.
It's science text books, not scripture which declare how old the universe is.

What's also a fact is that ever since we learned that the universe (space/time) began to exist, atheists have been squirming and backpedaling to change the definition of the word 'universe' and the word 'began' and the definition of words like "something" and "nothing".

They have also been jettisoning the scientific method (empiricism) and starting to delve into blatant WOO by making supernatural claims about speculative metaphysic events they believe may have happened outside of and/or prior to space/time.
So much for verificationism and falsifiability.

But this is necessary dogma for atheists because they have an anything-except-God bias.
Atheism of the gaps.

 

[skepticalbip]

Is the assertion that the universe had a beginning a known truth or a belief?

That the universe began to exist is a fact.
It's science text books, not scripture which declare how old the universe is.

No. The 'age of the universe' is in pop sci papers and pop TV programming. 'The age' calculated in science literature is stated as assuming that Guth's inflationary model is correct (but it is widely disputed) then the time back until our current physics fails because of the density and temperature approaching infinity. It does not cover a 'beginning'. You could maybe claim that our current physics understanding began to apply (not necessarily the universe) if Guth's disputed model is accurate... But then Guth's model is, as I said, widely disputed because it has some really serious problems.

What's also a fact is that ever since we learned that the universe (space/time) began to exist, atheists have been squirming and backpedaling to change the definition of the word 'universe' and the word 'began' and the definition of words like "something" and "nothing".

They have also been jettisoning the scientific method (empiricism) and starting to delve into blatant WOO by making supernatural claims about speculative metaphysic events they believe may have happened outside of and/or prior to space/time.
So much for verificationism and falsifiability.

But this is necessary dogma for atheists because they have an anything-except-God bias.
Atheism of the gaps.

You need to read the science papers, not newspapers, glossy mags, or rants from those that have no idea of what is actually in the science papers.

ETA:
Just out of curiosity, since "I believe" is a perfectly acceptable declaration, why is it that some theists feel compelled to try to 'prove' through what they mistakenly think are scientific claims support for that "I believe"?

But then I guess that a theist declaring "I believe" and an atheist declaring "I understand otherwise" doesn't really make for much of a debate.

 

[steve_bank]

The of the observable universe we see today is calculated from the BB event. The BB does not define the conditions or history leading up to the BB.

Science does not say there was a prime or first cause. Theory does not infer an originator or creator.

Life on Earth is the result of a long string of causations going back in time before the solar system formed.

 

[steve_bank]

remez

Ask a concise direct question and I will answer. Go ahead.

You have not answered this question. Why believe in a set of disjointed ancient writings of unknown authorship as the inspired word of god? One of the proffered proofs of god in the past is that god exists because god is written in an ancient text.

 

[steve_bank]

The NT or gospel of Jesus is an additional & extended part of the much earlier apsects of the bible (depending on who's pov your looking from). There's no problem or contradictions to the earlier theology of God , since it doesn't alter an iota of the main theme in the OT. What it does do is, "expand" on the OT, for example: Descendants of the Israelites (divided into various groups) who are not abiding to the covenants which was "made with" God ...and the introduction to "graft in" the Gentiles into the fold centuries later. There's only so many "covenants" God can make, partically for those who keep breaking them, henceforth; Jesus's two commandments ... the final two.

(History is full of dramatic events that gets portrayed and told in action adventures stories.)



The "sons of God" had chidren with the daughters of men etc. in Genesis and much earlier book of Enoch, which suggests that the concept of demi-god is "nothing new" to the theology.

Oddly enough , there are some interesting comparisons regarding Greek mythology Zeus and titans and the "sons of God" and nephilim giants. Atheists (generally) sometimes make the assumption that the biblical version is plagarised from other beliefs / mythologies like that of the Greek or Norse mythology. Are they sure its not the otherway round, or that they're (beliefs) not related in some way?

Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_(name)

I don't think it matters so much whether HE was called Jesus or by another name , as the importance of the individual was pointed-out that HE was identified as the Messiah (Christos /annointed).

It does matter, if you consider your theology to be have intellectual integrity. You have no idea how the gospels relate to actual events and how much was added by literary license to embellish. There was no objective reporting. Those who wrote filled in the facts, a common practice.

 

[remez]

All the shit you are throwing at the wall in hope that something sticks avoids the central question. Is the assertion that the universe had a beginning a known truth or a belief?

