Apologetics, Faith, Miracles, Prophecy, "God," Prayer, etc. [Archive I]

-DM-

November 7, 2001, 03:39 PM

From Can Prayer Heal? (http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1674.51527) by Jeanie Davis: Krucoff has been studying prayer and spirituality since 1996 -- and practicing it much longer in his patient care. Those early results "were very suggestive that there may be a benefit to these therapies," Krucoff tells WebMD.

Comment: Based on the above, one might reasonably assume that Krucoff has something of a vested interest in the outcome of his studies given that he was practicing prayer in his patient care long before he began to study it.

Be that as it may, it is also likely that the studies discussed in the article by Jeanie Davis suffer from one or more of the methodological flaws discussed in the article Religion, spirituality, and medicine by R. P. Sloan, E. Bagiella and T Powell [Lancet 1999; 353: 664-67]: STUDIES ON PRAYER AND HEALING FLAWED

A study published in the premiere British medical journal The Lancet confirms what skeptics have been saying all along: that studies purporting to show the health benefits of religious belief and church attendance are flawed methodologically or statistically; and more importantly, that doctors who incorporate these studies into their practice might be stepping across the line into unethical medical practice.

Also, there is this from WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park; Friday, 17 Aug 01, 2001:
DISTANCE HEALING: EARLIER STUDY WAS OVERLOOKED.
Neither the study of intercessory prayer nor Michael Guillen mentioned any contrary results, such as Sir John Galton's classic study of longevity of English monarchs. Since they head the Church of England, the daily Order for Morning Prayer includes orisons for their health and long life, but Galton found no longevity effect compared to the general population, despite this concentration of prayers.

In any case, you might want to discuss this with participants in one of the forums where ongoing discussion is possible. Suggestions would be either Science & Skepticism (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=10) or Miscellaneous Religion Discussions (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=22) where the alleged connection between prayer and healing has been discussed in the past.

--Don--

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

pastorbracken

August 31, 2005, 10:13 AM

Just a quick reply. Why is the default that things do not exist? I didn't get that memo. Could it be that your default position hinders your objectivity? Diogenes, why is the burden of proof on me? Read my posts. I say words like contend and perhaps. I do not make any unilateral claims as you did. You said that the Gospels were fictional. Your following claims that they were written by non-witnesses is also unsubstantiated. Only Luke admits that he did not actually see these events, but wrote down eye witness accounts. According to Church history, Mark wrote Peter's eye witness accounts and interjected a small account of his presence at the arrest of Jesus. Asserting that Matthew and John were written by non-witnesses is speculation. You dismiss the Gospels as not being historical documents, without giving proof that they are not. In a debate, you cannot make unsubstantiated claims. You require Christians to prove their case. It is only fair to expect that of you.

No, I do not need lectures about reproduction. I know that virgin birth is impossible in normal circumstances. That is the whole point of recording such a circumstance. However, I have personally seen someone come back to life. She is still alive. I was called to the hospital to comfort a family, who just lost their loved one. The woman had been dead for 15 minutes. No respiration. No brain activity. No vitals for 15 minutes. They had even called the funeral home. She had been "coded." While the nurses removed breathing tubes and IV's to prepare the body for the coroner, Gladys began to breate again. While I prayed that the family would receive comfort, the nurses and doctor, who incidently is an atheist, came into the chapel to get permission from the family to treat her. Obviously, this is not the typical thing that happens. This is not natural, thus it is above nature or supernatural. I ascribe such supernatural events as coming from God. You can say that they are from circumstances we don't understand. But, you cannot say that Gospels are fictional because such events cannot happen. I have been witness to a dead person coming back to life. I have been witness to numerous unexplainable events, such as a church member having a cancerous goiter on her voice box and after prayer, awaking the next day with no goiter. That happened four months ago. It has earlier been argued that because miraculous events happen in other religions as evidence that Christianity's claims are not valid, as they are not unique. Now, you say that such events cannot happen and are proof that records about such events must be fiction, because such events do not happen. I have just given two first person accounts that above natural events do occur. I can give dozens more and hundreds of second hand accounts, including a man who had been dead for four days and embalmed coming back to life. Your claim that the Gospels are fictious, because such supernatural events cannot occur, does not have legs. Supernatural events do occur. The matter is more about what caused them. You will have to do better.

It is fine if one wants to lampoon an argument such as the Watchmaker Argument. But, if I were to say that my hypothetical Model A just appeared, I would be laughed at. If you see a Coke can on the side of the road, you don't assume that it appeared, although statistically it might have formed on its own. You complain about the litterer who threw it there. You have no direct proof that someone tossed it from their car. But, it is unreasonable to think such things just form.

I haven't time to address all the issues you bring up. My apologies. Have a peaceful day.

P.S. I agree with you that the Salvation Army is a fine organization and does great work. I've been a volunteer for years. I disagree with your mischaracterization of other organizations that beat religion in people's heads. But, that is immaterial. The situation is that people are in desperate need and I encourage everyone to do what they can to help these folks.

Sauron

August 31, 2005, 10:50 AM

I'm not going to respond to everything here; there is no point in repeating what others have said. And since pastorbracken's time is limited, I don't want to scare him off by the feeling that folks here are dog-piling on him.

--------------

I know that I'm a pastor and I obviously have bias and may not be as much as a freethinker as some of you. I will concede that I cannot keep up with any of you in terms of statistics and many of you are superior logicians than I am. I am also not as computer savy as you, please overlook my shortcomings. I will also concede that I cannot keep up with all the postings the way that many of you do. I feel quite "outnumbered", but comfortably so. I also must apologize that my time limitations do not allow me to do much more than pop in on occassion. Sixty plus hour, high stress work weeks, an amazing wife and a two-year old red-headed boy, keep me pretty covered up. I beg your forgiveness for addressing several things in this one post, but it is the only way that I can participate. If that is too discourteous and you would rather I not participate, I will not be offended, if asked to leave.

I think you're doing a fine job. Your posts are eloquent and you are sincerely interested in the discussion. It's too bad we don't have more christians like you posting here.

Regarding statistical probability and all the higher math, there comes a time when common sense has to be weighed. If I go walking in these coal-filled hills and find a rusting Model A, I'm likely to admit that it didn't just happen. I'm likely to wonder who made the car, because it is clearly not natural for something like that to just happen. I don't know how one would go about the statistical probability of it happening. I just know that a Model A didn't just grow up out of the ground. It is illogical for me to assume anything but that someone made the car and that someone left that car in the woods. The Watchmaker Argument for the existence of God is essentially the same.

I see that Diogenes has pointed you to the fallacy of the watchmaker argument. Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The Blind Watchmaker", where he discusses this analogy and shows how organisms are so poorly designed that if a watchmaker were involved, then he would have to be a blind craftsman. There are similar refutations from the standpoint of astronomy and geology, which show that the various elements needed to form a universe or a life-sustaining planet are not that difficult after all.

Also, please note that the rebuttals to the watchmaker argument are not based in philosophy; they are based in what we already know about astronomy, biology, geology, etc. So it isn't possible to dismiss these rebuttals as simply a philosophical difference of opinion.

Now, to Diogenes the Cynic, whom I quoted at the beginning. What you have done is laid out unsubstantiated claims. You have asserted that Jesus did not do what was claimed. You cannot expect anyone to merely accept those claims, merely because you said them. You have to prove those claims.

Let me support Diogenes in his statement that you have the burden of proof backwards. But in addition, let me explain a little bit why this is the case.

This is big, vast world with a lot of people making a lot of claims. Some of them are supernatural, some scientific, and some that don't fit neatly into any category. Any honestly seeking person could spend hours and days of their time researching every claim out there - but why should they? They certainly didn't make the initial claim; how did it suddenly become their job to prove or disprove that claim?

That's why common practice in a debate is for the person doing the claiming to support their arguments. Otherwise, a random claimant would be free to run around tossing out dozens of claims, like starting little fires all over a grass field. Then the audience would have no choice but to track each claim down and verify it (i.e., put out each brush fire). Lots of fun for the fire-starter; but a lot of work on the audience. And work that was being shouldered by the wrong party in the discussion, I might add.

So any discussion or debate starts with a blank slate; a blackboard with nothing written on it. When someone wants to change that situation by making an assertion (or a claim), then the burden of proof falls on them to back up the claim. If you think about it, I believe you'll see that this is only proper anyhow; nobody should be making claims that they can't back up. So in the discussion of life, supernatural, etc. we start with a blank slate, and nothing written on it. When you come into the room and assert the resurrection, or assert the nativity story, then you've just made a claim (i.e., written something on the slate). Diogenes and the other skeptics don't have to disprove your statement; on the contrary, the burden of proof is on the person maknig the claim -- in this case, you.

Why couldn't God create something imperfect, so that He could have the pleasure of working on it? That is essentially the Christian salvation claim.

No, the christian salvation claim is that it (man) actually was originally created perfect, but fell from grace and perfection by its own free will. Ever since then God has been trying to patch up the damage.

It is one thing to say that folks are biased or that they did sloppy research. You can even say that McDowell did not prove his case conclusively, because of those problems. But, to ultimately prove McDowell's claims wrong, you have to do more than dispute statistics and question the reputability and objectivity of his supporting documents. You also have to positively prove that God does not exist and that Jesus did not do what was claimed. If you can do that, you will be able to do what no one has been able to do for nearly 2000 years.

Since I've been the chief antagonist of McDowell on this thread, I'll jump in here. You seem to be saying that McDowell has two kinds of claims:

1. specific claims that he made about probability and prophecy - in which case, proving McDowell wrong is merely a case of showing how he erred in his research and calculations, which I have done;

2. more general claims about God, the bible and Christ - which you believe has not been done. It's true that I haven't addressed those claims - although others probably have. My *personal* goal was only to address mistakes made in ancient near east history, archaeology, and the mathematics of probability. I was not attacking the christian faith in general; my target was McDowell's very sloppy attempt to prove that faith using atrociously bad history and poor math skills. However, your comment does bring up two points:

(a) When talking about these more general claims -- the beliefs you say McDowell has that no one has been able to refute for 2000 years - well, here we get back to the question of who has the burden of proof. Whether it is now in 2005 or back in the first century AD, the proof still rests on the person making the claim. Since christians are making these more general claims, the burden of proof is on them. Skeptics will raise objections, which must be dealt with somehow, hopefully by discussion and not by ignoring the objections;

(b) And if any of these general claims depends on a specific prophecy claim to support or prop it up, then the general claim is in trouble because the underlying prophecy claim is broken.

Even if you do not feel comfortable donating to these type of organizations, please consider finding some organization that will be of help.

I don't think any of us like to see people in need. Your personal appeal is quite welcome here. Thank you.

