Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, Why Evolution is True. It explains the concepts so the layperson can understand it. I just read it and am going to read or again. I think part of the problem is that people don't understand science because it's not easy and they'd have to think. The ideas in that book are good rebuttals to the insufficient fossil record argument. It's a fascinating read.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2013, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2013 08:36 AM by tm258.)
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(26-01-2013 09:25 AM)cjs Wrote:  I would recommend Jerry Coyne's book, Why Evolution is True. It explains the concepts so the layperson can understand it. I just read it and am going to read or again. I think part of the problem is that people don't understand science because it's not easy and they'd have to think. The ideas in that book are good rebuttals to the insufficient fossil record argument. It's a fascinating read.

Thanks. I've heard of that book but never really looked into it much before. I doubt I'll be able to get a copy and read it before replying to my friend, but I'll add it to my "to read" list. It sounds good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(25-01-2013 09:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  All the design shit has been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked
Scroll down.
So has the rest. But like Vosur says, why bother ?

See above for the "fine tuning". The many universe theory also destroys that nonsense. Highly improbable things happen, with no designer, all the time. You can make one happen by throwing 100 pair of dice on your desk, and the pattern will be higher than a Goggleplex. It's just ignorance of Probability theory, and math. It's also basically a "god of the gaps" argument. And it certainly doesn't point to Yahweh, as the god. So what god is he talking about ? I bet it just happens to be his god, and not Allah or Baal, or any of the other gods humans have cooked up over the thousands of years to explain the gaps in their knowledge.
See Dr Jack Szotack's stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU for the origins of life requiring no gods. It does not point to a god. Neither does DNA "scream" god. It is full of junk, (unnecessary genes, and unused molecules that are never expressed), and "screams" the opposite in fact, and the fact that it all goes wrong, (cancer) PROVES it was not cooked up by a god. and in fact proves Evolution is true. Actually your friend believes in Evolution and DNA, as if he were in prison, and could get out by use of DNA, (which proves Evolution is true), he would use it. So he's a hypocrite. Consciousness is an emergent property from/of chemistry, memory, and genetics. It says nothing about the gods. If he thinks there are no fossils, he never took Geology or Evolutionary Biology. Tell him to read Dawkins or anyone. He has no clue what he is talking about in terms of the New Testament. Tell him to read Bert Ehrman, or take a class at a major university. That's just a line from Creationism bunk. There WAS no concept of "prophesy" in Hebrew culture, in terms of "telling the future. "Soothsaying" was forbidden. The role of a prophet was to speak to the people of their own day, not tell the future. The "fortune-telling" thing is totally Hollywood. That is not what prophets did, or were all about. It's simply ignorance of the Bible, and the culture. For every prophesy that happened, there were ten that didn't, and they were ALL non-specific, and could have referred to anyone, or anything. It's just confirmation bias gone nuts. If James thought Jebus rose from the grave, why didn't he even mention it in his epistle ? If YOUR brother rose from the dead, would you forget to mention it ? In fact your friend doesn't really know what they thought about that belief, and in fact the NT is very complex with respect to it. It meant different things to different people, and in fact there is a good case to be made it was not meant "physically". http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...surrection Scholars debate it, even Christian scholars. As far a dying for their religion, so did the 9/11 bombers.
Lee Stroebel, Gary Habermas, WL Craig, and all those third rate academics who among them have no degree from a reputable Biblical Studies dept, (Stroebel is a journalist who has written a few VERY crappy books), are into money-making, and each are refuted all over YouTube, and are intellectual fly-weights.

That is perhaps the most dishonest post I have ever read in my entire life. Comparing Hebrew Prophets to Soothsayers? Now that is funny. You read an article that took you 5 minutes to read and the presented yourself as someone with knowledge?

Not science, not even educated.

I suggest you read the Taylor Prism 721 BC along with the book of Isaiah, Kings, Jerimiah. See, historically the text match from opposite ends where enemies are involved. The hebrew prophets were side by side with the kings of Israel, including Hezekiah whom the Assyrian king mentions by name. Yeah, the prophets were put to death, the Tenach mentions this. Being banned by a few and written off by a few does not erase their writings and they are accepted in the majority of Judiasm as canon. The book of Enoch which is all over Jewish circles is dated BCE.

