11 of 28
11
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 26 April 2013 09:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 151 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Thevillageatheist - 26 April 2013 07:38 AM

please present the part of the paper, which explains in details what mechanisms where involved to make evolution happen. I am all ears.

Ok, I believe your original contention was questioning the echolocation of bats and how that evolved and the article outlined it for you. Now the problem seems to be no bat fossils. This can also be explained in an article but more thoroughly in a book. If you care to step outside of the ID bubble and actually research the topic, I suggest Jerry Coyne’s excellent book “Why Evolution is True” for a start. Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” is another and there are many others. You may already know that fossils aren’t the only evidence to bolster the theory of evolution (remember, a theory is NOT a hypothesis); genetic evidence is yet another. I’m also surprised that you haven’t played the ID trump card yet , the eye an old irreducible complexity argument, explained by Dawkins and Coyne. And BTW the “mechanism” is natural selection. This site presents your argument and it’s refutation.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/11/a-quantum-leap.html


Cap’t Jack

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?42386-Bats-and-transitional-forms-amazing-discovery-evolution-is-simple&s=b81a768162860ab9f9909e798cdeb140

The first sentence of the report in New Scientist is as follows:
A change to a single gene allowed bats to grow wings and take to the air, a development that may explain why bats appeared so suddenly in the fossil record some 50 million years ago.

That is absurd; being wrong in two important ways. First; the research makes no indication of a change to the BMP-2 gene itself. It seems to be a change in timing of expression for that gene; which would arise from mutations elsewhere in the genome, in genes or in prompter regions or in other ways I’ve not considered. Second, you can’t take to the wing just by getting longer fingers! There are many other associated changes required.

Certainly single mutations can have large effects; but all the arguments against this as a major factor remain in force. Suddenly much longer fingers will generally be a handicap, rather than a benefit. Major single generation change to a well adapted organism is not usually a good thing; small changes can often be beneficial.

The research also speaks of new developments being able to arise comparatively quickly; and in this I agree. However, quickly in evolutionary terms can still mean thousands of years. This is an eye blink in geology; such rapid change would certainly be hard to capture in the fossil record, especially in a small and localised population.

We can speculate about circumstances in which there would be a selective pressure for increasing digit length. If a small animal had a slight gliding capacity, like a sugar glider, membranes on the hand could help control and longer digits could help for grasping at a landing place. But this is speculation.

What this research indicates is that it is comparatively easy to get longer fingers, by altering timing of expression of existing genes for signalling bone formation. Such change can give longer fingers in a single generation, but I very much doubt if you could get an adaptive one generation change to the full length required for effective wings. I still expect a succession of changes to BMP-2 timing, along with other associated changes. There is no joy here for Goldschmidt.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2013 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 152 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  816
Joined  2012-04-25
Adonai888 - 25 April 2013 12:40 PM
CuthbertJ - 25 April 2013 10:29 AM

Coming late to this party. But since we have a true blue fundie amongst us I’d like to ask a few questions.  And I honestly don’t mean to make these “gotcha” type questions.  I’m just curious what your response will be.

1) Is god a boy or a girl?  And if you pick one, in what sense, like if god is a boy, does he have a penis or a beard?

God is spirit, has however choosen to reveal himself to us as male.

2) Is it possible Evolution is one of god’s creations? Is it possible god “added” evolution to the universe after the initial creation but didn’t want it mentioned in the bible for reasons unknown/unknowable to us humans?

God has given the animals the hability to adaptate themself to the environment. Thats called microevolution. The bible is not a scientific book, therefore it was not Gods purpose to explain these things to us. He has given us intelligence to find out certain things by our own.

3) Did god give humans brains capable of advanced reasoning? And if so, why do you think god did that?

God gave us the hability of reason, so we might recognize and find him, and communicate with him, and have community with him, and become his sons and daughters.

4) Why did god allow human to use their brains to develop science and technology, then want them to NOT use it to try to explain his or her universe? (Point being, the brain and reasoning and science are pretty remarkable, a great gift from god you might say, so why would he/she/it not want us to use it to the fullest?)

Who told you he does not want us to use our capabilities ? If he made them, there was also the purpose to use it.

1) What do you mean by “spirit”, and how can we tell if that spirit is your god versus say the Hindu god Brahma?
2) How do you know he has hasn’t also given us macro-evolution? (I guess that’s what all the other posts are about so don’t bother re-answering)
3) I thought recognizing, finding, communicating, with god was a matter of faith, not science? At least that’s what most theologians and fundies seem to think. They don’t want creationism and ID taught as part of science/evolution, but alongside of it or in place of it.
4) So if god wants us to use reason to the utmost, and that leads some of us to doubt his existence, god is ok with that?