Sauron

August 31, 2005, 12:25 PM

Just a quick reply. Why is the default that things do not exist? I didn't get that memo.

If by "things" you mean "things that we cannot prove through empirical observation", the default position is that there is no affirmative evidence for their existence. If you think about it, the reason for taking that as the default position becomes obvious - if there is no trail of evidence, then why would you assume it to exist in the first place?

To assume otherwise - that unprovable things do exist - leads to the next statement: *which* unprovable things exist, and which ones do not? How do you know? How do you decide? Put this another way: do you accept the existence of:

* fairies
* leprechauns
* pixies
* gnomes
* over 1 million Hindu gods
* various native american and african gods
* the famous Invisible Pink Unicorn
* etc.

You need to be consistent here: what yardstick can you show us that allows you to rule out some unprovable things, while allowing other ones?

Could it be that your default position hinders your objectivity?

"Evidence" and "objectivity" are closely related. So the default position enhances objectivity, it does not hinder it. By insisting on proof, all such claims are treated equally, with the same yardstick. The analysis is out in the open, for everyone to see for themselves. Nobody can claim special private intuition.

You said that the Gospels were fictional. Your following claims that they were written by non-witnesses is also unsubstantiated. Only Luke admits that he did not actually see these events, but wrote down eye witness accounts. According to Church history, Mark wrote Peter's eye witness accounts and interjected a small account of his presence at the arrest of Jesus. Asserting that Matthew and John were written by non-witnesses is speculation.

What Luke says about his writing, or what Matthew/Mark say about their writing, doesn't help the christian case. I'm sure you realize that citing the bible to prove the bible is a logical fallacy; it is circular reasoning. I could use the same logic to prove that the Quran is true; after all, the Quran says it is true, doesn't it?

So for christians to prove their case, they need to get off the hamster wheel of circular reasoning.

You dismiss the Gospels as not being historical documents, without giving proof that they are not. In a debate, you cannot make unsubstantiated claims. You require Christians to prove their case. It is only fair to expect that of you.

His point is that:

1. Christians have not yet proven their case; and
2. from the available evidence, the christian case is weak on the point of historicity

Burden of proof - if you roll this discussion back to its very beginning, you'll find that the christians are the ones making the very first claims. And that's true whether you consider the start of this debate to be (a) the disciples during the 1st century AD, or (b) the start of this thread here at IIDB. He who claims first, has first burden of proof.

But, you cannot say that Gospels are fictional because such events cannot happen. I have been witness to a dead person coming back to life.

Let's give Diogenes the benefit of the doubt here. People coming back to life after a few minutes of death is a recorded phenomenon for centuries. I think he means "coming to life after several days".

I have been witness to numerous unexplainable events, such as a church member having a cancerous goiter on her voice box and after prayer, awaking the next day with no goiter. That happened four months ago.

Do you have more details on this?

I can give dozens more and hundreds of second hand accounts, including a man who had been dead for four days and embalmed coming back to life.

I would be suspicious of such claims. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure that embalming involves draining out all the blood and replacing the blood with chemical substitutes, among other things. More info here:
http://www.baris.net/bfh/embalm.html

The additional chemicals would be toxic to a living person. Now back to this second-hand account you mentioned: are you saying that the chemicals in the person's bloodstream were:

(a) converted back into ordinary hemoglobin, and
(b) the remaining toxic chemicals purged?

Otherwise coming back to life would have resulted in another immediate death, because he wouldn't have any blood capable of carrying oxygen and food to his brain.

madmax2976

August 31, 2005, 01:28 PM

Hey Pastor,

Diogenes addressed many of your points pastor, but I'll add a few comments of my own anyhow.

I beg your forgiveness for addressing several things in this one post, but it is the only way that I can participate. If that is too discourteous and you would rather I not participate, I will not be offended, if asked to leave. Do what you can pastor - that's all any of us can do.

I have previously stated that emperically I do not believe that God's existence can be proven. You believe that means that He does not exist. Er, no, why would you think that? It means what it means - God's existence can't be proven. This is good reason to disbelieve that any such entity does exist, not good reason to claim that it doesn't. There is a difference.

Yet, I would also contend that no one could prove that my claims to God's being above empericism are false. Not our job to prove its false. If you want us to believe it, its your job to prove its true. If you don't care what we believe, then you won't even bother.

I find it disconcerting, that one would claim to be open to other options, and yet, so quickly dismiss them. Dismiss them as what pastor? As possibilities? I don't think you can't point to anyone here doing that. You could point to our dismissal of them as confirmed conclusions, which shouldn't be a problem since you admit you can't prove them anyhow.

I have heard Christians called closeminded, for similar actions. Had we been guilty of what you claim, that'd be fine. We're not.

The statement has been made that it is impossible for me to know that all questions are not of an emperical nature. That is easy to prove. All I have to do is demonstrate that there is only one question that cannot be emperically determined. I believe there are many. Yet, for simplicities sake, show me how values such as beauty, goodness, happiness etc. can be proven emperically. Oh no you don't. Its your claim - you prove its true. This shifting of the burden won't cut it. If you want to claim something cannot be proven empirically then its your job to support that statement - not our job to disprove what is nothing more than a mere assertion at this point. What's more, even if it were our obligation to do as you request, and we were unable to do so, that would in no way support your claim. It would only mean that we lack the ability to prove it - thus your objection here fails on 2 counts.

Regarding statistical probability and all the higher math, there comes a time when common sense has to be weighed. If I go walking in these coal-filled hills and find a rusting Model A, I'm likely to admit that it didn't just happen. I'm likely to wonder who made the car, because it is clearly not natural for something like that to just happen. Sure - now all you have to do is show the universe or life is anything like a Model A car. It is the case that anything known to have been designed can easily be distinguished from the rest of the universe. If we found a spaceship on some planet, we'd assume someone built it - why? - because its different that the other phenomena we find in the universe. If it weren't, we wouldn't pay it any special attention in the first place.

The Watchmaker Argument for the existence of God is essentially the same. When all of the sciences are pulled together and the detail and precision needed for life to exist here and for the universe to exist is assessed, it is staggering odds that it would happen accidentally. I agree with Diogenes here - you start off thinking we humans were the intended goal of the universe, and then are amazed how everything was created just so that we could come to exist. Humans have often thought a lot of themselves and this kind of thinking perpetutates that egoism. The flip side pastor is that we evolved to fit the universe we're in. Its not likely we would have evolved such that we'd be incompatible with it - that would likely take a miracle.

Some of you have said that it is better to say, I don't know how it happened. Since its the truth, why not?

Some of you have insinuated that it is primative thinking to assign unknowns to God. I concede that I cannot prove you wrong. But, I don't think you can prove that I'm wrong to believe that there must have been something other than normal, natural events to cause it all to exist. Not only can't I, I wouldn't even try, as I would agree. The question is what that "something other" was - colliding branes?, big bang?, Strings? Cosmic Egg? Tao? Some God or Gods? The fact is we don't know pastor - so why jump to conclusions?

If it is not natural, by definition it is supernatural, which would then be above empericism. Then I would demand consistency. Don't make empirical claims and I won't demand empirical evidence. If you tell me that someone's withered hand was restored or that someone rose from the dead - those are empirical claims talking about human appendages and human bodies - and thus I will demand empirical evidence for them. If you tell me something exists - but don't mean that it occupies or occurs in time and space, then you need to explain what else you mean by "exist".

You have asserted that Jesus did not do what was claimed. You cannot expect anyone to merely accept those claims, merely because you said them. You have to prove those claims. Hogwash. Diogenes must prove no such thing. YOU must prove they are true - its your claim to support. If the evidence isn't there, then there's no good reason to accept it. Your acting like the guy who claims a leprechaun stole his lunch money and then demands that others prove it didn't happen.

You cannot say that the claims of virgin birth and resurrection are impossible. You have to prove to me that they are. Based on our understanding of human reproduction and death, this does not happen - period. It is you who are making the extrodinary claim that it can happen in spite of all our observations to the contrary. I'd say that puts the burden in your lap, not ours.

You claim that they were fictional or intentional misrepresentations. I would like to see you prove that claim. No. They are full of claims that run contrary to our observations. It is on you to prove they are true in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Secondly, show me why these writers would have allowed themselves and their families to be persecuted for misrepresentations. First, prove that they did. I'll want more than legend to support this.

Why would someone like Paul, who persecuted the Christians, suddenly do an about face? Why believe he did an about face at all?

Why would these people face the suffering that they did, if they knew it was a lie? Who suffered and how do you know? How do you know they were given an opportunity to recant? How do you know any supposed persecutors gave a damn whether they recanted or not? How do you know they knew it was a lie?

But, to ultimately prove McDowell's claims wrong, you have to do more than dispute statistics and question the reputability and objectivity of his supporting documents. You also have to positively prove that God does not exist and that Jesus did not do what was claimed. Fallacy of shifting the burden. It's not going to work. We've no more obligation to disprove these things than you have in disproving that the Goddess Athena didn't assist Perseus in killing Medusa.

If you can do that, you will be able to do what no one has been able to do for nearly 2000 years. On the contrary, if McDowell et al can prove that God does exist and Jesus was his divine son he will have done what no Christian has ever done.

And on a note of personal appeal. ....I know that Salvation Army and Southern Baptist Disaster Relief are organizations that have been suggested by some in the government, because there is such a low percentage of overhead. You may suspect that these organizations are helping out of ulterior motives. As someone who has done this kind of work, I can assure you that the motive is simply that we don't want people to die. Even if you do not feel comfortable donating to these type of organizations, please consider finding some organization that will be of help. I for one always contribute in time of need. And I do try to make sure the bulk of whatever I donate goes to those who need it, rather than in someone else's pocket.

pastorbracken

August 31, 2005, 02:23 PM

Sauron,

Thank you for your kind compliments. It is touching to be called eloquent from one who is clearly a savy thinker. I do not scare easily. Do not be concerned about dogpiling me. My time limitations merely require that I address several issues at once, normally and not individually as I feel decorum would dictate.

In regard to the burden of proof, I agree with you that the burden of proof is upon Christians to substantiate our claims. McDowell attempts to do so. It appears the concensus here is that he was extremely sloppy in his attempt. Lee Strobel uses and interview style that I found personally engaging in Case for a Creator. Although it was mass marketed, I found it surprisingly profound and certainly much more eloquent than I am.

Yet, Diogenes made positive claims that the Gospels are fiction. I am challenging him/her or anyone else to prove to me that they are. Normally, the burden of proof would be on me. But, Diogenes made the claim that they are a twisting of Hebrew texts by non-witnesses. That does put a burden of proof on Diogenes. S/he went beyond refuting claims to making them. That is why I submit that those claims must be substantiated.

