If you wish to enter into a written agreement to formalise this Offer then please email me on acstewart81@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CASE Branch Office
Washington DC Branch Office
CASE Profile
- CASE - now with holiness
- CASE is diametrically opposed to all faith based organisations. CASE can scientifically show all faith based organisations are wrong. With Science. Our aim is to replace religion in public life, whether that be in politics, education or social policy with our own superior brand of reasoning. CASE does not need to refer to an almighty God to make decisions. CASE considers it would be irresponsible to abdicate personal responsibility to a third party, particularly as that third party is imaginary. Furthermore, CASE would be negligent if it did not engage in showing the works and policies of the faithful to be the fanciful wishthinking that it is.
New Poll - Politics
Preacher Watch
Intelligent Blogs
Websites that may interest you
-
-
-
Covidfreude3 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
I Think I Believe In God12 years ago
-
THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!13 years ago
-
A Few Truths13 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Intelligent Design Advocates at work
Sad but true
What will you choose?
23 comments:
With your definition of 'universe', it is logically impossible for one to provide what you are asking for. For if the universe is "the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied which is said to exist," then you are including God under that definition. So you are really asking for proof that God created not only matter, but also Himself. But it is logically impossible for something to create itself, as it would have to exist before it existed.
Furthermore, your definition of 'exist' had the word 'exist' in its definition.
Moreover, you are requiring a hard standard of what you consider as 'evidence'. Your presupposition of "only believing in things that are observationally proven" is literally self-refuting. For you cannot observationally prove that very presupposition.
Lastly, we're still praying for you.
Yes Ryan, I am asking for evidence of God. As you know, there is none. Thus, my money is pretty safe.
In relation to the definition of universe - simply put, if you can show how God exists then this would be satisfied wouldn't it. If, on the other hand, you seek special pleading with respect to that God then, under logic, I would have to discount your claim.
In relation to "exist" as you will see, that definition provides the attribute of the thing said to exist, thus, it is not self-referential. Rather, it references the thing claimed. There is no problem with that.
A rational decision is one made 1. with good reason and 2. based on the evidence. Evidence, by its nature, allows us to correlate our internal arguments with reality. Thus, even if we are internally logically consistent, if our premises do not correlate with reality then we cannot say those arguments are true (except in our heads). So, how do you determine if your internal logic correlates with reality - observation, dopey. There is literally no other way of doing it - anything else is a guess (or faith).
Don't bother praying for me. I would feel more comfortable if you "considered" the things I say rather than waste your time appealing to a third party magic sky daddy who you have created in your own mind based on the text of an iron age death cult.
"if you can show how God exists then this would be satisfied wouldn't it"
You didn't respond to what I wrote. Since you have defined the universe the way you did, it is simply impossible for anyone to provide for you what you want. So thus this contract is simply laughable. For it is logically impossible for God to create Himself. Moreover, no theist would even want to argue that. But that does not mean that there is no evidence for God (an uncaused God), for there is in fact plenty.
//"how do you determine if your internal logic correlates with reality - observation"//
But that statement also in itself cannot be proven observationally, so thus your verification principle is still literally self-refuting. Moreover, I do not think that your statement is true. If we have some facts that we have learnt from observation, sitting in our brains, and we use that information to logically deduct something new. That new fact came about through logical reasoning, not through observation (unlike the original facts). For example, since we know all effects have causes, if someone said to you, "This is an effect." Using logical reasoning, you come to know that there is a cause to this effect (even though you have never seen the cause).
//"how do you determine if your internal logic correlates with reality - observation"//
The only way you could deny this is to deny your own existence.
Do I exist - yes
How do I acquire knowledge about the world outside of myself - through observation by my senses.
Thus, it is not unreasonable to expect our knowledge about the outside world is dependent on our senses.
Furthermore, if you have knowledge in your mind, how do you check whether it correlates with the outside world? Through your senses.
If you don't manifest your senses which are your connection to the outside world, then how do you know whether your knowledge correlates to that outside world - well, you can't. By definition, such belief is "blind" faith - for it requires belief in something without seeing (hearing, touching, etc).
But, that statement is not reliant on my senses, but rather my own existence, "I think therefore I am". "I am receiving this information" is just the next step, and the only reasonable one.
Of course, I have always pointed out your belief in God is blind faith. So, my point is both reasonable and consistent.
If you don't trust your own existence or your senses then that's up to you.
Of course, I have always pointed out your belief in God is blind faith....If you don't trust your own existence or your senses then that's up to you.
Seeing you are adressing blind faith and issues of existentiality, here is the list of unresolved issues on this line you are yet to address Alex (we are still waiting):
1. Morality - where did your sense of outrage at wrongs and evil in the world come from?
1a. Justice - related to 1. where did your sense of justice for the poor come from?
