I am posting this to try to start a discussion on the burden of proof with the existence of god. I would like to know whether people believe that the burden of proof should reside with the theist, atheist, or both.

Evidentialists such as Antony Flew say that the burden of proof falls on the theists. They say that if the theists are not able to provide good arguments, that atheism wins by default. It follows by this logic that the only thing atheists must do is to show that the theistic arguments are flawed.

Some theistic philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga deny that theists must bear any type of special epistemic burden in debates with an atheist. Ralph McInery goes even further and says that the burden of proof falls on the unbeliever.

I would like to hear everyone`s opinions on this subject. Please give your argument and what you believe because of it.

Why are you listening to atheist prophets? Does iot make sense what he is saying? You can make any claims without backing it up with evidence? And how does that make sense? Take this for example, Can I say prove to me blackhole exist? If you cannot provide proof otherwise (which you obviously cant), does that mean blackhole is automatically a myth just because I say so? Or shouldnt I back up my claim with reasons and evidence that a blackhole couldnt exist......

What is proof? Define proof? Is proof that in which have ENOUGH evidence? What is enough evidence? For a while now I have given tons of evidence to support the existence of God, but to atheist I still havent provided proof..
So not only God is a myth to the atheists, PROOF IS ALSO A MYTH...

I WILL GIVE YOU TONS OF EVIDENCE OF GOD, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT...Answer me this question...

Prove to me King henry exist. Prove to me Shakespeare exist, Columus, and Magellan....If you can answer this, I will surely prove to you God exist...
Define proof for me first, then I will PROVE God to you......

I think the whole topic is useless...without actual evidence there is no point in arguing either way.

Just my thought.

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

Very good whatsup...you've proved to me that you have no knowledge whatsoever related to argument. Define proof??? First you ask for the definition of physical and now you ask for proof...thing is, whatsup, you're just stalling.


(Definition of proof)

The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.

Convincing or persuasive demonstration


While we're at it...


(Definition of physical)

Perceptible through a bodily or material organization; cognizable by the senses; external


Next thing you'll ask is the definition of logical...

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
-John 1:18
If no one has seen God how can you prove He exists?

Well, how about we go by the definition of proof as the validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

I do not ask for some mathematical equation that proves an existence of a deity. If you want to show that a god exists than you can use examples which lead to problems that could not be solved without an existence of god. Another way would be to use historical evidence of a god, which for all I know does not exist. For example I can show historical evidence that Shakespeare exists, I have a number of his works and there are a number of secondary sources that validate his existence (previous existence as it seems).

Do not take the idea of historical evidence the wrong way. Just because we have secondary sources that say Jesus existed does not mean that he was the son of god. For example we have sources that say that Shakespeare is the best writer to have ever existed, this is not necessarily true, because existence is prior to characteristics. Just because X exists and Y says that X is Z, does not mean that X is Z, but is does show evidence for the fact that X exists.

I think that the proof of god should come from the best explainable phenomena, not from some mathematical or logical proof that demonstrates perfectly that god exists. Science uses the best explaination for its theories, and I think that so should arguments for existence and god.

While this might not work all the times logically, this (at least to me) is better than to be stuck in the hole of the complete skeptic who doubts everything. So, show why the best explaination for this universe is that a god exists.

Also, there is a point in this. There are a number of arguments for both sides, but I am not concerned about them. The point is to find the burden of proof to see who needs to find the evidence. The burden of proof is very important. Lets say that you claim a time machine exists in your garage. You say that no one can see it except you, and that you are the only one who can use it. The burden of proof says that you must prove it if you claim it. Just imagine if the burden of proof were shifted upon the scientists for every trivial claim that a person makes.

It applies to this forum because next time someone says god exists, then maybe we will have a better idea who should try to argue it. If the burden of proof falls on the believer, then the defense would be the believer, not the atheist.

Evidence? Old Testament or New Testament? Biblical or non-biblical? I tell you what, I will give you archaeological evidence supporting the text of both the Old Testament and New Testament from non-biblical, secular sources. Remember, this is tangible evidence supporting the validity and accuracy of the Bible.

Old Testament:

CYLINDER OF CYRUS

In the book of Ezra 1:1-2 we read of the following:

"In the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: this is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build, a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel; the God who is in Jerusalem."

In the nineteenth century a clay tablet was found written in cuneiform by order of Cyrus. The text is in full agreement with Ezra and 2 Kings with Cyrus declaring the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in 538 b.c.




THE MOABITE STONE
"Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder; and he had to deliver annually to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and the wool of a hundred thousand rams. But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel' II Kings 3:4-5."

The Moabite Stone was found in 1868. Commissioned by king Mesha himself, it reveals in detail how he rebelled against the new king of Israel, even naming him! (Omir). Once again we have exact confirmation of a biblical event and occurrence, not by an Israelite or Prophet, but an enemy!





HEZEKIAH'S TUNNEL (2 Kings 20:20)
"As for the other events of Hezekiah's reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah.'"

In 1880 an inscription was found in an underground water conduit beneath the old city of Jerusalem. The inscription, dated to the year 702 b.c. and written in Old Hebrew (Canaanite) confirms the construction of the tunnel was ordered by Hezekiah, and also records minute details of how the tunnel was engineered.




New Testament:

CAPERNAUM IN GALILEE
Excavated for nearly the past one hundred years by an order of Franciscan monks, numerous discoveries with direct bearing on the New Testament have been uncovered. A third century synagogue was found to be erected directly over the remains of a first century synagogue from the time of Christ.

"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach." Mark 1:21.

Found only recently under a Byzantine basilica from the sixth century were a cluster of small homes built in the first century which was the time of Christ's ministry in the area. The roofs were made from branches, clay and straw which immediately draws our attention to the story of the paralytic in Mark 11:4. The walls and ceilings of a larger house were filled with graffiti or inscriptions. Of the 134 pieces, 101 were in Greek, 18 in Syriac, and 15 in Hebrew. Most astounding was the repetitive phrase in the form of a prayer giving thanks to God for "our brother Peter" and his allowing fellow Christians to meet in his home in Capernaum. It seems the HOME OF THE APOSTLE PETER HAS BEEN DISCOVERED!



........and there are many, many more. BTW, I do not consider offering evidence a burden. I enjoy poking holes in atheists' airtight theories. ;-)

><>

I am sorry if you have misunderstood. I am talking about the burden of proof and the existence of god. I am assuming that you are taking the side that the believers are the one with the burden because you seem to be trying to lift the burden.

Historical evidence that agrees with biblical literature does not have to point to the existence of god. I will use an example from another religion. Buddha existed, and a number of the texts agree with certain historical situations. Just because the texts show that they might be historically correct, that does not mean that the metaphysical ideas they express are correct.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And one piece of proof does not validate the entire religion, mm? simply that the biblical person in question might have existed. Not even that the person did believe in that particular religion.

