Total Posts:353|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ethang5 's Factual Objective Evidence

EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 8:22:19 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:22:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
What does sacrifice mean in the spiritual realm Harikrish ???

Sacrifice means to give up as an offering to the God. But in Jesus's case he was not given up as an offering to God. Jesus knew beforehand if he continued to follow the path he was on he would be killed. He had already been threatened with stoning on several occasions for his blasphemous claims. But Jesus seriously believed he was the messiah and his delusions of grandeur pushed him to his suicidal end. He defied the warnings which he regretted in the final moments before his death.

Your first sentence is the only thing that is legit here. Jesus avoided confrontation more than once, it was the religious system that advanced their cause.
You mean if "He continued to follow the truth"? Yes Jesus continued to follow the truth in the line of fire, only revealing what depth He possessed. knowing before hand only supports my position that it was an offering, good job. We both know Jesus believed in the resurrection of His spirit, that is not suicide as suicide is an attempt to end ones existence out of despair.
You have yet to show me why I should replace sacrifice with suicide, your opinion means diddly-squat. Christ offered a sacrifice and there is no way to worm out of that fact.

The murder of Jesus was inevitable, not provoked silly man. You have it all backwards.
From this you're saying Jesus should have forsaken His beliefs to conform to the religious establishment thereby thwarting the truth, that's insane Harry, I think you're brighter than that but that may be granting you too much credit.
It was the religious folks who provoked confrontation not the other way around. Sure Jesus tipped a few tables but who cares, I think we all would stand behind this knowing the principles behind it. We need stand for what is true and what is right even in the face of danger, and now look at the mark Jesus left on the world.
Too bad your small mind cannot grasp the fact Jesus impacted the world greater than any single being, though I'm sure you would deny that.


Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

This means nothing my friend, kinda pointless for you to bring it up.
Having a moment of carnality before being tortured only shows that Jesus was completely aware, completely sane and completely mentally stable.
He worked through His fear and took the full weight of it.

You have yet to deal with the FACT, that Christ was not ending His life in despair to disappear from existence and you know but cannot address it. That is what a suicide is, rather what Jesus did falls into the category it's always been in, you cannot change that fact with poor understanding.

The Christians wants people to believe it was God who sacrificed His only son Jesus for the salvation of those who believed in Jesus. That is pure rubbish. It is humans that offer sacrifices to God. God does not offer sacrifices to humans.

Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

God most certainly would sacrifice for Humans, that is not silly that is showing us what God is capable of. And in the spirit sacrifice is the peak of perfection, God is perfection in His own right. You need to examine the concepts more fully and stop repeating atheist propaganda.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:40:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:


Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

Again, you keep talking about "spiritual" as if it were some kind of well known fact, yet you have not substantiated that in any way. You may do so here if you can...

http://www.debate.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:40:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2015 8:22:19 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:22:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
What does sacrifice mean in the spiritual realm Harikrish ???

Sacrifice means to give up as an offering to the God. But in Jesus's case he was not given up as an offering to God. Jesus knew beforehand if he continued to follow the path he was on he would be killed. He had already been threatened with stoning on several occasions for his blasphemous claims. But Jesus seriously believed he was the messiah and his delusions of grandeur pushed him to his suicidal end. He defied the warnings which he regretted in the final moments before his death.

Your first sentence is the only thing that is legit here. Jesus avoided confrontation more than once, it was the religious system that advanced their cause.
You mean if "He continued to follow the truth"? Yes Jesus continued to follow the truth in the line of fire, only revealing what depth He possessed. knowing before hand only supports my position that it was an offering, good job. We both know Jesus believed in the resurrection of His spirit, that is not suicide as suicide is an attempt to end ones existence out of despair.
You have yet to show me why I should replace sacrifice with suicide, your opinion means diddly-squat. Christ offered a sacrifice and there is no way to worm out of that fact.

The murder of Jesus was inevitable, not provoked silly man. You have it all backwards.
From this you're saying Jesus should have forsaken His beliefs to conform to the religious establishment thereby thwarting the truth, that's insane Harry, I think you're brighter than that but that may be granting you too much credit.
It was the religious folks who provoked confrontation not the other way around. Sure Jesus tipped a few tables but who cares, I think we all would stand behind this knowing the principles behind it. We need stand for what is true and what is right even in the face of danger, and now look at the mark Jesus left on the world.
Too bad your small mind cannot grasp the fact Jesus impacted the world greater than any single being, though I'm sure you would deny that.





Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

This means nothing my friend, kinda pointless for you to bring it up.
Having a moment of carnality before being tortured only shows that Jesus was completely aware, completely sane and completely mentally stable.
He worked through His fear and took the full weight of it.

Excuse me, this was referring to the garden obviously, both circumstances in the garden and on the cross were not regret, rather only revealing the true nature of what He was experiencing.

You have yet to deal with the FACT, that Christ was not ending His life in despair to disappear from existence and you know but cannot address it. That is what a suicide is, rather what Jesus did falls into the category it's always been in, you cannot change that fact with poor understanding.

The Christians wants people to believe it was God who sacrificed His only son Jesus for the salvation of those who believed in Jesus. That is pure rubbish. It is humans that offer sacrifices to God. God does not offer sacrifices to humans.

Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

God most certainly would sacrifice for Humans, that is not silly that is showing us what God is capable of. And in the spirit sacrifice is the peak of perfection, God is perfection in His own right. You need to examine the concepts more fully and stop repeating atheist propaganda.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 6,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:42:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:40:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:


Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

Again, you keep talking about "spiritual" as if it were some kind of well known fact, yet you have not substantiated that in any way. You may do so here if you can...

http://www.debate.org...

You can follow me around for the rest of your existence with your silly thread and lack of comprehension but I don't really care lol, have fun with that.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:54:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:42:49 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:40:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:


Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

Again, you keep talking about "spiritual" as if it were some kind of well known fact, yet you have not substantiated that in any way. You may do so here if you can...

http://www.debate.org...

You can follow me around for the rest of your existence with your silly thread and lack of comprehension but I don't really care lol, have fun with that.

So, that would mean you have no explanation for spiritual, it is basically a word you are going to use as a lame excuse for an argument, which of course, is dishonest. Clearly, whatever you claim to "see" are merely hallucinations and that you have some sort of mental disorder causing you to see things that aren't there.

Whatever problems you have are secondary to your use of that term in an argument, which will only show you have no argument at all, but are compelled to defer to your hallucinations.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 11:09:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/26/2015 2:12:26 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Ok,

All you atheists need to calm down. Unlike you, I have something called a life.

A circle-jerk is where atheists mass on a thread and tell each other how wonderful their positions are and how irrational theists are.

We already know that we agree with the positions we hold on religion. The irrationality of dogmatic theists is self evident.

Each one masterba......errrr.....riffing of the post of the other till the entire thread reeks of ......you know what.

...biblical dogmatism?

For those of you claiming not to know what it was, you sure ejacu.......scuse me, .........contributed a lot to the pot. Natural ability I guess.

Oops. Did we get some on you? Would you like a towel?

And for the trolls we have, please excuse me if I don't address you directly. I suspect there will be too many good posts to respond to to waste valuable time tossing you for lolz. That will have to wait for another time.

Funny you would mention "tossing..."

Those of you who do not answer questions but want to keep the theist always answering your questions, You will have the most negative views of my argument, but that is ok, dodgers lack influence.

Actual substance contributed in 3...2...1...

All the yammering about Ethan being the first to offer "Earth shattering" evidence, can't you see my evidence would only be considered "spectacular" if your POV is taken as true?

We do take our position as "true," and "earth-shattering" was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. It's not surprising that you sidestep that.

You actually have the hubris to talk as if something believed by far more than half of the world, something considered as common-place and self evident as evidence for God, would be somehow new and Earth shattering.

