Elshamah

That's not answering the question asked; you were asked to prove that your moral standards are "correct" and to "Prove that your morals are moral."

 

Even if we all agree about the 10 commandments, that doesn't make them moral; do you suggest morality is simply voted for by the majority? I assume (and hope) you do not, in which case asking us if we disagree (or agree) with them is irrelevant to proving them as moral ethical system.

 

That said, there are two versions of the ten commandments. The commandments themselves are more or less the same, but it's worth noting that there ARE variations between then (a nice comparison table can be seen here http://en.wikipedia....mbering_schemes)

 

And finally, do tell, which ten commandments are we to agree on? The ones that state clearly thou shall not work in the sabbath, or the one saying clearly "thou shall not make any graven image" ? Both are later expanded upon, by the way. Graven image clearly includes any and all graven images regardless of intent or purpose (which puts the depiction of the cross - especially one that includes a crusified man on it - no the other side of this moral law) and the rules about "respecting the sabbath" are clearly emphasized as having a day off not only for yourself, but for your animals and slaves. If this is our moral compass, it seems only extremely religious jews are moral.

 

Then again, you need to tell us why this list, out of this archaic book written over 2000 years ago, is representing morality, when the book it is written in has extreme examples of quite radical evil done by people who are supposedly representing good. There are laws in this book that might have had some shred of logic 2000+ years ago but only because of the way cultural biases went.

 

A woman who was raped must marry her rapist. ( Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

While 2000+ years ago, this *might* be excused for cultural reasons -- the raped woman would have likely been cast aside and be left husband-less, which in those times meant poverty and death -- it is quite hard to claim this is "the moral behavior" today.

 

That's only one example, out of many. God murders all first-born children in Egypt just to "harden pharaoh's heart" (Exodus 7). Both the murder of innocent little children (whatever order of birth they may have) *and* doing so to purposefully make Pharaoh resist and fight so God can show his might are incredibly cruel. Should we judge these as moral?

(The chapter is here, if you wish to review it: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt0207.htm)

 

And there are more examples, if you really insist, we can go in depth into the morality (or lack thereof) of the bible. But that's not the topic of this argument.

 

If you claim the 10 commandments are moral (or the source of morality) then you need to explain why. If your reasoning why is that it is given by God and/or written in the holy bible, then you have a problem by mere existence of the abundance of immoral acts and decrees in the bible. We can't follow something half way, and we definitely can't just "Accept" this is moral just because some people might agree on the loose terms of this particular chunk of text and this particular iteration.

 

You were asked to prove it, and this isn't a theology forum; you need to do better, and provide evidence of why you claim this is a better moral strategy than any other. Your evidence can come from literature, psychology, sociology, physics, evolution, biology, and whatever else you think fits, but they have to be properly cited, properly backed up by logical arguments and properly explained.

 

"Do you disagree with the 10 commandments" is not proof of anything regardless of the answer to the question.

 

~mooey

The answer is from two websites :

Why should the Bible be our source for morality?

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-morality.html

http://www.equip.org/articles/sabbath-keeping-and-the-new-covenant/

The first 5 of them have nothing to do with morality or ethics.

On thou shalt not kill, God cannot take the moral high ground since he commands not only killing but genocide, and commits wholesale specicide when he floods the earth (I mean, if we're accepting the myth as true, right?). And if he is that morally bankrupt that he cannot even follow his own guidelines, why should I consider that anything he says on the subject is worth paying attention to.

 

 

Why should I accept anything as an objective moral standard from a being who cannot even abide by his own supposed standard?

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html

Atheism is the non-belief in a deity.

You don't have to "believe that there is no god" just not believe that there is.

I do not BELIEVE that there is a bear outside eating my garbage.

I do not believe that there are no bears outside eating my garbage.

I simply lack an opinion strong enough to be described a belief on the issue.

and strong atheism is ............. ??!!

wait WHAT! IS SOMEONE STEELING THE HUNDREDS OF FOSSILS OF TRANSITIONAL SPECIES!!!!!!!

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc03.html#fsslrcrdgpsnrsstlldstrbnglckfmssnglnksrtrnstnlfrmsbtwnthmjrgrpsfrgnsms

"In the early days of evolutionary paleontology it was assumed that the major gaps would be filled in by further discoveries, and even, falsely, that some discoveries had already filled them. As it became more and more evident that the great gaps remained, despite wonderful progress in finding the members of lesser transitional groups and progressive lines, it was no longer satisfactory to impute this absence of objective data entirely to chance. The failure of paleontology to produce such evidence was so keenly felt that a few disillusioned naturalists even decided that the theory of organic evolution, or of general organic continuity of descent, was wrong, after all." (Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "Tempo and Mode in Evolution," [1944], Columbia University Press: New York NY, 1949, Third Printing, p.115).

the fact that you have gotten this of topic is a little telling...