Atheists' arguments airtight!? What're you smoking? There is no such thing. Otherwise the arguments would've died a gizillion years ago.

_________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos

"Buddha existed, and a number of the texts agree with certain historical situations."
---------------------------

Did Buddha heal the sick? Raise the dead? Walk on water? Offer eternal life? Were there witnesses to Buddha's miracles, if he performed any? Atheists predictably reject an ‘a priori’ the miraculous. Your assumptions make it impossible for you to be objective and to accurately examine all of the evidence. I, however, do not rule out the miraculous. I am open to the possibility of miracles occurring. You are not open to the possibility. Who, then, is more 'open' to the truth? So, if there is a God, and He encompasses the universe, is it possible that he would work in ways that are beyond us? Is that possible?

><>

Well, who is more open to the truth? First of all you are also running on the assumption that truth exists. Now, you say that you are more open to the truth. However you assumed that I am atheist, which I am not. I am an agnostic. Now, I believe that is more open than even you, or at least how open you think you are.

"It is good to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out"

"First of all you are also running on the assumption that truth exists."
--------------

Truth exists. Without truth, there would be no absolutes. Without absolutes, everything would be relative. However, this is an entirely different subject.


Historical evidence that agrees with biblical literature does not have to point to the existence of god.
---------------

I am simply asking what the evidence suggests?


BTW, to answer your original question, I believe the burden of proof usually falls on the theist. However, I feel that an atheist has an equal responsibility to prove God does not exist. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action. You cannot divorce the act of believing from the reason for believing. Since you claim to be agnostic, though I have my doubts, I feel that you also have a responsibility to prove your inaction.

><>

Originally posted by Phaedrus
Well, how about we go by the definition of proof as the validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

I do not ask for some mathematical equation that proves an existence of a deity. If you want to show that a god exists than you can use examples which lead to problems that could not be solved without an existence of god. Another way would be to use historical evidence of a god, which for all I know does not exist. For example I can show historical evidence that Shakespeare exists, I have a number of his works and there are a number of secondary sources that validate his existence (previous existence as it seems).

Do not take the idea of historical evidence the wrong way. Just because we have secondary sources that say Jesus existed does not mean that he was the son of god. For example we have sources that say that Shakespeare is the best writer to have ever existed, this is not necessarily true, because existence is prior to characteristics. Just because X exists and Y says that X is Z, does not mean that X is Z, but is does show evidence for the fact that X exists.

I think that the proof of god should come from the best explainable phenomena, not from some mathematical or logical proof that demonstrates perfectly that god exists. Science uses the best explaination for its theories, and I think that so should arguments for existence and god.

While this might not work all the times logically, this (at least to me) is better than to be stuck in the hole of the complete skeptic who doubts everything. So, show why the best explaination for this universe is that a god exists.

Also, there is a point in this. There are a number of arguments for both sides, but I am not concerned about them. The point is to find the burden of proof to see who needs to find the evidence. The burden of proof is very important. Lets say that you claim a time machine exists in your garage. You say that no one can see it except you, and that you are the only one who can use it. The burden of proof says that you must prove it if you claim it. Just imagine if the burden of proof were shifted upon the scientists for every trivial claim that a person makes.

It applies to this forum because next time someone says god exists, then maybe we will have a better idea who should try to argue it. If the burden of proof falls on the believer, then the defense would be the believer, not the atheist.


I completely understand what you are saying. You are by far the most intelligent atheist I encountered here, the rest of them doesnt have common sense..You guys know who you are....

Now, yes I agree with your claim of "direct" act caused by Shakespeare which dates back at the time of claim, thus proving he exist.
Now there is also a "direct" act from God, one is the shroud of Turin, and if you want the current "substancial" physical "direct" act, then take the bleeding ststues in south america, japan, france, and other countries. It has been scientifically investigated, but since you might not understand this...Then take "Faith healing" and "placebo" for example, which scientifically have been investigated to take place, but cannot explain how is it possible when people pray, and have faith it will go away, and it will....This was "God given" gift as it is the claim of christianity. The power of the mind even goes as far as to bend spoons, forks, without putting pressure on it, and some can even swallow razor sharp blades and iron metals without getting hurt, or even swallow snake poison....

So here I have given you the same evidence presented for God as for shakespeare.
Now you might ask "But shakespeare is natural, God is supernatural"...
What is supernatural? Beyond the laws of nature? A law which we donot even completely understand, for if so, then life forms existing would have been demonstrated by now. But because we cant, it proves that we completely donot understand what are the laws of nature and how our mechanisms work, we have THEORIES such as quantum mechanics. Since we donot understand what are the laws of nature, how can you determine what is natural and what is supernatural?
Is internet natural? Natural to those who understand it, supernatural to those who dont understand it. Internet is supernatural to me, does it mean it s a myth? It is surely supernatural to natives in south america who have never seen it or understood how it works, does their ignorance of it proves it is a myth?
For the sake of the argument, let us just say that you completely understand how the laws of nature work, does being supernatural mean myth? Blackhole is beyond our laws of nature, does it then mean its a myth?

In summary, if this is how you define "PROOF", then indeed Shakespeare and God is proven........


I shall wait for your response....

Phaedrus,

Welcome to sciforums. Very nice style.

Perhaps in addition to a definition of evidence we should also define the object that we are attempting to prove/disprove. What do we mean when we say God?

Pagan gods are different to the Christian god, and the xtian god has different properties to the god of Islam, etc.

But how could one prove the existence of properties like omni benevolence, omniscience and omnipotence? These claims are un-testable. The best that we could do would be to show that such properties are impossible. If that was accomplished would that then disprove the god or just diminish the god to something lesser. But then that brings us back to what we mean by ‘God’.

There is an argument that says that omni benevolence is impossible because evil exists. But then that can be countered by asking what we mean by evil. We could show that to kill someone to save 100 is not evil, and to kill 1 billion to save a trillion is not evil. So even here we would need to define the qualities that comprise the claims.

It is assumed that were gods to exist then they are of a supernatural quality. But there is no precedent in human experience of anything other than natural. What then is the definition of supernatural and more importantly who has the qualifications to define such a thing?

Before discussing evidence or proofs we must first define the exact properties of the object. Otherwise how will you know if the evidence describes what it is you are trying to prove.

Cris, out of all the posts you have typed, thats the first one I see that is logical and makes sense, plus it doesnt have false accusation..Good job..

Im waiting for Phaedrus's response to my post.

Here it goes....I will object one statement or premise at a time.

