Time To Grow Up. There Is No Greater Purpose.

JAG said:
..

Thank you for your thoughts -- which you expressed very well.

Are you sure you want to hold the position that the Christian faith is based on nothing?

If so, that would mean that you have to discount as nothing the entire untold millions
of words written up as logical arguments to support the Christian faith by Christian
apologists over the past 2000 years.

All that is NOTHING?
Click to expand...
"Nothing"?
No it's based on beliefs. Like many religions it's based ignorance of the natural world, fear of the unknown, a need to believe in something bigger than oneself, great of death, a need for meaning. It's based on ego and the desire for self preservation.
So no, not nothing.
But it isn't based on any kind of falsifiable evidence.
JAG said:
Here is a secular argument for the Resurrection of Jesus:


Is all that in the video NOTHING?

Best

JAG

[]
Click to expand...
I'll watch when I have a better connection.
 
Temujin said:
It's the same thing. Please describe the test you propose. Not the result, but the set up of an experiment that would show beyond doubt whether a particular event was accidental. Currently, there must be millions of scientists around the globe, all studying nature in one form or another. None of them have turned up anything that doesn't have a purely natural explanation, nothing that would require intervention. Does that prove that there has been no intervention? No. It would take just one instance that could not happen by chance to disprove evolution. It hasn't happened. On the other hand, no result of any experiment could ever remove the possibility of intervention. Which is why what you propose use futile.
Click to expand...
The question is if humans are here by chance. Run a simulation of whatever process produced humans X number times, where X is some very large number, and record number of times humans emerged. Then repeat the run Y number of times, where Y is some reasonably large number, to average out lucky high counts. Take the average of all those Y runs. If humans are here by chance there will be a very low percentage of human emergence. Exactly how low is low will have to be determined by statistics.

I'm explicitly stating now this test is only to check if the humans are here by chance claim is true. It's not a test for the existence of a creator, design, intervention, etc. and adding those concepts into the test is just moving the goalpost. If the percentage is higher than expected further research can begin to find out why.
 
Temujin said:
So what? You are looking at this the wrong way. How does the punter prove that he is playing fairly? He keeps winning, but chance is a funny thing. High odds prove nothing. You are not asking science to prove that there was intervention. You are asking them to prove the opposite, which is impossible.

Incidentally, there's no instance in evolution equating to the suspicious casino winnings. The event that beats the greatest odds is the development of eukaryotes. That's very unlikely, to the point that it may have happened only once in the entire galaxy. But given the number of opportunities, it's not anything to be suspicious about.
Click to expand...
A high win count, even a very unlikely one, does not prove the gambler is a cheater. But it will trigger the casino to monitor and investigate the suspected person. If evidence of cheating is found then they can nail the gambler. Conversely, if casinos ignore high win counts and streaks then they are just giving money away to cheaters.
 
positive atheist said:
Do you agree with the following two statements:


If you believe that "I don't believe the study of origins of life or consciousness can prove or disprove the existence of God." why would you not just answer "yes"?

Do you believe that god exists? Which one? What religion are you?

Are you unable to answer simple straightforward questions in a simple straightforward way? Watch:

I am a positive atheist. I believe there are good reasons to believe god does not exist.

By the way I looked into Donald Hoffman and just like Gagliano and Thomas Verney he is at minimum a fringe kook and at worst a fraudulent pseudoscientists. Do you have any evidence for your beliefs that are supported by the mainstream of science?

I met Donald Hoffman at a conference and his introduction was “I just wrote a book that proves that evolution has conditioned us NOT to see reality…..Hoffman is basically just presenting pseudoscience to defend [Immanuel Kants] position about epistemology and metaphysics and there is nothing original in his work. He put up a bunch of equations on a board and he says I ran a simulation and it proves I’m right”
---- Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Click to expand...
I replied to you that no scientific evidence can prove or disprove God, and you're still asking for evidence? I don't know if you are being obtuse or willfully ignorant.

If you believe Gagliano, Hoffman, Verney, et al. are all kooks and frauds then why don't you publish papers and articles, give TED talks, give interviews, do podcasts, and put your name and reputation on the line. Right now you have the credibility of just another random internet poster.
 
bigthinker said:
"Nothing"?
No it's based on beliefs. Like many religions it's based ignorance of the natural world, fear of the unknown, a need to believe in something bigger than oneself, great of death, a need for meaning. It's based on ego and the desire for self preservation.
So no, not nothing.
But it isn't based on any kind of falsifiable evidence.

I'll watch when I have a better connection.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Let me know if you think Craig did not present any falsifiable evidence to support Jesus' Resurrection.

Meanwhile look these 20 arguments over and see what you think:

Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)

www.peterkreeft.com www.peterkreeft.com

Best.