Numbers don't substantiate accuracy, in the absence of ANY evidence, other than misconstrued derivations from poorly considered reality. If, on the other hand, more than half the world ACTUALLY AGREED on the nature, will, and properties of the deity (assuming that it was just one deity), there would be a little more relevance to that presupposition. But there is not...

Of course it aids your position to pretend it would be, for it sets an impossible bar for me, while allowing you to claim "I knew it disappointment" afterwards.

We waited all this time to hear an excuse as to why you have nothing? Ad hominem was the best your could muster? Launching an offensive against those who dismiss your unfounded assertions was the sum total of your "circle jerk killer?" Oh, well... You are, at the very least, consistent. Since you rarely offer anything other than smug, condescending diatribe, I suppose it should have been anticipated the entire time.

One of the strengths of my position is that I do not have to engage in trickery and misdirection. I do not have to assume my position and then pretend that my pretense has established my argument.

And, still, this is precisely what you do with every single discussion you enter.

I know of the trolls, the irreverent, and the biased haters. But yet I'm doing this. I don't know of, and have never seen, any atheist willing to set out his beliefs and be questioned about them. But as the man said, the truth sets you free. And one of the things it frees you from, is fear.

Yes, the truth sets you free, and holy texts and religion bind the heart and mind in a manner far surpassing that which iron could ever accomplish on the wrists and ankles.

Ok, now that we've done the digression for dolts, onwards.

Oh, I get it... This was simply the "build-up" to the REAL evidence, right? Just "setting the stage," so to speak? OK, I feel better now. For a minute, there, I thought you might be losing your touch.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 2,448
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 11:29:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/26/2015 3:17:03 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Evidence is a misunderstood thing.

Often, we use the concept politically, accepting as evidence that which supports our already established positions, or reject evidence which we feel diminishes the strength of our already established positions. This can be done, and often is done, subconsciously.

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

Part of my argument will incorporate concepts used and accepted by atheists, for if they reject the concept when I use it, they will have to reject it in their arguments also. This is not to trick them or be needlessly antagonist, but if we both use the same concepts, it will be easier to at least arrive at consensus, if not agreement.

To open my argument, lets do a thought experiment. Say you have come to a rock cliff. You are at the bottom of this cliff and you can see that rocks have been breaking off the cliff wall and falling to the ground in front of you.

Now perhaps you can find patterns in the rock lying on the ground. Random letters perhaps, or maybe rocks in the same positions as stars in the big dipper. There is a certain complexity of pattern which would might be interesting, but would not cause you to think the rocks had been manipulated. But at some level of complexity, you would begin to doubt that the rocks fell unassisted by other than gravity.

Now lets say you thought you could pick out among the rocks the pattern which spelled out, "I am here." That might make you wonder. If the pattern was clear enough for other people to also easily see it, that would cause even more doubt that the rocks fell unmolested.

Now, imagine that a non-English speaking Chinese man (instead of you) had come across the same cliff. Would he readily see any pattern? He may, if the pattern was complex enough, but for sure an English speaker would first see a pattern in "I am here." at a far lower complexity level than the Chinese man.

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

Now, standing before this cliff, imagine you are an astronaut on a planet you know to be devoid of life. But what if the "pattern" you see in the rocks makes you believe that it could not simply be gravity. (or some other natural process like say, earthquakes, but for simplicity I will stick to one causal agent)

At some level of complexity, some universality of pattern recognition, you would abandon chance and natural causes as sources for the pattern.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.

Can anyone think of a "pattern" able to be recognized, but not having a direct relationship to any idea of an object (like a dog) or concept (like a circle) in the mind?

I can.

So, then, the sum total of your "evidence" is to provide an hypothetical example, and present it in such a way that it provides you the escape hatch (when picked apart and dismissed) of saying, "I knew you wouldn't 'get it.' It's over your head. I'm just too esoteric for all of you unbelievers..." Same old Ethan. No substance, no valid argument, and no reasonable presentation of anything of value is offered, but if we don't accept it, we're simply "not receptive." Leave the (pattern) definition "hanging" in the air and, upon query, claim that it's simply 'over our heads,' in order to use a lot of words to say next to nothing. Oh, and I almost forgot the subtlety of "redefining" evidence for your own purposes, in order to accommodate your regression into the inevitable diatribe offensive you will need to launch when your "evidence" is rejected...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Harikrish
Posts: 41,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 10:46:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:42:49 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:40:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:


Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

Again, you keep talking about "spiritual" as if it were some kind of well known fact, yet you have not substantiated that in any way. You may do so here if you can...

http://www.debate.org...

You can follow me around for the rest of your existence with your silly thread and lack of comprehension but I don't really care lol, have fun with that.
Have you looked at who you have been following for most of your existence?

Psychiatry calls Jesus a paranoid schizophrenic, Supraphrenic!
Sept. 2012: "Jesus" experiences can be potentially conceptualized within the framework of Paranoid Schizophrenia or Psychosis NOS. Other reasonable possibilities might include bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. " hyperreligiosity " Suicide-by-proxy is described as "any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person. " a Supraphrenic" (The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered, Evan D. Murray, M.D. Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D. Bruce H. Price, M.D., The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2012; 24:410-426)

c. "JESUS: The New Testament (NT) recalls Jesus as having experienced and shown behavior closely resembling the DSM-IV-TR"defined phenomena of Auditory Hallucinations, Visual Hallucinations, delusions, referential thinking (see Figure 3), paranoid-type (Paranoid Schizophrenic subtype) thought content, and hyperreligiosity " In terms of potential causes of perceptual and behavioral changes, it might be asked whether starvation and metabolic derangements were present. The hallucinatory-like experiences that Jesus had in the desert while he fasted for 40 days (Luke 4:1"13) may have been induced by starvation and metabolic derangements. " The absence of physical maladies or apparent epilepsy leaves primary psychiatric etiologies as more plausible. As seen with the previous cases, Jesus" experiences can be potentially conceptualized within the framework of Paranoid Schizophrenia or Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified. Other reasonable possibilities might include bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. There is a 5%-10% lifetime risk of suicide in persons with schizophrenia. Suicide is defined as a self-inflicted death with evidence of an intention to end one"s life. The New Testament recounts Jesus" awareness that people intended to kill him and his taking steps to avoid peril until the time at which he permitted his apprehension. In advance, he explained to his followers the necessity of his death as prelude for his return (Matthew 16:21"28; Mark 8:31; John 16:16"28). If this occurred in the manner described, then Jesus appears to have deliberately placed himself in circumstances wherein he anticipated his execution. Although schizophrenia is associated with an increased risk of suicide, this would not be a typical case. The more common mood-disorder accompaniments of suicide, such as depression, hopelessness, and social isolation, were not present, but other risk factors, such as age and male gender, were present. Suicide-by-proxy is described as "any incident in which a suicidal individual causes his or her death to be carried out by another person." There is a potential parallel of Jesus" beliefs and behavior leading up to his death to that of one who premeditates a form of suicide-by-proxy." (The Role of Psychotic Disorders in Religious History Considered, Evan D. Murray, M.D. Miles G. Cunningham, M.D., Ph.D. Bruce H. Price, M.D., The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 2012; 24:410-426)
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 10:55:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 3:27:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
I see we're still waiting for any kind of real evidence. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Ethan has had almost an entire week to present his case and evidence, yet all we have from him so far are his usual insults and some half-witted excuse regarding rock patterns that spell out the phrase, "I am here".

Perhaps, the rocks are in his head, as well?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 41,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2015 11:35:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/28/2015 10:32:32 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/28/2015 8:22:19 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:22:50 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
What does sacrifice mean in the spiritual realm Harikrish ???