Regarding the Watchmaker Argument, I would submit that other scientists would disagree with Dawkins. I have read those that have. Dawkins interpretation of the aforementioned geological, astrophysical and biological data could be flawed. Again, I encourage a reading of Strobel's book, in which scientists make these claims. The ground that the Intelligent Design Theory is gaining in the scientific community seems to also disagree with Dawkins hypothesis. As I submitted previously, the fact that an omnipotent God has the ability to create an imperfect world, which is further troubled with the Fall of Man, in my humble opinion adequately addresses the level of disorganization that Dawkins addresses.

I have been checking in frequently today, concerned that my personal appeal might be inappropriate. I am relieved that it is not. Now, I must get back to work. We're working on sending groups to Mississippi and Lousiana to work in the soup kitchens.

Sauron

August 31, 2005, 03:23 PM

Sauron,
Yet, Diogenes made positive claims that the Gospels are fiction. I am challenging him/her or anyone else to prove to me that they are. Normally, the burden of proof would be on me. But, Diogenes made the claim that they are a twisting of Hebrew texts by non-witnesses.

Yes, but if you look carefully Diogenes statement (where is he anyway? DIOGENES! Where is that young'un? DIOGENES! Git over here!) - anyhow, his statement is more of a *response* to those who claim that the gospels are factual. He's saying, "Factual? Oh, no they're not; they're actually twisted texts by non-witnesses." Diogenes is taking an opposite position of yours. But his position didn't materialize out of thin air; it comes as a response to someone else who first took a position of authenticity.

(Hopefully I am not misinterpreting his statement; if so, he can correct me.)

Given the above, I don't think it changes the burden of proof, which rides on the person claiming that the gospels are a factual history of events. Since that claim arrived first, I mean.

Regarding the Watchmaker Argument, I would submit that other scientists would disagree with Dawkins. I have read those that have. Dawkins interpretation of the aforementioned geological, astrophysical and biological data could be flawed.

A couple of items:

1. "Scientists" is kind of a general term that gets tossed around far too frequently. When evaluating something like this, it's important to get feedback from scientists in the appropriate fields. What you'll find among ID advocates is that they will quote computer scientists, engineers, or physical scientists about a matter of biology - which is almost useless, since they have no experience in the area. It's kind of like asking an actor or a rock singer about politics: you may respect the person, or like their albums, but before trusting their political opinions you should really ask yourself "what does this person know about politics"? The same principle applies here.

2 Very few scientists -- if any - disagree with evolution. But there might be a few. No group can be lumped together and said to be 100% in agreement. I remember when I was at the Univ of Washington, we kept getting reports of a professor at Washington State University (different school) that made a serious study of Bigfoot. A fully tenured professor, wasting time on a crackpot idea. Yes, it happens. There are the oddballs in science as well. But finding the odd white crow doesn't disprove the statement that crows are overwhelmingly black. Same thing here. I would not hang your hopes on the 0.001% of scientists being right.

Again, I encourage a reading of Strobel's book, in which scientists make these claims.

You'll find even less of value in Strobel's book than in McDowell's. In case you're interested, there's actually a thread on this book going on right now, in one of our other forums. It turns out that the reasoning was so bad in this book that it actually drove one person *away* from their faith:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135125
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html

You also have to be careful about how creationists use these quotations from science. Generally speaking, scientists with a faith in God will state that faith in very general terms; similar to the Deism of the early American Founding Fathers. Basically, that God started the universe, and then left it alone to run on its own like a huge machine, never intervening again. These scientists would disagree with the creationism that their quotes are being used to advocate.

The ground that the Intelligent Design Theory is gaining in the scientific community seems to also disagree with Dawkins hypothesis.

1. Do not mistake rising popularity with scientific credibility. Science is not a popularity contest. ID is, unfortunately, an attempt to dress up creationism and re-introduce it to schools through the back door.

2. And I'm not aware of ID making any inroads into the scientific community; although I have seen it make inroads into the legal and political arenas.

3. This is from an article in the National Review; I'm going to quote a section here to demonstrate a point:
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200508300823.asp
Why stop with Intelligent Design (the theory that life on earth has developed by a series of supernatural miracles performed by the God of the Christian Bible, for which it is pointless to seek any naturalistic explanation)? Why not teach the little ones astrology? Lysenkoism? Orgonomy? Dianetics? Reflexology? Dowsing and radiesthesia? Forteanism? Velikovskianism? Lawsonomy? Secrets of the Great Pyramid? ESP and psychokinesis? Atlantis and Lemuria? The hollow-earth theory? Does the president have any idea, does he have any idea, how many varieties of pseudoscientific flapdoodle there are in the world? If you are going to teach one, why not teach the rest? Shouldn't all sides be "properly taught"? To give our kids, you know, a rounded picture? Has the president scrutinized Velikovsky's theories? Can he refute them? Can you?

And every buncombe theory — every one of those species of twaddle that I listed — has, or at some point had, as many adherents as Intelligent Design. The hollow-earth theory was taken up by the Nazis and taught, as the Hohlweltlehre, in German schools. It still has a following in Germany today. Velikovsky's theories — he believed that Jupiter gave birth to a giant comet which, after passing close to earth and causing the miracles of the Book of Exodus, settled down as the planet Venus — were immensely popular in the 1950s and generated heated controversy, with angry accusations by the Velikovskians that they were being shut out by closed-minded orthodox astronomers determined to protect their turf, etc., etc. Lysenkoism was state doctrine in Stalin's Russia and was taught at the most prestigious universities. Expressing skepticism about it could get you shot. (Likewise with the bizarre linguistic theories of Stalin's protégé N.Y. Marr, who believed that every word in every human language derived from one of four basic elements, pronounced "sal," "ber," "yon," and "rosh." I tell you, the house of pseudoscience has many, many mansions.) Dianetics was rebranded as Scientology and is now a great force in the land — try criticizing it, and you'll find out.

ID's greatest attraction is that it appeals to the democratic notion of equal time: why shouldn't both sides be taught? And let everyone make up their minds? But (brethren) don't be deceived: it is a marketing technique to sell an idea that could not otherwise be included in school curriculum.

ID is nothing but (a) a list of poorly understood objections and (b) personal difficulty in believing something. That isn't science! If ID had to stand on its own two feet, present hypotheses, explain data points, make predictions -- in other words, perform all the functions of a real scientific theory -- then ID would fall flat on its face. So its proponents spend all their time talking about things they find personally unbelievable, which is not an argument at all.

Another key point:

And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science. When the Intelligent Design people flourished a list of 400 scientists who were skeptical of the theory of evolution, the National Center for Science Education launched "Project Steve," in which they asked for affirmation of the contrary view, but only from scientists named Steve. (Which they estimate to be about one percent of all U.S. scientists.) The Steve-O-Meter stands at 577 as of this July 8, implying around 57,000 scientists on the orthodox side. That's consensus science. When the I.D. support roster has 57,000 names on it, drop me a line.

And Darwinism ought to be taught conservatively, without skepticism or equivocation, which will only confuse young minds. Darwinism is the essential foundation for all of modern biology and genomics, and offers a convincing explanation for all the phenomena we can observe in the life sciences. It may be that, as we get to finer levels of detail, we shall find gaps and discrepancies in Darwinism that need new theories to explain them. This is a normal thing in science, and new theories will be worked out to plug the gaps, as happened with Newtonism a hundred years ago. If this happens, nobody — no responsible scientist — will be running round tearing his hair, howling "Darwinism is a theory in crisis!" any more than the publication of Einstein's great papers a hundred years ago caused physicists to make bonfires of the Principia. The new theories, once tested and validated, will be welcomed and incorporated, as Einstein's and Planck's were. And very likely our high schools will just go on teaching Darwinism, as mine taught me Newtonism fifty years after Einstein's revolution. They will be right to do so, in my opinion, just as my schoolmasters were right.

As I submitted previously, the fact that an omnipotent God has the ability to create an imperfect world, which is further troubled with the Fall of Man, in my humble opinion adequately addresses the level of disorganization that Dawkins addresses.

1. But the world, as created, was not imperfect - not according to genesis. As you note, "God saw it, and it was good".
2. The Fall of Man - did this affect animals, or not? I've heard people argue it both ways, so apparently there's several viewpoints on it.
3. Have you read Dawkins? If not, then how would you know if his arguments get addressed adequately or not?

I have been checking in frequently today, concerned that my personal appeal might be inappropriate. I am relieved that it is not. Now, I must get back to work. We're working on sending groups to Mississippi and Lousiana to work in the soup kitchens.
Your personal appeal is a well-timed reminder for us to all be grateful for our situation and remember those less fortunate. Good luck on your mission.

Diogenes the Cynic

September 1, 2005, 12:09 AM

Diogenes, why is the burden of proof on me? Read my posts. I say words like contend and perhaps. I do not make any unilateral claims as you did. You said that the Gospels were fictional. Your following claims that they were written by non-witnesses is also unsubstantiated. Only Luke admits that he did not actually see these events, but wrote down eye witness accounts. According to Church history, Mark wrote Peter's eye witness accounts and interjected a small account of his presence at the arrest of Jesus. Asserting that Matthew and John were written by non-witnesses is speculation. You dismiss the Gospels as not being historical documents, without giving proof that they are not. In a debate, you cannot make unsubstantiated claims. You require Christians to prove their case. It is only fair to expect that of you.
I am only stating the overwhelming consensus of contemporary scholarship on the gospels. Because it would take an inordinate amount of space in this thread to explain why scholars believe that none of the gospels (in fact, nothing in the entire New Testament) were written by witnesses and that they do do not represent factual history I am going to link to this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117382) in which I explain these conclusions in some detail.