I see no point in arguing with a bunch of arrogant people, but there it is. I see no point either in sharing any serious information you can use to bloat your egos with either.

I am not an xtian, but I do hope one day the arrogance in this group will be turned into compassion and respect for others.

1 more thing. Darwin was just a man with ideas, trying to understand the world the best he knew how, until fame got in the way. No one has to prove Darwin was wrong. There are thousands of you that are attempting to try and prove him right. Good luck with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 06:13 AM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(25-01-2013 01:26 PM)tm258 Wrote:  What are some good resources I can look at to research these claims better? How would you address them?

Anybody who uses that many exclamation points is obviously a fanatic. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(11-11-2013 12:25 AM)yochanan Wrote:  That is perhaps the most dishonest post I have ever read in my entire life. Comparing Hebrew Prophets to Soothsayers? Now that is funny. You read an article that took you 5 minutes to read and the presented yourself as someone with knowledge?

Not science, not even educated.

I suggest you read the Taylor Prism 721 BC along with the book of Isaiah, Kings, Jerimiah. See, historically the text match from opposite ends where enemies are involved. The hebrew prophets were side by side with the kings of Israel, including Hezekiah whom the Assyrian king mentions by name. Yeah, the prophets were put to death, the Tenach mentions this. Being banned by a few and written off by a few does not erase their writings and they are accepted in the majority of Judiasm as canon. The book of Enoch which is all over Jewish circles is dated BCE.

I see no point in arguing with a bunch of arrogant people, but there it is. I see no point either in sharing any serious information you can use to bloat your egos with either.

I am not an xtian, but I do hope one day the arrogance in this group will be turned into compassion and respect for others.

1 more thing. Darwin was just a man with ideas, trying to understand the world the best he knew how, until fame got in the way. No one has to prove Darwin was wrong. There are thousands of you that are attempting to try and prove him right. Good luck with that.

Wow, look at what an ignorant little shit the cat dragged in... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(11-11-2013 11:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-11-2013 12:25 AM)yochanan Wrote:  That is perhaps the most dishonest post I have ever read in my entire life. Comparing Hebrew Prophets to Soothsayers? Now that is funny. You read an article that took you 5 minutes to read and the presented yourself as someone with knowledge?

Not science, not even educated.

I suggest you read the Taylor Prism 721 BC along with the book of Isaiah, Kings, Jerimiah. See, historically the text match from opposite ends where enemies are involved. The hebrew prophets were side by side with the kings of Israel, including Hezekiah whom the Assyrian king mentions by name. Yeah, the prophets were put to death, the Tenach mentions this. Being banned by a few and written off by a few does not erase their writings and they are accepted in the majority of Judiasm as canon. The book of Enoch which is all over Jewish circles is dated BCE.

I see no point in arguing with a bunch of arrogant people, but there it is. I see no point either in sharing any serious information you can use to bloat your egos with either.

I am not an xtian, but I do hope one day the arrogance in this group will be turned into compassion and respect for others.

1 more thing. Darwin was just a man with ideas, trying to understand the world the best he knew how, until fame got in the way. No one has to prove Darwin was wrong. There are thousands of you that are attempting to try and prove him right. Good luck with that.

Wow, look at what an ignorant little shit the cat dragged in... Drinking Beverage

One post drive-by. Dodgy

I've seen that name somewhere ... Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(25-01-2013 02:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  #3 - I agree and disagree. DNA shows irrefutable signs of evolution; however, the complexity of the evolution shows signs of guidance.
Complexity shows signs of the progressive results of "survival of the fittest"

Protogenes and the progressive add-ons we see within complex life forms are consistent with evolution and contradictory to the idea of design.