Sacrifice means to give up as an offering to the God. But in Jesus's case he was not given up as an offering to God. Jesus knew beforehand if he continued to follow the path he was on he would be killed. He had already been threatened with stoning on several occasions for his blasphemous claims. But Jesus seriously believed he was the messiah and his delusions of grandeur pushed him to his suicidal end. He defied the warnings which he regretted in the final moments before his death.

Your first sentence is the only thing that is legit here. Jesus avoided confrontation more than once, it was the religious system that advanced their cause.
You mean if "He continued to follow the truth"? Yes Jesus continued to follow the truth in the line of fire, only revealing what depth He possessed. knowing before hand only supports my position that it was an offering, good job. We both know Jesus believed in the resurrection of His spirit, that is not suicide as suicide is an attempt to end ones existence out of despair.

You got your despair here. Jesus felt God forsook him.
Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

You have yet to show me why I should replace sacrifice with suicide, your opinion means diddly-squat. Christ offered a sacrifice and there is no way to worm out of that fact.

Human sacrifice was not expected of the Jews. Neither was it expected of God.
The real reason Jesus was killed was for being a false prophet. Jesus delusionally believed he was a messiah and sought to fulfill Isaiah's prophesies the death of the suffering saviour which was his personal death wish.
But the real reason Jesus was killed was very much within Jewish law.

Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

The murder of Jesus was inevitable, not provoked silly man. You have it all backwards.
Jesus was killed for blasphemy which was within Jewish law.
Deuteronomy 18: 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

From this you're saying Jesus should have forsaken His beliefs to conform to the religious establishment thereby thwarting the truth, that's insane Harry, I think you're brighter than that but that may be granting you too much credit.
Jesus should have forsaken his delusional beliefs that he would be accepted as a messiah.

It was the religious folks who provoked confrontation not the other way around. Sure Jesus tipped a few tables but who cares, I think we all would stand behind this knowing the principles behind it. We need stand for what is true and what is right even in the face of danger, and now look at the mark Jesus left on the world.
Look at mess he left behind. The people he was sent to save had their temple destroyed. They suffered enslavement and genocide. And look they even lost their religion to a pagan country Rome.

Too bad your small mind cannot grasp the fact Jesus impacted the world greater than any single being, though I'm sure you would deny that.


Not true. Mohammad the illiterate prophet (pbuh) singlehandedly created Islam that has over 1.6 billion Muslim followers and soon to exceed Christians. It is the fastest growing religion in the world. There is no ambiguity in Islam because it was created in the mind on one person. Unlike Christianity which is made up of 40,000 denominations all interpreting the scriptures differently.



Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

This means nothing my friend, kinda pointless for you to bring it up.
Having a moment of carnality before being tortured only shows that Jesus was completely aware, completely sane and completely mentally stable.
He worked through His fear and took the full weight of it.

It was a sad moment of truth. Jesus was alone on the cross with his delusions.

You have yet to deal with the FACT, that Christ was not ending His life in despair to disappear from existence and you know but cannot address it. That is what a suicide is, rather what Jesus did falls into the category it's always been in, you cannot change that fact with poor understanding.

The poor man was incoherent and spoke in parables that no one could understand not even his disciples.

The Christians wants people to believe it was God who sacrificed His only son Jesus for the salvation of those who believed in Jesus. That is pure rubbish. It is humans that offer sacrifices to God. God does not offer sacrifices to humans.

Read your bible. God offered Jesus as the human sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Jesus created a platform and an avenue for spiritual comprehension, with practicality and simple truth. That is what you re blind to.

Jesus was killed for teaching nonsense.

God most certainly would sacrifice for Humans, that is not silly that is showing us what God is capable of. And in the spirit sacrifice is the peak of perfection, God is perfection in His own right. You need to examine the concepts more fully and stop repeating atheist propaganda.

God failed to save the Jews to whom He sent a messiah. The Jews rejected the messiah Jesus. God is a perfect failure.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 10:35:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/29/2015 10:55:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 3:27:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
I see we're still waiting for any kind of real evidence. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Ethan has had almost an entire week to present his case and evidence, yet all we have from him so far are his usual insults and some half-witted excuse regarding rock patterns that spell out the phrase, "I am here".

Perhaps, the rocks are in his head, as well?

Ethan seems to have disappeared, perhaps he's still building his argument?

Hello Ethan! Where is your factual objective evidence you keep telling us you possess? Share it with us all, change the world.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Anonymous
6/11/2015 6:50:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2015 10:35:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/29/2015 10:55:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 3:27:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
I see we're still waiting for any kind of real evidence. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Ethan has had almost an entire week to present his case and evidence, yet all we have from him so far are his usual insults and some half-witted excuse regarding rock patterns that spell out the phrase, "I am here".

Perhaps, the rocks are in his head, as well?

Ethan seems to have disappeared, perhaps he's still building his argument?

Hello Ethan! Where is your factual objective evidence you keep telling us you possess? Share it with us all, change the world.

Now, be careful what you wish for. I look upon his reticence as a blessing. He tends toward such an ugly way of expressing himself, and I abhor ugliness...
Double_R
Posts: 5,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:43:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/11/2015 10:35:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/29/2015 10:55:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/28/2015 3:27:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
I see we're still waiting for any kind of real evidence. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Ethan has had almost an entire week to present his case and evidence, yet all we have from him so far are his usual insults and some half-witted excuse regarding rock patterns that spell out the phrase, "I am here".

Perhaps, the rocks are in his head, as well?

Ethan seems to have disappeared, perhaps he's still building his argument?

Hello Ethan! Where is your factual objective evidence you keep telling us you possess? Share it with us all, change the world.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/26/2015 8:16:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Folks, considering the nature of this challenge, I would suggest we allow Ethan to continue his thought, and not try to dissect it immediately. With word counts, and the sheer amount of time involved and the delay between available hours in the day. It also goes miles to not attempting to side track or force Ethan to defend a case he has not fully made.

Thank you FJ. That was gracious.

I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.


After all this, here were the comments,

dhardage - All that demonstrates is the pattern seeking propensity of the human mind, developed when those pattern seeking skill were needed to avoid predators.

dhardage has missed the point I'm trying to make. Note that he doesn't disagree with me, but simply thinks I am claiming that since the human mind can pick out patterns, that must be evidence. Sigh.

Harikrish - So what Ethang5 is confirming is the person has to have a receptive mind to be able to see the patterns.

It's no surprise that Harikrish misses the point also. Receptive to what? My point is that the patterns appear to all, not just the "receptive" minds.

DanneJeRusse - ...there is nothing objective or factual about imagining "I am here" patterns in rocks on the ground.

DJR, (like ThinkFirst) is so off base there isn't any point addressing him at all. It's almost as if neither of them even read my post. Sigh.

Double_R - ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

For those of you with the attention spans of gnats, thinking they deserve to be entertained, your slumber will be peaceful and undisturbed. I won't wake you.

The fact that virtually every single culture of man has seen this pattern in nature demonstrates that the pattern cannot possibly be due to the observing mind associating it with something similar from it's culture or experience.

Earlier I said,

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

No mind has had any experience with dimensions other than the 4 we know. No mind has had any conscious experience with the relativity of time. Yet Einstein was able to arrive at physical truths about dimensions and relativity by sheer logic alone.

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

Or how about "A boy wi"?

Or, "A boy will lead y"?

or "A boy lead you to my house."?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Argument 1 of 3
Harikrish
Posts: 41,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 2:58:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:16:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Folks, considering the nature of this challenge, I would suggest we allow Ethan to continue his thought, and not try to dissect it immediately. With word counts, and the sheer amount of time involved and the delay between available hours in the day. It also goes miles to not attempting to side track or force Ethan to defend a case he has not fully made.

Thank you FJ. That was gracious.

I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.


After all this, here were the comments,

dhardage - All that demonstrates is the pattern seeking propensity of the human mind, developed when those pattern seeking skill were needed to avoid predators.

dhardage has missed the point I'm trying to make. Note that he doesn't disagree with me, but simply thinks I am claiming that since the human mind can pick out patterns, that must be evidence. Sigh.