Planets forming is well explained in modern science.

hahahaa, no kidding....

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t415-the-naturalistic-formation-of-planets-exceedingly-difficult

But if you ask how this dust actually started to form planets, you might get an embarrassed silence. Planets, it seems, grow too fast—no one knows why the dust clumps together so quickly<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; text-align: justify; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The most difficult step is the first, gravitational contraction of dust to form small particles. Dust grains must first accrete to form small particles, which must continue to grow until they are at least 10 m in diameter. This size is the point at which gravity is expected to come into its own, accreting and condensing material at a faster and faster rate. Then supposedly, planetesimals would form that are many kilometres across. The planetesimals are finally envisaged to collide to form planets. There are difficult problems with these later steps, but I will focus on the first step: how does the dust collide, stick together and grow before gravity can assert itself? That is the big question. The tiny dust particles must hit each other head on and stick.1 The process (which is speculative anyhow) is too slow, especially in cold regions of space, according to astronomers. A number of hypotheses are in vogue, but all seem to have fatal flaws.

Dark matter can't be seen because it is dark. (not emitting em).

oh sure.......

http://www.charliewagner.net/big.htm

Most of the evidence collected so far gives no indication that this huge amount of invisible matter exists. As far as the universe is concerned, what you see is what there is.

Again cause and effect does not make sense without the existence of time.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/grunbau.html<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

then what did god use to make the universe?

his powerful word.

He made it out of nothing? That makes no more sense (NEITHER DOES A BEING SPEAKING ANYTHING INTO EXISTINCE.)

We cannot understand, how a powerful God might speak something into existence, but it still makes a LOT more sense, than to substitute a powerful creator with simply absolutely nothing.

all concepts rooted in time and do not make sense "prior" to the big bang.

i do not agree. See above answer.

You can take any question we don't yet know the answer to and say it proves god.

I don't use the God of the Gaps argument. The beginning of the universe, its fine tuning, complex specified information stored in dna, conscience, morals , all of it points directly towards a intelligent , morally perfect creator.

Unanswered questions do not indicate god.

If the questions cannot be answered with naturalism, indeed it does. That is a logical step of thinking.

Prove that your moral standard is correct. Prove that your morals are moral.

Do you disagree with the 10 commandments in Ex.20 ?

we have MANY standards ONE OF WHICH IS IN POST #7 THE FIRST VIDEO (I all caps for emphasis, not to denote that I am shouting)

thats is EXACTLY the point. Which of all these standards is the binding one ? Hitlers standard is ok ? if not, why not ? who tells, his standard was wrong ?

have you ever wondered why in the court of law a person is guilty until proven Innocent?

what does that matter to the discussion ?

No one can prove that a creator does not exist.

thats why i have not made that question. But in the same way, as you ask for evidence of Gods existence, ( which i have actually provided plenty of it, despite the insistante assertion there is no evidence for gods existence ) strong atheists should also be capable to provide positive evidence that naturalism is true. So far, i have not seen ONE good and compelling argument.

A positive statement however can be proven true (if the ball had been visible) therefore the burden of proof is placed on the one making the positive affirmation.

ie. you have to provide evidence for your gods existence.

provided plenty of it :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god

where is yours for philosophical naturalism ?

yes we know that you think so.

can you tell us why?

Because without God, morals would be just a subject of individual and cultural opinion. If i think that torture, rape, kill, and eat your newborn daughter is the most sublime, delightful, good behavior, based on what moral standard can you possibly say, i did something bad ? Why is your OPINION worth more than mine ?

Same question, right back at you.

well, if you cannot answer my question, my argument is confirmed. Without God, no objective moral standard exists.

p.s. people who loose a debate, and start adhoms, calling me dishonest, should search for other people to debate.

No... one is not warranted to to conclude anything of the sort, but lets go with this, if someone comes up with a better theory than the big bang, lets say just for the sake of shits and giggles that this theory is better supported than the big bang and it asserts that the universe is eternal, has no beginning or end, just change from one state to another will you abandon your faith in a creator god? Are you honest enough to admit it when your assertions about god are disproved? Will you become an atheist if this happens? or will you continue to look for even smaller places to put your foot? Oh I mean god...