Now there is also a "direct" act from God, one is the shroud of Turin


Now, the shroud of turin does not require god for its existence,
nor does it lend itself to that idea. It might help historical records to show evidence to what might have happened, but again, it does not require god.


and if you want the current "substancial" physical "direct" act, then take the bleeding ststues in south america, japan, france, and other countries.

I have read a number of articles on these statues, most of them I have read seem to show that they are frauds. However for the sake of argument lets assume that they are not frauds. A bleeding statue does not mean that god exists. A number of religions claim that inexplainable things happen to religious icons and art. The idea of a divine being would not be the best explaination for a bleeding piece of marble.

It has been scientifically investigated, but since you might not understand this

I do take offense to this, and while science is not my specialty, I do study it often. So next time before assuming what I do or do not know, try to explain it.

Then take "Faith healing" and "placebo" for example, which scientifically have been investigated to take place, but cannot explain how is it possible when people pray, and have faith it will go away, and it will....This was "God given" gift as it is the claim of christianity.

I will agree that science shows that when people pray, it does sometimes seem to cause unexpected reactions (positive ones) in some medical patients. However these tests do not mean only praying to the christian god, I have seen tests that show praying to the Judaic god, and the Muslim god, and some praying to Buddha (even though not all varieties of buddhism advocate praying to him). All of these have had positive responses. The most likely explaination of this would be that having a positive outlook and trying hard to recover has a positive reaction on a persons condiction. Since it is not only Christian praying that does this, it seems that your argument does not point the way you want.

The power of the mind even goes as far as to bend spoons, forks, without putting pressure on it, and some can even swallow razor sharp blades and iron metals without getting hurt, or even swallow snake poison....

I would object to the bending of metals, but I will save that for later. Yes, I have watched circus people swallow swords and such. I would not say that because they can swallow things can cause injury, it does not mean that god exists. I am assuming since you are using it as a proof that god exists that you are saying that god is saving or protecting them (or something along those lines). Now, I know of a circus member who is atheist who can swallow a sword. Does it follow (using your logic) that his belief in the lack of a god protected him? No, he has trained his body to do such things without harm. I myself can blow fireballs with a bit of alcohol and fire. It does not mean that because I can do this that god must exists.

I have also read about many churchgoers who have handled snakes and have been bitten. A number of them have died from the bites. Same thing with the snake poison, many people have died. Does this mean that god forgot them and only remembered some of the users? Just because someone introduced poison into their body and does not die from it does not mean that god helped. Cocaine and other drugs could also be called poisons. I know a good number of people who are users, and who live through it. Again, the existence of a god is not required for this statement.

So here I have given you the same evidence presented for God as for shakespeare.

This statement is incorrect. I gave statements showing his existence by using secondary sources and primary sources. I do not make the claim that just because I have read a work by a person named shakespeare that this work is actually by shakespeare. Secondary sources back up the fact of the author, and not only that but the writing style is consistent. I have used proof that show that the best explaination to give is to say that Shakespeare existed.

God however is a different matter. No, not because he is supernatural. I assume that god (if it exists) could come down at anytime and say hello. Now, the fact that he has never done this to me (literally) does not mean that he does not exist. However you have to give evidence that is the best explaination to the problem. Your statements have not shown that the Christian/Judaic god must exist. It at most shows that science does not have a universal theory, but that is all. The fact that science cannot currently explain it does not mean that it is above science. We could not explain what blackholes were in the age of rome, but that does not mean that the ideas of blackholes are beyond science. It just means that science is progressive, and it might one day be able to explain all given phenomena.

......does it mean it s a myth?

You keep speaking about a myth. You seem to think that if something is a myth it cannot be right. That is not necessarily true. A myth does not have to be right or wrong, while the popular connotation of the word implies this, it is incorrect. So just because someone calls christianity a myth, it does not mean that it is incorrect.

Blackhole is beyond our laws of nature

And a blackhole is not beyond our laws of nature, from what I know they seem to follow them very well.

You are by far the most intelligent atheist I encountered here

I said earlier that I am not an atheist, I am agnostic.

Originally posted by Phaedrus


Now, the shroud of turin does not require god for its existence,
nor does it lend itself to that idea. It might help historical records to show evidence to what might have happened, but again, it does not require god.

Yes you are right, the shroud of Turin is a claim, as a claim that blackhole is a vacuum, in which both cannot be proven considering that what took place on the shroud of Turn is unaccessible, we dont have a time machine to determine whether it was really Jesus face or not, like the blackhole we cannot prove it is really a vacuum because it is also unaccessible, though it "appears" to be a vacuum, how would you know that asteroids and meteorites didnt happen to make it in there by its own force and movement? How would u really know that the suction really come from the blackhole??

So shroud of Turin, like the Blackhole, is just speculation of claim, speculating it was God who did it, while science speculate that the vacuum came from a blackhole (when it may very well be the asteroids own movement.)



Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have read a number of articles on these statues, most of them I have read seem to show that they are frauds. However for the sake of argument lets assume that they are not frauds. A bleeding statue does not mean that god exists. A number of religions claim that inexplainable things happen to religious icons and art. The idea of a divine being would not be the best explaination for a bleeding piece of marble..

In Fox 40, and discovery channel, thats not what I heard, it was stated that there are genuine and indeed some are frauds, but then again ppl have to believe whos right or not, so it comesd down to whos telling the truth? This scientist or the other scientist?....

If its not divine intervention, then why not demonstrate and prove your claim? You say bleeding statue doesnt prove that God intervened, well then, because you made this claim, feel free to demonstrate how its done...Make a statue, let us x-ray inside the 6 inch statue to make sure there is nothing underneath it, and let the blood ozze out of its eyes, without you putting it. WHEN MAKING A CLAIM, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE, words are cheap, actions speak louder....

If thats not divine intervention, then what does it take for something to be divine intervention? Tell me...


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I will agree that science shows that when people pray, it does sometimes seem to cause unexpected reactions (positive ones) in some medical patients. However these tests do not mean only praying to the christian god, I have seen tests that show praying to the Judaic god, and the Muslim god, and some praying to Buddha (even though not all varieties of buddhism advocate praying to him). All of these have had positive responses. The most likely explaination of this would be that having a positive outlook and trying hard to recover has a positive reaction on a persons condiction. Since it is not only Christian praying that does this, it seems that your argument does not point the way you want....

Your wrong, faith doesnt limit itself to christinas only...When jesus walked on earth, a roman pagan soldier asked him to heal one of his soldier, and he said "Lord I am not worthy to have you under my roof, etc. but only say the words and my servant shall be healed". Jesus said "Truly I say to you I have not seen anyone with greater faith than he in jerusalem (which is like the christians today), go on home your faith has healed him"...
Because of this, it proves that Faith doesnt limit itself to christians only but to all regardless of belief, race and culture.
Next time know the christian faith before making such false comment...


