Did the Christian "Church" commit numerous atrocit

[Vraith]

(Both of which are just as provable and improvable as the other)

That's not so.
It's a perfect example of what I said somewhere above, though.

Their are multiple lines of prediction, evidence, inquiry, perspectives, that support one side [even if the explanations and all those listed items are neither perfect nor complete]...and exactly zero of any of those things to support intelligent design. And the information/knowledge contained in the first either [and/or both] falsifies or makes unnecessary the claims of the second.

There is no "just as" relationship between the two.

[Rawedge Rim]

(Both of which are just as provable and improvable as the other)

That's not so.
It's a perfect example of what I said somewhere above, though.

Their are multiple lines of prediction, evidence, inquiry, perspectives, that support one side [even if the explanations and all those listed items are neither perfect nor complete]...and exactly zero of any of those things to support intelligent design. And the information/knowledge contained in the first either [and/or both] falsifies or makes unnecessary the claims of the second.

There is no "just as" relationship between the two.

exactly how would you disprove "intelligent design"? And in which way is "Big Bang Theory" mutually exclusive of "intelligent design"?

[Skyweir]

I like this answer

I think by "Intelligent design" you actually mean "theistic evolution". In its purest form theistic evolution accepts the scientific consensus on evolution but adds the unfalsifiable claim that God did it. That may be good theology if you have a prior reason to believe in God, but it is not science.

In contrast intelligent design claims that evolution cannot explain the diversity and sophistication of life. That could almost be a falsifiable claim and all it takes to falsify it could be more a detailed explanation of evolutionary pathways. So far their arguments have been refuted. For example the bacterial flagellum probably evolved from the type 3 secretion system. So they modify their predictions and retreat. If ID had more interesting and useful predictions we could accept ID as at least a competing idea. But at present it is right on the verge of retreating into pseudoscience.

If the cosmological argument really worked it, it would provide a prior reason to believe in god - and presumably there would be no atheists. However it is at best a metaphysical argument that can in no way explored by science and at worst is powered by wishful thinking.

https://umso.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/i ... omparison/

[Vraith]

exactly how would you disprove "intelligent design"? And in which way is "Big Bang Theory" mutually exclusive of "intelligent design"?

This is a worn out topic, not feeling like going through it all again.
But that is not what you said. You said both are just as provable/unprovable.
And that's false in its entirety.
One is wholly in the realm of science, with all that entails. Evidence, predictions, tests.
The other is only an assertion based on specious reasoning or assumptions when it is based on anything at all. [[Irreducible complexity? Hah. No clock without a clockmaker! zomg!]]

I'm not a godhead, so I can't know 100% that there is/was no intelligent designer.
But if there is/was one, then science and information is how we will discover it, not psuedo-science and sophistry.

[SoulBiter]

I agree in many ways Vraith.

But I lean more in the direction that science will lead us to God not that science will lead us away from God or disprove the existence of God.

Science shows us how things work based on available data and information. So we can prove there was a BIG BANG based on scientific evidence. But we don't know what instigated the same. When we look at life as we know it, the probability of it happening by chance is incredibly remote. About the same as the chance that you go into a field today and a toilet magically appears while you are there. But I also cant discount the statement that we shouldn't be shocked to find that life exists when in the infinity of time it was bound to happen if the conditions occurred to support it over a sufficient amount of time in that condition.

[Skyweir]

Maybe you are right SB .. maybe science will lead us to god .. I havent seen any evidence of that yet.

But I also cant discount the statement that we shouldn't be shocked to find that life exists when in the infinity of time it was bound to happen if the conditions occurred to support it over a sufficient amount of time in that condition.

So if life could in all the right circumstances.. then there is no necessity for a creator god .. as life occurs independent of divinity.

[Rawedge Rim]

exactly how would you disprove "intelligent design"? And in which way is "Big Bang Theory" mutually exclusive of "intelligent design"?

This is a worn out topic, not feeling like going through it all again.
But that is not what you said. You said both are just as provable/unprovable.
And that's false in its entirety.
One is wholly in the realm of science, with all that entails. Evidence, predictions, tests.
The other is only an assertion based on specious reasoning or assumptions when it is based on anything at all. [[Irreducible complexity? Hah. No clock without a clockmaker! zomg!]]

I'm not a godhead, so I can't know 100% that there is/was no intelligent designer.
But if there is/was one, then science and information is how we will discover it, not psuedo-science and sophistry.

what we have is a strong theory that an event happened, that we call "The Big Bang" and a fair amount of evidence that it occurred.

No arguement with me on that score.

What we don't know is why. Why did it occur? Again, just a "shit happened" kind of event, or did some greater being initiate it.

[Fist and Faith]

Yup. And as I've said before, it comes down to "shit happened" or "greater being happened". What evidence do we have for one over the other?

[SoulBiter]

So if life could in all the right circumstances.. then there is no necessity for a creator god .. as life occurs independent of divinity.