JAG

[]
 
JAG said:
Regarding you getting your money back:
God may not have given His only Son for you
(there is a very good chance that you are not one of God's elect)

"All that the Father gives me will come to me"__The Lord Jesus
(See John 6:37-40)

What makes you think you are one of those that has been given to the Son by the Father?
I see no reason to believe that you have been given to Jesus by the Father.
So?
So maybe you can just forget about God and Christianity and get interested in other subjects?

Ephesians 1:4 says:
"For he [God the Father] chose us in him [Christ the Son] before the creation of the world"

So?

So do you think that YOU were chosen to be in Christ before the creation of the world?

____________________


Regarding my post to which you responded with your large-enough numbers thingy:
Just think of that post as poetry.

Best.

JAG

[]
Click to expand...
Regarding you getting your money back:
God may not have given His only Son for you
Click to expand...
Thank goodness. The return shipping charges would have been insane. And imagine the insurance.
(there is a very good chance that you are not one of God's elect)
Click to expand...
To be perfectly honest with you, I didn't even know I was a nominee. I guess I could still run as a write-in. Would you be willing to vote for me as a write-in?
"All that the Father gives me will come to me"__The Lord Jesus (See John 6:37-40)
Click to expand...
Can you be sure? That was a very long time ago. Things change. People change.
What makes you think you are one of those that has been given to the Son by the Father?
Click to expand...
Christians keep telling me it is true.
I see no reason to believe that you have been given to Jesus by the Father.
Click to expand...
I see no reason to believe anything you are saying is true.
So?
Click to expand...
Did you know it is actually hard to write a one word sentence. This may actually be a valid one.
So maybe you can just forget about God and Christianity and get interested in other subjects?
Click to expand...
But I so enjoy making arguments that god does not exist to christians. Don't you want me to have fun?
Ephesians 1:4 says: "For he [God the Father] chose us in him [Christ the Son] before the creation of the world"
Click to expand...
Maybe Hitler was chosen from before the creation of the world, right? If in the last 5 minutes of his life he had a change of heart and said the right words "I believe in jesus, please forgive me, in jesus name, etc. etc. whatever" then Hitler is in. Right? And god would have known this would happen from before the creation of the world, so no problem. And of course all the jewish victims are very probably not turning their lives over to jesus, so all the innocent people who were tortured to death, gassed, shot, hung, starved, worked to death, drown, packed into buildings and burned alive, they are all going to hell because "All that the Father gives me will come to me"__The Lord Jesus (See John 6:37-40)". You know, I have to be honest, I'm starting to have doubts about how good this "All that the Father gives me will come to me" plan really is. It seems like a lot of innocent decent people are getting screwed. That bothers me.
So?
Click to expand...
Yeah?
So do you think that YOU were chosen to be in Christ before the creation of the world?
Click to expand...
No! I don't even believe god or jesus exist.
Just think of that post as poetry.
Click to expand...
I think you better sit down. Sitting? OK good. I am just going to say this. There is no easy way to say this. I have a very strong feeling you will not go down in history in the same category as, say, Emily Dickinson. Do you like Dickinson? I do, very much. Here is an example. Maybe if you understand this poem you can apply it to your ideas about christianity and election:
I HAD NO TIME TO HATE, BECAUSE

by Emily Dickinson.

I had no time to hate, because
The grave would hinder me,
And life was not so ample I
Could finish enmity.

Nor had I time to love, but since
Some industry must be,
The little toil of love, I thought,
Was large enough for me.
Click to expand...

Regarding my post to which you responded with your large-enough numbers thingy:
Click to expand...
So? The most important part of my post you are not responding to and you refer to it as "your large-enough numbers thingy". See, the problem is, that large-enough numbers thingy is the part of the post that provides a very good argument that life appeared on earth purely by chance. So the large-enough numbers thingy, is kind of important.
 
vbj said:
I replied to you that no scientific evidence can prove or disprove God, and you're still asking for evidence? I don't know if you are being obtuse or willfully ignorant.

If you believe Gagliano, Hoffman, Verney, et al. are all kooks and frauds then why don't you publish papers and articles, give TED talks, give interviews, do podcasts, and put your name and reputation on the line. Right now you have the credibility of just another random internet poster.
Click to expand...
I believe you are playing games. You are not serious. You refuse to answer simple questions.