You also have your burden reversed when you make assertions that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. This is an assertion which the gospels do not even make for themselves, so it's ridiculous to demand disproof of claims which are not even found in the text.
No, I do not need lectures about reproduction. I know that virgin birth is impossible in normal circumstances.
It;s impossible in ALL circumstances.
However, I have personally seen someone come back to life. She is still alive. I was called to the hospital to comfort a family, who just lost their loved one. The woman had been dead for 15 minutes. No respiration. No brain activity. No vitals for 15 minutes. They had even called the funeral home. She had been "coded." While the nurses removed breathing tubes and IV's to prepare the body for the coroner, Gladys began to breate again. While I prayed that the family would receive comfort, the nurses and doctor, who incidently is an atheist, came into the chapel to get permission from the family to treat her. Obviously, this is not the typical thing that happens. This is not natural, thus it is above nature or supernatural. I ascribe such supernatural events as coming from God.
I'm sorry, but this kind of anecdote is not evidence of the supernatural. It is impossible for me to evaluate your specific claim but people are resuscitated quite frequently in circumstances like these. Fifteen minutes does not impress me. When someone comes back to life after 15 hours, give me a call.
You can say that they are from circumstances we don't understand. But, you cannot say that Gospels are fictional because such events cannot happen. The circumstances you describe are not the circumstances desribed in the Gospels. The resuscitation of a patient who's heart has stopped for a few minutes is not miraculous or even remarkable.
I have been witness to a dead person coming back to life.
Not really. You witnessed someone almost dying and being resuscitated. There's a difference.
I have been witness to numerous unexplainable events, such as a church member having a cancerous goiter on her voice box and after prayer, awaking the next day with no goiter.
Cancer goes spontaneously into remission all the time. It means nothing. Connecting it to a prayer is a fallacious association and an example of confirmation bias which ignores all the times that prayers are ignored.
It has earlier been argued that because miraculous events happen in other religions as evidence that Christianity's claims are not valid, as they are not unique.
I don't believe it's been said that miraculous events actually happen in other religions so much as pointed out that they are alleged just as frequently and with the same quality of evidence as for claims of Christian miracles. Now, you say that such events cannot happen and are proof that records about such events must be fiction, because such events do not happen.
I guess you could simplify that to say that any claims for impossible events which are made in ancient literature are assumed to be ahistorical until proven otherwise. That only makes sense.
I have just given two first person accounts that above natural events do occur.
No, you've given a couple of unremarkable anecdotes, neither of which requires a supernatural explanation.
I can give dozens more and hundreds of second hand accounts, including a man who had been dead for four days and embalmed coming back to life.
If you really believed that, I've got some real estate in Florida you might be interested in.
Your claim that the Gospels are fictious, because such supernatural events cannot occur, does not have legs. Supernatural events do occur. The matter is more about what caused them. You will have to do better.
There has never been a single confirmed incidence or example of genuine "supernatural" phenomena in alll of human history.

I hope that my linked thread can give you some better perspective on where I'm coming from with my claims about the Gospels being ahistorical narratives, (i.e. fictions).

Incidentally, Lee Strobel is probably an even worse apologist than McDowell. I hope you'll take my word for it that you won't impress many people with Strobel around here, but if you really think he's strong, I invite you to summarize one or two of what you believe are his most convincing arguments and watch what happens. Tossing out Strobel and McDowell's arguments around here is like tossing chum in the ocean.

pastorbracken

September 1, 2005, 12:44 AM

I owe an apology to Sauron and to the rest of you for assuming the content of Dawkins book, based upon the assessment of others. I read what I could tonight, Chapters 1 - 5 and then Chapter 11. I genuinely appreciate his awe of nature. Often, it seems that evolutionists over-simplify the astronomical enormity of amino acids randomly forming into the complexity of our world. I struggled with the book, because of his redundancy. Perhaps, there was material in the five chapters that I merely skimmed, but I saw nothing that proved evolution happened. I do believe that he demonstrated evolution more clearly than I have ever read previously and the book did expose some misconceptions that I had about evolution. His sieve illustration was especially effective and up to his computer simulations, it seemed that he was answering all of my objections to his assertions - almost mind reading me. But, then little questions began to arise. If mimicking insects benefit from looking much like poisonous insects, how do the birds know not to eat the poisonous bugs to begin with? Think about it. The bird eats the bug and dies. It cannot communicate, don't eat the such and so bug. It's dead. So far as I know birds do not have autopsy ability to CSI it. It's really a minor question, easily answered by convergence. But, it did get me thinking about the birds. How do they know what not to eat? It increased my awe of nature and increased my view of the correctness of Romans 1:20. I know that it is not Dawkins' field, but there is still the question, where did all the molecules, atoms, and such come from? I will concede that it is not direct evidence that God exists. Maybe in a few centuries someone will be able to show how matter just appeared from nothing. Dawkins contends that it is intellectual laziness to say that God did it, as have some of you. I can't recall who it was that asserted, MadMax perhaps, that it was just as implausible for God to just happen as it was more matter. I cannot explain infinity. I've tried to get my head around, since I was a little boy. But, I do know this, that if God is spirit and not matter, then He would not be governed by the same principles as matter.

Yet, to return to my initial intent, I must apologize for assuming that the possibility of God creating an imperfect world, further complicated by the Fall of Man, would answer Dawkins' assertions. He looks at the same level of complexity and arrives at a different possiblity. I will try not to make the same error again.

As to wanting more details about the supernatural events that I earlier described, I am limited to what I can tell you about the cases I personally witnessed, because of privacy regulations. I will be glad to answer any questions I can about those. The case of the man who was embalmed and came back to life can be found on video from an evangelist working primarily in Africa. Rheinhard Bonke is the evangelsists name and I believe the video is still available on his ministry website, which name I cannot recall because I'm tired and my contacts are sticking to my eyeballs. The man does have blood now, not the embalming fluids. He died in a car accident. His corpse was taken to the hospital, where he was declared. The coronor is also on the video and shows his copy of the death certificate. The embalmist also shows his paperwork as well as the room, where he emblamed the corpse. To speed up the story, the widow insisted that God was going to raise her husband and was persistant enough to force the family and friends to take the body to a church, where Bonke was speaking. The ushers would not allow her to bring the corpse into the church initially, because it would have been considered a desecration. She continue to be persistant and the ushers allowed her to take the corpse to the basement/fellowship hall. They laid the body on a table and began to pray. While they were praying, the man came back to life. I have heard several other accounts of "raisings", but this was the first that included embalming.

Sauron, you assert that Genesis claims the world was not imperfect, because the word good is used to describe the world. Good is not perfect.

As for your question about the Fall of Man affecting all of creation, according to Romans 8:20-21, the answer is yes.

Here is a question that occurred to me more out of frustration initially, but as I've reflected upon it seemed more legitimate. What would it take to convince you there was a supernatural deity? Perhaps, that needs to be another thread. Truthfully, I can only mildly connect it to McDowell. In all fairness, we've wandered quite a bit away from ETDV.

I'm afraid that I'm going to start babbling, if I attempt any more tonight.

peace to you all

pastorbracken

September 1, 2005, 01:27 AM

Diogenes

Dead is dead. The only difference between 15 minutes and 15 hours is the amount of deterioration that has occurred. Glayds is 90 years old and died from a prolonged illness, from which she is now fully recovered. HEPA prevents me from connecting you directly to her. I cannot prove to you that I am not a liar, and thus cannot prove my ancedote. If you wish to discount my testimony, that's your perogative. Are there numerous resusitations? Yes. But are there resusitations when no one is working to revive them? That is the circumstances around Glady's case. You say that is unremarkable, maybe in your circle it is. All I know is that the doctor, an atheist, was visibly shaken by the events. He did not think it was unremarkable, nor did the nurses. The least experienced member of the team was a nurse who had been licensed for 10 years.

There is a difference in a cancer remission and a cancer disappearing. Tammy, could bearly speak on Sunday morning and there was a visible goiter. She had only had diagnostic tests done and was not going to have any treatment until the following week. She requested prayer and our deacons and I prayed for her. The next morning the growth was gone and she was able to speak clearly. She rushed to the doctor, who ran tests and confirmed it was not there and told her that he had no explanation. I don't know if you are a doctor of medicine Diogenes, but it seems to me that if it was a common occurance for cancer to go into spontaneous remission or disappearance, that the doctor would have told her that it occassionally happens.

It appears that you and I have received vastly different educations about Scripture. I know of no overwhelming concensus of any religious scholarship, much less one that would say that the Gospels and even the New Testament was not written by any eyewitnesses. Perhaps, we aren't even reading the same book. 1 John 1:1-4 certainly gives internal support that one of the writers, namely John, claims to have been an eyewitness. John 1:14 says in part, "we have seen his glory." That sounds like an internal claim for an eye witness to me. John 21:24 also sounds like an eyewitness claim.

I enjoyed Strobel, but then again, I am not the logician, nor the scholar, that many here are. I know full well that I am the lightweight compared to many around here. I'm okay with that. But, thanks for the heads up. I did enjoy the interviews with Robin Collins, Michael J. Behe and Stephen C. Meyer and felt they were compelling, to answer your question.

I said that I was leaving a half hour or so ago. This time I mean it.

joy be yours today

Stacey Melissa

September 1, 2005, 06:24 AM

The Argument from Design fails for a ton of reasons, some of which have already been stated. One as-yet-unstated reason for its failure is that it doesn't account for the designer of God. If complex stuff like life must have a designer, what about even more complex stuff, like God himself? If, in the middle of outer space, you run across a Yahweh, would you expect that that Yahweh was the result of some random combination of energy and particles, or would you surmise that the Yahweh had been designed? Would something as incredibly intricate and amazing as a Yahweh just pop into existence? You see, saying "Yahweh designed it" is just a way to sweep origins questions under the rug. There's still the problem of something incredibly complex for which we don't have answers to its origin. But this time around, the explanation violates the Principle of Parsimony, and is thus inferior.

I suppose you might, at this point, suggest that Yahweh is a necessary entity that didn't just pop into existence, or form randomly, against all reasonable odds. If that's something you wish to claim, I'll just want to know why it is that Yahweh is a necessary being. Perhaps then we can have a nice discussion about the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. :)

But if you'd like to save some time, we can take a shortcut. That shortcut is in recognizing why it is that you must have faith in the existence of God. You must have faith because the evidence and arguments alone are not sufficient to justify belief in his existence. If those were enough, there would be no need for faith, and rather than appealing to people to "have faith", you'd just point them to the evidence and arguments instead. "Faith" wouldn't even enter the discussion.

Also, before I go, I'll mention that I'm a former fundamentalist Christian, so my default position actually used to be that the Christian god exists. To make a long, uninteresting story short, my current atheism was a rather unexpected side effect of putting serious study into my former faith. So suggesting that I'm not open-minded enough does seem a bit out of line. I'm open-minded, but I'm not gullible. For me, the order of operations normally proceed as follows: 1) evidence and arguments are presented for a claim, then 2) if the evidence and arguments are good, I believe the claim. It seems like you're asking us to do something more like 1) believe a claim, then 2) wait for evidence that confirms the belief. That's getting things backwards, and it's the definition of gullibility.

Similarly, it's not accurate to suggest that we're not very familiar with the Bible. I've had a small amount of formal education in the OT, and that experience at university helped spark a much greater interest in pursuing Bible study afterward as a rather serious hobby. While I probably don't study it as much as you, Pastor, I do study it enough to form well-informed opinions. I think something similar could be said for the other participants in this thread.