2. Birds - how did this impossible form arrise and why do they breath, fly and sing in impossible ways in your evolutionary world view? (proof alex please)
3. Insects - why do they arrise vertually fully formed and never change in "millions of years"? (again proof please)
4. Evolutionary religion - as per Ruse you believe in a religion by faith, will you admit this or not?
5. The "myth of Jesus" - we need some support for your assertion here, and not a bibliography again please.
6. Dating methods - how do you explain the geological column in light of our article on dating
There is a long list Alex, we're waiting.
As a follow on Alex and an answer to your challenge:
You have refused to answer the evidences you have been given that logically lead to a deduction of God's presence. Why on earth would we offer you other evidences given in person or by email when you have proven yourself publically to be unwilling to be rational or even calm in the discussion of these evidences?
I would not enter into a legally binding contract with one who has already proven himself obstinate. You would merely trample an further evidence underfoot in order to waste time in court.
David, I've explained them - you just refuse to listen. In summary
1. Morality - where did your sense of outrage at wrongs and evil in the world come from?
Empathy - Ive been over this more than anything else I think.
1a. Justice - related to 1. where did your sense of justice for the poor come from?
Same as 1.
2. Birds - how did this impossible form arrise and why do they breath, fly and sing in impossible ways in your evolutionary world view? (proof alex please)
I have shown numerous examples of the development of birds from dinosaurs. I placed about 20 posts on the last blog, please re-read them.
3. Insects - why do they arrise vertually fully formed and never change in "millions of years"? (again proof please)
I have shown the evolution of pterygota from the breathing mechanisms of larval insects. Again, re-read.
4. Evolutionary religion - as per Ruse you believe in a religion by faith, will you admit this or not?
Evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by evidence in the nature of all science. I admit it could be wrong - but there is no reason to believe so. Unlike faith, science opens itself up to being wrong. Thus, science is not a religion. This one I have also covered before.
5. The "myth of Jesus" - we need some support for your assertion here, and not a bibliography again please.
a. The evidence that you rely on for Jesus is flawed, late and not reliable.
b. There are other contradictory books (Phillip, Timothy) that you disclaim and yet have the same reliability (none) as your NT.
c. There are numerous stories from earlier religions which are interred within the NT story (IE Pythagoras and the 153 fish which features in John).
d. There are several contradictions in the bible which are the result of political conflict within the early church (I posted a video on this on YouTube, please have a look).
6. Dating methods - how do you explain the geological column in light of our article on dating
I haven't read the article yet as I am busy elsewhere. I may look at it over the weekend. But, I am assuming you make the common creationist argument that radiometric dating is flawed. Of course, the fact that none of this appears in reputable or reliable (to the best of my knowledge) scientific journals does lead to the possible inference that the testing was intentionally done from the presupposition that the earth was young. Nonetheless, it still doesn't affect the corroborative evidence of microwave background radiation from the big bang nor the light from stars. Most likely, any argument is probably going to be based on a misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) of the actual science.
David, these are all issues that I have given you a good deal of information about. The fact that you ignore my information and assume these are fresh claims is proof that you do not really listen to what I have to say, rather, you just write because you have faith that I am wrong.
Misplaced faith if you ask me...
You would merely trample an further evidence underfoot in order to waste time in court.
Lol - waste time in court. Clearly you have never met a judge.
David, I've explained them - you just refuse to listen....The fact that you ignore my information and assume these are fresh claims is proof that you do not really listen
Alex you have not explained or proven (or disproven at that) anything. You have given plenty of information true but most of it irrelevant to the discussion when looked at outside of your assertion that it proves your case.
1. and 1a. The issue is not that you have empathy or morality Alex (more disception, tut tut!), rather it is on origin. As I have asked before, where is your evidence that your empathy comes from an evolutionary source?
2 No what you have show is that some dinosaurs had pnuematisation of the spine and that embrionic bird scales can become feathers (duh, of course they will be able to do that! Basic embriology really). You have in no way refuted the impossiblity of flight feathers or avian respiration based on physiology and the progression you require for evolution of these creatures. As for these examples - cite me one that is a clear example of progression and not disputed even by your own people!
3. No Alex you asserted (claimed/proported whatever term you prefer) that flying insects came from laval lung structures. This was not something you supported with even a theoretical (let alone a fossil) progression from one to another.
As for the sudden appearance of insects with the presence of highly complex organs like compound eyes and wings (folded and not). You went straight for the evolution fairy tale book there and listed some long names I suspect you found on wikipedia and said - they came from them. Again no support or even explanation of possible theory.
4.Evolution is a scientific theory. It is supported by evidence in the nature of all science. I admit it could be wrong - but there is no reason to believe so.