Harikrish - So what Ethang5 is confirming is the person has to have a receptive mind to be able to see the patterns.

It's no surprise that Harikrish misses the point also. Receptive to what? My point is that the patterns appear to all, not just the "receptive" minds.

The appearance of apparitions and spiritual beings are not seen by all. Only a selected few witness these oddities and often explain these experiences as hallucinations. DSM-5 list many of these cases as a form of mental illness.

DanneJeRusse - ...there is nothing objective or factual about imagining "I am here" patterns in rocks on the ground.

DJR, (like ThinkFirst) is so off base there isn't any point addressing him at all. It's almost as if neither of them even read my post. Sigh.

Double_R - ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

For those of you with the attention spans of gnats, thinking they deserve to be entertained, your slumber will be peaceful and undisturbed. I won't wake you.

The fact that virtually every single culture of man has seen this pattern in nature demonstrates that the pattern cannot possibly be due to the observing mind associating it with something similar from it's culture or experience.

Earlier I said,

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

The word is 'hypothesis' not logic and the verification process is called the scientific method. Logic is not the most reliable way to arrive at facts because very often logic is based on wrong assumptions.

No mind has had any experience with dimensions other than the 4 we know. No mind has had any conscious experience with the relativity of time. Yet Einstein was able to arrive at physical truths about dimensions and relativity by sheer logic alone.

Einstein expanded on Newton's law of gravity. He had a conceptual working model to begin with and did not create his theory based solely on logic. He also provided the mathematical proof which was used to verify his theory.

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

Or how about "A boy wi"?

Or, "A boy will lead y"?

or "A boy lead you to my house."?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

The probability of the falling rocks forming a word or a sentence is highly improbable. Cognitive dissonance is the likely cause of seeing such patterns.

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

We know how nature around us formed land, mountains, vegetation, continental drift etc. etc. We even created urban dwellings with this knowledge. Nature can be duplicated and even artificially controlled. But nature does not give us a clear idea of the pattern maker should one exist because it is fraught with speculations and contradictory opinions rendering it meaningless with little practical value.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

The natural world is evidence of nature and the physical laws that govern it. Evidence of a metaphysical being is absent.

Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Argument 1 of 3
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:07:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

I'm glad you're safe, Ethan, and look forward to reading your posts.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker.
No, I think all patterns are evidence of process, but processes are either the products of credible statistical variations under natural laws, or of designs that so improbable that we can conclude the exercise of preference. However, identifying improbable design requires exhaustive investigation of [probable alternatives, not an argument from ignorance.

For example, the creation of a steel knife requires a long process of multiple steps that each do the opposite of things nature normally does: reducing oxygen from iron; mixing molybdenum and carbon evenly, resetting crystal structures, shaping it symmetrically, giving it a smooth, even edge, fitting it inside a wooden handle, treating it against rust -- all of these reverse so many processes that occur ubiquitously in nature, one after another, that you can reasonably conclude (after exhaustively investigating how iron and wood and molybdenum work, and surveying comparable sites) that a knife is an artefact -- an exercise of preference -- even if you had no clear understanding of how it might be used.

However, due diligence has shown that it's not hard to produce amino acids spontaneously under multiple conditions; that it's possible to create simple environments that favour reproducing molecules; that simple life-forms can gain function and complexity... these are all processes that occur abundantly and spontaneously. So exhaustive search does not show processes running contrary to statistics, but rather identifies previously unknown processes that nature seems to produce repeatedly -- almost unavoidably, as some biologists have remarked.

The only people who oppose that are people who: a) already don't want to accept the conclusion; b) don't understand (or deliberately misrepresent) the science; c) either ignore the statistics, or construct false statistical arguments to preference their contentions; and finally d) never present their counter-arguments to peer-reviewed science journals for scrutiny.

We don't find independent experts who understand the science publishing other conclusions to peer-reviewed journals -- even though other conclusions, if proven, would advance their careers -- and that should give us a clue as to the biases involved.

One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

You're conflating reality with interpretation, Ethan. We don't observe gods; some people interpret them. And the fact that many people interpret them isn't evidence of their existence so much as confirmation of a known quirk of human psychology: that people tend to fill gaps in their knowledge with imaginary people much like themselves -- faces in clouds, giants sleeping under the ground, blacksmiths striking anvils in the sky... We know these things don't exist because we've investigated clouds and hills and lightning. Yet people continue to see such things anyway.

I realise that this is only argument one of three, but in case later arguments build on this one, I think you need to revisit it. Key rebuttals in summary:

1) Diligent search does not show abiogenesis improbable, but is finding an increasing number of paths that can connect to enable spontaneously-occurring reproducing life-molecules -- even though a single, fully-connected, most probable process has not yet been identified -- so abiogenesis is not becoming less probable after diligence but more probable;
2) Humans are predisposed to falsely see manlike agency in cases of ignorance, so disparate cultural beliefs are not evidence of anything but human psychology.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:39:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:16:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Folks, considering the nature of this challenge, I would suggest we allow Ethan to continue his thought, and not try to dissect it immediately. With word counts, and the sheer amount of time involved and the delay between available hours in the day. It also goes miles to not attempting to side track or force Ethan to defend a case he has not fully made.

Thank you FJ. That was gracious.

I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.


After all this, here were the comments,

dhardage - All that demonstrates is the pattern seeking propensity of the human mind, developed when those pattern seeking skill were needed to avoid predators.

dhardage has missed the point I'm trying to make. Note that he doesn't disagree with me, but simply thinks I am claiming that since the human mind can pick out patterns, that must be evidence. Sigh.

Harikrish - So what Ethang5 is confirming is the person has to have a receptive mind to be able to see the patterns.

It's no surprise that Harikrish misses the point also. Receptive to what? My point is that the patterns appear to all, not just the "receptive" minds.

DanneJeRusse - ...there is nothing objective or factual about imagining "I am here" patterns in rocks on the ground.

DJR, (like ThinkFirst) is so off base there isn't any point addressing him at all. It's almost as if neither of them even read my post. Sigh.

Yes, we read your post and found it wanting, yet we all have somehow missed the point. LOL. Obviously, you didn't express yourself very well, then. Perhaps, you can try again.

Double_R - ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

For those of you with the attention spans of gnats, thinking they deserve to be entertained, your slumber will be peaceful and undisturbed. I won't wake you.

The fact that virtually every single culture of man has seen this pattern in nature demonstrates that the pattern cannot possibly be due to the observing mind associating it with something similar from it's culture or experience.

LOL. So, it would appear we did indeed understand your post and now you're compelled to fabricate a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", which is the same laughable pattern you've described.

Earlier I said,

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

No actually, you are not Einstein.

No mind has had any experience with dimensions other than the 4 we know. No mind has had any conscious experience with the relativity of time. Yet Einstein was able to arrive at physical truths about dimensions and relativity by sheer logic alone.

Is that a joke?

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

Or how about "A boy wi"?

Or, "A boy will lead y"?

or "A boy lead you to my house."?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Argument 1 of 3

LOL. Yes, it was a joke. Sorry, there are no patterns other than the ones you are making up as you go along, Einstein. Your argument from incredulity and ignorance has been noted.

This is most hilarious...

" the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God."
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2015 10:44:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:

" the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God."

So, here we have Ethan's factual objective evidence for God.

Is anyone even compelled let alone convinced of Ethan's evidence?

Or, is this the kind of answer we suspected all along?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 6:35:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 2:58:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:16:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Folks, considering the nature of this challenge, I would suggest we allow Ethan to continue his thought, and not try to dissect it immediately. With word counts, and the sheer amount of time involved and the delay between available hours in the day. It also goes miles to not attempting to side track or force Ethan to defend a case he has not fully made.