Stacey Melissa

September 1, 2005, 01:15 PM

The resurrection story from Bonnke is demonstrably false. There are a huge number of conflicting details in the story. I did a Google search for "bonnke embalmed (http://www.google.com/search?q=bonnke+embalmed)", and most of the links that came up were from Christian organizations that debunked the resurrection claim in great detail. I read through the first page (http://www.letusreason.org/Popteac13.htm) that came up in the search, and other related pages on the same site. It put to rest any notion that there was an actual resurrection.

Regarding the person who you say came back to life after 15 minutes of death - 15 minutes is not long enough for the body to deteriorate beyond resuscitation. Show me a month-old rotting corpse coming back to life, sans a heart and lungs that had already been donated to other people, and then we'll talk. ;)

Regarding proof that evolution occurs, see here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) for some examples of evolution being observed in action. Section 5 of the linked page has the examples, and the sections leading up to it have some rather lengthy background information.

pastorbracken

September 1, 2005, 05:43 PM

Again, please pardon my addressing several issues at once.

Stacey, my saying that you must not know Scripture was directed to Diogenes, after he characterized the Gospels as apologetic. The you was second person singular and was not intended to be a reflection of all of the IIDB. It would be ridiculous for me to state that. I don't know everyone registered and I don't even know the gender of those I've been corresponding with, much less their life experiences. I just know there are a lot of folks here more skilled and intelligent than I am. I feel honored to be allowed to participate. Incidently, Diogenes stated that he/she had a background in the study of the Gospels and adjusted his assertion to "fictional biographies." I am terribly sorry, if you or anyone else felt disrespected or slighted. Additionally, I am getting concerned about the we - me dynamics that are evolving here. I am a registered member, albeit a new one, thus making me a part of the we, right? My concern is that the dynamic will lead to generalizations, which are unfair to all involved. Already, I have been asked to defend positions that some Christians have. Wouldn't it be prudent not to assume things about me and deal with the claims I make? I am trying to not make assumptions in regard to the other participants. Please feel free to call me on it, if I do.

Stacey, you said that I was out of line to say that you weren't open minded enough. I did raise the question generally, not specifically, because of the tone of the responses to my assertion that not everything was of an emperical nature. I'm sure your journey to becoming an atheist was a difficult one. I have heard numerous horror stories of folks having questions in a
fundamentalist church. Sometime, supposedly Christian people are the cruelest people in the world. I hope that your journey wasn't mired with that type of trouble.

Why does God have to have a designer to exist? The claim of evolution is that there was no designer. Why doesn't that apply to God? I don't see that God's beginnings, or lack thereof, have any bearing upon the Watchmaker Argument. Nor do I believe that it has been successfully argued that the Watchmaker Argument is fallacy. It has been argued that the universe doesn't have to have a Creator and rather well, I might add. Dawkins more than any other writer I've read did show that evolution was a possibility. However, a possibility does not make a necessity nor a fact. Several members have suggested that belief in God is merely a "sweeping under the rug" (nicely described Stacey) of things that are not understood. I can understand that argument and many ancient religions demonstrate that type of thinking. I am as open-minded as I know how to be. I have looked at evolution and at Christianity as objectively as I know how. I find that Christianity makes more sense. Maybe some people do use God as a way of being intellectually lazy. But, I do not believe I am one of them.

Please allow me to clarify something. I do not claim that evolution does not occur. It is plain to see that changes occur in species over time, due to environmental and other changes. But the astronomical probability that life came into this complexity, along with the environmental systems supporting life, by randomness is simply too high to be plausible. Even if evolution did exist, where did the supporting environment come from?

Regarding the claims of the "Bonnke resurrection," it may be difficult to understand how many conflicting stories may arise in interviews. I have conducted numerous interviews for writing projects and it is abundantly common for even the same person retelling the same event to have large conflicts. When one factors in faulty memory, the effects of shock and all the confusion of such an event as described here, it would be remarkable for there to not be conflicts. In fact, detectives tell me that one of the things that they look for in witness testimony is whether there is too much similarity between the descriptions. If two people were to tell the same story with too much in common it is evidence of rehearsing testimony. In the link that Stacey kindly provides, much is made of why the injured man would want to be transported to his own doctor. I don't think that remarkable at all. Nearly every heart patient in my community wants to be sent to one of the hospitals in Lexington, despite, it's being nearly 200 miles away. There are good heart doctors in Pikeville about 20 miles away and in Hazard about 30 miles away. Yes, there seems to be some confusion about whether he was embalmed or not and the number of days he was in the mortuary. But a central element of this even has not been disputed, the man was dead, but now he is alive.

In regard to the "resuscitation event" I shared, I cannot recall if it was in the Blind Watchmaker or in an article of Dawkins I read while waiting for the book to download, Dawkins described how life forms immediately upon death begin to find equilibrium with their environment. Body tempture falls and so on. He was quite eloquent on describing the difficulty that all life forms have in resisting equilibrium in order to be alive. I mention that because even if Gladys were dead only a few minutes, something outside of her body would have to exert enough energy to resuscitate her. The fifteen minutes I'm talking about is after the doctors and nurses stopped resuscitation efforts. Perhaps, I have not been clear about that. The doctor gave his condolenses. The family call the funeral home. Then while a nurse was removing the breathing tube, a minimum of 15 minutes after they declared her dead, she came back to life. It is not natural, I would go so far as to say possible, for a corpse to return to life, without any outside energy causing the corpse to resist returning to equilibrium. Not only is Gladys alive, she is as healthy as any old woman can be. As I'm sure most of us know, after seven minutes without oxygen there is brain damage. Gladys has none. Additionally, she fully recovered from her illness. Yes, Stacey it would be truly wonderous if a month old corpse came to life and had a heart and lung or whatever organ to appear. If I ever encounter it, I will be sure to let you know. I can only attest to what i have seen. And what I have seen leads me to believe there is more than this natural world.

I can't recall exactly where we were on the question of the existence of non-emperical things. I suggested that happiness could not be measure, nor beauty or other ideals. Honor and integrity would be others. Although, I said that I would not accept the chemical explanation for emotions, since I was talking about measurement, all I was given was the chemical explanation trying to disprove the actual existence of happiness. That explanation, incidently has not been substantiated as being causal. In other words, we do not know if the chemical reactions observed in our bodies are a result of or the cause of thinking or happiness. (The statement was made "in human brains" is also unsubstantiated. As we have already discussed in this thread other animals appear to have self-awareness and emotions.) It is true that medications, legal and illegal do have an effect on the body and mood. However, it could be argued that since those substances are quite "dirty", to use the pharmacutital term for side effects, it demonstrates that normal functioning for the naturally occuring chemicals is at minimum in concert to the spirit or whatever you want to call it. I realize that isn't a strong argument, perhaps, but something to consider. Please allow me to try another route. Yesterday, a state policeman, spoke to our youth group. Earlier this year, there was a gas leak in his subdivision. He was driving back from taking his children to school and noticed a fog about knee high forming on the ground. Before he could alert anyone, there was a horrific explosion and he was terribly burned. He described seeing his skin dripping off his hand as he tried to unbuckle his seat belt. (Hope no one is eating while their reading this.) When he dove through his open window, he noticed a woman and a young child in their nearly demolished house. Officer Conn rushed into that burning house and rescued both child and mother, despite his own injuries and despite the peril to himself. What would cause Officer Conn to do something that would endanger himself? It did nothing to his self-preservation. It did nothing to better his chemically firing brain. Whatever it is you want to call it, I would say his mind or spirit, that is the kind of thing I am raising as proof that all questions are not of an emperical nature. Valor cannot be measured, but it exists.

Finally, to the burden of proof issue. I challenged Diogenes to prove his assertions with a dual intent. Primarily, I had hoped to demonstrate the impossibility of proving either side of this debate. I could not get Diogenes or anyone else to attempt to prove an alternative, so I am not able to make my point. I was surprised at the vehemence of the refusals I got. I would have thought one would enjoy proving their case, rather than questioning anothers. I have contended from the beginning of my entry into this conversation that God cannot be emperically proven, because He is by definition spirit, which, not being made of matter, cannot be measured. I believe a circumstantial case can be made, but as in all circumstantial cases, regardless of strength, there is always a way to argue against it. Both the evolution case and the creation case are circumstantial cases. Neither can be fully proven. That is why faith is a factor in both cases. Because there are holes, missing links or lack of evidence, one ultimately has to decide which to believe. That could be a definition of faith, I believe it is true, even though I cannot prove it is true beyond doubt. I have placed my faith in the reality, as well as the salvivic ability of Jesus Christ. Many of my fellow debaters here, seem to believe that there is an alternative to Christianity or to any theism, although it cannot be proven beyond doubt. So, faith has been placed in science.

I've just fired up the grill and it is a beautiful day, so please allow me to wish you peace.

Mathew Goldstein

September 1, 2005, 07:48 PM

In regard to the causal relationship of these chemicals, do we really know enough about endocrinology to assert that our bodies are the cause of these chemicals or if the emotions are the cause. My guestimation is that what is done physically can affect the mind/spirit and that what goes on spiritually can also affect the body. That cannot be proven, because one cannot prove there is spirit or mind empirically.

That the functioning of the mind is all physical is implied by the fact that different functions of the brain fail when the brain is damaged according to the location and extent of the damage. This includes emotions, including those associated with spirituality. That our self-recall of events also generates the associated corresponding emotions isn't evidence for an incorporeal spirit. Its just evidence that our internal representations of external events and our processing of emotions are related which is an expected outcome for evolved brains.

It is just as easily countered that there is no point with using logical or scientific methods. I am not so arrogant as to believe that I have all the answers. Yet, one must acknowledge that science cannot provide the answers to all questions, simply because not all questions are of an empirical nature. To try to prove God's existence with science is like trying to determine the mass of an object with only a ruler. It isn't the right tool.

I think you understate the problem with theism. Not only don't we have the tool to find god, we don't have the proper motive. If god had explanatory validity then one could defend god belief on that indirect basis without much evidence. But the god hypothesis doesn't distinquish what is false from what is true. To put this another way, whatever universe is imaginable, one can say that a god created it. On can even say that your Christian god created it. That being the case, god doesn't explain anything. So there is no justification for in believing in god(s).

Perhaps you are better read than I am about evolution, but I have never seen an evolutionary explanation for ideals and values. And you miss the point of my argument in two ways. You may recall that I used a tree for my argument. For ideals and values to be of evolutionary benefit, they must cause a living organism to be stronger than organisms that do not have the benefit. Additionally, this benefit would have to cover the full spectrum of organisms, animate and inanimate, to demonstrate that things such as freedom have an evolutionary impact. You do not address that argument.