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I would object to the bending of metals, but I will save that for later. Yes, I have watched circus people swallow swords and such. I would not say that because they can swallow things can cause injury, it does not mean that god exists. I am assuming since you are using it as a proof that god exists that you are saying that god is saving or protecting them (or something along those lines). Now, I know of a circus member who is atheist who can swallow a sword. Does it follow (using your logic) that his belief in the lack of a god protected him? No, he has trained his body to do such things without harm. I myself can blow fireballs with a bit of alcohol and fire. It does not mean that because I can do this that god must exists.....


I never said that such proves God exist, the bottom line is that there are things that take place which we donot understand ( are you gonna argue that we understand all things?), you quoted this explanable part, but didnt quote "{Placebo" or faith healing, in which incurable cancers which science cannot explan are healed, and there are numbers of documentaries based on this. occurences. I didnt mean circus part, but since you used that analogy, I will leave that out...
Take placebo for example, and bending spoons, both took place for a FACT. Caan we explain it? No, b ut did it took place? Yes, if we cant understand things does it mean its a myth? No...Are you proposing once again we understand all things?


Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have also read about many churchgoers who have handled snakes and have been bitten. A number of them have died from the bites. Same thing with the snake poison, many people have died. Does this mean that god forgot them and only remembered some of the users? Just because someone introduced poison into their body and does not die from it does not mean that god helped. Cocaine and other drugs could also be called poisons. I know a good number of people who are users, and who live through it. Again, the existence of a god is not required for this statement......

Again you made analogies that makes sense,, yes there are those who died because of it, just as there are those in medical field that died from doctor's care, but that just shows that we can do things in a wrong way, or pray in a wrong way...
If a FATAl poision (fatal as such poisoned is deinfed by scientific medical field) came into someone's body, and it did NOT affect them, are they then ABOVE the law of science?? Or do science have explanation for this? If so, can you demonstrate that explanation? Prove your words then I will b elieve, but until then, the fact remians that it is her faith that kept her alive, for those are the words that comes out of her mouth. Two makes a STATEMENT about this occurence, to Han the occurence happened to, to Mike it didnt, now why should I ask Mike when such occurence didnt happen to him?


Originally posted by Phaedrus

This statement is incorrect. I gave statements showing his existence by using secondary sources and primary sources. I do not make the claim that just because I have read a work by a person named shakespeare that this work is actually by shakespeare. Secondary sources back up the fact of the author, and not only that but the writing style is consistent. I have used proof that show that the best explaination to give is to say that Shakespeare existed.

In that case, God exist by His secondary sources, cause and effect, Intelligent designer causes intelligent act. Nature and universe is comp[lex, ordered, functioning, therefore the best explanation is that an intelligent designer existed...Secondoary sources is also backed by the inteligent designer (God), and His moral values which is founbded for humans are effective form of civilized way to live, as a real creator cares for his creation....
Once again if thats the PROOF you use for the existence of Shakespeare, in that case God is also proven.....


Originally posted by Phaedrus

God however is a different matter. No, not because he is supernatural. I assume that god (if it exists) could come down at anytime and say hello.

Yes he did, Jesus Christ....You say He is not God? Thats your opinion...Prove it...Show me another man who claimed to be "God" (buddha and Muhammed historicaley speaking didnt claim to be God)...And to confirm its genuinity and proving His greatness (whoever that man is), show me billions who follows this "God" and millions who will die for him...Show me a fulfilled prophesy of this "man (whoever the guy is)" to prove that the man is God, who is all knowing, past,present, and future.......

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Now, the fact that he has never done this to me (literally) does not mean that he does not exist. However you have to give evidence that is the best explaination to the problem. Your statements have not shown that the Christian/Judaic god must exist.

Yes, Judeu Christian God must exist, otherwise if the moral virtues and laws wasnt established, then today we will be living like animals, killing and stealing each other, For it is the law that keeps us under control. There is only one "practicing" religion other than judeau and that is hinduism, which doesnt have basis in their faith and have no moral virtues and guidelines, doesnt teach really much about civilzed way to live (this is another topic which we can also discuss.)

..If people obeyed the law of Moses when it was written "Wash hands before meals" which is now a tradition in Judaism, then the great plague of France (cant remembner) which killed millions wouldnt have happened, only when Pasteur discovered bacteria thousands of years later, but Moses learned that much earlier...



Originally posted by Phaedrus

It at most shows that science does not have a universal theory, but that is all. The fact that science cannot currently explain it does not mean that it is above science. We could not explain what blackholes were in the age of rome, but that does not mean that the ideas of blackholes are beyond science. It just means that science is progressive, and it might one day be able to explain all given phenomena. .....


Thats not science, thats PROPHESY. Good luck with your psychic prediction, and dont dare call "prophesy" "science" again, thats a delusion...
Originally posted by Phaedrus

I do take offense to this, and while science is not my specialty, I do study it often. So next time before assuming what I do or do not know, try to explain it...

Read above.....


Originally posted by Phaedrus

And a blackhole is not beyond our laws of nature, from what I know they seem to follow them very well.



How does it follow? Explain to me in earth's nature will there be a hole thats black which sucks things in...Clarify this statement..

note: I found my match...Finally an intelligent guy to talk to...Im waiting for your response...

Yes, Judeu Christian God must exist, otherwise if the moral virtues and laws wasnt established, then today we will be living like animals, killing and stealing each other, For it is the law that keeps us under control. There is only one "practicing" religion other than judeau and that is hinduism, which doesnt have basis in their faith and have no moral virtues and guidelines, doesnt teach really much about civilzed way to live (this is another topic which we can also discuss.)

Hinduism again? Remember when you said hinduism doesn't prohibit stealing or lying? It is full of moral guidelines Before you go slandering other religions perhaps you should obtain a rudimentary understanding of their basis tenets.

Phaedrus:

Welcome and good luck!

Whatsup:

What does it mean to you that these evidences you present can be demonstrated when appealing to God(s) other than Jehovah or no God at all?

Also; A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull. It conforms precisely to what we know of the laws of nature. In fact, it was predicted via an understanding of those laws before we ever discovered evidence of one.

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
Phaedrus:


Whatsup:


Also; A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull. It conforms precisely to what we know of the laws of nature. In fact, it was predicted via an understanding of those laws before we ever discovered evidence of one.

~Raithere

Raithere, are you ok? Inhaling glue? If so, please stop it, read what you just post above..."A black-hole is not a vacuum. A black-hole is a celestial body so massive and compact that even light cannot escape its gravitational pull"...
You said a blackhole is not a "vacuum"? but it is just have "gravitational pull".. Rait, what do you think I mean when I said "Vacuum"? Dont you think that stands for "pulling"? Anyways I dont want to deal with this right now..