Thank you FJ. That was gracious.

I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.


After all this, here were the comments,

Harikrish - So what Ethang5 is confirming is the person has to have a receptive mind to be able to see the patterns.

It's no surprise that Harikrish misses the point also. Receptive to what? My point is that the patterns appear to all, not just the "receptive" minds.

The appearance of apparitions and spiritual beings are not seen by all.

I said nothing about apparitions and spiritual beings.

Earlier I said,

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

The word is 'hypothesis' not logic and the verification process is called the scientific method.

The word is "logic". And logic can be used to both formulate an hypothesis and discern physical truth.

Logic is not the most reliable way to arrive at facts because very often logic is based on wrong assumptions.

Logic does not make assumptions. Logic may use assumptions, but never makes them. And there is no more reliable way to physical truth than logic.

No mind has had any experience with dimensions other than the 4 we know. No mind has had any conscious experience with the relativity of time. Yet Einstein was able to arrive at physical truths about dimensions and relativity by sheer logic alone.

Einstein expanded on Newton's law of gravity. He had a conceptual working model to begin with and did not create his theory based solely on logic.

Of course, which is why I did not say so. Einstein took the ingredients he had, like work done previously by others, and used sheer logic to arrive physical truths which had never been experienced or seen by anyone. Einstein contradicted the idiots who say, "If you can't see, feel, touch, hear, or taste it, it cannot be real."

He also provided the mathematical proof which was used to verify his theory.

Actually, this is not true. Many of his theories were logical inferences from those mathematical proof of other things. And today, some of his mathematical proofs have proven to be incorrect even though his conclusions from them have been vilified.

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

Or how about "A boy wi"?

Or, "A boy will lead y"?

or "A boy lead you to my house."?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

The probability of the falling rocks forming a word or a sentence is highly improbable. Cognitive dissonance is the likely cause of seeing such patterns.

Ok, but when every culture on Earth throughout all time has claimed to have seen such a pattern, I think I will disagree with you that every culture on Earth is crazy. I think it is logical to believe that all cultures have claimed to see a pattern because "there is actually a pattern there."

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

We know how nature around us formed land, mountains, vegetation, continental drift etc. etc. We even created urban dwellings with this knowledge. Nature can be duplicated and even artificially controlled. But nature does not give us a clear idea of the pattern maker should one exist because it is fraught with speculations and contradictory opinions rendering it meaningless with little practical value.

Yet every culture that has ever existed has come to the same conclusion that nature does indicate a creator! You are welcome to follow your bias. I feel following the real evidence is a better path to reality. We can agree to disagree.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

The natural world is evidence of nature and the physical laws that govern it. Evidence of a metaphysical being is absent.

This belief of yours is contradicted by every single culture that has ever existed on Earth. On what do you base this belief?

Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Argument 1 of 3
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 7:08:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/20/2015 10:39:00 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/26/2015 8:16:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Folks, considering the nature of this challenge, I would suggest we allow Ethan to continue his thought, and not try to dissect it immediately. With word counts, and the sheer amount of time involved and the delay between available hours in the day. It also goes miles to not attempting to side track or force Ethan to defend a case he has not fully made.

Thank you FJ. That was gracious.

I was sent on a errand to retrieve a family from Syria and arrived back in Ghana on the 4th only to find my house flooded in the June 3rd/4th floods. It has been hectic but I think most things are back on track now.

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.

I want to avoid this. I want evidence that can be picked out regardless of the cultural differences of the viewers. I want the "pattern" to be in the positions of the rocks and not simply in the brain of the observer.

A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.

For patterns which could come about naturally, the rocks would have a relationship to something already in your mind, like a triangle or a number, for example. But for a pattern in the rocks themselves, and not just your mind, the rocks will have a relationship only to each other. Not a thing pre-existing in your mind.


After all this, here were the comments,

DanneJeRusse - ...there is nothing objective or factual about imagining "I am here" patterns in rocks on the ground.

DJR, (like ThinkFirst) is so off base there isn't any point addressing him at all. It's almost as if neither of them even read my post. Sigh.

Yes, we read your post and found it wanting, yet we all have somehow missed the point. LOL. Obviously, you didn't express yourself very well, then. Perhaps, you can try again.

The fact that virtually every single culture of man has seen this pattern in nature demonstrates that the pattern cannot possibly be due to the observing mind associating it with something similar from it's culture or experience.

LOL. So, it would appear we did indeed understand your post and now you're compelled to fabricate a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", which is the same laughable pattern you've described.

Earlier I said,

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

No actually, you are not Einstein.

No mind has had any experience with dimensions other than the 4 we know. No mind has had any conscious experience with the relativity of time. Yet Einstein was able to arrive at physical truths about dimensions and relativity by sheer logic alone.

Is that a joke?

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

Or how about "A boy wi"?

Or, "A boy will lead y"?

or "A boy lead you to my house."?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 - Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


Argument 1 of 3

LOL. Yes, it was a joke. Sorry, there are no patterns other than the ones you are making up as you go along, Einstein. Your argument from incredulity and ignorance has been noted.

This is most hilarious...

" the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God."

Gentle Reader, please take your answer to the following 2 questions from DJR's post above.

1. DJR disagrees with Ethan because......................................................................

For your convenience, I have posted every "reason" DJR wrote in his post.
[He] read [my] post and found it wanting. / [I] didn't express [myself] very well. / [I] have fabricate[d] a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", which is the same laughable pattern [i've] described. / [i] am not Einstein. [This may be] a joke.

Now, question 2,
What evidence does DJR present for the conclusions he comes to?

For your convenience, I have posted every "conclusion" DJR had in his post.
Yes, it was a joke. / there are no patterns other than the ones you are making up as you go along, / Your argument [is] from incredulity and ignorance.

So, consider questions like this,

DJR thinks [I have fabricate[d] a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", because.................

DJR thinks [my] argument [is] from incredulity and ignorance because..................

You cannot answer with anything from DJR's post because he states no reasons. In his posts, he tells us only his claims, never any reasoning. He hasn't a clue about what debate is, or how to make and support a point. His posts are vacuous.

Long ago in this very thread, Iredia wrote:

Don't waste your time ethang. I've tried such on an earlier thread. All I got was insults from DJR in particular.

History has repeated itself. So if you don't mind Gentle Reader, I will hence forth focus on the posts with actual content. My time is both limited and valuable.
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:18:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/19/2015 3:48:42 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker.

No, I think all patterns are evidence of process, but processes are either the products of credible statistical variations under natural laws, or of designs that so improbable that we can conclude the exercise of preference.

You have not disagreed with me here, so why did you begin the paragraph with a "No," ?

However, identifying improbable design requires exhaustive investigation of [probable alternatives, not an argument from ignorance.

First, my argument is not an argument from ignorance. And as my argument put forth, sometimes the pattern seen is so improbable that it would be ludicrous to assume anything other than design. We don't need an exhaustive investigation of probable alternatives when we find a 6,000 year old cooking utensil buried in the Earth.

My point is not to say that exhaustive investigation of probable alternatives is never called for, but that sometimes it is obtuse to call for it.

Second, my main claim rests on the fact that all cultures claim to see the pattern. No pattern developed in the human mind can claim this.

For example, the creation of a steel knife requires a long process of multiple steps that each do the opposite of things nature normally does: reducing oxygen from iron; mixing molybdenum and carbon evenly, resetting crystal structures, shaping it symmetrically, giving it a smooth, even edge, fitting it inside a wooden handle, treating it against rust -- all of these reverse so many processes that occur ubiquitously in nature, one after another, that you can reasonably conclude (after exhaustively investigating how iron and wood and molybdenum work, and surveying comparable sites) that a knife is an artefact -- an exercise of preference -- even if you had no clear understanding of how it might be used.