QUESTION TO ALL: Just curious why you guys are missing the forest for the trees in this thread? You can debate evolution all you want, it has no bearing on Adonai88’s conclusions or beliefs. This thread feels like you’re discussing the aerodynamics of a flying unicorn’s wings.

[ Edited: 26 April 2013 10:31 AM by CuthbertJ ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2013 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 153 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
free_of_belief - 30 September 2012 08:09 PM

will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?

or will they discredit the evidence as fake?

A better question might be, Would believers accept a god that is not the god they have believed in if there is irrefutable evidence that a previously unknown god is the actual god?  That would mean giving up the bible and the Koran or any other writings purporting to be the word of their false god. 

Suppose the real god never reveals anything about what he expects from mankind except that does not wish to be worshipped on any level?

What then?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2013 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 154 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
CuthbertJ - 26 April 2013 10:25 AM

4) So if god wants us to use reason to the utmost, and that leads some of us to doubt his existence, god is ok with that?

The evidence leads clearly to theism and creationism. There is no justification for atheism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2013 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 155 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26

CuthbertJ,
QUESTION TO ALL: Just curious why you guys are missing the forest for the trees in this thread? You can debate evolution all you want, it has no bearing on Adonai88’s conclusions or beliefs. This thread feels like you’re discussing the aerodynamics of a flying unicorn’s wings.

Yes, the difference is that atheists can discuss this from an objective viewpoint and discussion of aerodynamics, while theists actually believe unicorns are real and do fly.

[ Edited: 26 April 2013 08:56 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 03:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 156 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 26 April 2013 08:53 PM

CuthbertJ,
QUESTION TO ALL: Just curious why you guys are missing the forest for the trees in this thread? You can debate evolution all you want, it has no bearing on Adonai88’s conclusions or beliefs. This thread feels like you’re discussing the aerodynamics of a flying unicorn’s wings.

Yes, the difference is that atheists can discuss this from an objective viewpoint and discussion of aerodynamics, while theists actually believe unicorns are real and do fly.

False assumption. We do not believe in unfounded magic, but in a intelligent creator based on reason. To believe philosophical naturalism is true, btw. nees more faith, than to believe in flying unicorns.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 05:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 157 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
Adonai888 - 27 April 2013 03:34 AM
Write4U - 26 April 2013 08:53 PM

CuthbertJ,
QUESTION TO ALL: Just curious why you guys are missing the forest for the trees in this thread? You can debate evolution all you want, it has no bearing on Adonai88’s conclusions or beliefs. This thread feels like you’re discussing the aerodynamics of a flying unicorn’s wings.

Yes, the difference is that atheists can discuss this from an objective viewpoint and discussion of aerodynamics, while theists actually believe unicorns are real and do fly.

False assumption. We do not believe in unfounded magic, but in a intelligent creator based on reason.

Yes you do, it’s just that you have done so for such a long time, that it sounds reasonable, but it isn’t!
Thunder and lightning are not made by a god. Never has, never will. Super novas are not made by a god, never have, never will. The Universe was not made by a god, never has, never will.

The assumption of a sentient intelligent construct, existing in a vacuum, but being causal to the universe without a single clue as to how this construct could possibly exist is not reasonable, unless one discards all knowledge we have of how things work and assume that god is not bound by any constants and that would be even more incredible.  Tell me how god manages to exist outside reality, yet have influence on reality?
A man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne high up in the sky, with little winged people circling happily to the tune of a long golden trumpet? So far the only picture I see is a God in Man’s image.  That is of course physically impossible. So paint me a picture of god, anyway you like. I’ll get it, even the most abstract representation. Have faith in me. I am real and I can think!

Define god and specifically how it is able to “think” as an individual observer, apart from having created the universe and all it contains.
So far everything I have heard about a (any) god is unreasonable in its very conception, IMO.
The presence or absence of a god in this universe is of no consequence. Once it has begun, it is that way.  I can get behind a concept such as Universal Potential, the latent universal excellence which may become reality. This can be presented and defended on scientific grounds and proofs. Because instead of breaking Universal Constants, Potential is the implication of possible realities and proved by the predictability of expression in accordance with those Universal Constants. No miracles here, it all fits. We just don’t yet have all the pieces of the puzzle.

But we have not a single piece of evidence of God, except scripture, and that is mostly wrong and certainly not authoritative in any scientific sense. So what is left except faith? But why faith in some supernatural spiritual being? Why not faith in yourself as an emerging (baby) living god who’s potential has found a home for expression on a planet in stable orbit about a stable star?