 

BTW your web site and your shameless promotion of your own website as evidence which gives no answers that have not been refuted many many times is dishonest, doesn't your creator have something to say about that? something about a 9th commandment?

you just ignore my point, and come up with a bunch of speculative questions. You ignored also all the evidence i provided to you for Gods existence, and dismissed it without hesitation, not giving a hint of serious consideration.

That tells whats up with you. You do reject God based on emotional ground, and think you have good reasons for doing so. Unfortunately, you just delude yourself.......

 

You claim god derives from nothing if not where did he come from, saying he is eternal is no better than saying the universe is eternal... why add a layer of complexity that adds more questions?

 

 

Of course it is better. Scientific evidence points to a finite universe, which had a beginning.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Firstly, it must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. Finally, in order to create the universe ex nihilo, this cause must be enormously powerful, if not omnipotent. One is warranted in concluding that therefore, God exists.

Again, i suggest you actually think about what you are saying, first of all atheism is simply lack of belief in a god or gods... nothing more...

And what is strong atheism ??!!

you are asserting that morals can only come from god, i have shown you this is false

no, you have not. beside this, i have said that objective moral standards can only come from God.

morality is possible with out gods.

you have not answered my question : which moral standard ? and it is based on what exactly ?

But I can go further and show that morals are an intricate part of any and all social species as applies to their particular needs.

ok, please show me how moralities apply to the animal world, since animals have no decision power, but behave based on their instincts.

People who do not socialize well tend not to successfully reproduce over time

that would mean, that all animals, that do not socialize, would have to be extinct by now.

, our basic moral structure is rooted in our biology.

absolute assertions demand absolute proofs. Prove your assertion, please.

Now you go further and say that morals can only be derived from god, in your case a particular god, but if we examine the behavior of your god and the behaviors he demands from his followers it is easy to show your god is not moral in the human sense at the very least.

that is your subjective opinion , probably based on the fact that you have not studied the bible.

But there is a greater problem here, you keep asking for evidence that there is no god which is simply silly.

no, you should care and pay more atention to the formulation of my question. I am asking for evidence the universe is all there is. thats different.

To be 100% sure there are no gods would require a being with at least god like powers to make such an assertion. It is how ever easy to show, as has been shown many times here, that there is no evidence for the existence of god.

That is a silly assertion, made like a mantra by non thinking atheists. Our universe is evidence, either for atheism, or theism. It just depends on how we do interprete the scientific knowledge we do have. For me, there is plenty of evidence for theism, all creation tells us how powerful and wonderful the God is, that created all we see and observe.

Evidence of God :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t5-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god

your ideas about god keep getting shoved into smaller and smaller places

thats just wishful thinking. you might ignore this, but there is a revolution going on in the scientific community towards intelligent design. There is less and less evidence for the evolution theory.

None the less even if the big bang turns out to be correct

nontheless, many questions simply remain unanswered, or the answers do not satisfy. How did planets form ? why are we not able to detect dark matter ? the big bang theory is full of unanswered questions, despite some issues, like the beginning of the universe, are well answered.

and the universe cannot be explained by natural causes we can be aware of that does not mean that a god did it much less that your god did it...

well, either the universe was created , or it was not. Either one, or the other. There is no further alternative. If the universe had a beginning, what the big bang theory strongly suggests, then the universe had a cause. Which is evidence for a creator.

your idea that something must come from nothing if the big bang is true is a strawman as well. Only you are asserting that something comes from nothing,

no , i actually said, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

a god that comes from nothing and makes everything from nothing...

i did not say, that God came from nothing, or that he was created. but that God is eternal, without beginning, without a end.

We do not know does not mean god did it after all,

You can always replace " The evidence points clearly to a creator " with " we do not know yet ". that way, God can always be ignored, and be left outside the door . Unfortunately, you just betray yourself.

there is still no evidence what so ever for a god or your god, yes it would be extremely easy to god to show his existence, he has in the past... supposedly... stop the sun in the sky, swap the orbits of planets, if god is all powerful

Neither do i beleive, god is all powerful, neither that he wants to prove his existence to us.

No. The foundation of atheism is the nonacceptance of other peoples myths. It literally means not-theist. That's all. It is not itself a belief system, and it is not equivalent to nihilism.