Thank you. This is an apt argument for "Life", which is the 2nd of my 3 proof which I will get to next. But here you are trying to make "against nature" the standard for my pattern. No so. My claim is that the pattern IS nature. Nature itself is the evidence, not some process which goes against it.

However, due diligence has shown that it's not hard to produce amino acids spontaneously under multiple conditions;

Telling me that amino acids spontaneously form under multiple conditions has no baring on abiogenesis. That is like telling me that because explosions can happen naturally the internal combustion engine is a natural event. Please.

The only people who oppose that are people who: a) already don't want to accept the conclusion; b) don't understand (or deliberately misrepresent) the science; c) either ignore the statistics, or construct false statistical arguments to preference their contentions; and finally d) never present their counter-arguments to peer-reviewed science journals for scrutiny.

You have gone way off track here. I don't know anyone who opposes the fact that amino acids can occur naturally. I know many who oppose the idea that this fact somehow support abiogenesis. And I have never met anyone who can logically show how it does.

But for now, I am only defending my one claim made here, that the fact that every culture has seen the same pattern in nature means,

1. The pattern must actually exist within nature, and not just in the observers mind, and that,

2. There must be an intelligent pattern maker.

Wait till I've made other claims before attacking them.

We don't find independent experts who understand the science publishing other conclusions to peer-reviewed journals -- even though other conclusions, if proven, would advance their careers -- and that should give us a clue as to the biases involved.

Everyone has biases. And we go into a list of science crippling bias if it were necessary. The point is that science, that is, the "science community" that has sprung up among academia, is rife with politics and bias.

Most unpopular facts introduced into science are opposed by vested scientists. But do the facts support it? Can a claim be supported by reason and logic? And if it can, does it matter that it has not yet been published in a journal?

One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

You're conflating reality with interpretation, Ethan. We don't observe gods; some people interpret them.

I did not say anyone "observes" God. We don't observe gravity either. But we know it's there from it's effect on real things.

And the fact that many people interpret them isn't evidence of their existence so much as confirmation of a known quirk of human psychology:

This is itself an interpretation!

... that people tend to fill gaps in their knowledge with imaginary people much like themselves -- faces in clouds, giants sleeping under the ground, blacksmiths striking anvils in the sky...

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutibility, and being eternal make God very much unlike people. But your logic here is faulty. Because people can imagine a god, does not mean God is imagined.

You want us to make that logical leap for you instead of actually doing the hard work of actually supporting your point. That is lazy intellectualism. You tell us that humans have a quirk to fill gaps in their knowledge with imaginary people much like themselves, and want your audience to make the illogical leap to the "fact" that therefore, God is an attempt to fill in our knowledge gaps. It doesn't logically follow. Even if many people aren't intellectually able to see it.

We know these things don't exist because we've investigated clouds and hills and lightning. Yet people continue to see such things anyway.

Do you think "investigating" how a car works is the same as investigating who made the car? And if you already don't believe the car was created, why would you investigate whether it was created? But the fact that people, of every culture, every age, every gender, ethnicity continue to claim to see a pattern - says something.

The fact is that it would be ludicrous to deny that a pattern that is so obvious, to so many people, over so much time, indicates the presence of a pattern maker.

I realise that this is only argument one of three, but in case later arguments build on this one, I think you need to revisit it. Key rebuttals in summary:

1) Diligent search does not show abiogenesis improbable, but is finding an increasing number of paths that can connect to enable spontaneously-occurring reproducing life-molecules -- even though a single, fully-connected, most probable process has not yet been identified -- so abiogenesis is not becoming less probable after diligence but more probable;

This is untrue but not relevant to this argument. There is nothing about abiogenesis here.

2) Humans are predisposed to falsely see manlike agency in cases of ignorance, so disparate cultural beliefs are not evidence of anything but human psychology.

I would agree except for these facts.

1. The claim is too uniform, too persistent, and too widespread to be just be guesses based on a need to alleviate ignorance
2. The fact that Humans are predisposed to falsely see manlike agency in cases of ignorance is not logically incompatible with the existence of God.

My argument may need work, but I don't think it fails.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:39:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thank you. This is an apt argument for "Life", which is the 2nd of my 3 proof which I will get to next. But here you are trying to make "against nature" the standard for my pattern. No so. My claim is that the pattern IS nature. Nature itself is the evidence, not some process which goes against it.

However, due diligence has shown that it's not hard to produce amino acids spontaneously under multiple conditions;

Telling me that amino acids spontaneously form under multiple conditions has no baring on abiogenesis. That is like telling me that because explosions can happen naturally the internal combustion engine is a natural event. Please.

The only people who oppose that are people who: a) already don't want to accept the conclusion; b) don't understand (or deliberately misrepresent) the science; c) either ignore the statistics, or construct false statistical arguments to preference their contentions; and finally d) never present their counter-arguments to peer-reviewed science journals for scrutiny.

You have gone way off track here. I don't know anyone who opposes the fact that amino acids can occur naturally. I know many who oppose the idea that this fact somehow support abiogenesis. And I have never met anyone who can logically show how it does.

But for now, I am only defending my one claim made here, that the fact that every culture has seen the same pattern in nature means,

1. The pattern must actually exist within nature, and not just in the observers mind, and that,

2. There must be an intelligent pattern maker.

Wait till I've made other claims before attacking them.

We don't find independent experts who understand the science publishing other conclusions to peer-reviewed journals -- even though other conclusions, if proven, would advance their careers -- and that should give us a clue as to the biases involved.

Everyone has biases. And we go into a list of science crippling bias if it were necessary. The point is that science, that is, the "science community" that has sprung up among academia, is rife with politics and bias.

Most unpopular facts introduced into science are opposed by vested scientists. But do the facts support it? Can a claim be supported by reason and logic? And if it can, does it matter that it has not yet been published in a journal?

One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

You're conflating reality with interpretation, Ethan. We don't observe gods; some people interpret them.

I did not say anyone "observes" God. We don't observe gravity either. But we know it's there from it's effect on real things.

And the fact that many people interpret them isn't evidence of their existence so much as confirmation of a known quirk of human psychology:

This is itself an interpretation!

... that people tend to fill gaps in their knowledge with imaginary people much like themselves -- faces in clouds, giants sleeping under the ground, blacksmiths striking anvils in the sky...

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immutibility, and being eternal make God very much unlike people. But your logic here is faulty. Because people can imagine a god, does not mean God is imagined.

You want us to make that logical leap for you instead of actually doing the hard work of actually supporting your point. That is lazy intellectualism. You tell us that humans have a quirk to fill gaps in their knowledge with imaginary people much like themselves, and want your audience to make the illogical leap to the "fact" that therefore, God is an attempt to fill in our knowledge gaps. It doesn't logically follow. Even if many people aren't intellectually able to see it.

We know these things don't exist because we've investigated clouds and hills and lightning. Yet people continue to see such things anyway.

Do you think "investigating" how a car works is the same as investigating who made the car? And if you already don't believe the car was created, why would you investigate whether it was created? But the fact that people, of every culture, every age, every gender, ethnicity continue to claim to see a pattern - says something.

The fact is that it would be ludicrous to deny that a pattern that is so obvious, to so many people, over so much time, indicates the presence of a pattern maker.

I realise that this is only argument one of three, but in case later arguments build on this one, I think you need to revisit it. Key rebuttals in summary:

1) Diligent search does not show abiogenesis improbable, but is finding an increasing number of paths that can connect to enable spontaneously-occurring reproducing life-molecules -- even though a single, fully-connected, most probable process has not yet been identified -- so abiogenesis is not becoming less probable after diligence but more probable;

This is untrue but not relevant to this argument. There is nothing about abiogenesis here.

2) Humans are predisposed to falsely see manlike agency in cases of ignorance, so disparate cultural beliefs are not evidence of anything but human psychology.

I would agree except for these facts.