Psychologically is that not what we are saying by “in his image created he man”, it is an abstract philosophical (symbolic) concept.
We think we are God. That is why Jesus, (a male demigod), begotten by the spiritual god with a local human virgin, is the son of god.
Jesus is like God, and if we are like Jesus, we are like God, and there you have it, we can become gods ourselves….bighug.gif......ego.

[ Edited: 27 April 2013 05:06 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 07:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 158 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  983
Joined  2005-01-14
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 07:40 PM
DarronS - 24 April 2013 07:35 PM
Adonai888 - 24 April 2013 07:34 PM

God made it all.

Define god.

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

And the only “evidence” you cite for all this is the so-called “failure” of naturalism to explain the existence of the universe?  It looks to me like an awful lot you’re “reading into” your definition of God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 159 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  983
Joined  2005-01-14
Adonai888 - 25 April 2013 09:42 AM

But what i would rather like to see is a good case and positive arguments for philosophical naturalism.

Philosophical naturalism has already made its case by its extraordinary explanatory power.  All of our science, all of our modern world is built upon this power to actually explain the natural world, not just biology but physics as well.  If it didn’t have the power to explain, none of our technology would function except by accident.

The power of naturalism to explain the evolution of life is amazing.  It appears to me as if you’ve just seized upon ONE, bats, and just because a complete record of every single adaptation is not found in the fossil record, you want to ignore the entireity of the whole fossil record!  An amazing example of selective perception.  Let me ask you this: do you have a photograph of yourself the day you were born, and another photograph of yourself at every birthday since?  If you do not, would you listen to anyone’s argument that therefore you must not have been born in the usual way, but simply sprang into life fully formed at your present age?  smile

[ Edited: 27 April 2013 07:31 AM by Advocatus ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 160 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 30 September 2012 08:35 PM

Are you really asking if we non - believers would refuse to accept evidence of a deity, out of dislike for the whole concept?

If irrefutable proof was found, then I would have to believe. It would be hard to accept, however.


Do you really dislike the whole concept or just the concept of an Abrahamic god?  If a deistic god could be shown to exist—one that exercises no control over the universe or humanity, does not demand to be worshipped and does not threaten punishment,  would you also dislike the whole concept and find it hard to accept?

I suspect you are thinking of the “concept” of a biblical god, but I could be wrong.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 09:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 161 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Adonai888 - 26 April 2013 06:19 PM
CuthbertJ - 26 April 2013 10:25 AM

4) So if god wants us to use reason to the utmost, and that leads some of us to doubt his existence, god is ok with that?

 

The evidence leads clearly to theism and creationism. There is no justification for atheism.

Please cite this evidence.  If you cite the bible, please provide support that shows the bible has any empirical credibility whatsoever.

Hint: Beliefs are not evidence. The bible is not evidence of anything more than that it is made up of the writings of men nearly 2000 years ago, retranslated and reinterpreted through the ages,  who had no understanding of any of the empirical, scientific information we are privy to today.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 162 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05
Lois - 27 April 2013 09:13 AM
Adonai888 - 26 April 2013 06:19 PM
CuthbertJ - 26 April 2013 10:25 AM

4) So if god wants us to use reason to the utmost, and that leads some of us to doubt his existence, god is ok with that?

 

The evidence leads clearly to theism and creationism. There is no justification for atheism.

Please cite this evidence.  If you cite the bible, please provide support that shows the bible has any empirical credibility whatsoever.

Hint: Beliefs are not evidence. The bible is not evidence of anything more than that it is made up of the writings of men nearly 2000 years ago, retranslated and reinterpreted through the ages,  who had no understanding of any of the empirical, scientific information we are privy to today.

Lois

He cited some evidence in post #111 and I refuted it a few posts later. Adonai has ignored that refutation.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 01:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 163 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 27 April 2013 05:01 AM

Thunder and lightning are not made by a god. Never has, never will.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t410-thunder-lightning-proof-of-god?highlight=thunder


Plants cannot absorb nitrogen directly out of the atmosphere, so guess what? They get their “nitrogen-fix” through lightning turning nitrogen and oxygen with some ammonia, which can then dissolve into the falling rain and becomes just the very best fertiliser. This requires intense heat from lightning (5 times hotter than the surface of the Sun). Also, with the help of nitrogen-fixing specialist bacteria.
Evolutionists, I defy you to explain how that all came about, perfectly in the first instance …or no life could be sustained on the Earth! These are non-living things and energy forces and elements that don’t evolve through “natural selection”. They have no mind or ongoing regenerated life of their own.