Well, we don't know that. If you found a mountain that had a formation that was a replica of a person. You wouldn't think... oh that happened naturally and by accident because the odds are so incredibly against it. Could it happen? Yes but the odds are trillions upon trillions to one against it.

But as you say, we could be living in a period of time and place where the trillion upon trillions of odds finally produced life without the need for a divinity to make it happen. In which case we are living in a very special moment of infinity....

[Skyweir]

We indeed are

[Vraith]

But as you say, we could be living in a period of time and place where the trillion upon trillions of odds finally produced life without the need for a divinity to make it happen. In which case we are living in a very special moment of infinity....

But you don't know that. No one knows that. People...even scientist people...are constantly talking about how unlikely life is...

But they don't KNOW that...
And I suspect they're mistaken....
As far as can be shown by evidence, it is just as likely that the odds of life are a trillion to one IN FAVOR of it.
Why assume/calculate AGAINST life odds, when everywhere we look in the universe there are exactly the same conditions, elements, and circumstances happening over and over and over?
Earth-esque planets in stable orbits and viable conditions aren't rare, they're COMMON.
Intelligent life is a bit harder, circumstances narrower, so probably rarer.
But I'd wager a lot that we're gonna find life pretty much everywhere with water and oxygen...and probably many other places, too.

Fist---we have a ton of evidence for "shit happened," and none for super-being happened. Also, as many have noted many many times, the source and existence of a super-being is infinitely...literally infinitely...harder to explain/justify/rationalize than shit happens.

[Fist and Faith]

Well, what I was getting at is the undeniable existence of shit vs the complete absence of evidence for the existence of said greater being. Either the shit or the greater being either always existed or was uncaused. Neither seems possible. But, obviously, one or the other is the case. If we don't even know that one exists...

[Skyweir]

or we do know that life has evolved, in particular human life .. then the other

[Skyweir]

Religions dont claim god made Australopithicus afarensis. yes I have no idea how thats spelt .. then homo habilis, then homo erectus, then neanderthal then humans do they? So knowing this .. then we can then dispel ..

.. the claim that Adam was made from the dust of Eden and Eve from one of Adams ribs ..

The end.

Drops mic and walks off stage

[Rawedge Rim]

Religions dont claim god made Australopithicus afarensis. yes I have no idea how thats spelt .. then homo habilis, then homo erectus, then neanderthal then humans do they? So knowing this .. then we can then dispel ..

.. the claim that Adam was made from the dust of Eden and Eve from one of Adams ribs ..

The end.

Drops mic and walks off stage

So since God didn't inspire someone to write a treatsie on Astrophysics and Evolutionary Theory for the Bible, you have decided that God doesn't exist.

Brilliant

[Fist and Faith]

I would say more like decided that humans were not made from dust and ribs.

[Rawedge Rim]

I would say more like decided that humans were not made from dust and ribs.

Even the Catholic Church admits that the creation story of Genesis is not a scientifically accurate account of creation, including Adam and Eve. Any more than the Book of Job is considered actual factual history (after all, who was there to record what God and Satan actually said about Job)

[Fist and Faith]

Glad to hear that. But there's also folks like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis out there. Gallup reported last year that 24% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God. If God is dictating the Bible, by simply implanting the words into the writer's head, there's your answer.

I just ran across that group because of a FB post about this:
https://faithtrend.com/2017/10/25/noahs ... rotesters/
Which, visually, is stunning. Sad that the group requires it's employees to reject logic and reason, but it's quite a sight!

[Skyweir]

The question is whether or not the bible is divinely inspired.

And IF it was .. why would a god inspire falsehoods into the minds of scribes?

The "free my people" is a complete furphy .. and there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt. Its known now as mythology.

Its a really surprising nonsense .. and RR if no one could be there to record a conversation between god and Satan .. presumably because it occurred "behind closed doors" if you will .. then who recorded any of it .. from or even before Moses?

Where is your god? That he does not intervene in his childrens lives today?

He resides only in your "belief" .. your "hope" .. your "tradition" .. and there is power in that.

Constantine knew that .. and he capitalised on that very fact.

[Rawedge Rim]

The question is whether or not the bible is divinely inspired.

And IF it was .. why would a god inspire falsehoods into the minds of scribes?

The "free my people" is a complete furphy .. and there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt. Its known now as mythology.

Its a really surprising nonsense .. and RR if no one could be there to record a conversation between god and Satan .. presumably because it occurred "behind closed doors" if you will .. then who recorded any of it .. from or even before Moses?

Where is your god? That he does not intervene in his childrens lives today?

He resides only in your "belief" .. your "hope" .. your "tradition" .. and there is power in that.

Constantine knew that .. and he capitalised on that very fact.

Now you are the one argueing between "truth" and "fact". Was every statement in the Old Testament (Torah) "dead on balls" accurate. Nope. Is it "truth", that's a different question, and many of the later accounts recorded are getting at least some confirmation in archeology.

Does my God intervene in his children's lives today? I believe he does, but I don't think he's neccesarily a "helicopter" parent.