2 edits
If new scientific information comes to light my mind might be changed.
Only you are locked into an archaic way of thinking.
Wishful thinking again.
The present level of scientific enquiry sees a beginning to time, space, matter, energy. The ones squirming in their chairs are atheists like you who loath to follow the implications where they may lead. It also sees the law of entropy as a reality.
Stuff eventually runs down - goes from order to chaos, decay, dispersion, coldness.
Now you may hope that the cosmological constant keeps things in a steady state. But Einstein said that when he assumed that, it was the biggest blunder of his career.
You'd encourage him to put that back into his equations of an ever expanding universe?
You're hoping consensus will alter to something back to steady state or ever bouncing back universe, which has been doing so for eternity ?
@fmf said1. They are different types of evidence; one is more of a direct witness type, sharing what was seen and said, while the other could be called circumstantial, looking at what we see at an event to see if everything could be explained by only those things which we see at the event, if not we have to look elsewhere for answers. Stronger doesn't enter into it; if you trust the eyewitness accounts as solid, they will be stronger; if you don't, you still have to look at the evidence for the universe and see if the universe itself supplies us with all we need. If not, we need to look elsewhere to explain the universe and life because what is seen cannot be explained adequately by what is here.
There is no need to get flustered.
Three questions arising...
1. So, are "the mechanics of life and the universe" STRONGER evidence of the existence of a creator being THAN the evidence your religion's scriptures layout?
2. And, are "the mechanics of life and the universe" evidence that "the creator being", if there is one, has revealed itself, its wishes, its promises a ...[text shortened]... egard to your own assertions about how the Christian God, specifically, has revealed Himself to you?
2. And, are "the mechanics of life and the universe" evidence that "the creator being", if there is one, has revealed itself, its wishes, its promises and its threats, to humans through scripture?
Looking at the mechanics of life, we can glean a few things about the one responsible if we accept someone is. One, they are brilliant and powerful, far beyond us. Connecting what we see with scripture cannot be done, just on what we see in the natural universe; any claim can be made without having too much effort to prove them. You can say it was always here; it started once, started several times, it is all covered by this theory, or that sacred work or the other one. Which one takes in the whole without contradictions, which doesn't leave us wanting because it doesn't give adequate answers for all of the questions? The criteria are enormous on what should be considered a good explanation.
@fmf said3. In other words, temporarily seeking to decouple the Christian God and Christian scripture from "the mechanics of life and the universe" and from "the creator being" [if there is one] ~ for the purposes of expediency in a debate ~ achieves WHAT exactly with regard to your own assertions about how the Christian God, specifically, has revealed Himself to you?
There is no need to get flustered.
Three questions arising...
1. So, are "the mechanics of life and the universe" STRONGER evidence of the existence of a creator being THAN the evidence your religion's scriptures layout?
2. And, are "the mechanics of life and the universe" evidence that "the creator being", if there is one, has revealed itself, its wishes, its promises a ...[text shortened]... egard to your own assertions about how the Christian God, specifically, has revealed Himself to you?
The only thing I'm attempting to do with this line of questioning is show what we see in the universe cannot be explained by what we see in the universe, more is required. One step at a time.
@kellyjay saidFair enough. I shall have a look.
I was not trying to be evasive; I simply didn't think you were asking about the topic I was engaging in discussing. I have to say, after giving it some thought, you are right; I'm wrong; I'll answer your questions a little later; sorry for being so elusive while not thinking you were on topic.
2 edits
@kellyjay saidIf you have alleged 'eyewitness' accounts of miraculous events, you have to ask yourself what is more likely; that a miraculous event actually happened, or was the 'eyewitness' lying, mistaken or misled. If you are unable to investigate the 'eyewitness' and the circumstances of the miraculous event directly, then you are on very shaky ground if you conclude that the miraculous event actually took place. If you are unable to confirm that the supposed eyewitness account was actually given by the supposed eyewitness, and you know that it was compiled and collected by people with a vested interest in convincing you that the miraculous event did actually take place, well, if you don't look at that with extreme suspicion, maybe you're not actually considering things very objectively.