It depends if you talk about weak, or strong atheism. Since atheists do defend a position, even if they declare themself weak atheists, it becomes clear very fast, that they are strong atheists.

And, no. Its indeed a belief system.

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

1. There is no God.

2. There is no afterlife.

3. There is no intuition; there is no spirituality; there is no absolute morality.

4. The brain is the mind, the mind is the brain: the mind is not transcendent.

5. Life is chemicals; DNA is life; the brain is a “meat machine’.

6. Complexity, no matter the degree, self-assembles.

Discussion with you is fruitless. Your mind is made up

How about you? are you open to consider a different view point as yours ?

, your positions are fallacious

Why so ?

 

You're not a reasonable discussion partner.

and last not least, a personal attack. why do i not wonder about this ?

Evidence for naturalism? The computer you are typing this on works because science based on naturalism works, the medicine you take, the car you drive, the airplane you fly across, country in the food you eat, in fact our entire first world civilization works due to scientific naturalism. Take away scientific naturalism and people begin to die immediately, millions within days, pray for the sick and injured all you want they will die, pray your water supply works or that the sewage system works, pray for electricity to be generated. Within months billions of us would die, no more technology, no more food, no more medicine.... scientific naturalism, it works, it provides us with life it's self, pray all you want, I'll go with science for the win and civilization...

dodging my question......Naturalism helds, that the natural universe is all there is. No intelligent creator required. Please present evidence for this world view.

Hitler was religious, in fact he was a creationist, if you don't understand why Hitler was wrong then you either cannot comprehend empathy

it doesnt matter what Hitler declared to be. Fact is, he thought to kill jews was good. Based on what moral standard can you possibly say he was wrong ?

Based on what can you say, empathy is good ?

 

or you need to be threatened with eternal damnation before you will behave, either way is unacceptable...

Lets say, that would be a matter of fact. Why would it be unacceptable ? based on what can you determine, what is acceptable, what is not ? the foundation of atheism is complete nihilism.

Yes I can, I have done so, just because you cannot keep from raping and pillaging the world with out the threat of eternal damnation doesn't mean everyone else shares your character flaw...

well, lower the level, and make personal attacks, does not strenghten your position.

I respect the life of other human beings, I respect their need for life, it's called empathy, I do not have to have a god to tell me if harming someone else is wrong...

based on what moral standard can you possibly know, that respect the life of other human beings, and empathy , is good, and harming someone is wrong ??? Hitler thought, kill the Jews was a good thing for germany. Based on what do you believe, your moral standard is above Hitler's ?

So... it finally comes out, if I had only studied the bible I would agree with you... I have no disbelief in god, I have no belief in a god or gods, I see no evidence of such a being or beings, in the absence of evidence the default position is there are no gods...

What a weak position, based on a negative..... How about rather than that, you present evidence naturalism is true, and nature is all there exists, no intelligent cause involved in our existence ?

How much would you like to bet? To be completely honest actually reading and studying the bible is what makes me sure your god does not exist... Before I actually studied it I was quite sure a god or gods existed, most probably your god in fact, but reading it and actually trying to understand it instead of listening to what everyone else claimed it said and meant convinced me that your god is nothing but mythology, much like Zeus, Mars, Jupiter, Thor, Odin, and every other deity tossed onto the trash bin of human belief your god is no better than any of the others and deserves no better than any of the others....

And based on what evidence do you believe, naturalism is true ? any positive arguments and explanations on hand ?

You have been presented with an objective moral standard that does not need god.

 

couldn't this "objective moral standard" come from a different god. perhaps a deistic god?

Your god does things which we all can agree are wrong even if that moral consensus is subjective.

Why do we need an objective moral standard to judge god (or anything else)with?

Why do you insist that all morals come from god?

 

because without God, no objective moral standard can exist. Everything becomes relative, individual, and subjective. Why should your moral standard be above Hitler's ?

Are you attempting to claim these things are moral?

Would you claim that if a human did these things that they would be objectively immoral?

I think that you would.

If God does not exist, than objective moral standards do not exist. Therefore , you cannot define what is moral, what is not.

This is the most dishonest dissembling apologetic crap i think i have ever heard of

Well , you think you have something on hand to justify your disbelief in God. However , you have not. I bet you have not studied the bible, otherwise you would not come to the conclusion you expose here.

Did you not watch the videos in post #7, or is it just that you didn't understand them?

 

They make it clear that objective morality exists and that God;'s reported behaviour is immoral.