Super novas are not made by a god, never have, never will.

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/cosmologicalconstant.html

But how was the expansion rate finely tuned to 1 to 122 ? only its fine tuning makes it possible our universe to exist…...

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/cosmology/cosmologicalconstant.html

The speed of a type Ia supernovae is also easily deduced from its spectrum. The speed and distance measurements are then used to measure the expansion rate of the Universe. From observations in the late 1990’s of distant type Ia supernovae, astronomers concluded that the expansion rate of the Universe was increases – the Universe was accelerating!

The Cosmological Constant Problem
    The cosmological constant L, which is not usually part of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model but can be included, produces a rather unusual effect on cosmology. It yields a “negative pressure” causing a gravitational repulsion that drives matter apart at increasing rates. The data from type Ia supernova observations suggest the existence of a cosmological constant.
    Theorists have been reluctant to introduce a cosmological constant in the theory because of a fine-tuning problem. It turns out that if L is non-zero then it should have a natural value that would cause a very rapid expansion and very dramatic cooling of the Universe. The current measured temperature of the Universe is 2.725 degrees Kelvin. Although extremely cold by human standards (just a few degrees above absolute zero), if L is present, it must be about 10122 times smaller than the natural value to agree with this temperature measurement. How could L be set to such a small value with such precision? This is known as the cosmological constant problem. Its solution had been to assume that L was exactly zero. Type Ia supernova measurements thus created a fine-tuning problem for cosmology.

 

The Universe was not made by a god, never has, never will.

i see. A car was made by a intelligent being. A airplaine, much more complex, was made by a intelligent being. The universe, much much more complex, and finely tuned to permit life on earth, was a lucky accident ? Please explain what is rational to believe that.

The assumption of a sentient intelligent construct, existing in a vacuum

Where do i make the assertion God existed in a vacuum ?

, but being causal to the universe without a single clue as to how this construct could possibly exist is not reasonable,

Just because our mind is too limited to understand God, and its eternal existence, to believe in his existence is not reasonable ? Does that mean, that every cause, that we cannot explain, becomes not reasonable ? and that reasoning should be reasonable, why ?

unless one discards all knowledge we have of how things work

please present therefore something, that came into existence from absolutely nothing.

and assume that god is not bound by any constants and that would be even more incredible.

So why is there something, rather than nothing ? what caused the universe into existence ? nothing ?

Tell me how god manages to exist outside reality, yet have influence on reality?

Who told you that God exists outside of reality ? If he is the essence of reality ?

A man with a white beard sitting on a golden throne high up in the sky

Thats not what we xtians believe. Thats folklore.

, with little winged people circling happily to the tune of a long golden trumpet? So far the only picture I see is a God in Man’s image.  That is of course physically impossible. So paint me a picture of god, anyway you like. I’ll get it, even the most abstract representation. Have faith in me. I am real and I can think!

God is spirit, a bodyless mind.

Define god and specifically how it is able to “think” as an individual observer

God is the supreme being of the universe. God is a unbodied mind, He is righteous and just, love, good, free from sin, he is perfect in his character and person, he is righteous in all His attitudes and actions, he is eternal, without a beginning, and without a end, he is omniscient, omnipresent, limitless in authority, immutable, he is the truth. Moreover, God is self-existent, nonspatial, nonmaterial, unimaginably powerful, and personal.

So far everything I have heard about a (any) god is unreasonable in its very conception, IMO.

please present a better explanation for our existence.

But we have not a single piece of evidence of God, except scripture

no kidding…... open your eyes….

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god
1. The universe had most probably a beginning.
This is supported through scientific, and philosophical reasons. Therefore it had a cause. Since beyond our universe, there was no time, no space, and no matter, that cause must be timeless, beginningless, eternal, spaceless, transcendent, invisible, personal, and incredibly powerful. Why does it need to have these characteristics ? This cause cannot exist in the time/space/material universe because then it would exist within the very universe it created. That is impossible.
Whatever caused the universe, existed beyond the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision.The cause must be personal because an impersonal force would be deterministic and mechanistic, not possessing free will. A mechanistic being only operates according to the programming it received from something else. But if the cause of the universe received programming from something else, then we have again not provided the answer to the cause of the universe. We have just found a middle-man. The cause had to make a choice to create and only beings who are personal can make choices.That description fits best to the God of the bible.