With confidence I assert the answer is justified belief ….supported by science and logic.
But……….
As I said earlier the only issue I have with your absolute certainty is that you must reason by it as well. You must not infer anything without absolute certainty.
So………..
Let’s see how that works out………..p171..........

So back to my conclusion of what the argument is;
The Kalam argument boils down to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, making assertions based on 'what feels right' rather than based on knowledge.

Are you absolutely certain that the law of causality is not true?
Are you absolutely certain that the universe did not begin?
If not then your conclusion is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
Your making assertions on ‘what feels right’ rather than based on knowledge.

Considering that the people (experts) that have spent their lifelong career trying to find an answer to such questions as if the universe began or is eternal and still have no answer would indicate that anyone who claims either that the universe began or is eternal is making a declaration of faith, not a statement of known fact.

You are inferring that no one knows…are you absolutely certain no one knows? You are inferring the knowledge must meet a consensus standard……are you absolutely certain that all must agree for something to be known. No all you are certain of there is you don’t know the rest is just wishful thinking. Which means all of what you just said is wishful thinking conforming to your bias.

Although inconceivable for theists, the answer to the central question is 'we don't know'.

Obviously more wishful thinking.

Any other assertion about the far earlier universe is nothing but a statement of faith.

Seriously how can you say that? You don’t know that for certain. All you know is that you don’t know. You don’t even know that others don’t know. The rest is blind faith.

 

[remez]

So if you reject the creation story what do you accept and do not and why? Do you have a special insight or god talks to you?

I didn’t say I rejected it. I admitted I questioned it. HUGE difference. That "rejection" was a fabrication of your dishonesty…Note how you left my response of “I do” hanging in response to your unquoted question. A question you dishonesty altered…….see…..

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

Don’t you guys preach you can be moral without God? Well?

My view is that human morality is based on a consensus. Gays were once the lowest creature on the planer in the USA, Slowly over time the view shifted to a majority supporting gays. Over the last 30 years or so Strong Christian Evangelical anti Semitism has shofted to being brothers with Jews.

The problem with most Christians is they practice slectve scriptural morality. The only item from Leviticus taken is anti gat.

Clealry Christ in the gospels reinforced the progibition against divorce, yet many Christians divorce. Clearly sex outside of moralmarriage is banned.

The Christian view is that the lack of religious bible based absolute morality leads to chaos. Clearly not the case.
Our vocal Christian bible thumping politicians are about as duplicitous, dishonest, and corrupt as can be. Their so called morality is leading us into serious trouble.

Follow the conversation…….. You lied……. and I called you on it.

And you then took my...... “lighten-the-moment” .......comment about atheistic morally….. to run off on yet another emotional tirade about your emotions on morality.

Seriously get with it. Whenever I have asked you to defend/address anything you have messed up, you to change the topic.

You are really acting like one of those dumb Christians you are always complaining about. Thereby proving my point about Yahzi’s arbitrary outrage against dumb Christians.

Keep going it’s been entertaining and your efforts are modeling my point to farmer Rhea.

Lied about Christian anti Semitism? Lied about harsh treatment of gays based on Leviticus while ignoring all other rules? And then there is slavery and blacks reduced to syb human based on a passage about Ham?

Seriously. That silly tantrum has nothing to do with what you lied about.

 

[skepticalbip]

With confidence I assert the answer is justified belief ….supported by science and logic.
But……….
As I said earlier the only issue I have with your absolute certainty is that you must reason by it as well. You must not infer anything without absolute certainty.
So………..
Let’s see how that works out………..p171..........

Are you absolutely certain that the law of causality is not true?
Are you absolutely certain that the universe did not begin?
If not then your conclusion is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
Your making assertions on ‘what feels right’ rather than based on knowledge.

Dude, are you intentionally misstating my argument or are you really incapable of understanding that I have been continually and consistently stating that "we do not know... yet"? I understand that theists can not conceive of there being a question that does not have a known answer and that everyone holds some specific, defined understanding for any question.

This goes directly to why I describe that syllogism as an argument from ignorance. No one knows and yet it is asserted as a truth that the universe had a beginning. If I knew (or like theists, really, really believed I knew) then I wouldn't call it an argument from ignorance. I would call it outright false or true.

Considering that the people (experts) that have spent their lifelong career trying to find an answer to such questions as if the universe began or is eternal and still have no answer would indicate that anyone who claims either that the universe began or is eternal is making a declaration of faith, not a statement of known fact.