Even if, lets say, the argument would stand, how exactly would that prove God does not exist ?

Is God a moral monster ?

http://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/10/is-god-a-moral-monster/

When you start presenting evidence, I'll listen.

No, you will not. The problem is not the evidence. The problem is your will. Even if i would prove you Gods existence, you would reject God.

 

If you aren't here to discuss things based on evidence and science, why did you join a science forum?

I have actually done so, and shown that the codified, complex, specified information contained in DNA unmistakenly evidences a intelligent mind as origin of life. But you prefere to tape your ears and eyes. So the same question, you should actually direct to yourself.

You have made a positive assertion that god exists, in fact you are asserting that a particular god exists but no matter, the burden of proof is on you not me....

I am able only to show why i believe the scientific evidence points to a intelligent creator. I have done so. Information in DNA is just one of many examples. If you do not believe in my interpretation of facts, how about you present a BETTER explanation , lets start, and talk - how about just the information contained in DNA ?! If you think , no intelligence was involved, what else, and why would that something else be more compelling ?

This assertion is at odds with experimental results for the Casimir effect.

Particles pop in and out of existence even in an "empty" space and they cause measurable effects.

 

Your reasoning is based on a false premise (as well as being deeply logically flawed)

BS.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" ([1986], p. 440). The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

And you have no idea how ironic that statement is, do you? It is obvious that further discussion with you on the matter is pointless. You are unwilling to actually consider what is being said to you.

 

How about you ?!!

But indeed : no one can convince me on the contrary. Neither i am here with that purpose. I have seen miracles happen in my life, that makes in impossible to NOT believe in God.

the supernatural does not exist.

do you know how I know?

because that is basically what the word supernatural means....

natural:Existing in or caused by nature

nature:the universe, with all its phenomena.

so the phrase unnatural basically not existing within the universe.

lets see what universe means....

 

universe:the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

so basically if something exists it it natural and not supernatural.

if ghosts were proven to exist they would be considered natural.

so we know that life began by natural means because whatever happened (even if it was your god) we would describe it as natural.

so why should we pick one natural argument over another: evidence Aabiogenesis has more

The problem is just about semantics . We can just replace the word supernatural with God. A God that is above our universe, and the known dimensions.

So could invisible dragons, what is your point?

My point is, that from absolutely nothing, nothing derives. The universe most probably had a beginning, therefore a cause.

A naturalistic cause that doesn't add a unnecessary layer of complexity... such as colliding branes in a multidimensional space...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory<br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); "><br style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(251, 251, 251); ">Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored.

do you believe we are the result of such a big lucky accident ?

And yet you provide no evidence for the god you believe in that is any better than the evidence of Harry Potter.....

Please present evidence, the universe is all there is.

just a few tiny things that show that if god is real then he is a immoral monster...

It seems you do not understand my question. Here again : Based on what moral standard can you say God is a moral monster ? how do you possibly know these commands were morally rejectible ?

he also asks you to kill anyone who works on Sunday

really ? where ?

Jesus did not negate the laws of the old testament, I tire of having to tell wide eyed believers what their own holy book says, I also tire of pointing out their holy book is morally corrupt on a scale that is difficult to comprehend if you truly are a moral person, I also tire of pointing out their's is not the only god, goddess, or gods with a holy book and has exactly the same evidence as any other holy book. I tire of pointing out they are worshiping a book written about myths about god instead of god.

 

I tire of morally bankrupt, self righteous, people who think they have to right to judge the moral character of others based on this crock of horse feathers they call religion...

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=75UeVLbkXeg

 

I have no problem with people believing in a god or gods or a goddess, as long as they understand it's a belief and cannot be used to dictate reality I have no problem it it, in fact i will defend your right to your beliefs. You have every right to believe in your god, you have no right to assert it as reality...

Could you point out based on what moral standard you can say , the God of the bible is morally bankrupt ?

Your comment here is self-falsifying. If it is "super-natural," then it is "beyond" nature. Ergo, it cannot explain what we see "in" nature.

The supernatural can be the cause of the natural. Where is the problem ?

Even if you deny this, you cannot reasonably argue that your personal version of mythologies and fictions are an "explanation" for anything other than human ignorance and delusion, or perhaps their ability of authors to create baseless stories only fractionally connected to reality.

How comes ? please present a better explanation for the existence of the universe, than a intelligent creator.