Raithere, Vodoochild, Frencheneez, g-bil, Xev, Xelios, Zero, (except cris,she has proven herself to have some form of intelligence at the last moment) the atheist children crew, I dont want to response to your senseless posts at this moment (maybe later when Im bored :)). But right now the convo is pretty smooth, so please dont ruin it with comments like Rait above, I dont want dummys who gets the word "knowledge" mixed up with "controlling" at this moment....

Im waiting for Phaedrus to response...

what do you think I mean when I said "Vacuum"? Dont you think that stands for "pulling"?

Not really. But of course, you're just trying to vacuum our legs. :D

I don't come here to change other's beliefs. I come to change my own.

Originally posted by whatsupyall
You said a blackhole is not a "vacuum"? but it is just have "gravitational pull".. Rait, what do you think I mean when I said "Vacuum"? Dont you think that stands for "pulling"?No, it doesn't.

A vacuum is an absence of matter. A vacuum exerts no force what-so-ever upon anything. Your misuse of the term suggests a common misunderstanding of what a vacuum is due to the machine we typically call a vacuum. It was so named because it works by causing a 'partial vacuum' within an atmosphere… without an atmosphere to operate within a vacuum cleaner would have no affect at all. The effect is caused by the atmosphere pushing in to fill the vacuum. Sorry, but the terms are not interchangeable particularly when you are talking about scientific issues.

Further, my main point was that a black-hole in no way defies the laws of nature which makes your ‘example’ invalid.

~Raithere

Fine, my bad, I was wrong and I should have not used the word "Vacuum" though my intention was that things are "magnetized" and i figured that means the same as vacuum, but according to you, I guess Im wrong...
Well now, since this is clarified, prove to me that a black hole is a gravity....Because things appeared to be pulled its way? Then How would you know if the force didnt come from the asteroids heading there, instead of it coming from the blackhole...How do I know that the asteroids didn't just attached to it by chance? Did all asteroids attached to blackhole? Or just few of them, what keeps the rest from being pulled there?...So what keeps us from being "pulled" by the blackhole? Size? Isnt that there are asteroids 20 times bigger than earth? Is it distance? So at what distance can the blackhole pull and what are its limits? Why do they get pulled in but earth dont?
Educate me, Im ignorant and a dummy concerning our galaxy, I am skeptic of theories...Explain them to me Raithere, PROVE them to me...

you might want to open a general physics/astronomy book and read about these things...

then go to a scientific library and look up the original papers. They contain the 'proof' you apparently desperately need.

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

Originally posted by whatsupyall
Well now, since this is clarified, prove to me that a black hole is a gravity....
So at what distance can the blackhole pull and what are its limits? Why do they get pulled in but earth dont?
Educate me, Im ignorant and a dummy concerning our galaxy, I am skeptic of theories...Explain them to me Raithere, PROVE them to me... No need to take my word for it, here’s a very nice site that explains black-holes in plain English (I’ve included some snippets below too):
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html


5. Is a black hole a giant cosmic vacuum cleaner?
The answer to this question is "not really." To understand this, first consider why the force of gravity is so strong close to a black hole. The gravity of a black hole is not special. It does not attract matter differently than any other object does. At a long distance from the black hole the force of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance, just as it does for normal objects.
Mathematically, the gravity of any spherical object behaves as if all the mass were concentrated at one central point. Since most ordinary objects have surfaces, you will feel the strongest gravity of an object when you are on its surface. This is as close to its total mass as you can get. If you penetrated the spherical object, getting closer to its core, you would feel the force of gravity get weaker, not stronger. The force of gravity you feel depends on the mass that is interior to you, because the gravity from the mass behind you is exactly canceled by the mass in the opposite direction. Therefore, you will feel the strongest force of gravity from an object, for example a planet, when you are standing on the planet's surface, because it is on the surface that you are closest to its total mass. Penetrating the surface of the planet does not expose you to more of the planet's total mass, but actually exposes you to less of its mass. Now remember the size of a black hole is infinitesimally small. Gravity near a black hole is very strong because objects can get extremely close to it and still be exposed to its total mass.
There is nothing special about the mass of a black hole. A black hole is different from our ordinary experience not because of its mass, but because its radius has vanished. Far away from the black hole, you would feel the same strength of gravity as if the black hole were a normal star. But the force of gravity close to a black hole is enormously strong because you can get so close to its total mass!

8. When were black holes first theorized?
Using Newton's Laws in the late 1790s, John Michell of England and Pierre LaPlace of France independently suggested the existence of an "invisible star." Michell and LaPlace calculated the mass and size — which is now called the "event horizon" — that an object needs in order to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. In 1967 John Wheeler, an American theoretical physicist, applied the term "black hole" to these collapsed objects.

9. What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes?
Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87, as well as in several other galaxies. The discovery is based on velocity measurements of a whirlpool of hot gas orbiting the black hole. Hubble Space Telescope data produced an unprecedented measurement of the mass of an unseen object at the center of the galaxy. Based on the kinetic energy of the material whirling about the center (as in Wheeler's dance, see Question 4 above), the object is about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system.
For many years x-ray emission from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, the evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 is very strong.
~Raithere

Thanks for the fascinating link, Raithere. Isn't God's creation awesome?

><>

I think that religion only has a lack of proof for people who need proof. The idea that there will ever be enough information to have a structured belief is absurd. For when you have enough factual based information and evidence your belief is no longer a belief. It then becomes more of a theory, more based in the scientific realm. My question is what if there is no determining proof that ever answers the question on either side. Or what if the answer we find is not the one we are looking for. What if the world is truly based on coincidence?

Originally posted by inspector
Thanks for the fascinating link, Raithere. Isn't God's creation awesome?The Universe is indeed awesome, more so than I am even capable of conceiving. The link tells only a miniscule portion of what we know and that is only a small portion of what is out there. In that, I too feel the intense mystery and wonder that I think some people call God. Whatever its origins, understanding it is a more than worthy aspiration. I believe that losing this sense of wonder, for any reason, is a cause of sorrow. How anyone can look at the world and find it trite or boring is beyond me.

~Raithere

Origen,

Welcome to sciforums.

I think that religion only has a lack of proof for people who need proof. Doesn’t everyone want proof? Many religionists think that their god has revealed himself to them at a personal level and for them that is proof. Several theists here are currently fighting to show that there is proof of God, because; presumably it is important for them to have such proof.