You are inferring that no one knows…are you absolutely certain no one knows? You are inferring the knowledge must meet a consensus standard……are you absolutely certain that all must agree for something to be known. No all you are certain of there is you don’t know the rest is just wishful thinking. Which means all of what you just said is wishful thinking conforming to your bias.

Although inconceivable for theists, the answer to the central question is 'we don't know'.

Obviously more wishful thinking.

Any other assertion about the far earlier universe is nothing but a statement of faith.

Seriously how can you say that? You don’t know that for certain. All you know is that you don’t know. You don’t even know that others don’t know. The rest is blind faith.

We are obviously talking past each other. Likely because of the vast difference between worldviews of theists and those employing the scientific method.

Theists' worldview is that truth is revealed top down through revelation. They begin with the 'knowledge' from revelation and authority that god created the universe from nothing. Understanding of lesser events is understood either through further authority or revelation or how the events can be justified with respect to that top or other revelations. Of course, the theists would take the statement that the universe had a beginning as a given.

Those with a worldview founded in the scientific method gain 'knowledge' from the bottom up. Starting with well verified understandings such as the law of gravity, laws of motion, conservation laws, etc.. Theories to understand any unknown is 'tested' against the basic, well verified understandings. Those unknowns remain unknowns until they can be understood through well verified principles without violating any of them.

That syllogism makes perfect sense to the religious faithful because it fits their worldview of top down revelation. However, for it to make any sense to someone with a scientific method worldview it would need to be changed to both premises having If conditionals. This would make it similar to one of my uncles favorite expressions when someone states something trivial as if it were a 'deep thought' - "if we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham."

Apparently that syllogism was written to bolster theists. It certainly wasn't written to convince non-believers that have any understanding of the current state of cosmology.

 

[remez]

Dude, are you intentionally misstating my argument or are you really incapable of understanding that I have been continually and consistently stating that "we do not know... yet"?

I completely get that. But you extend that to exclude inference from the evidence. Example: all of the scientific evidence I presented that provides the plausible inference that the universe began to exist. You assert that since I don’t know with absolute certainty that I can’t reasonably infer from the evidence.

I understand that theists can not conceive of there being a question that does not have a known answer and that everyone holds some specific, defined understanding for any question.

WRONG. I have repeatedly stated I don’t know with certainty. I’m inferring from the evidence we have thus far that it is more plausible that the universe began to exist versus it is eternal. It’s not even close. You on the other hand assert I can’t do that because we don’t know for certain. You extend that to conclude I just have wishful thinking.

This goes directly to why I describe that syllogism as an argument from ignorance. No one knows and yet it is asserted as a truth that the universe had a beginning.

Of course in an argument the premises are asserted as true. All you have to do to counter the premise is show that it is false or that it is less plausible the alternative. That is how arguments are constructed.

The burden is on me to defend.

It’s your job to counter the premise. If you can show that the premise is false or less plausible than it alternative then you have countered the premise and defeated the argument.

We are obviously talking past each other. Likely because of the vast difference between worldviews of theists and those employing the scientific method.

I completely embrace and endorse the scientific method. It is your arrogance that assumes that theists oppose it. Seriously your bias is so misguided here. We are not talking past each other here. We have opposing epistemologies. And you don’t understand how arguments work.

Theists' worldview is that truth is revealed top down through revelation. They begin with the 'knowledge' from revelation and authority that god created the universe from nothing. Understanding of lesser events is understood either through further authority or revelation or how the events can be justified with respect to that top or other revelations. Of course, the theists would take the statement that the universe had a beginning as a given.

WRONG. The Kalam is an argument up to God. Theists are oft asked to provide evidence for what they believe. Logically you can’t presuppose his existence to prove his existence. Thus we must argue from nature to God. Thus we construct p2 with confidence that we can defend it. Thus it is not assumed, we have the burden to defend it. That is what I have been doing for over a decade here. Thus your statement there is complete arrogance.

Those with a worldview founded in the scientific method gain 'knowledge' from the bottom up. Starting with well verified understandings such as the law of gravity, laws of motion, conservation laws, etc. theories to understand any unknown is 'tested' against the basic, well verified understandings. Those unknowns remain unknowns until they can be understood through well verified principles without violating any of them.

There you go again with that arrogance. My theistic worldview does not oppose science. Science is a very important aspect of my theistic worldview. I actually contend that science better supports theism than atheism. Now when I say that; I’m not saying science proves God. It can’t. But it can certainly provide evidence that infers his existence. Think about it….science can’t prove he doesn’t exist either. So we are both using science to contend for our worldviews.