Your comment above is equivalent to saying that the existence of characters in Harry Potter books are "one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature," and it's frankly both childish and silly.

Yes, Harry Potter would be silly and childish. You cannot however compare something, that has no evidence, with the God i believe in.

While I admit we do not have all the answers, using supernatural explanations tosses science out the window.

Of course not. The supernatural is one of the possible explanations based on what we see in nature.

The first video I posted in post #7 explains that quite nicely, of course we could go with your objective morality and kill anyone who disagrees with your bible...

Jesus asks us to love,not to kill each other.

This is incorrect. I can say with confidence that Adolph Hitler was wrong, and I can give you an reasonable, rational explanation for why.

that will be nothing more than your personal opinion. If Hitler thought, he was right, what makes your opinion be more worth or valid than his ?

You can't infer it, you have to prove it. They are not the same things. Prove that codified information must come from a mind.

I don't need to prove anything, to show how rational my position is.

http://www.chirpz.com/2011/04/19/dna-evidence-for-god/

Define "finely tuned".

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t31-the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

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.

1

Well, you are half right. The cell contains information.

There is no need or logical reason to suppose that it comes from a mind.

 

well, can you give a example, just one, of codified information, as contained in DNA, that has a natural, aka non intelligent origin ?

The irony of this sentence fragment is just stupefying. Aliens seeding the earth would be more logical than God did it. God did it is not logic, it's a jump to a preassumed conclusion to fill a gap in present knowledge.

I infered this conclusion actually based on scientific knowledge, namely that the cell contains codified information, and such information comes always from a mind.

Because thus far science has not failed to find natural explanations for any other process in Nature, and there is no reason to expect science to fail us now. It does not necessarily follow that an answer does not exist just because it's not obvious or easy to find.

Scientific data actually points clearly to a supernatural origin of all universe, since naturalism is not able to explain convincingly why our universe is finely tuned to create life, and life per se. And the origin of the universe points us to a cause of it. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives.

Intelligent design is, at its heart, one huge argument from incredulity.

nope.

http://www.ideacente...ils.php/id/1186

the argument notes that intelligent design theory is a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of specified (or irreducibly) complex information, and thus argues from positive predictions of design. The lack of detailed step-by-step evolutionary explanations for the origin of irreducible complexity is the result of the fact that irreducible complexity is fundamentally not evolvable by Darwinian evolution.

If you want to prove that there is a creator, you need to provide positive evidence that such a creator exists. And I'll stop you before you get started "Look at the world around you" is not evidence of God. It's evidence of Nature.

And how did this nature came to be ?

http://www.gty.org/r...t-or-not-part-1

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild.

And people used to believe that the world was flat.

a case of a creator, page 107

Writers of astronomy textbooks just keep recycling the myth, sort of like the flat-Earth myth, which was the idea that Columbus was told the Earth was flat and he thought it was round. That's just wrong too.""Scholars at the time knew it was a sphere," added Gonzalez. "Even the ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere."They'd known it for a thousand years or more," said Richards.I knew they were right about that. David Lindberg, former professor of the history of science and currently director of the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin, said in a recent interview:One obvious [myth] is that before Columbus, Europeans believed nearly unanimously in a flat Earth-a belief allegedly drawn from certain biblical statements and enforced by the medieval church. This myth seems to have had an eighteenth century origin, elaborated and popularized by Washington Irving, who flagrantly fabricated evidence for it in his four-volume history of Columbus.... The truth is that it's almost impossible to find an educated person after Aristotle who doubts that the Earth is a sphere. In the Middle Ages, you couldn't emerge from any kind of education, cathedral school or university, without being perfectly clear about the Earth's sphericity and even its approximate circumference.

Correct. In much the same way, thunder is not evidence of Thor,

thunder and lightning is actually evidence of God.

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

Iff it were established that a natural cause was unlikely then you would have a point.

However there is nothing unlikely about it.

You will have a point, if you can show me one, just one example of naturally arosen complex, specified, coded information, as contained in DNA.

Which people repeatedly told you is incorrect, why it's incorrect, and supplied evidence on the matter.

you seem like a kid, that taps the ears, and lalalalalaaaaa.......

http://www.biology-online.org/9/4_genetic_information.htm

The genome refers collectively to the total genetic information coded in a cell.

http://regentsprep.org/regents/biology/2011%20Web%20Pages/Genetics-%20DNA-RNA%20page.htm

The inherited instructions that are passed from parent to offspring exist as a code. The DNA molecule which makes up our genes contains this code.