1. They are different types of evidence; one is more of a direct witness type, sharing what was seen and said, while the other could be called circumstantial, looking at what we see at an event to see if everything could be explained by only those things which we see at the event, if not we have to look elsewhere for answers. Stronger doesn't enter into it; if you trust the ...[text shortened]... o explain the universe and life because what is seen cannot be explained adequately by what is here.
@avalanchethecat saidThis is true in every eyewitness account, miraculous or not. The event's validity occurs if actual shows miraculous things can, do, and have occurred. We cannot just out of the box reject them because they are miraculous on that basis alone; that would be to reject by definition only; this would keep all miraculous events on the outs without exception. As I pointed out to you earlier, no matter which method you describe the universe being here, without exception, all are miraculous.
If you have alleged 'eyewitness' accounts of miraculous events, you have to ask yourself what is more likely; that a miraculous event actually happened, or was the 'eyewitness' lying, mistaken or misled. If you are unable to investigate the 'eyewitness' and the circumstances of the miraculous event directly, then you are on very shaky ground if you conclude that the m ...[text shortened]... look at that with extreme suspicion, maybe you're not actually considering things very objectively.
Even looking at the witnesses, if they were skeptics like Paul was putting people in prison, signing off on the deaths of believers, then suddenly he has an experience that flips his world where now he writes much of the New Testament what do we do with him? It wasn't that he gained fame and glory; he lost all the prestige he had while being a member of the Pharisees by turning into a Christian. The Way was looked down on by everyone; what benefit was there to add to the stories of women as witnesses and made up stories of what supposed did happen when anyone living in that time would have been aware of them?
These things were done in the open for everyone to see; they were not done in the dark in a faraway land that people were told they took place; it was done in broad daylight for all to see. The Scribes and Pharisees' issue was that these things were done right in front of people, and they still wanted to deny them and kill off those that promoted such things. This is one of the reasons it is an amazing thing we do have text concerning those times if talking about them and believing in them was enough to have you thrown out of the temple, having a written account, well. Rome wasn't at all too happy with them, too, considering who they promoted as Lord over all, not Christ.
@avalanchethecat saidIn a sense, perhaps.
Sounds like transference to me.
Let's say that I perceive, without delusion, that all that exists is created, then am I delusional?
Nope! I just can't prove it.
If my perceptions are accurate, then my assessment of the delusions of atheism is correct, the objections of atheists notwithstanding.
Hence the apparent conundrum.
But there is no conundrum.
Either I, as a believer in creation, am correct, or atheism is the answer to the delusion of belief in a creator.
Which is true? The answer is in all that exists. How can it be otherwise?
@kellyjay saidIf your belief in a creator being or entity stands on its own and is not dependent on your religion ~ indeed, you say it cannot be connected to the scripture of your particular religion ~ then why do you anthropomorphize that entity?
Looking at the mechanics of life, we can glean a few things about the one responsible if we accept someone is. One, they are brilliant and powerful, far beyond us. Connecting what we see with scripture cannot be done, just on what we see in the natural universe; any claim can be made without having too much effort to prove them.
@fmf saidI can talk and chew gum simultaneously, as long as I'm not trying to walk in a straight line 🙂 while I do it. Everyone has a bias, we all have our beliefs, we all think what we believe is true, and what we don't believe in has issues. That said, I'm not asking for anyone to take a leap of faith in the unknown concerning how I view scripture and God in this discussion. To borrow someone else's example, if we were to explore an area that was thought never to have had humans there before and find drawings and pictographs about the drawings, our bias would have to acknowledge that what we thought was true wasn't based upon evidence. I'm only asking people to look at the evidence and judge between two things, a mindless cause or one designed.
If your belief in a creator being or entity stands on its own and is not dependent on your religion ~ indeed, you say it cannot be connected to the scripture of your particular religion ~ then why do you anthropomorphize that entity?
@kellyjay saidAs I thought, your rhetorical device - decoupling your belief in a creator entity from your belief in the Christian God figure - which you deployed when talking to avalanchethecat - does not appear to withstand even the small amount of scrutiny I gave it.
Everyone has a bias, we all have our beliefs, we all think what we believe is true, and what we don't believe in has issues. That said, I'm not asking for anyone to take a leap of faith in the unknown concerning how I view scripture and God in this discussion.