The alternative is that you run the risk of believing something that isn’t true. For example wouldn’t you like to know for sure that the heart surgeon that is about to operate on you has actually been to medical school and that his claim of competency isn’t just a fantasy?

when you have enough factual based information and evidence your belief is no longer a belief. I think you are confusing ‘belief’ with ‘blind faith’. E.g. I choose to BELIEVE that there is a sun in the sky BECAUSE there is evidence for it. According to you I should not believe the sun exists since there is evidence for it.

"Several theists here are currently fighting to show that there is proof of God, because; presumably it is important for them to have such proof."
-----------------------

Not exactly, Christopher. It is the atheist who demands proof. I am reminded of the famous quotation, 'For those of us who believe in God, no proof is needed. For those who do not believe, no proof is enough.'






"For example wouldn’t you like to know for sure that the heart surgeon that is about to operate on you has actually been to medical school and that his claim of competency isn’t just a fantasy?"
-------------------------

Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager? Basically, it says that if you DO NOT BELIEVE in God and have no faith in Him, and you are right, then you have lost nothing. Similarly, if I BELIEVE in God and have faith in Him, and I, too, am wrong, I have, also, lost nothing. However, if I BELIEVE that God exists and have faith in Him, and I am ultimately right, then I receive the gifts that are promised to me in the Bible (salvation), which, BTW, has been proven (by secular archaeologists and scientists) to be historically/textually accurate and archaeologically consistent.

><>

From a logical standpoint, there is no way to convince me that God exists, short of Him appearing before me out of nowhere and proclaiming He is God.

If that happens, then I'll believe that God exists.

Still, I would have many questions. Of course, I'd ask the obvious 'why are we here' question.

But I'd have more. Lots more.

Why? Because I don't understand Him, and I don't think I find man's interpretation of Him credible.

Especially since no one can agree about what He said.

There, that's in pretty basic, simple-Simon terms. (I broke it down Barney-style for you, whatsupyall ;))

We cant prove that God does exist or doesnt. And heres another thought, Maybe the reason why we cant see "God" is because it exists on a dimensional level that is beyond our human senses. My friend and I had a discussion about this. I though one of his theories was very interesting. He said that te reason that we can't see "God" is because it exists on a dimensional level that is beyond our human senses due to speed.

For example, we percieve and experience our physical world through the interactions of sight, smell, sight, and sound. Four dimensions. We can throw in "time" as a fifth dimension. But all our physical senses have limitations. for instance, we can't see a flower bloom because its too slow for us to be aware of it. From our perspective, time appears to move slower for the flower than it is for us. This also applies to the fact that we can only hear sounds at certain frequencies. Animals can hear sounds we can't. Human beings can't hear extremely low sounds and extremely high sounds. You can say these sounds exist beyond our dimension of physical experience like the flower exists in its own dimension of time. Now here's the part I thought was most interesting. Using Einstein's theory of Relativity, Time to an object going at light speed from Earth is slower than time going on Earth. Going at light speed in away can transcend the time dimension in the human universe. The faster an object moves through space/time, the harder it is to see to us. For example since the speed of light is at 186,000 miles/second, it can go to different locations on the Earth in mere seconds. We wouldnt see it. But light can be in all those different locations at once because of the extremely high speed. From this information, my friend theorized that God or the cosmic mind is beyond our dimension plane because its moving or vibrating at an infinitely high rate. Therefore we cant see it. Since God or the Cosmic Mind moves or vibrates at this infinitely hight rate, it can be at all places at once.

Theoretically, you can say because of this quality, the godhead can transcend our dimension into other dimensions beyond our plane of reality and awareness.

And, BTW, it's obvious that we all will be provided proof.

Honestly, I can wait for the proof I am speaking of. :D

The theists really do have the best option:

If they're right, they go to heaven.

If they're wrong, they just get the same thing we all get...whatever it is.

Unfortunately, to be a theist, you have to believe (or pretend to believe) in something that cannot be proven in life.

"Why? Because I don't understand Him, and I don't think I find man's interpretation of Him credible."
----------------------

Do not fret, VAKEMP, my friend. You are in good company. The Pharisees, the Sadduccees and the Jews, who lived during the time of Jesus, and witnessed many of His miracles and teachings, didn't believe Jesus Christ was God either..............so they killed Him. However, I am sure you simply dismiss the death of Jesus (for your obvious sins of self-congratulations, arrogance and intellectual pride) as simply another myth anyway. What do you care, right?

><>

OldSchoolThinker,
So, God might see us like those parts in 'The Matrix' and 'Spiderman' where things we perceive as fast, can be perceived as slow to another?

'Tis possible.

We all know that's how Santa Claus does it every X-Mas!;)

"We cant prove that God does exist or doesnt."
------------------

OldSchool,

I have said this already many times on other threads, 'If there is a God, and He encompasses the universe, is it possible that he would work in ways that are beyond us?' Is that possible? All knowledge cannot be ascertained by logic and experiment. There are things that exist that cannot be quantified, tested in some lab or put in a jar, much to the dismay of many scientists and atheists. Period.

><>

inspector,

However, I am sure you simply dismiss the death of Jesus (for your obvious sins of self-congratulations, arrogance and intellectual pride) as simply another myth anyway.


I most certainly do not dismiss the death of Jesus Christ.

When I read the obituaries, I don't doubt that the people listed have died. I know that people die. That can be proven.

for your obvious sins of self-congratulations, arrogance and intellectual pride

self-congratulations:
I do not claim to be superior to anyone. I never said I was right and you were wrong.

arrogance:
When did I ever claim to be you intellectual superior? When did I do it in an overbearing manner? You want to see an example of arrogance, the best example I know of is one of your fellow theists. That's right, good 'ole whatsupyall. Oh, is it a sin? Did you inform whatsupyall of this on a public forum also?

intellectual-pride:
You're right, I am an intellect. At least in the sense that I'm rational.

I do not claim to be smarter than you. I do not claim to be better than you. Several times have I made it clear that I do not think less of theists because they have different beliefs than me. In fact, I have stated that I admire them for their proper ways...for their 'pursuit of perfection'.

In approximately one month, your tone has changed from patience to subtle insults. At first I appreciated and valued your opinion. I thought of you as a good role model for proper debate.

Your most recent remarks have changed that.

'Tis a shame, really.

which, BTW, has been proven (by secular archaeologists and scientists)
to be historically/textually accurate and archaeologically consistent.
Is there someplace (books/links) where I can read more about this?

"In approximately one month, your tone has changed from patience to subtle insults. At first I appreciated and valued your opinion. I thought of you as a good role model for proper debate."
----------------------

I appear insulting only to those whom biblical evidence clashes with their presuppositions. As a Christian, it is frustrating when someone, like yourself in this particlular example, says, "...........short of Him appearing before me out of nowhere and proclaiming He is God. If that happens, then I'll believe that God exists." Well, friend, when Jesus DOES appear before you, it will be too late. This stuff (Christianity) ain't imaginary. The time for preparation (faith) is now. Christianity is not easy. The Bible does not gurantee a problem-free existence. There are times to be patient and there are times to be firm.