I don't know what you mean by inanimate organisms, everything that is living is animate, so I have to put that aside. It is just not true that ideals and values have no evolutionary benefit if all living organisms do not exhibit the full spectrum of ideals and values. Diffferent organisms have different niches, different functions and different strategies. Bacteria don't have eyes, ants have six legs with three joints in each leg, etc. That bacteria don't have eyes and ants (mostly) don't have wings isn't evidence that eyes and wings didn't evolve. I find your logic to be incredible. That is such a far out claim that I am astonished that you would make it.

However, Evolution Theory for Creation of Species is a theory. It is not fact. Many scientists treat it as fact, but it remains a theory. And it is increasingly becoming recognized as an inadequate theory for what it purports to prove. Despite what seems to me to be stretches in conclusions from the scant evidence available, evolution theory fails in one glaring way -- where did all the primordial stuff come from? Evolution theory does not even attempt to provide the first cause. Yet, many will take this one theory and build an argument that follows this basic line - God does not have to exist, God cannot be proven scientifically, therefore God does not exist. But, evolution theory does not give justification that there wasn't a supernatural first cause. There is no scientific theory today that can answer this one question, where did it come from? Oakum’s (ms) Razor says the simplest conclusion is usually the correct conclusion.

Scientists treat the Theory of Evolution as a fact just like they treat the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Quantum Mechanics as facts. Scientific theories are treated as fact because they are supported by lots of evidence, have generated predictions that were subsequently confirmed, and have undergone and passed rigorous testing over an extended period of time.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Thoery of Evolution. It is not an exageration when biologists say that the theory of evolution underlies all of biology. A complete comparison of the genome of a chimp and humans was just completed and the result confirms that chimps and humans share a recent common ancestor. That about 35% of Americans say there is no evidence for evolution just means that lots of people are wrong and poorly educated, probably due in significant part to the anti-intellectual influence of Christianity.

A scientific theory does not have to be an all encompassing theory of everything to be a success. That you think otherwise is a symptom of the malignant influence of the dogmatism of your Christian worldview. Incompleteness versus Failure (http://www.nonbeliever.org/commentary/incompleteness_v_failure.html)

Returning to god, my claim is that theism is unjustified which is somewhat different from saying god does not exist. Whether anything imagineable exists, aside from logical contradictions like a square circle, is not something that we can determine. We can only work within the confines of our experience so rational discourse is limited to the topic of justifications for our beliefs. For me, belief justification is the central, key issue. I suspect that for you the central issue is salvation or faith or something like that. I think that is a dogmatic, ideological, circular, closed approach to belief and I think that approach is a big mistake.

Sauron

September 2, 2005, 10:46 AM

Diogenes
Dead is dead. The only difference between 15 minutes and 15 hours is the amount of deterioration that has occurred.

Yes. And that is critical here. Don't brush over it so quickly. Certain processes of decay are not immediate. So 15 minutes isn't enough time for those processes to fully run their course. 15 hours is an entirely different matter. I think it's more accurate to say that we don't fully understand when death actually occurs, and sometimes we call someone dead before the condition is irreversible.

Also, you need to realize that such resuscitations have happened for centuries. And it happens in non-christian cultures as well as christian ones. Why would God resurrect a Hindu?

FYI - some interesting reading from a christian website devoted to de-bunking some paranormal claims:
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/otherSide.htm

Are there numerous resusitations? Yes. But are there resusitations when no one is working to revive them?

Yes there are. Before the days of modern embalming, it used to happen more than people realize. Sometimes at the wake, sometimes at the funeral home. Sometimes after burial. It was called "premature internment". Edgar Allen Poe even wrote a horror story about it back in 1850.
http://eserver.org/books/poe/premature_burial.html

I remember reading several accounts where graves from the 1800s had to be moved, and the wooden coffins would bust open from decay. On the underside of the lid were fingernail scratches where someone was misdiagnosed as dead, buried, and awoke to find themselves already in the grave.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blburial.htm
http://www.members.tripod.com/DespiteThis/death/prebur.htm

There is a difference in a cancer remission and a cancer disappearing. Tammy, could bearly speak on Sunday morning and there was a visible goiter. She had only had diagnostic tests done and was not going to have any treatment until the following week. She requested prayer and our deacons and I prayed for her. The next morning the growth was gone and she was able to speak clearly. She rushed to the doctor, who ran tests and confirmed it was not there and told her that he had no explanation.

There is someone - the Amazing Randi, I think - who is offering a large sum of money for proof of such an event. I'm not trying to be snide here, but if you can really document this, then Tammy stands to collect some money. My mother is a cancer survivor, so I would suggest:

1. initial lab biopsy of the goiter
2. barium scan results
3. doctor's evaluation
4. regimen of treatment - i.e., was Tammy on any of the customary CHOP drugs used in chemotherapy at the time?
5. post-miracle exam and barium scan

I don't know if you are a doctor of medicine Diogenes, but it seems to me that if it was a common occurance for cancer to go into spontaneous remission or disappearance, that the doctor would have told her that it occassionally happens.

Maybe he's not up on the literature. This is a listing of 24 links to medical publications that discuss specific cases of spontaneous remission of cancer. These are all MEDLINE references, so they appear in prestigious journals, not in UFO-ology newsletters:
http://www.karlloren.com/biopsy/p36.htm

And here is a website that is devoted to studying spontaneous remissions:
http://www.noetic.org/research/sr/faqs.html

And is apparently common in kidney cancer:
http://www.cancerguide.org/rcc_metastatic.html

Sauron

September 2, 2005, 11:14 AM

Please allow me to clarify something. I do not claim that evolution does not occur. It is plain to see that changes occur in species over time, due to environmental and other changes. But the astronomical probability that life came into this complexity, along with the environmental systems supporting life, by randomness is simply too high to be plausible. Even if evolution did exist, where did the supporting environment come from?

1. If you think this was random, then you still do not understand evolution - in spite of admitting to seeing changes in species over time. Evolution is undirected, but it is not random. Those two terms are not the same. Evolution has rules; it does not select randomly or roll dice. But there is no ultimate goal in evolution.

2. Environmental systems to support life - this is just a re-statement of a previously discussed/refuted anthropic principle. It's like someone winning a $50million PowerBall lottery and saying "it's just too perfect; it must be designed." Well, no -- it wasn't designed. Funny how everyone who wins the lottery thinks that they were divinely chosen to do so. But *someone* has to win the lottery; that's how it works.

Yes, there seems to be some confusion about whether he was embalmed or not and the number of days he was in the mortuary. But a central element of this even has not been disputed, the man was dead, but now he is alive.

Those are critical details, not merely variations on a story. If he was embalmed, then he could not have been brought back to life. A story that contains a self-contradictory fatal flaw such as that needs further investigation/research. It is as if someone claimed to be in Tokyo on the same date and time that they claimed to be in London. It's a physical impossibility; a fatal detail that should set off alarm sirens for anyone listening to this tale.

And sometimes it is the little details that show us that the story is actually an urban legend. Here's an example: back in the middle 1980s, I remember hearing a rumor that (in preparation for the One World State and the Antichrist), our own Federal Bureau of Investigation had started printing Social Security checks for retirees with the number 666 printed on them. This story made the rounds of several churches, until someone calmly pointed out: "But SS checks come from the Social Security Administration, not from the FBI. Why would the FBI be printing SS checks in the first place?"

Whatever it is you want to call it, I would say his mind or spirit, that is the kind of thing I am raising as proof that all questions are not of an emperical nature. Valor cannot be measured, but it exists.

Acting in the common good is part of our social upbringing and in our genes. Such actions occur in chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins as well; do chimps, elephants and dolphins have souls? Are they valorous?

Why do hundreds of ants sacrifice their lives for the good of their colony? They have a genetic programming that includes protecting the community as well as individual survival. Evolutionarily speaking, this is easily explained - social creatures enhance their individual survival when they act in the common good. Such actions cause their status to rise among others of their group, who will then assist the "noble" individual.

Finally, to the burden of proof issue. I challenged Diogenes to prove his assertions with a dual intent. Primarily, I had hoped to demonstrate the impossibility of proving either side of this debate. I could not get Diogenes or anyone else to attempt to prove an alternative, so I am not able to make my point. I was surprised at the vehemence of the refusals I got. I would have thought one would enjoy proving their case, rather than questioning anothers.

I think the reason for the vehemence has been explained already. The burden of proof is on the claimant. On christians, in other words. Skeptics have often been treated to the sight of a christian or other theist busting down the door in a forum like this and declaring, "The bible and everything I believe is right. Disagree? Fine; prove it wrong." Shifting the burden of proof is a tactic that skeptics are on guard for, because it has been used so often by christians who claim that existence of God is the assumed, default position.

Again: the burden of proof is on the claimant. Nobody gets to jump up on a table, wave their hands and declare: "Whatever I claim is right, until someone proves me wrong." See my original response about putting out brush fires.

Diogenes' statements were counter-claims to these original claims. In addition, he also linked to this thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=117382) Strictly speaking he did not have to do this; the burden for eyewitness authenticity still rests on christians. However, your claim that he didn't prove his point is not correct. He indicated his proof is in the thread he gave the link for.

holochester

September 2, 2005, 01:41 PM

I will certainly not be up to a sustained argument the way the pastor has been. I'll simply add my two cents - and you can spend it or shred it, or vaporize it.

The theory of evolution is strong because scientists ignore its weakness. There is a marked lack of evidence in critical areas. One ideal that drives scientists to look for life on other planets is to prove that the evolution model is repeatable.

While amino acids can be created from non-life, they are not life in themselves.

I like the powerball example. In that case someone had to win. In the creation of life, winning was never a sure thing. Let's say that I could calculate the probability of a one celled bacteria becomming a two celled organism. I don't know that that has ever happened, but I would expect the probability of that happening would be very rare. Now lets consider the long string of events that would need to occur to create the diversity of nature that exists today. With each itteration of improbabl events, the probability of the final outcome is substanbtially reduced. As long as the probability does not drop to zero, we could still have some possibility of having a winner. If there is an infinate time span with ideal conditions, do we have a system that produces massive diversity? Or does the probability become zero?
Evolution does not look much at the probability that life can be constructed from non-living amino acids. In the 50 years since the construction of amino acids, have any expirements been conducted to create a more complex building block of life from these acids? I would think so... but I never hear anything about it.
Sexual reproduction seems to be a bit of a problem for evolution. Why has nature taken on so many occurances of that sort of procreation? Doesn't it seem like a mutating organism would be better off passing on it's advantage if it didn't have to rely on a mate that did not simultaneously mutate the same advantage - so the advantage is not lost in the first generation?
What about symbiotic organisms? In the infinate span of time, they have to appear simultaneously.
All probabilities that seem to be unable to overcome the value of zero.