Bravo! Said like one of the true evolutionary faithful. Full of faith and trust in the mighty scientists you claim have no vested intrest or subjectivity! Bah! Even Dawkins in all his rhetoric said that he has to deliberately blind himself to evidence of design to work as an evolutionist. Your above comments show you as sold out to a theory you repeatedly have failed to support against simple objections.
5. SIGH! Cant you read Alex? I didn't ask for more assertions with no basis but rather solid historical and literary sources that can be checked. Poor.
Try again!
6. Firstly Alex as is clear from Dr Behe's treatment when it comes to publishing in conventional scientific journals; the atheistic agenda will not even allow discussion of contary points of science. So of course you will find confirmation of old earth theorys in the journals.
On the other hand if you examine the methods and results of the papers the RATE folks published with their own funds (as apposed to sponging off the government), consider the science and then make your conclusion rather than your ussual biased and largely irrational approach.
The fact that you ignore my information and assume these are fresh claims is proof that you do not really listen to what I have to say, rather, you just write because you have faith that I am wrong.
In light of all the above I would say right back at you on this comment! Blind faith? Not listening? Prejudice? Have a look in the mirror.
But that statement also in itself cannot be proven observationally, so thus your verification principle is still literally self-refuting.
Ryan, just quickly on this (because you seem not to have picked it up) Hume pointed out that humans really get knowledge through induction. Thats what sits at the base of all knowledge, because, as intelligent beings, we obtain knowledge from outside.
That does not actually make it self refuting. It just means that as a statement it is not absolute. Seeing as I usually point this out, I don't see the problem.
After all, science is the branch of philosophy which involves determining the quality of internal statements about external events and phenomenon. Science hypotheses, tests and concludes - those conclusions are still subject to the opening assumptions and thus (unlike religion) does not result in absolute statements.
This makes sense to someone seeking truth, perhaps not to someone that thinks they already have it.
Still avoiding the issues Alex.
Poor.
It's hypocritical to post what you do when you cant even give a reasoned defence of what you hold true.
David,
while I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs, the fact is that you do not want truth - only to defend your position. Why should I argue with someone that does not want to reason with me, rather, only wants me to agree to his views?
I have given you much material on all the issues you raise, you cannot say that I have not answered the issues. If you do not agree with me, that does not mean that I am not right or have not supplied an answer, merely that you do not agree with me.
If you ever come to love truth more than you love your own faith, come back and talk to me. Reason and argument - these are things you do not do David. Rather, you present new premise upon new premise - there is nothing interesting in that.
Of course, if you actually had any evidence for your beliefs (which we both know you do not) then you would have answered my challenge - but no, you prefer to level "facts" at me, most of which you have reproduced from AnswersinGenesis or Kent Hovind. I do not want to know what they think, I want to know what you think - yet you have never supplied me with it.
Ryan, on the other hand, has attempted reasoned arguments (albeit from the tainted point of faith). He rarely brings in new premises which makes argumentation rather more simple, concise and fun. Although I do not think he loves truth either, at least he has not closed off the avenue to it, yet.
Of course, there was one point that I just read in the "battlelog" where he raised an erroneous point about quantum fluctuation and uncaused causes. Ryan asserts that the quantum vacuum is itself a cause - this is of course wrong. there is no particular reason why a particle should appear in the quantum vacuum - it is random. The vacuum is actually the lowest energy point in the universe. It is as close to nothing as we can observe within the universe. It does, however, include the Higgs field in which matter is able to interact with the universe. His analogy, however, that the vacuum is a cause is flawed for the same reason it is flawed to say that a person needs air to survive, therefore, air creates the person. Think on it.
And don't stop asking questions.
I have given you much material on all the issues you raise, you cannot say that I have not answered the issues. If you do not agree with me, that does not mean that I am not right or have not supplied an answer, merely that you do not agree with me.
:) Dear me Alex, I don't keep chasing you because you have disaggreed with me on these issues. Rather it is because your answers are deficient. Ie lots of response, none of it giving a solid defence of what you claim.
Like many times previously when I have pulled you up about the lacking response your tactic is to respond with protests of irrational behaviour or paranoia (see your above response which is similar to so many).
Reason and argument - these are things you do not do David...I do not want to know what they think, I want to know what you think - yet you have never supplied me with it.
Again Bravo! Great rhetoric, you really would be fun to listen to if you were doing a debate. You even manage to make the groundless and false sound convincing!
Firstly on the CMI/Hovind issue I don't use Hovind's material due to moral concerns. Secondly you yourself refer to sources outside yourself (or are you so arrogant to claim you cite only your own material?). There is nothing you have raise to show CMI's or answers in genisis's work is unsound, as such I will continue to refer to them.
As for reason and logical arguement, I have laboured long and hard to give you a reasoned response to your objections. Name me the times when I have given you only premises - or is this another baseless assertion to distract from your faulty position?