><>

"Is there someplace (books/links) where I can read more about this?"
-----------------------

Poet, although there are many, many more, I offer the following.


For science-related information, visit the secular links of:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml




Also, review the foundation of the works and subsequent dialogues from the following scientists:

Louis Pasteur
Blaise Pascal
Sir Isaac Newton
Sir John A. Fleming
Michael Faraday
Charles Babbage
Joseph Lister
Lord William Kelvin
Samuel F.B. Morse
Gregor Mendel
Robert Boyle
Johannes Kepler
Rudolf Virchow
Sir William Ramsay
Bernhard Riemann



The Dead Sea Scrolls. Also, the archaeological discoveries of over 24,000 original manuscripts of the New Testament.

Any google search of 'secular evidence of the Bible' will give up many gory details. However, to remain unbiased, be sure to use the word 'secular'. ;-)

><>

There is more than enough proof that the judao-christan god dose not exsit. For instance Evil dose not exsit which is the main basus behind judao-christan belif. (read the bhuda theachings about evil it will open your mind) I am not saying that bhudism is flawless but no one can find a ture flaw with it. my standing is eather athist or athist/bhudist. (ppl call bhudism a form of athisum manly buecse they don't beleve in a god)

Originally posted by Raithere



No need to take my word for it, here’s a very nice site that explains black-holes in plain English (I’ve included some snippets below too):
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/reso...background.html


5. Is a black hole a giant cosmic vacuum cleaner?
The answer to this question is "not really." To understand this, first consider why the force of gravity is so strong close to a black hole. The gravity of a black hole is not special. It does not attract matter differently than any other object does. At a long distance from the black hole the force of gravity falls off as the inverse square of the distance, just as it does for normal objects.
Mathematically, the gravity of any spherical object behaves as if all the mass were concentrated at one central point. Since most ordinary objects have surfaces, you will feel the strongest gravity of an object when you are on its surface. This is as close to its total mass as you can get. If you penetrated the spherical object, getting closer to its core, you would feel the force of gravity get weaker, not stronger. The force of gravity you feel depends on the mass that is interior to you, because the gravity from the mass behind you is exactly canceled by the mass in the opposite direction. Therefore, you will feel the strongest force of gravity from an object, for example a planet, when you are standing on the planet's surface, because it is on the surface that you are closest to its total mass. Penetrating the surface of the planet does not expose you to more of the planet's total mass, but actually exposes you to less of its mass. Now remember the size of a black hole is infinitesimally small. Gravity near a black hole is very strong because objects can get extremely close to it and still be exposed to its total mass.
There is nothing special about the mass of a black hole. A black hole is different from our ordinary experience not because of its mass, but because its radius has vanished. Far away from the black hole, you would feel the same strength of gravity as if the black hole were a normal star. But the force of gravity close to a black hole is enormously strong because you can get so close to its total mass!

8. When were black holes first theorized?
Using Newton's Laws in the late 1790s, John Michell of England and Pierre LaPlace of France independently suggested the existence of an "invisible star." Michell and LaPlace calculated the mass and size — which is now called the "event horizon" — that an object needs in order to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light. In 1967 John Wheeler, an American theoretical physicist, applied the term "black hole" to these collapsed objects.

9. What evidence do we have for the existence of black holes?
Astronomers have found convincing evidence for a supermassive black hole in the center of the giant elliptical galaxy M87, as well as in several other galaxies. The discovery is based on velocity measurements of a whirlpool of hot gas orbiting the black hole. Hubble Space Telescope data produced an unprecedented measurement of the mass of an unseen object at the center of the galaxy. Based on the kinetic energy of the material whirling about the center (as in Wheeler's dance, see Question 4 above), the object is about 3 billion times the mass of our Sun and appears to be concentrated into a space smaller than our solar system.
For many years x-ray emission from the double-star system Cygnus X-1 convinced many astronomers that the system contains a black hole. With more precise measurements available recently, the evidence for a black hole in Cygnus X-1 is very strong.


~Raithere [/B]

Check this Raithere, have you checked that webpage you just sent me?

If so dont you learn that it is a THEORY? WHY IS IT A THEORY? BECAUSE IT IS UNACCESSIBLE, INCAPABLE OF PHYSICAL OBSERVATION AND STUDY, THEREFORE YOU BASED ITS EXISTENCE UPON VISUALIZATION AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT "APPEARED" TO MATCH THE BLACKHOLE'S IMAGE...THE BLACKHOLE IS A THEORY AND WILL ALWAYS BE A THEORY, UNLESS OF COURSE THERE WILL BE A HUGE GIANT SPACESHIP THAT WILL OBSERVE THE BLACKHOLE UPCLOSE AND PERSONAL :).
That is my point, YOU CANNOT "PROVE" BLACKHOLE TO ME, BUT YOU CAN PRESENT "EVIDENCE" HOWEVER, IN THE SAME WAY YOU CAN WITH SHAKESPEARE, KING HENRY, AND GOD THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER....IF GOD IS A MYTH, BLACKHOLE IS A MYTH, IF SHAKESPEARE IS A MYTH, GOD IS A MYTH....
IN SUMMARY ACCORDING TO YOU, KING HENRY, EVOLUTION, SHAKESPEARE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, GOD THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, AND BLACKHOLE ARE ALL FAKE........YOU CAN ONLY PROVIDE "EVIDENCE" BUT IF SUCH AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU IS NOT "PROOF", THEN INDEED THEY ARE ALL "MYTHS" AND "FAKE"....

You might say "Blackhole are visible"...Who has seen a blackhole? Have you seen it? You saw photos they took, how do I know those are just another type of stars? But not the "blackhole" they described?

Trillions upon trillions of people have died without having to see the blackhole, does it mean blackhole is a myth because they have not seen it?
I have never seen blackhole in my life, is it then a myth?? Photos? Like I was saying it could have been a picture of anything but a blackhole myth...Who has seen blackhole? Scientist claimed to have seen blackhole..but I havent, therefore its a myth?
Who has seen God? Saints claim to have seen God.. But I haven seen God, does it mean he is a myth?

What about the concept of God is beyond man's comprehension. Do you think that it is possible that there is proof but we are just looking in the wrong places. I am not exactly speaking of miracles because they are beyond our comprehension of reality. But what about things such as one's search for comfort. Is God based on the personal preference of the believe. Because that has the possibilty of explaining why the concept of God is so commonamoun people.