Miracles - if they do indeed occur, would be defined as things that could not be scientifically proven to have a cause. That is the main reason that Mary has a boy child. This event would be completely impossible to specify as a scientific oddity. It must be a miracle, or it must be disbelieved. If you are convinced that miracles do not and cannot occur (which I suppose should be a pre-requisite for being an atheist) then there is no real value in attempting to prove that they occur. If you actually wittnessed a miracle, would you change your world view or convince yourself that it must have been an illusion?

-DM-

September 2, 2005, 01:48 PM

Miracles ... would be defined as things that could not be scientifically proven to have a cause.Can you cite a recognized authority that provides this definition?

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

holochester

September 2, 2005, 01:58 PM

Can you cite a recognized authority that provides this definition?

Sorry - I guess I'm using my own definition. Logically I would not considered them a miracle if they were merely a "magic trick" or "slight of hand". When the doctor pulls my tooth - I don't think it is a miracle that it isn't in my mouth any more, even if I were unconcious when he did it.

pastorbracken

September 2, 2005, 02:00 PM

I continue to be moved by the kindness of you guys and gals on this thread. Sauron you are right that Diogene's did not have to give me a link to another thread dealing with his claims and I have only skimmed them. But, again the reason for trying to reverse burden of proof was to demonstrate the enormity of trying to prove something beyond doubt. I am sincerely sorry, if I was read as hostile or arrogant. That is certainly not my intended tone, for I am neither of those.

In regard to the "miracles", there is good documentation of miracles according to the second link that Sauron provided in Post #114. It is the sixth cause of spontaneous remission listed on the site. The site suggests that there may be an altered state entered into due to prayer or ritual that might cause the "healing". I submit their hypothesis is as great a stretch, if not greater, than the belief that a supernatural being brought healing. I'm sure that my fellow debaters will disagree.

Regarding my not considering the conflict of the embalming substantial in the "Bonnke resuscitation" is that if God could raise a dead man to life, surely He would also be able to change embalming fluid to blood and heal the life-threatening injuries. I don't think it is as major a conflict as claiming to be in London and in Tokyo at the same time. Incidently, there are parts of the story that I'm not comfortable with either. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the man was dead and now he is alive. That has been consistent and not proven as false. The whole reason all of this line of argument was brought up was to refute Diogenes claims that the "supernatural" events recorded in the Gospels are grounds for calling them fiction. He/she claimed that such events do not occur. I hoped to demonstrate that those type of events do occur.

Sauron, you deftly handled my valor question, by demonstrating that animals also show sacrifice for the greater good. But, that is as easily countered by all the selfish behavior that we see in both human and animal communities. Chimps steal food from others. People steal and murder. Do they have dysfunctioning brains or chemicals? And if that is the case, why do we see the same individuals or animals acting courageously in other circumstances? I for one am very uncomfortable about accounting for consciousness as the mere firing of chemicals in a brain. It should be of concern for the empericist as well. When one follows this line, ultimately, he/she must account for thought and observation. If emotions do not actually exist because they are merely the firing of neurochemicals, then does thought not exist because thinking is arrived from a similar mechanism? If thought does not exist, then neither can observation. If observation does not exist, then there is no way to prove or measure anything, including self-awareness.

Thank you guys again for allowing me participation. It is quite enjoyable for me to use this part of my brain. You certainly stretch me and I am grateful for that.

hope be yours today

Sauron

September 2, 2005, 02:29 PM

I will certainly not be up to a sustained argument the way the pastor has been. I'll simply add my two cents - and you can spend it or shred it, or vaporize it.

The theory of evolution is strong because scientists ignore its weakness. There is a marked lack of evidence in critical areas. One ideal that drives scientists to look for life on other planets is to prove that the evolution model is repeatable.

No, I think that is explained by simple human curiousity.

While amino acids can be created from non-life, they are not life in themselves.

They are the building blocks of life and certain aminos are self-replicating. They arrange matter in their environment to make copies of themselves. Which is another way of saying that they eat and reproduce.

I like the powerball example. In that case someone had to win. In the creation of life, winning was never a sure thing. Let's say that I could calculate the probability of a one celled bacteria becomming a two celled organism. I don't know that that has ever happened, but I would expect the probability of that happening would be very rare.

If you can't calculate it, then why would you expect it to be rare?

Now lets consider the long string of events that would need to occur to create the diversity of nature that exists today. With each itteration of improbabl events,

Who says it is improbable?

the probability of the final outcome is substanbtially reduced. As long as the probability does not drop to zero, we could still have some possibility of having a winner. If there is an infinate time span with ideal conditions, do we have a system that produces massive diversity? Or does the probability become zero?

You should review the Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs before posting on the topic. All our questions are going to assume that you have the minimum knowledge here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

Evolution does not look much at the probability that life can be constructed from non-living amino acids.

Incorrect.

In the 50 years since the construction of amino acids, have any expirements been conducted to create a more complex building block of life from these acids? I would think so... but I never hear anything about it.

Aha. So because you haven't heard about it, that means that nobody is looking at it. How much time do you spend in the literature on this subject?

Sexual reproduction seems to be a bit of a problem for evolution.

Apparently not. I googled the phrase "evolution of sexual reproduction" and got over 700 hits. Again I ask: how much time do you spend in the literature on the subject?

So far this looks like someone reading a pre-rehearsed script of objections, but not really understanding much about what they are parroting.

Why has nature taken on so many occurances of that sort of procreation? Doesn't it seem like a mutating organism would be better off passing on it's advantage if it didn't have to rely on a mate that did not simultaneously mutate the same advantage - so the advantage is not lost in the first generation?

1. That assumes that mutations would occur on the same trait.

2. since most mutations are of no effect, then a positive mutation stands a good chance of being passed on anyhow, since the corresponding mutation is most likely neutral and does not cancel out the positive mutation.

What about symbiotic organisms? In the infinate span of time, they have to appear simultaneously.

No. The symbiotic relationship evolves over time.

All probabilities that seem to be unable to overcome the value of zero.

You do not understand evolution nor do you understand probability.

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 02:29 PM

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 02:43 PM

QUOTE=pastorbracken]I owe an apology to Sauron and to the rest of you for assuming the content of Dawkins book, based upon the assessment of others. I read what I could tonight, Chapters 1 - 5 and then Chapter 11. I genuinely appreciate his awe of nature. Often, it seems that evolutionists over-simplify the astronomical enormity of amino acids randomly forming into the complexity of our world. I struggled with the book, because of his redundancy. Perhaps, there was material in the five chapters that I merely skimmed, but I saw nothing that proved evolution happened. I do believe that he demonstrated evolution more clearly than I have ever read previously and the book did expose some misconceptions that I had about evolution. His sieve illustration was especially effective and up to his computer simulations, it seemed that he was answering all of my objections to his assertions - almost mind reading me. But, then little questions began to arise. If mimicking insects benefit from looking much like poisonous insects, how do the birds know not to eat the poisonous bugs to begin with? Think about it. The bird eats the bug and dies. It cannot communicate, don't eat the such and so bug. It's dead. So far as I know birds do not have autopsy ability to CSI it. It's really a minor question, easily answered by convergence. But, it did get me thinking about the birds. How do they know what not to eat? [/quote]

Natural Selection- the insects and the birds fine -tune each other's appearance and behaviour, until the surviving birds are those that through variation in behaviour patterns, do not touch those types of insect. This also produces new species of the birds and insects eventually, as they change over the generations by interacting with each other. Also I believe animals do communicate with each other.

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 03:49 PM

"Please allow me to clarify something. I do not claim that evolution does not occur. It is plain to see that changes occur in species over time, due to environmental and other changes. But the astronomical probability that life came into this complexity, along with the environmental systems supporting life, by randomness is simply too high to be plausible. Even if evolution did exist, where did the supporting environment come from? "

Probability does not come into it. If the environment had not been sufficiently supportive then life could not have continued to evolve and develope. The fact that we find that life has continued means that conditions were favourable for it--this is the weak anthropic principle. But not being divinely ordained, the environment is not consistenly favourable, it varies all the time. This explains the extinction of 99% of all species that have ever lived. We are one of the surviving species to date, so in our arrogance we assume it has been arranged just for us. But it will only take another large pandemic, or another hurricane or two to seriously damage our survival prospects and perhaps make us extinct too. If you read a bit more Dawkins you will no doubt come across a picture of the phylogenetic tree of life,-or rather bush; the significant thing about it is all the blind offshoots and dead-ends which depict the extinction of particular groups of organisms. The interpretation of this is that there are many many occasions when the environment fails to support life, resulting in whole sale extinction events. Just because you are alive and well at the moment, don't assume that you or anyone else is safe from the next disaster lurking around the corner. Natural Selection gets us all in the end, either destroying us, or changing us in to a new species which can cope with the new conditions. this is not "faith" it is evidence-based fact.

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 04:04 PM

"Let's say that I could calculate the probability of a one celled bacteria becomming a two celled organism. I don't know that that has ever happened, but I would expect the probability of that happening would be very rare. "

"Evolution does not look much at the probability that life can be constructed from non-living amino acids."

What would be the basis for your probability calculations? How do you know what it takes for a one-celled organism to become a two-celled one? How do you know it is rare, as distinct from very probable or even inevitable? Likewise with your amino-acid assertion. If the type and quantity of variations which can occur is unknown, you cannot even begin to do any probability sums or make any predictions. How many aminoacids are you trying to combine in your chemical soup,- 6 or 6 billion? What temperature range are you trying? What catalysts? Any other chemicals involved , or ultra-violet light or X-Rays maybe?-it makes a difference. I can predict if it is likely to rain to-morrow based on previous experience of observed weather patterns and conditions, which provide me with data for making the prediction, but you cannot make predictions based upon completely unknown variables.

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 04:19 PM

"But, I do know this, that if God is spirit and not matter, then He would not be governed by the same principles as matter."

Unfortunately this kind of assertion is not helpful and contains no information at all. What is spirit? Presumably you will define it by saying it is not matter, which does not tell us what it actually is. Or maybe you will try substituting other words like "soul" or "essence" or "ground of our being". All these terms are defined in terms of each other. So you have a closed system of tautologies with no actual input of information that you can impart to us.
If anything can justifiably be known, then I know matter exists. I know nothing of any spirit, or its synonyms.