At best the god would be a builder rather than an architect. A builder with very short foresight whom keeps modifying old designs rather than making an elegant design from scratch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(11-11-2013 12:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  One post drive-by. Dodgy

I've seen that name somewhere ... Consider
I happen to know where you've seen it before. Smartass

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(25-01-2013 01:26 PM)tm258 Wrote:  1. Anthropic fine tuning: there are more than 30 physical or cosmological parameters that require very very precise calibration in order to produce and sustain life! For example: gravity is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. If you were to change it in one part in either direction, life would not be possible. Also the cosmological constant, which represents the energy density of space, is as precise as throwing a dart from space and hitting a bulls-eye just a trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter on Earth! All of this points to design! Points to God!
There are many, many Universes! However, not all of them are real.
What distinguishes, a real universe from others?
A real universe can be OBSERVED!! For it to be observed, it has to
support observers. Life in the (real) Universe is not a "coincidence". It is a given.
It follows directly from the definition of reality. The probability
that the real universe supports life is 100%.
Quote:2. Darwin said,"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist today have demonstrated exactly that through the discovery of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines such as cilia, bacterial flagella, the system of transporting proteins within cells, and the system if blood clotting. These molecular machines point to design! Point to God!
"Irreducibly complex" only proves
the lack of imagination of the Intelligent Design folks. It is not a surprise
that the universe is complex, because it has to support life for it to be real.
Quote:3. DNA itself screams design. Where did all that information come from. The naturalistic view would be like putting a bunch of random machine parts in a bag, shaking it up, and out pops a computer. A fully programmed computer at that! This point to design! Points to God!
The universe is not the outcome of a random experiment. It is
just one of the many possible universe, but it distinguishes itself from
non-real universes by supporting observers/life. So the probability that it
has a mechanism such as DNA supports life is 100%. Not a coincidence at all.
Quote:4. The presence of consciousness! The laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain out experience of consciousness! You can't dissect my brain and say, this is the brain cell that makes Nick like the browns over the steelers! The origin of our mind is from God! Our souls are from God!
We cannot explain consciousness, without already relying on consciousness.
But if we do not have an explanation this does not imply that God exists,
unless you define God as everything that we do not have explanations for
(God of the gaps).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-11-2013, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2013 01:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Scientific and Historical Evidence for God
(11-11-2013 12:25 AM)yochanan Wrote:  That is perhaps the most dishonest post I have ever read in my entire life. Comparing Hebrew Prophets to Soothsayers? Now that is funny. You read an article that took you 5 minutes to read and the presented yourself as someone with knowledge?

"Dishonest" = "I am too uneducated to discuss the subject".
Sorry. I'm a continuing PhD candidate in an Ivy League University in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I have studied the OT with the best Hebrew scholars in the world. You have refuted NOTHING, and not even attempted to. The Sennacherib Prism is well known, and in no way supports ANY notion of prophesy as prediction, and you can't even say why you mentioned that text, or reference ONE scholarly article to it. http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicala...prism.html
The fact you find something "different" is your problem. Any Freshman in any mainline university in Biblical Studies KNOWS that prophesy was not prediction of the future, (even though fundies know NOTHING about the real subject). I've read everything you posted. It changes nothing. The role of a prophet in ancient Hebrew society, (as well as other ancient Near Eastern cultures), was NOT to predict the future. That's Hollywood's (infantile, ignorant) view. NO major mainline Biblical scholar would agree that it was/is. Too bad you have no education on the subject. The entire "salvation" paradigm is flawed, (to the max), and not even a concept that "fits" with Hebrew philosophy in general. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ic-Origins The best OT scholars in the US disagree with you (William M. Schniedewind PhD, Kershaw Chair of Ancient Eastern Mediterranean Studies and Professor of Biblical Studies and Northwest Semitic Languages at UCLA, author of "How the Bible Became a Book", also "The Word of God in Transition" and "Society and the Promise to David".Richard Elliott Freidmann, PhD, "Who Wrote the Bible".

Evolution in 2013, no longer in ANY way rests on ANYTHING Darwin said or did. The burden of proof now rests on anyone who tries to refute it. EVERY university science department on the planet agrees with it. There are mountains of evidence for it, and NOT ONE thing that demonstrates it to be incorrect. Evolution is proven correct every day in countless Genetics departments, and labs, and DNA labs the world over.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: