Explanations for Phenomenon

[Nancy]

The answer is always they haven't found the answer yet.

Too funny as, all they are doing is discovering what was put there by...? Takes more faith to NOT believe in a God and that everything points to intelligent design.

 

[farouk]

Too funny as, all they are doing is discovering what was put there by...? Takes more faith to NOT believe in a God and that everything points to intelligent design.

Well, exactly...

Having said that, Hebrews 11.6 confirms it's by faith that we do indeed believe in Creation.

 

[Vince]

It also doesn't explain how one gets something from nothing..

That is a hypothesis not a consensus or any evidence that is the truth. It could be that nothing cannot exist or that there was something before the universe began. This is how science works people try to explain things and they begin with ideas. I don't know is an honest answer.

 

[Vince]

Who says those that believe in evolution are Christians?

Yes, the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Vince]

The answer is always they haven't found the answer yet.

Untrue. Science has many answers that has benefited humans for centuries. What has religion done to advance life saving technology?

 

[CoreIssue]

Too funny as, all they are doing is discovering what was put there by...? Takes more faith to NOT believe in a God and that everything points to intelligent design.

Absolutely

 

[CoreIssue]

Untrue. Science has many answers that has benefited humans for centuries. What has religion done to advance life saving technology?

Two different issues.

Science is also done anything they claimed were lifesaving but ended up life taking.

 

[Vince]

Two different issues.

Science is also done anything they claimed were lifesaving but ended up life taking.

I agree with this. But what has religion done to advance life saving technology? My wife, sister and son are all specifically alive today because of what science has discovered about the universe. Myself and my kids have been vaccinated against all kinds of life altering diseases that we will most likely never get. I know of no one that is alive today because of technology that any religious book has informed us about.

 

[CoreIssue]

I agree with this. But what has religion done to advance life saving technology? My wife, sister and son are all specifically alive today because of what science has discovered about the universe. Myself and my kids have been vaccinated against all kinds of life altering diseases that we will most likely never get. I know of no one that is alive today because of technology that any religious book has informed us about.

Look who did a lot of the scientific advancements history, Christians.

 

[Vince]

Look who did a lot of the scientific advancements history, Christians.

And they used science to do it, not their bible.

 

[CoreIssue]

And they used science to do it, not their bible.

Obviously you do not understand

 

[Vince]

Obviously you do not understand

Then show me how the bible was used to advance life saving technology.

 

[Berserk]

This is all based on a claim that has not been supported by evidence in my opinion.

Vince: "My position does not need falsifiability because I am not making a claim."

That sentence in itself makes a claim! You claim to be an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics claim they don't know whether or not God exists. To be meaningful you belief that there is no God needs rational justification. That justification must testable. Yet you see no need why you should be expected to demonstrate why your atheisms makes the best sense of all the relevant data--a basic requirement of scientific theory. To cop out by constantly hiding behind the admission "I don't know" begs the question of whether you should know because you can find out by direct experience.

So consider the best of the NDE ADC evidence. What is the explanation that makes best sense of the evidence when:
(1) A dead and buried son appears to his Dad in an ADC, drives his pickup down a highway, and provides verifiable evidence about his investments made while he was still alive?
(2) Doctors, nurses, and family members present at a deathbed share the dying patient's spiritual journey outside the body, including the encounter with the Being of Light, the greetings by deceased friends and family, and even the patient's past life review?
(3) Dr. Eben Alexander's brain shows no signs of any activity, and yet, in his NDE he rides a butterfly with a reassuring young woman he doesn't know, who later proves to be his sister who died before he discovered her existence because of his early adoption?
(4) Skeptics by the thousands suddenly and for no apparent reason jam churches, where they are willing to spend many hours feasting on God's presence and becoming totally converted to the faith? You claim to have watched the relevant videos and have a prepared alternative interpretation, I'm sure?

You presumably believe in right and wrong. So what makes right actions right? If the answer is social convention or values evolved through natural selection, then the question for you is this: Why shouldn't I harm others if that makes me happy or gives me some advantage and I can get away with it? As an atheist, you have no evidence that there even is right and wrong, apart from social convention which can be disregarded to suit selfish interests. So your atheism is logically consistent with a world of survival of the fittest. You have no rational grounds for a meaningful life apart from your own preferences. \\

Vince: "Theists are making a claim, how can your claim be falsified? I don't see how."

All scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians, TherePaul connects his list of Jesus' resurrection appearances with eyewitness testimony. There is no reason to believe that both Paul and these eyewitnesses are lying or deluded about what they saw; indeed, what they saw inspired them to seal their testimony with their blood, despite their prior cowardice. If I could be persuaded that Jesus never rose from the dead, I would give up my faith. That's a falsification test. So what's yours?