Wads4

September 2, 2005, 04:42 PM

"What would cause Officer Conn to do something that would endanger himself? It did nothing to his self-preservation. It did nothing to better his chemically firing brain. Whatever it is you want to call it, I would say his mind or spirit, that is the kind of thing I am raising as proof that all questions are not of an emperical nature. Valor cannot be measured, but it exists. "

Of course his mind decided that he must do the right thing;-because his mind is the production of his thinking organ, his brain,-- which works by electrochemical processes, as you say. But why did he do the right thing you ask? Because of various wholly naturalistic reasons:
1. It is his job.
2. What would people think if he failed to attempt a rescue, especially as it is his job, and he proudly wears the uniform of a state officer. This is the effect of peer-pressure acting on him to take the right action. What if he had refused or run away? Think of the headlines in the newspapers, Oh the disgrace, the ignominy,- not to mention being drummed out of the police force and refused a reference for another job on grounds of cowardice and unreliability.
3. But why did he take on such a job which puts him at risk of being in danger, I hear you ask?--well no doubt the money is good, and perhaps job opportunities were limited.
4. He had natural human sympathy and concern for another human being,-especially a juvenile, so he rushed to help without thinking of his own safety. Ha!! I hear you say. That proves God exists. (non-sequitur and irrelevent conclusion). What has God to do with it, or with anything for that matter?
5. It is well establised in evolutionary theory that altruism and cooperation among individuals, and by extension, to whole communities,- evolved because it promoted survival, and got things done. Empires consist of people working together en mass. You won't get far just being a loner.
6. Cooperation is not confined to humans. What about ants, hornets and other insect colonies? What about prides of lions and wolf-packs? What about symbiotic relationships between humans and other animals like cats and dogs? What about dolphins rescuing drowning humans, or elephants assisting each other, and appearing to mourn their own dead?

All these things are observed and documented, and carry far more weight than just defiant assertions that God-did-it, as an alleged explanation for things you have difficulty explaining. If you can produce your God, then we will ask him if he really did-it,- or not. Until he shows up, it is all just empty rhetoric.

Fortuna

September 2, 2005, 05:08 PM

I can give dozens more and hundreds of second hand accounts, including a man who had been dead for four days and embalmed coming back to life.

This is well, impossible. there is 0% probability that this could have occurred. Provied that the patient was actually "embalmed".

Modern embalming involves removal of a large pat fo the blood and bodily fluids. These fluids are then replaced with Formalin, which is a mixture of formaldehyde, methanol and water. That process alone would kill someone who was merely comatose.

I'm sorry, I just cant even begin to accept this.

But, in all this thread, I saw a 2 major howlers, and I'm not sure anyone answered quite like I'm about to ;

and in my profession if you say the other side's calculations are wrong then you are required to show your own calculations.

I am an organic chemist who does process research. If I think anyones calculations are incorrect, I need only to demonstrate why and where the "other sides" calculation is incorrect. I am under no obligation at all to supply a correct calculation. However, if this was a process that I was familiar with, I might make suggestions as to how to correct that formula.

This one really got to me !

Borel stated that past historical probabilities are in mathematical fact predictive of future probabilities based on empirically derived probability distributions.

What caught my attention was a term used in my indistry quite a bit, "empirically derived probability distributions". To us, what this means is that a process or reaction has been run hundreds of times and measureable parameters have been monitored and recorded during that reaction or process. REsults of the process are also analyzed. From this data, we now have a "empirically derived probability distribution" of how that reaction proceeeds(and usually several distributions with variaitonsi n some measurable parameter.

Now I have to ask, how does one do this with historical events ? How does one derive an "empirically derived probability distribution" from one occurence in history, or from one prophetic event.

This is an example of bad statistical analysis if I've ever seen it. You need some number N of repetitions of a specific event to derive a distribution. (think of rolling dice as a simple example). You need hundreds of rolls to get a good distribution. How many times could one re-run a historical event under similiar conditions to derive a distribution ?

It is not possible. If it is, please explain it. And YEs, I know statistics and have studied Calc I, II, II Differential Equations I and II, and am very familiar with advanced mathematics. So, dont spare the calculus. Please show your work and calculations.
I'm sure there are many other here who know as much or more math than I do.

Explain it for us please.

-DM-

September 2, 2005, 05:14 PM

Sorry - I guess I'm using my own definition.When we carry on a discussion such as this, or any discussion (for that matter), it is important that we use words according to their normal meanings else we will likely misunderstand what is intended.

"Miracle" is usually defined something like this: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

-DM-

September 2, 2005, 05:30 PM

... I do not share your view that animals cannot communicate with each other, even just by observing each other's behaviour.As a matter of fact, you are correct. I have seen a dog learn tricks simply by watching another dog respond to spoken commands from a human.

At the chimp lab at Central Washington University, humans taught chimps sign language, thus the chimps were able to communicate with their human observers, and vice versa. These first chimps then taught sign langauge to their chimp offspring without any teaching from humans.

-DM-

*** Internet Infidels needs your support ***
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/support.html

Mathew Goldstein

September 2, 2005, 07:01 PM

I will certainly not be up to a sustained argument the way the pastor has been. I'll simply add my two cents - and you can spend it or shred it, or vaporize it.

My vocation is not this field. My background is just that I have read lots of science news (with no particular focus).

The theory of evolution is strong because scientists ignore its weakness. There is a marked lack of evidence in critical areas. One ideal that drives scientists to look for life on other planets is to prove that the evolution model is repeatable.

The Theory of evolution is strong because there is lots of evidence for it. See http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=75&num=19668
The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Scientists look for life on other planets because there is solid evidence that the building blocks of life, including water and concentrations of organic molecules such as amino acids and sugars are found in outer space. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52311-2004Sep26.html
Space Sugar a Clue to Life's Origins and http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2558
Amino acid found in deep space and http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/water_space_010220.html
Water Found in Deep Space. Keep in mind that carbon has four outer electrons and eight are needed to fill that orbit.. So carbon, more so than any other element, readily makes covalent bonds with itself and many other elements creating the larger molecules needed for life as we know it. See http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/intro1.htm Virtual Textbook of Organic Chemistry. Also, many microorganisms live underground and consume sulfer or other minerals. Some microorganisms live in environments of high temperatures and/or pressures etc. Some microorganisms survive high radiation. So microorganisms can thrive under the harsher conditions found on other planets. They don't need oxygen or sun.

While amino acids can be created from non-life, they are not life in themselves.

Do you think the Theory of Evolution implies otherwise? It doesn't.

I like the powerball example. In that case someone had to win. In the creation of life, winning was never a sure thing. Let's say that I could calculate the probability of a one celled bacteria becomming a two celled organism. I don't know that that has ever happened, but I would expect the probability of that happening would be very rare. Now lets consider the long string of events that would need to occur to create the diversity of nature that exists today. With each itteration of improbabl events, the probability of the final outcome is substanbtially reduced. As long as the probability does not drop to zero, we could still have some possibility of having a winner. If there is an infinate time span with ideal conditions, do we have a system that produces massive diversity? Or does the probability become zero?

That is like saying that between any two points there are an infinite of number of other points. So to get from any one point to any other you will have to traverse an infinite number of points which will take forever. Keep in mind that the physically small chemical processes that presumeably led to the first life could have been occurring in googolplexes of places simultaneously for a long time thus greatly increasing the odds of success. One of the hallmarks of the first life is that it auto-catalyzes itself, which is another way of saying it reproduces asexually. Under the right conditions, once auto-catalytic process get going, they persist. Persistent auto-catalytic chemical reactions, once initiated, are favored over one time chemical reactions that are not auto-catalytic. So chemistry, over time, favors the emergence of self-reproducing chemical reactions and thus is primed for the emergence of life.

Evolution does not look much at the probability that life can be constructed from non-living amino acids. In the 50 years since the construction of amino acids, have any expirements been conducted to create a more complex building block of life from these acids? I would think so... but I never hear anything about it.

I am not a biologist, but I am very confident that the answer is yes. Just search "in vitro protein synthesis" and there will be technical documents about laboratory synthesis of proteins from amino acids.

Sexual reproduction seems to be a bit of a problem for evolution. Why has nature taken on so many occurances of that sort of procreation? Doesn't it seem like a mutating organism would be better off passing on it's advantage if it didn't have to rely on a mate that did not simultaneously mutate the same advantage - so the advantage is not lost in the first generation?

Have you searched the web to see what biologists say about the role of sexual reproduction in evolution [I notice Sauron astutely made a similair comment in his response]? From the top of my head, based on my readings, both parents contribute half of the genes and the one half contributed by one parent can result in a new biological trait. It isn't always necessary for both halves of the gene to both have the same mutation. Sometimes both halves are needed, in which case the impact would not be manifested for at least one more generation when two grandchildren that have the mutation mate. The point is that the half gene mutation, if it doesn't do harm, does spread via sexual reproduction and eventual when two people with the half gene mutation mate they will have a child with the paired mutation required to manifest the new trait.

What about symbiotic organisms? In the infinate span of time, they have to appear simultaneously.

They don't have to appear simultaneously. They can start independently, then develop a mutual relationship, then evolve towards mutual dependence.

All probabilities that seem to be unable to overcome the value of zero.

The zero probability claim is defeatable by education, imagination, knowledge, thought and/or insight along the lines of my argument and suggested readings above.

Sauron

September 2, 2005, 07:47 PM

I continue to be moved by the kindness of you guys and gals on this thread. Sauron you are right that Diogene's did not have to give me a link to another thread dealing with his claims and I have only skimmed them. But, again the reason for trying to reverse burden of proof was to demonstrate the enormity of trying to prove something beyond doubt. I am sincerely sorry, if I was read as hostile or arrogant. That is certainly not my intended tone, for I am neither of those.

No, I don't think anyone regards you as hostile. But you mentioned hostility as the reaction you were seeing skeptics demonstrate here. I wanted to give you some background as to why you might be seeing some pent-up hostility here. It's not personal about you or anything. It's just that we've heard/seen this stuff for years. Although I would say less than 1% of the christians have been as courteous and as sincere as you have been. :thumbs:

In regard to the "miracles", there is good documentation of miracles according to the second link that Sauron provided in Post #114. It is the sixth cause of spontaneous remission listed on the site. The site suggests that there may be an altered state entered into due to prayer or ritual that might cause the "healing". I submit their hypothesis is as great a stretch, if not greater, than the belief that a supernatural being brought healing. I'm sure that my fellow debaters will disagree.

I wanted to show you that spontaneous remission is a known event that occurs in non-spiritual settings. Which strongly suggests that spontaneous remission *might* have been behind your friend's healing. It's not conclusive. But you didn't seem to realize that there was a long record of such events in the medical literature. Spontaneous remission are part of the natural, non-spiritual world - the ordinary world of flesh, blood, microscopes, and the natural universe.

Regarding my not considering the conflict of the embalming substantial in the "Bonnke resuscitation" is that if God could raise a dead man to life, surely He would also be able to change embalming fluid to blood and heal the life-threatening injuries. I don't think it is as major a conflict as claiming to be in London and in Tokyo at the same time.

Actually, it's probably easier to be in two places at once than for someone to come back from the dead and have the embalming flui