What do you not understand about this ?

But none of this matters, because you seem to be convinced of the conclusion you want to believe in, and nothing we show you, claim, or explain, seems to matter.

doesnt that seem to be rather your case ?

Why bother, then? We're really not here to hear you preach, Elshamah.

~mooey

I am absolutely flabbergasted that you give this example about the magical invisible Santa Claus and doesn't see that it's exactly the same case as any magical invisible intelligent designer.

 

Do you really miss the fact that an intelligent designer without a single evidence is more similar in concept to Santa Claus than a natural process with some evidence?

 

Well, you exist. we exist. Our universe exists. That demands for a explanation. Do you have good reasons to believe, our natural universe is all there is, and needs no cause ? If so, how about you present your reasons ?

No there is really only creation and it's only only debatable whether or nor it occurred naturally.

The outcome is the same. Once its been established, that a natural causation is very unlikely, a supernatural cause is the logical alternative.

You could never rule out natural causes because it always's possible that it happened naturally

How do you possibly know ?

and we just don't understand how

its also possible that Santa Claus exists. We has just not found him yet....

Science doesn't have all the answers but that's no reason to just make up answers like ID.

ID is not a made up answer, but a logical inference based on what we have discovered through science.

You can hypothesize it if you want but don't think the disproving of other hypotheses would ever prove yours.

Proofs, only in mathematics.

This is logically inconsistent.

If abiogenesis is impossible then nothing could have created the " intelligent, living creator".

I do not believe, God was created, but exists eternally, without beginning, without a end.

 

Well, thanks... But I preferred the response to that article that pointed to several of its flaws and problems.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3246855/

Could you point out the flaws, the the document pointed out, that convinces you the paper is wrong ?

provide scientific evidence of the 3rd if that is your goal.

There are only two possibilities : spontaneous generation of life, or creation. Once spontaneous generation can be discarted based on the scientific knowledge and evidence, design is a logical inference.

The amazing scientific discoveries of the last twenty years have indeed revealed to us, that biologic systems are machines - far more complex , even at the deepest , molecular level, than we could imagine in our wildest dreams. And astrophysics has shown us that not only on a microscopic level, but also on macroscopic scale, everything is finely tuned to make life possible . There are hundreds of fine-tune constants, which evidence in a very evident way : we were created by a super intelligent creator.

I'm reacting to your claims and the paper you posted. It talks about irreducible complexity, and you've been talking about it throughout the thread as well.

 

This is getting tiring. The person that needs to prove their claim true is you, and so far your evidence have been sub par to say the least. "Institute of Creation Research" (ICR) is not a scientific source. Discovery institute (creationist / intelligent-design proponents) is not a scientific source.

ok. you want to keep our discussion in regard of irreducible complexity in the cell ? so you were asking for peer reviewed articles. I provided them to you. So now that is not enough, right ? So now, you ask for secular sources ?

no problem.

The cell is indeed irreducibly complex. That makes spontaneous generation impossible.

Popper, K.R., Scientific reduction and the essential incompleteness of all science; in: Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T. (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270, 1974.

the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (1902–1994), expressed the huge problem:

'What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. "'Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.

When you give a scientific source, please link or quote the full paper, because quote-mining (as was done before) is also not science, and is intellectually dishonest.

I have always linked the source of my quote. Is that not enough ?

So far the only semi-valid evidence

are quotes from Dawkins, Crick, Collins etc. semi valid ? If so, what kind of evidence is valid to you ? only the one , that fits your pre conceived world view ??!!

If we're talking about abiogenesis, DNA "information" is almost invalid on its own, because no scientist claims that DNA just "popped into being" randomly.

Of course not. No scientist has a time machine, to back in the past, to find out what really happened. The conclusions are just personal opinions and beliefs.

The idea of abiogenesis is that this stage occured slowly, incrementally, over chemical processes and bonds that we managed to replicate.

Correct. Abiogenesis is based on a belief.

Do you have any other claims you're interested in supporting, please do so, even just for the sake of organizing this thread and getting back on whatever topic you intended to focus on rather than having us reading articles that tend to go all over the place, and when we answer the "all over the place" points, you claim we're off topic.

Well, i was actually concentrating in showing that DNA contains actually literally a code.

until you came up with evolution and irreducible complexity. How about we figure out, if DNA contains literally a code, or not, and then we draw our conclusions , or move forward ?