That syllogism makes perfect sense to the religious faithful because it fits their worldview of top down revelation.

The argument is not top down. How can you not see that? It argues from nature to his existence.

However, for it to make any sense to someone with a scientific method worldview it would need to be changed to both premises having If conditionals.

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.
And…………………
It is a deductive argument…..think about it.

The burden of proof is on me to defend the truth of the premises. So if you want to show the argument is invalid simply counter one of the premises instead of crying about your “if’s”. But if you are going to counter the premise you must be prepared for me to challenge the reasoning (absolute certainty no inferences) of your offered counter.

Apparently that syllogism was written to bolster theists. It certainly wasn't written to convince non-believers that have any understanding of the current state of cosmology.

WRONG. It was constructed to provide evidence of his existence from nature. And cosmology is my best friend there. You think you are up to date and you suggested the CCC. I’m still waiting for you to catch up on that one. Hurry up already.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.

... snip ...

Thus illustrating that you don't have a clue.

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

Unfortunately for me, writing a paper listing all the things that I don't know wouldn't.

 

[Learner]

It was not used by the first Jewish followers. The term Jesus is also a general term in Jewish history.

Was the parents Jesus and Mary Christ? Not likely. The term Jesus Christ is from the Greek translation of Hebrew concepts. No one knows what the person may have been called when je lived.
.................................

I don't think it matters so much whether HE was called Jesus or by another name , as the importance of the individual was pointed-out that HE was identified as the Messiah (Christos /annointed).

It does matter, if you consider your theology to be have intellectual integrity. You have no idea how the gospels relate to actual events and how much was added by literary license to embellish. There was no objective reporting. Those who wrote filled in the facts, a common practice.

Well yes , if we are to use a "name" for a particular individual to be able to distinguish him or her from someone called Peter, John or Mary obviously.

What is happening here is that , when you are making some point , you are really making them from your interpretation of the bible as opposed to mine or other theists on the thread (happens on the forum). Not that there should be anything wrong with that, despite you making some errors.

The translation of "annointed" is Christos in Greek. The NT written in Greek gives the likely reason of "Christ" became more common in use rather than, let say for example; using Mashach instead, which the Hebrews had already used "anoint" from God ( Mashiac - Messiah), thats all there was to it.

 

[Learner]

... snip ...

My theistic worldview totally envelops the scientific method.

... snip ...

Thus illustrating that you don't have a clue.

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

Unfortunately for me, writing a paper listing all the things that I don't know wouldn't.

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

 

[Rhea]

Already I see where Remez will refute your post. Not sure why you responded this way, perhaps you overlooked (if not ignored) the word "infer" e.g. "Inference" from what is currently known for the possibilty / plausibilty, which is not the same as making the claim; "scientifically concluded" the universe had a beginning, when he clearly states and agrees with, "nobody knows".

Although, to be accurate, (which science does and theology doesn't) one must admit that remez throws around the word "infers" and "inference" rather carelessly without using it as defined...

(e.g.)

There you go again with that arrogance. My theistic worldview does not oppose science. Science is a very important aspect of my theistic worldview. I actually contend that science better supports theism than atheism. Now when I say that; I’m not saying science proves God. It can’t. But it can certainly provide evidence that infers his existence. Think about it….science can’t prove he doesn’t exist either. So we are both using science to contend for our worldviews.

When it's pretty clear the word he should be using is "impiles" and he should be talking about implications.

Evidence doesn't infer. It implies.
The writer implies, the reader infers.


I've kind of been laughing at this for a while in this thread as he does it again and again because it makes a rather funny multi-level recursive pun about evidence inferring conclusions and how religionists think about causeless gods and whether data has a soul and so forth. I thought it was a typo at first, but he's done it so many times now, it's just become quite funny for the punsters in the audience.

And it also undermines his claim to understand science (and logic, for that matter) if he can't tell the difference between an implication and an inference.

 

[remez]

When it's pretty clear the word he should be using is "impiles" and he should be talking about implications.

Evidence doesn't infer. It implies.
The writer implies, the reader infers.

You are correct there. It should be implies. Sorry, I’m usually more careful with that one. I have actually pointed that out in the past as well. I should have been more careful.
However.......
It in no way alters my contention or meaning and in most cases I was speaking to the notion that one can infer from the evidence. So please go ahead and proof read for those misuses and I easily correct it.
I sit corrected.
Thank you.