If you believe Gagliano, Hoffman, Verney, et al. are all kooks and frauds then why don't you publish papers and articles, give TED talks, give interviews, do podcasts, and put your name and reputation on the line. Right now you have the credibility of just another random internet poster.
Click to expand...
I am not pretending to be a scientists proving a hypothesis so why would I publish papers and articles, give TED talks, give interviews, do podcasts,? What would I publish papers about?
Right now you have the credibility of just another random internet poster.
Click to expand...
No. I have all the credibility of just another random internet poster, who pointed out that your "evidence" is false. It doesn't say what you claim it says. You left out many important facts that disprove your beliefs. Verney is a psychiatrist and some kind if spiritualist, not a biologist, he has never done any research about what he is being offered up as an expert on; he is basically a science writer. Gagliano is ripping off previously done work, lost her funding, was fired from her university, and is now complaining she cannot get funding because the people with the money say her ideas are ridiculous and without any proof. Hoffman is saying lunatic things, has the support of none of his peers, peers are saying he is pushing pseudoscience, and ridiculing his "mathematical simulations" as absurd. I'd say it is you who has lost all credibility.
I replied to you that no scientific evidence can prove or disprove God, and you're still asking for evidence? I don't know if you are being obtuse or willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...
Do you believe god exists or not? Since you refuse to answer a simple question I asked if you agreed with 2 simple statements. You refuse to answer that also. I literally have no idea what you believe other than you continually imply that god exists. This is a board where atheists and theists debate. Why are you here? Is that another simple question you cannot answer?
 
JAG said:
My view:
The Christians would be wiser if they collectively deprived you of the joy.

JAG
Click to expand...
But before I came here I read some threads and the christians were complaining that none of the negative atheists would "support their worldview" and "take the burden of proof". They were even suggesting the atheists were cowards. (which I do not agree with)

So now you have someone who openly admits he is a positive atheist, willingly takes the burden of proof, and repeatedly posts arguments that god does not exist. I am happy doing so. One would imagine you christians would be overjoyed. Maybe I need to help you loosen up and feel the joy. Maybe all this hell talk and predestination is getting you down. Constantly focusing on sin and guilt, and all that violence in your book can really make it hard to have a positive outlook. Even I feel it sometimes. And I don't even believe it.

I suggest you look into the website Action For Happiness . Todays action was "Do something kind to help in your local community". I got one of those extension grabbers and some trash bags, and spent an hour and a half picking up trash on the side of the road. Some of the stuff was too large for the bag. (part of a bumper). The cops stopped by to see what I was doing since I technically wasn't supposed to be there, but left without bothering me. The fire department let me throw the garbage in their dumpster. Tomorrow is "Give away something to help those who don't have as much as you". What would you suggest? Maybe I will go to the supermarket, buy some groceries and drop them off at the local food pantry. I have some old winter coats I really don't wear. I could give them away. It is amazing what meaning and purpose you can find in life when you create it yourself.

Thanks for your input, amigo.
 
JAG said:
You make it easy to decide.

And I have decided.
You are unworthy.
You are most unworthy.
You are mega-unworthy . . .
Of serious consideration.

So?

So I am putting you on Ignore.

Once I put an unworthy on Ignore I NEVER take them off.

Henceforth it will be in my world as if you do not exist.

Why put The Unworthy on Ignore?

Because the Internet is a huge enormous place and there is a
huge number of people that are not like you The Unworthy.

Therefore there is zero need to waste precious time reading
the blather of The Unworthy.

JAG


[]
Click to expand...
Thanks. That relieves me of the necessity to answer your badly formatted posts.
 
vbj said:
The question is if humans are here by chance. Run a simulation of whatever process produced humans X number times, where X is some very large number, and record number of times humans emerged. Then repeat the run Y number of times, where Y is some reasonably large number, to average out lucky high counts. Take the average of all those Y runs. If humans are here by chance there will be a very low percentage of human emergence. Exactly how low is low will have to be determined by statistics.

I'm explicitly stating now this test is only to check if the humans are here by chance claim is true. It's not a test for the existence of a creator, design, intervention, etc. and adding those concepts into the test is just moving the goalpost. If the percentage is higher than expected further research can begin to find out why.
Click to expand...
Done. There are 100 billion stars in the galaxy. On average there's one planet per star, though they tend to come in groups around certain types of star. Human civilizations in the galaxy equals one. The moment further data shows that to be wrong, I'll let you know, but from current data, humans arose by chance.
 
JAG said:
Okay.
Let me know if you think Craig did not present any falsifiable evidence to support Jesus' Resurrection.[. . .]
Click to expand...

Craig argues -- starting roughly three and a half minutes in -- that the claims that some had seen the risen Jesus began to be accepted among the disciples no later than five years after the crucifixion, and that this is too short a period for anybody to dismiss those reports as "legend."

This can be falsified by showing that there have been cases of "legends" popping up within less than five years of the events they are based on. And there are such cases. For example, there are legends that President Biden has been replaced by a body double, and Biden of course has been in office for less than five years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top