Vince: "Your insistence that I did not watch the videos seems to be because I don't have the same conclusions you do and that I have some questions that you refuse to address."

No, it is because you don't even claim to have watched the videos indicated and show no evidence of having watched them, e.g. atheist Howard Storm's NDE.

Vince: "Ok, so what? Can he give sufficient evidence for his intelligent designer claim?"

Yes, but to see how you would either need to read Miller's popular book "Finding Darwin's God." or watch a YouTube video where he details his position.

 

[Vince]

That sentence in itself makes a claim! You claim to be an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God.

This is untrue. Atheism is defined as belief there is no god OR a lack of belief in a god. Most atheists have a lack of belief in a god and I identify with this. I have never claimed that god does not exist.

Agnostics claim they don't know whether or not God exists.

This is not totally correct. An agnostic believes that a god, if he exists, cannot be known so agnostics are not interested in seeking evidence.

To be meaningful you belief that there is no God needs rational justification.

As I explained above I am not making this claim.

That justification must testable. Yet you see no need why you should be expected to demonstrate why your atheisms makes the best sense of all the relevant data--a basic requirement of scientific theory. To cop out by constantly hiding behind the admission "I don't know" begs the question of whether you should know because you can find out by direct experience.

Its not a cop out it is the honest truth. I don't believe god exists but I am not saying there will never be sufficient evidence to believe.

So consider the best of the NDE ADC evidence. What is the explanation that makes best sense of the evidence when:
(1) A dead and buried son appears to his Dad in an ADC, drives his pickup down a highway, and provides verifiable evidence about his investments made while he was still alive?
(2) Doctors, nurses, and family members present at a deathbed share the dying patient's spiritual journey outside the body, including the encounter with the Being of Light, the greetings by deceased friends and family, and even the patient's past life review?
(3) Dr. Eben Alexander's brain shows no signs of any activity, and yet, in his NDE he rides a butterfly with a reassuring young woman he doesn't know, who later proves to be his sister who died before he discovered her existence because of his early adoption?
(4) Skeptics by the thousands suddenly and for no apparent reason jam churches, where they are willing to spend many hours feasting on God's presence and becoming totally converted to the faith? You claim to have watched the relevant videos and have a prepared alternative interpretation, I'm sure?

I have no alternate reason for this, I don't need one, you are making the claim. You have not met the burden of proof that this was caused by god.

You presumably believe in right and wrong. So what makes right actions right? If the answer is social convention or values evolved through natural selection, then the question for you is this: Why shouldn't I harm others if that makes me happy or gives me some advantage and I can get away with it? As an atheist, you have no evidence that there even is right and wrong, apart from social convention which can be disregarded to suit selfish interests. So your atheism is logically consistent with a world of survival of the fittest. You have no rational grounds for a meaningful life apart from your own preferences.

This is untrue but it really needs to be a separate thread. This is a big subject, start one if you like and I will discuss these issues.

Vince: "Theists are making a claim, how can your claim be falsified? I don't see how."

All scholars agree that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and Galatians, TherePaul connects his list of Jesus' resurrection appearances with eyewitness testimony. There is no reason to believe that both Paul and these eyewitnesses are lying or deluded about what they saw; indeed, what they saw inspired them to seal their testimony with their blood, despite their prior cowardice. If I could be persuaded that Jesus never rose from the dead, I would give up my faith. That's a falsification test. So what's yours?

I am not convinced by the evidence that Jesus rose form the dead. I don't need a falsification test because I am not making a claim.

Vince: "Your insistence that I did not watch the videos seems to be because I don't have the same conclusions you do and that I have some questions that you refuse to address."

No, it is because you don't even claim to have watched the videos indicated and show no evidence of having watched them, e.g. atheist Howard Storm's NDE.

I have watched them.

Vince: "Ok, so what? Can he give sufficient evidence for his intelligent designer claim?"

Yes, but to see how you would either need to read Miller's popular book "Finding Darwin's God." or watch a YouTube video where he details his position.

Then how did people know of a creator before youtube?

 

[bbyrd009]

?

nice imo. You broke the software though, no one can Quote you now? Could you fix it? Ty

 

[Wafer]

Why does the history of scientific discovery have numerous examples of natural explanations replacing supernatural explanations and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing natural explanations?

Because science is a very young discipline. Prior to 1666 nobody had any idea where babies came from except that you had to have a woman. Anton van Leeuwenhoek examined his own semen with his invention, the microscope. They say Euclid invented the basic concepts that eventually became science. It took 2,000 years to develop that into a defined method. During that time there was no science. Only Aristotle and "the church". Both were considered fountains of truth. In fact it was usually difficult to tell one from the other.