Squeers,

Many thanks :).

I don't think my remarks will find there way to any theist calandars.

David f,

Thanks, also. I missed that one (Jean Astruc). With Dan, I was simply pointing out that the Bible had several writers and scholars give the authors names and letters, as had previously posted. Normally, I would not have used the Internet. By skimming over the skeleton, I glossed over some detail. Guilty.

What I find sometimes happens with the OLO Faithful is that when something manifest, like a passage from Dead Scrolls, is cited, a physical object can be ignored or the theist just makes a smart quip. Not all, but some. Defense mechanisms, I guess.

Extropian1,

I don't think one has faith in science. Qualified trust, perhaps.

Trav,

<<I simply said they do provide evidence which can be taken to point towards an Intelligent Designer.>>

They can’t though, and that was the reason for me pointing out that their arguments were not “alright”.

<<That is, the case for evolution is not completely self evident and obviously true as many claim.>>

Yes, it is. Try giving one example of why it’s not. Just one. Creationists are never able to so I don’t have any confidence that you could, sorry.

I’m sorry to inform you of this since you appear to want to believe that “IDers” may have a point, but they don’t. They rely on misconstruing information, misquoting real scientists (quote mining (http://creation.com/qa)), inciting fear and loathing by falsely blaming evolution on the Holocaust, Communism (http://creation.com/communism-and-nazism-questions-and-answers) and whatever else they can dream up.

They are thoroughly dishonest people.

<<I simply mean no scientific experiment can directly establish his existence.>>

I’m not implying that any experiment could. Just that if a god manifested in reality, then we would be able to ‘know’ - not just ‘believe’. The mere fact that one must ‘believe’ should raise eyebrows alone.

Don’t worry, you explained yourself well enough, and at the risk of sounding patronizing, I know exactly what you’re talking about and where you’re coming from. I used to be a Christian too, remember. You’re arguments are all too familiar to me.

<<Jesus In my view God provides an explanation of all of these things better than any rival hypothesis I know of.>>

Co-incidentally, Christianity is also the predominant religion of the culture you grew-up/live in too.

Notice every person who “finds god” only ever seems to find the god of their culture? You never see a Westerner suddenly discovering Zeus or Shiva.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...one may well and truly discard naturalism yet not entertain theism (as CS Lewis did for a while before becoming a Christian).>>

I’m well aware of that with all the ‘new age’ rubbish around nowadays. But CS Lewis probably isn’t a good name to be bandying around if you want support for your case considering how somewhat lacking his reasoning was in adopting religious belief. His classic Liar, Lunatic, Lord nonsense, for example, in which he forgot the most obvious and most likely: Legend.

In regards to naturalism, I think this sums up the sophistry you’ve repeated from Christian apologists...

<<To put the problem simply: If naturalism is true, causes are ultimately reducible to chemicals and other physical elements. Yet, many of our beliefs are ultimately caused by other beliefs.>>

Our beliefs are formed from electrical pulses and the way our brains are “wired” as a result of our experiences.

You haven’t made a very strong case for the existence of a god, I’m afraid. But even if you had, that would still beg the question: What kind of a god would require that people go to such great lengths in mental gymnastics just for them to believe in him?

And if they need to go to such great lengths, then there’s certainly no way anyone could determine that Jesus provided a better explanation than the other gods with anything other than a massive leap of faith. Especially since there’s such an unreasonable punishment for disbelief.

its sad that david reacts..to my declaration...beloved.
its the meaning..behind the name

http://www.behindthename.com/name/david

<<From the Hebrew name &#1491;&#1468;&#1464;&#1493;&#1460;&#1491; (Dawid),..which was probably derived from Hebrew &#1491;&#1493;&#1491; (dwd)..meaning "beloved".>...

i recalled it as meaning beloved..[of god]..
but then who isnt beloved..[of god]...god loves us all

its said...that the messiah..comes from the house of..be-loved
so let me clarify...i love your mind david..no more no less..

you have a great turn of phrase/logical thinking/a good mind...it contrasts my inherant ramble..nicely..