2. The universe is finely tuned to permit life on our planet.
Over 120 fine tune constants are know up to know, and as more time pasts, more are discovered. This might be due to chance, to physical need, or to design. Chance is a very bad explanation. Some advocate a Multiverse. But to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done. Thats a 1 with 500 zeros. If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning. Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God. A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses. It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ? So its best explained by design. Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds. The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right. To believe, all these are just right by chance, needs a big leap of faith. This is indeed maibe the strongest argument for theism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 164 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

3. Life. Abiogenesis has not been able to explain the existence of life on earth.
Science cannot explain it. There are strong reasons to believe, a natural origin is not probable, and a bad explanation. First of all, why whould dead rocks need to evolve, to create life ? Secondly, just one living cell is more complex than the most complex machine created by man. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex ‘machine’ in the universe—far more complex than a Cray supercomputer.DNA molecules carry information . Information is always created by a mind. There i no natural mechanism known to man, to create information. Information is by essence spiritual, and not physical. There is no bridge to cross the gulf from material to spiritual. Even through millions of years of evolution. Its not possible.

http://www.icr.org/article/einsteins…tion-cross-it/

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional spacetime relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages . Between the two realms we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.


A small part of the evolutionists’ problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas.

4. The moral argument, and value of life.
Life has no value. Everthing is permissible. There is no such thing as right and wrong because there is no all knowing and all powerful Creator to define what is good and what is bad. It becomes society who tries to define it. What does that matter though if the people making laws define right from wrong. They are just as human as any other person in the world. The only thing that truly exists is personal preference. What Hitler, Stalin, or any other mass murderer did was not wrong at all. They simply had a different personal preference than you do. The point is, you shouldn’t tell anyone that they are wrong or even right because they aren’t either of those things. You can believe that its wrong, but you have no place to ground it. People can do anything they want to do without getting punished for their actions if the world lived consistently with the belief that God doesn’t exist. How do you explain where guilt comes from? How do you explain why all people in the world have this feeling called a conscience that seems to tell them that something is wrong, such as murder. How come people feel a heavy weight on their emotions called guilt when they do something wrong, such as lie and steal, and the best thing to do to take the weight off themselves is to tell the truth and/or ask for forgiveness. If God doesn’t exist, then how could you rationally explain all that?


5. Religious experiences and miracles
What ever culture you go into, people are incurably religious. In every culture you see three things. 1) Everyone, except the atheist, worships a being higher than themselves. 2) Everyone has a morality they cannot keep. 3) Everyone is psychologically unsatisfied. People feel an emptiness in themselves that they want to fill. If the material world was the only thing that existed and if all your material needs were met, you should be satesfied right? But how come people who have the most wealth are usually the most unhappy. They constantly want more and more. And how can you explain the millions of people in the world who say they have felt the closeness of God in their lives? I personally am included with them. I have felt God’s presence in my life on a consistent basis. Now how can you rationally explain that without God’s existence? There are many people in the world who report seeing miracles. In other words there are people who say that they saw a situation occur where there is no naturalistic explanation for it. I personally know people who have had miraculous situations occur, such as immediate healings. You might argue that science will someday explain those things, but right now you can’t explain them. The best explaination is God, because if God created the world then it wouldn’t be hard to believe that he can intervene supernaturally in this world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 April 2013 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 165 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
advocatus - 27 April 2013 07:28 AM
Adonai888 - 25 April 2013 09:42 AM

But what i would rather like to see is a good case and positive arguments for philosophical naturalism.

Philosophical naturalism has already made its case by its extraordinary explanatory power.  All of our science, all of our modern world is built upon this power to actually explain the natural world, not just biology but physics as well.  If it didn’t have the power to explain, none of our technology would function except by accident.

Science has brought a big deal of understanding of our universe, and our environment, no doubt about that. But it has shown us as well the limit, and how far it can do. The origin of all that exists however is a entirely other subject, and science has shown us
that the cosmos, biology, physics etc. are far more complex , than men thought one hundred years ago. And it has shown as well, that naturalistic answers do not hold scrutiny to explain natural phenomenas. They fall short to explain the cause of the universe, its fine tuning, the arise of life, the biodiversity, the consciousness of men, its hability of speech etc.

The power of naturalism to explain the evolution of life is amazing.

what is amazing, is only how proponents keep believing in this failed theory. The evolution theory is more a religion, rather than something else. The natural evidence falls short from backing up the theory, thats why it is in crisis….. but the religious of course are blind to admit that.

It appears to me as if you’ve just seized upon ONE, bats, and just because a complete record of every single adaptation is not found in the fossil record, you want to ignore the entireity of the whole fossil record!

Bats was just one example of so many others, that do not back up the evolution theory.

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!


If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the ‘missing links’ are still well and truly ‘missing’.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils.”

Profile
 
 
   
11 of 28
11