Lastly when it comes to reason for faith. You have been given more than most when it comes to reasons why I believe. Your school yard contract with all the evidence of your obstinacy behind it is rediculous in the discussion of faith. You are not listening, still.
In spite of all of this I love your soul and long to see you submit to Jesus Christ as your Lord and the sacrifice of atonement for your sin. I'm praying for you.
Oh, as a post script Alex.
If you really cant read, only 3 of my points were regarding information from CMI/AIG. So your arguement that these are not my own thoughts is garbage.
I raised your deficient reasoning on evolutionary causes for morality and justice based off my varied reading and listening on the topic. You've stated that you have gotten it from an evolutionary source but never supported that claim in the face of contradictory facts from "similar" evolutionary situations.
I raised evolutionary faith with you on a similar basis. You have just denieghed it, which is your complaint to me!
Lastly the issue of historicity is completely unrelated to evolution and is purely a request that you be honest with your sources, thus far we only have your opinion and a bibliography.
David - you are the one rambling.
PS, evolution is not taken on faith. We test the predictions made by the theory and they work. Thus, it is reasonable to say that there is evidence that life developed through evolution.
I always provide the cavaet that I may be wrong, because such cavaet is required from reasonable people.
Could you be wrong about God? or Jesus? Do you ever consider those things?
If not, we can conclude that you are an unreasonable person.
Hmm, school yard taunts to go with your school yard contract.
How appropriate!
BTW - I don't think I'm infallible, I just believe God is.
Keep sticking to your guns Alex, you'll be a great defender of the atheistic faith like Dawkins one day I'm sure.
David - you are the one rambling.
And you Alex are stalling and sulking. Just answer the questions! It is long overdue and many times avoided on your part. I am generally pretty patient but this is beyond a joke.
If anyone wishes to look into the protest that I am raising with Alex then look at the previous 5-6 posts on this site and also on operation513.blogspot.com (bird article/radiocarbon article/A. Plantiga article on Dawkins). This chasing and refusal to answer is tiring Alex.
Come up with some answers and be honest for once.
David,
I offer answers and yet you disregard them - not for logical reasons - but rather because of your faith.
You don't actually get to the heart of what I am saying, so should I restate it? No, the answers are there and you have not read them, merely restated your woeful arguments - that is not getting us anywhere.
No I've read them and refuted them - you continue to fail to answer the issue. You behaviour here is in many ways like a school yard rhyme:
Alex the Atheist pudding and pie,
Bambozells Christians to make them cry,
But when the truth came into play,
Alex the Atheist ran away!
Like most bullies Alex you have a way of swaggering and bragging loud and clear when you think you can win. When on the other hand there is something that genuinely challenges you, you bolt for it.
You have said I never consider your questions but in faith just put them aside. I have spent hours on most of your questions and considered arguments and articles from both sides of the issue. You have tried to make a straw man of me and what I have done in response to you. You have failed, anyone who reads the posts can see that.
I'm going to leave you be for now, I hope one day I can talk with you face to face and again we can actually debate - your obstinancy has precluded any further constructive debate for now. Until then I'll be praying for you.
David,
I've read through a few of your responses and I can definitively state that you haven't refuted anything. You've only pushed the peas around the plate and not been courageous enough to swallow them.
I'm not a bully David.
Your people are seeking to impose a fairy tale from the iron age onto the world by distorting science. Your people are the bullies. They always have been.
How is it that opposing your people's imposition makes me a bully? Because everyone that doesn't agree with you must be your enemy, right?
I would gladly take up a face to face debate with you on any God related topic.
I do know the truth - you like to argue, you want to do "battle", this is pleasing to you.
Personally, I do this because I want to stop you from wasting the rest of your life on a fairy tale.
How is it that opposing your people's imposition makes me a bully? Because everyone that doesn't agree with you must be your enemy, right?
No Alex it is because you resort to name calling, scorning and mockery whenever you lack a decent response to an arguement. Even another atheist has rebuked you recently for your use of ad hominem.
As for you being my enemy, lucky for you I'm a Christian and desire to love you and pray for you and help you if you are in need.... If I was a consistent evolutionary atheist you would be a competitor for resources and as such.... you join the dots.
Your people are seeking to impose a fairy tale from the iron age onto the world by distorting science. Your people are the bullies. They always have been.
Nonsense, extremist muslims may go blowing up buildings, extremist hindus may go on riots and extremist atheists may do all sorts of holocaustic evil; fundementalist Christians on the other hand travel far and wide to bring people medicine, education, hope and the gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. This was made clear by Matthew Parris recently (a confirmed atheist in his own words), have a read:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece
Yeah Alex you haven't really addressed the 6 issues David Gee raised. Your responses to them were one line, ad-hoc, and lacking any sources to back up your assertions. For example, you are yet to respond to David Gee's comments on the Radiometric Dating Breakthroughs article.
Post a Comment