its sad you should react...against love...but such are these times

all of love is of god/good..the only true love

when i say i love ya bro...i mean to say i try to love any/who use logic..[logus..being logic..sustaining life...etc]

further you wrote/quote..<<The ancestors of the pademelons..would be another topic....Somebody else...lol..possibly studied that.>>>...yes...lol possably...lol...

yet in a debate/../half a story...that gets deceptive..

see your PRE-suming...or assuming..that someone did..but see...we have become...SO SPECIALISED...we presume...but...see/here is the nub

you/evilutionist....PRESUME...to claim..little steps...
so a sudden END..means there was no more...little/steps...
ie the species/evolving...at the micro/level...RAN OUT/or spontainiously appeard..

no candidates..of simular...dna,..,was able to be found...that kills the theory...[of little steps.../evolution..of species..get it?]

the poosable candidates...are too far removed..from the paddy/melon dna...to be able to claim...little steps...

i know its so hard for you lot to compre-hend...but MACRO-e-volution..is shear fantisy

its/a thing..that occurs...ONLY..at the species-level
any change..away from its genus..has NEVER been recorded

yes its fine...to pretend...someone else has/..will...may do it...
BUT NO_ONE HAS..nor will...the paddymelon..is at a dead end...

the expert's...lol...have gone as far back/..with it..'evolving'...as they are able to go...

where is the micro/evolution..of the pre/paddymelon...?
simply speaking...its isnt there...you got dna..linked..back 10 million years...[all paddy/melon...then nothing...

dont that raise..any issue for you?
no i guess not...

lets just call that....YET ANOTHER...missing/link..science NEEDS to find..but hasnt/cant...lol

to say...<<<pademelons/first appeared then..according to the fossil evidence....>>...dont validate evolution/..in the least...

the dna...equals paddymelon...get it...!

no evolution/EVIDENSE...of evolution/out of/,,or into..the genus

im sure i should react to oli,ver,...
but am reluctant to enter his/and squeers love fest...

OUG: <im sure i should react to oli,ver,...
but am reluctant to enter his/and squeers love fest...>

Dear One Up On God, I just admired Oliver's aphoristic turn of phrase, as he doesn't indulge himself in that way very often--unlike me preferring logic and documentary evidence to rhetoric. But I'm more reserved, like davidf, and my love doesn't run any deeper than that. Though I confess I love reading your spagetti reasoning on this topic, and your obvious love of playfully teasing words apart, like a giggling deconstructionist who's lost the plot :-)
I do hope the brainier folk on this thread will take up your challenge and expound upon the genus paradox. Though perhaps you should lay out the problem in clear terms so that us laymen can understand it?

Dear OUG,

There's rhythm in the flow of your poetic rambling.

I appreciate real love from real human beings or even real dogs. Not the phony "God loves you" nonsense. The only real love is love for real individuals. I don't object to real love at all. I object to your mouthings of love. Love is too precious for that.

I was going to write an angry post, but Squeers called me reserved, and I am living up to expectations.

However, I have heard of a reasonable way to love God. Maimonides, the medieval Jewish philosopher, was asked how one could show love for God as God was not a palpable reality one could embrace. He said one shows love for God by using the divine mind he gave you to ask questions.

The messiah is a consequence of a myth that got out of hand. After the breakup of the kingdom of David and Solomon into Israel and Judah Jews were looking for a military figure who would reunite the kingdoms and restore former glory. The myth grew until the messiah was supposed to make the lion lie down with the lamb and make nations stop warring.

Jesus was a spectacular failure. Not only did he fail to restore the kingdom, but the world stayed just as warlike.

However, he made the same effective career move that Elvis did. Death! His followers were in two groups - the followers of Paul, mostly gentile, and the followers of James, Jesus' brother, Jewish. The failure of the Jewish revolt wiped out the Jewish branch of the franchise, but the followers of Paul took on the old Jewish myths and added them to the Jesus myth.

Dear Oliver,

I apologise for going off about Jean Astruc. His dates are from 1684 to 1766. I doubt that he did much work on biblical exegesis before age 16 so he really was an eighteenth century inquirer. I writhe at your feet in an agony of humble self-abasement. (figuratively)