1. The claim is too uniform, too persistent, and too widespread to be just be guesses based on a need to alleviate ignorance

Let me just select this one bit of total misrepresentation. The claim is so far from uniform that you could barely see it with the Hubble telescope. Religions follow every possible pattern from everything having a spirit and power to just one all-powerful god like you, Ethan. The simple fact is that there as many patters as there are people to see them. This is the most specious claim I've ever seen and you spout it like it's some sort of deep truth. Look a little harder at all of the religions of the world, past and present, and you will see yours is in the minority. Polytheistic beliefs outnumber monotheistic ones and even among the monotheistic ones no single pattern is preferred. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, several among the Jewish people (Sephardic, Hassidic, etc.) and among the Muslim population (Sufi, Shiite, and Sunni, etc). This is clearly a false assertion.
2. The fact that Humans are predisposed to falsely see manlike agency in cases of ignorance is not logically incompatible with the existence of God.

My argument may need work, but I don't think it fails.
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:13:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2015 8:39:21 AM, dhardage wrote:

I would agree except for these facts.

1. The claim is too uniform, too persistent, and too widespread to be just be guesses based on a need to alleviate ignorance

Let me just select this one bit of total misrepresentation.

Ok.

The claim is so far from uniform that you could barely see it with the Hubble telescope. Religions follow every possible pattern from everything having a spirit and power to just one all-powerful god like you, Ethan.

Well, I guess it depends on how reasonable one is going to be when someone puts things into one group based on them being similar.

Of course I did not say all religions are exactly alike, and to be precise, I was not talking about religions. Religions come about only after men have formulated a God in their own minds, thus religions are not needed as proof that men all see a pattern.

The simple fact is that there as many patters as there are people to see them. This is the most specious claim I've ever seen and you spout it like it's some sort of deep truth.

Every culture of the world has concluded that the universe was made by God. All of them think life was created by God and is sourced in Him. All of them claim we have some obligation to God and that He has legitimate authority over us and the universe. Every single one of these cultures say or imply that we need this God and His wisdom in this world.

There are differences in religions, but not deep enough to make my claim untrue. And most individual religious people, apart from religion, think of God in a very similar way.

But the point is that things in a group do not need to be exactly alike to correctly belong in one group. Plus, groupings are not always based on appearance. All "Americans" can be placed in one group but does that mean they are all alike? I place all these cultures in one category because they all have certain similar characteristics.

Look a little harder at all of the religions of the world, past and present, and you will see yours is in the minority.

Ah, you have now lapsed into an irrelevant rant, I can now leave.

Polytheistic beliefs outnumber monotheistic ones and even among the monotheistic ones no single pattern is preferred. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, several among the Jewish people (Sephardic, Hassidic, etc.) and among the Muslim population (Sufi, Shiite, and Sunni, etc). This is clearly a false assertion.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2015 7:08:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:

Gentle Reader, please take your answer to the following 2 questions from DJR's post above.

1. DJR disagrees with Ethan because......................................................................

For your convenience, I have posted every "reason" DJR wrote in his post.
[He] read [my] post and found it wanting. / [I] didn't express [myself] very well. / [I] have fabricate[d] a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", which is the same laughable pattern [i've] described. / [i] am not Einstein. [This may be] a joke.

Now, question 2,
What evidence does DJR present for the conclusions he comes to?

For your convenience, I have posted every "conclusion" DJR had in his post.
Yes, it was a joke. / there are no patterns other than the ones you are making up as you go along, / Your argument [is] from incredulity and ignorance.

So, consider questions like this,

DJR thinks [I have fabricate[d] a lie that states "every single culture of man has seen this pattern", because.................

DJR thinks [my] argument [is] from incredulity and ignorance because..................

You cannot answer with anything from DJR's post because he states no reasons. In his posts, he tells us only his claims, never any reasoning. He hasn't a clue about what debate is, or how to make and support a point. His posts are vacuous.

Long ago in this very thread, Iredia wrote:

Don't waste your time ethang. I've tried such on an earlier thread. All I got was insults from DJR in particular.

History has repeated itself. So if you don't mind Gentle Reader, I will hence forth focus on the posts with actu

Ethan has failed to support his claim of "factual objective evidence" for God and for some reason is now blaming others for his failures.

Thank your for your failed effort, Ethan. Hopefully, you won't be dishonestly posting on threads in which you state that you do have such evidence as it is clear you have none.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:25:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2015 9:13:02 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:39:21 AM, dhardage wrote:

I would agree except for these facts.

1. The claim is too uniform, too persistent, and too widespread to be just be guesses based on a need to alleviate ignorance

Let me just select this one bit of total misrepresentation.

Ok.

The claim is so far from uniform that you could barely see it with the Hubble telescope. Religions follow every possible pattern from everything having a spirit and power to just one all-powerful god like you, Ethan.

Well, I guess it depends on how reasonable one is going to be when someone puts things into one group based on them being similar.

Of course I did not say all religions are exactly alike, and to be precise, I was not talking about religions. Religions come about only after men have formulated a God in their own minds, thus religions are not needed as proof that men all see a pattern.

The simple fact is that there as many patters as there are people to see them. This is the most specious claim I've ever seen and you spout it like it's some sort of deep truth.

Every culture of the world has concluded that the universe was made by God. All of them think life was created by God and is sourced in Him. All of them claim we have some obligation to God and that He has legitimate authority over us and the universe. Every single one of these cultures say or imply that we need this God and His wisdom in this world.

Again a totally false statement. Polytheistic cultures did not recognize a single 'God' but worshipped many, believing each had a role in the world. Animistic cultures believed in spirits that influenced reality. The aborigines of Australia believe the world was dreamed into existence. You are making a totally unsupportable assertion and really need to fact check yourself.

There are differences in religions, but not deep enough to make my claim untrue. And most individual religious people, apart from religion, think of God in a very similar way.

But the point is that things in a group do not need to be exactly alike to correctly belong in one group. Plus, groupings are not always based on appearance. All "Americans" can be placed in one group but does that mean they are all alike? I place all these cultures in one category because they all have certain similar characteristics.

Meaningless in the context of this discussion. You have asserted that all cultures have "concluded that the universe was made by God". The facts about other cultures do not support that assertion.

Look a little harder at all of the religions of the world, past and present, and you will see yours is in the minority.

Ah, you have now lapsed into an irrelevant rant, I can now leave.

Nothing I have said is irrelevant, you simply have no valid argument.

Polytheistic beliefs outnumber monotheistic ones and even among the monotheistic ones no single pattern is preferred. There are thousands of sects of Christianity, several among the Jewish people (Sephardic, Hassidic, etc.) and among the Muslim population (Sufi, Shiite, and Sunni, etc). This is clearly a false assertion.
Harikrish
Posts: 41,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 10:58:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2015 6:35:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/19/2015 2:58:40 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 6/19/2015 12:47:12 PM, ethang5 wrote:

When last here, talking about patterns in nature, I said,

This is because the pattern we think we see is not in the rocks, but in our minds. Depending on what is already in the mind of the observer, all sorts of "patterns" can be picked out. The Chinese man for example, might see Chinese letters in the pattern. Even the level of complexity of the pattern will to a degree depend on the pre-existing construct of the mind doing the observing.


A pattern recognizable by many different people, of varied ages, times, locations, and cultures, will be a candidate as a "real" pattern. One that exists in the position of the rock and not just the mind of the observer.


It's no surprise that Harikrish misses the point also. Receptive to what? My point is that the patterns appear to all, not just the "receptive" minds.

The appearance of apparitions and spiritual beings are not seen by all.

I said nothing about apparitions and spiritual beings.

But apparitions and spiritual beings/ghosts are patterns seen by religious pattern seeking believers. The disciples, Paul and Jesus often hallucinated about patterns they claimed they saw.

In my argument, I will use "evidence" the way Einstein used it in showing that general relativity was correct. I believe truth about objective reality can be "discovered" through logic. We can reason our way to facts, even facts which are currently out of the scope of our senses.

The word is 'hypothesis' not logic and the verification process is called the scientific method.

The word is "logic". And logic can be used to both formulate an hypothesis and discern physical truth.

Logic is not the most reliable way to arrive at facts because very often logic is based on wrong assumptions.

Logic does not make assumptions. Logic may use assumptions, but never makes them. And there is no more reliable way to physical truth than logic.

Science proceeds from facts to laws to theories by a difficult-to-define process called induction. Induction includes pattern-recognition, brainstorming, tinkering, creative guessing and that elusive "insight". It is not a process of deductive logic.

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried). To see patterns (sometimes subtle and hidden ones) in data and observations requires creative ability. This is the ability to think ahead and say, "What model, set of statements (laws) or theoretical construct could I devise from which these observations and data might be deduced?

Einstein expanded on Newton's law of gravity. He had a conceptual working model to begin with and did not create his theory based solely on logic.

Of course, which is why I did not say so. Einstein took the ingredients he had, like work done previously by others, and used sheer logic to arrive physical truths which had never been experienced or seen by anyone. Einstein contradicted the idiots who say, "If you can't see, feel, touch, hear, or taste it, it cannot be real."

Actually he was against the direction quantum theory was heading which went against the standard physical model. He called the Q theory incomplete.
He also provided the mathematical proof which was used to verify his theory.

Actually, this is not true. Many of his theories were logical inferences from those mathematical proof of other things. And today, some of his mathematical proofs have proven to be incorrect even though his conclusions from them have been vilified.

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried)

Part of the difficulty here is that there is no definite line for when a pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer.

If looking at rocks which have fallen from a rock cliff, seeing the letter "A" in the rocks would not be cause for wonderment. But what if you saw,

"A Bo" ?

or, "A boy will lead you to my house under the shade of the mountain."?

The probability of the falling rocks forming a word or a sentence is highly improbable. Cognitive dissonance is the likely cause of seeing such patterns.

Ok, but when every culture on Earth throughout all time has claimed to have seen such a pattern, I think I will disagree with you that every culture on Earth is crazy. I think it is logical to believe that all cultures have claimed to see a pattern because "there is actually a pattern there."

At some point, the observer will become sure that the rocks could not have naturally landed in such a pattern. But different people will place the line of when the pattern is in the mind and when it surely exists outside the observer at different places. But at some point, it will be incontrovertible that the pattern cannot be natural and does not exist solely in the mind of the observer.

But reality is defined in the mind of the observer. When the observer sees a rock and attributes it to something else. He would be classified delusional or lose his drivers licence for faulty vision.

A real pattern, created outside the mind of the observer, would be real evidence of a pattern maker. One of the criteria of judging reality is, How many other independent people see the same thing?" The fact that every human culture on Earth, since the beginning of time, has independently come up with the same pattern when looking at nature, is in fact evidence that a pattern maker exists independently of the observers.

We know how nature around us formed land, mountains, vegetation, continental drift etc. etc. We even created urban dwellings with this knowledge. Nature can be duplicated and even artificially controlled. But nature does not give us a clear idea of the pattern maker should one exist because it is fraught with speculations and contradictory opinions rendering it meaningless with little practical value.

Yet every culture that has ever existed has come to the same conclusion that nature does indicate a creator! You are welcome to follow your bias. I feel following the real evidence is a better path to reality. We can agree to disagree.

Just as a coherent painting is itself evidence of a painter, the natural world (universe) is itself evidence of God.

Then why is there debate and scientific skepticism about the evidence of God?

This has already been recognized as the problem of the one and the many and other. What appears to you as a pattern maker is just a natural process to many and empty meaningless noise to others.
The objective is not to just seek patterns suggesting a pattern maker but to seek the personal God the bible describes. And that is evidently impossible. What you provide is logical axioms, deductions and inductions except scientific proof.

The natural world is evidence of nature and the physical laws that govern it. Evidence of a metaphysical being is absent.

This belief of yours is contradicted by every single culture that has ever existed on Earth. On what do you base this belief?

Every single culture created myths about a creator a metaphysical being to explain what they saw in nature because they had no concept/knowledge of the physical or natural sciences, cosmology etc. etc. you are still enamoured with ancient mythology.
ethang5
Posts: 23,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 3:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/22/2015 9:25:45 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/22/2015 9:13:02 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:39:21 AM, dhardage wrote:

I would agree except for these facts.

1. The claim is too uniform, too persistent, and too widespread to be just be guesses based on a need to alleviate ignorance

Let me just select this one bit of total misrepresentation.

Ok.

The claim is so far from uniform that you could barely see it with the Hubble telescope. Religions follow every possible pattern from everything having a spirit and power to just one all-powerful god like you, Ethan.

Well, I guess it depends on how reasonable one is going to be when someone puts things into one group based on them being similar.

Of course I did not say all religions are exactly alike, and to be precise, I was not talking about religions. Religions come about only after men have formulated a God in their own minds, thus religions are not needed as proof that men all see a pattern.

The simple fact is that there as many patters as there are people to see them. This is the most specious claim I've ever seen and you spout it like it's some sort of deep truth.

Every culture of the world has concluded that the universe was made by God. All of them think life was created by God and is sourced in Him. All of them claim we have some obligation to God and that He has legitimate authority over us and the universe. Every single one of these cultures say or imply that we need this God and His wisdom in this world.

Again a totally false statement. Polytheistic cultures did not recognize a single 'God' but worshipped many, believing each had a role in the world.

And how does that invalidate my claim? They all claimed the same thing. They all saw a pattern. One culture interprets that pattern as one God, and others interpret it as several Gods. My claim is not that all religions are the same. My claim is that all cultures see a pattern. The pattern is not the religion. Religions are people's attempt to interpret/explain the pattern.

Animistic cultures believed in spirits that influenced reality. The aborigines of Australia believe the world was dreamed into existence. You are making a totally unsupportable assertion and really need to fact check yourself.

And you are relying on overly romanticized, pop culture versions of the spirituality of indigenous peoples. The fact is that all these doctrines and beliefs were prompted because the culture saw a pattern and then tried to explain why it was there.

There are differences in religions, but not deep enough to make my claim untrue. And most individual religious people, apart from religion, think of God in a very similar way.

But the point is that things in a group do not need to be exactly alike to correctly belong in one group. Plus, groupings are not always based on appearance. All "Americans" can be placed in one group but does that mean they are all alike? I place all these cultures in one category because they all have certain similar characteristics.

Meaningless in the context of this discussion. You have asserted that all cultures have "concluded that the universe was made by God". The facts about other cultures do not support that assertion.

Give me an example of a culture which thinks the universe was not brought into being by "God".

Look a little harder at all of the religions of the world, past and present, and you will see yours is in the minority.

Ah, you have now lapsed into an irrelevant rant, I can now leave.

Nothing I have said is irrelevant,.....

What religion is in the minority is completely irrelevant to my point. And if my argument was invalid, you would be showing so, rather than arguing that religions are not the same, something I have not claimed.

Polytheistic beliefs outnumber monotheistic ones and even among the monotheistic ones no single pattern is preferred.

Again, re-read my original post with the argument. Religions themselves are not the pattern.

There are thousands of sects of Christianity, several among the Jewish people (Sephardic, Hassidic, etc.) and among the Muslim population (Sufi, Shiite, and Sunni, etc). This is clearly a false assertion.

Untrue. Which is way even you group them all under the unbrella of "religion". Every single one of the cultures in which these religions began saw a pattern and attempted to explain that pattern with their religion. The religions are evidence that every culture saw a pattern. The similarity is enough so that a person who move from one religion to another, remains a theist.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.