Just a Thought

I want to stick to one subject real quick...And that is what is physical and non physical? Children and adults (who have a mind of children) needs to learn this....
I say God is physical.....Anyone want to tell me he is not? If so, tell me what is non-physical...Explain....

inspector: Thank you for all the info, I appreciate it. I am
familiar with some of the references you listed but it has
been quite awhile since I have read them. I am curious,
are you familiar with Nag Hammadi?

"I am curious, are you familiar with Nag Hammadi?"
--------------

A little. Are you a gnostic?

><>

Originally posted by whatsupyall
I want to stick to one subject real quick...And
that is what is physical and non physical?
physical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical)


nonphysical (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nonphysical&r=2)

In answering your question, inspector:

If there was a God, and he encompasses the universe, does he work in ways that is beyond us?

I wouldnt say God itself encompasses the universe. God would exist beyond our physical dimension( human universe) and awareness. So the universe would contain aspects or manifestations of its spiritual energy in the form of galaxies, planets, human beings, and trees. So aspects of God would manifest itself in different forms in different dimensions that are within our own. Since we can witness these forms manifested in all creation, we can understand the organization and nature of this God indirectly. But in a finite way because we are finite beings.

All of this is theory. Just a little speculation to get the brain cells buzzing.

nonphysical

adj : lacking substance or reality; incapable of being touched or seen; "that intangible thing--the soul"

Science states that there are no limits to splitting an atom, singularity states that if all the spaces are removed, the whole universe can be as small as a pencil...Currently speaking, there is no limit to splitting an atom, our current technology can only detect subatomic particles under 300,000,000 m/s, so whats beyond that is Non-physical? In being so, does it mean its a myth? We cannot detect beyond 200,000,000 few years back, does it then make it nonphysical? therefore a myth? IT WAS NON-PHYSICAL BEFORE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECAME PHYSICAL? Was blackhole non-physical before, then all of a sudden it became physical?
What about the "force" that brings someone to life, which we call a soul...Is that non-physical? If so does it mean YOU are nonphhysical? You are living, an "undetectable" invisible energy keeps you alive, if that is non-physical, is it then a myth?
What about the emotions that drives us to do "right" and "wrong" (generally speaking), what are those emotions which we call "spirit"? What do you call them? "Parascratchomybutto particles"? Is that the name you call it? Did you name it after you scratched your butt last night? Have you detected it? If so demonstrate it, can you "grab" it and place it in someone's body to bring them to life?
If ""emotions" that drive you to do good and evil;spirits (societies view) cannot be detected, then emotions are non-physical, if emotions are non-physical, then it is a myth (according to little children), and in this case, God is also a myth....

In summary, life is a myth, emotion is a myth, God is a myth........

NEED REALITY CHECK?

The reason I asked about Nag Hammadi was because you
mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls and I thought you might be
familiar with it. No biggy - just curious. :)
Are you a gnostic?
No - I don't do religion. I have already stated where I am at as
far as religion goes (a couple of times) so I feel no need to go
into it again. If you are that interested - go look for it. ;)

However, I do enjoy reading the Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html). One
of my favorite quotes comes from The Gospel Of Thomas:

34 Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind
person, both of them will fall into a hole."

Originally posted by VAKEMP
OldSchoolThinker,
So, God might see us like those parts in 'The Matrix' and 'Spiderman' where things we perceive as fast, can be perceived as slow to another?

'Tis possible.

We all know that's how Santa Claus does it every X-Mas!;)

Thats a good point. Here's an example.

The earth is rotating on its axis at high speed. If its rotating at high speed, then why dont we sense it as rotating fast?

The speed is so rapid that it appears slow to us. And sense it appears slow to us, our experience of time is the same.

God might see us like we see a video tape in slow motion.

I think there is a point in space/time where speed goes from regular fast forword to a level where everything slows down.
I guess in this way, you can cross dimensions. Just a thought.

PS: I liked your joke. Thats another topic.

"However, I do enjoy reading the Nag Hammadi Library. One
of my favorite quotes comes from The Gospel Of Thomas:
34 Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind
person, both of them will fall into a hole."
-------------------------------------


Poet, this is very true. Also in the Nag Hammadi Library, Gospel of Thomas, in verse 33 (the verse preceeding the one you quoted), Jesus says, "................After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."

Everything has it's context.

><>

Agreed.

Like I said, I enjoy reading the Nag Hammadi Library but
I also enjoy reading a lot of other stuff. I'm running really
behind so I gatta fly. Have a good one! :cool:

Whatsupyall you keep acting like a theory is a bad thing. You are using the popular definition of theory, which is incorrect. You need to read the real definition of theory.

Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Pay special attention to the part that says "...one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted" and also "....can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

That is a powerful statement. So according to the correct definition, the word theory cannot be thrown around lightly. So stop throwing it around lightly.

You seem to be misunderstanding theory with a hypothesis.

Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

A theory is something that is backed with evidence, so much evidence that it makes it seem that it is the correct explanation for a given phenomena. Scientists do not throw around the word theory lightly, at least real scientists do not.

Most people in this board follow science not because it has "theories" that explain phenomena. Plenty of religions try to do this, however if they are correct is another argument. But science is good because it is self-correcting. You do not seem to understand this.

So understand that there is a "theory of gravity", a "theory of relativity" and many more. These are backed up with enough evidence and experiments to merit them the title "theory." We have the "theory of evolution", not the "hypothesis of evolution."

So get your facts straight and buy a dictionary.

"So understand that there is a "theory of gravity", a "theory of relativity" and many more. So get your facts straight and buy a dictionary."
----------------------------

Speaking of facts, gravity is a law, not a theory. ;-)

><>

whatsup, your ignorance of the definition of a theory is appalling. Look up what the hell you're talking about before you open your mouth. You look stupid beyond belief.

A scientific theory is a plausible explanation of some aspect of the natural world supported by testable physical phenomena or otherwise repeatedly observable evidence. A law is a bland generalization of a theory into a single sentence or equation.

Your not knowing about black holes and gravitation is not your fault, however. Many people get it wrong. Ever heard about the special and general theory of relativity?

Originally posted by Phaedrus

Theory:
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Theory= Widely accepted (which according to you holds no credibility, considering the fact that God is widely accepted). Intelligent design have been repeatedly tested as a fact to demonstrate the existence of ordered, functioning matters..Predictions about environment? Sounds like "guessing"...

Your right, you dont take theory lightly, considering the fact that you dont hold God lightly. God has far more evidence than a theory...


Originally posted by Phaedrus

Pay special attention to the part that says "...one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted" and also "....can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Your right, intelligent designer have been repeatedly tested as a fact to be the cause of ordered, and functioning matters. A FACT. And God is also widely accepted, and yes, the church does make predictions of natural phenomena, such as the fruit of love, hate,jealousy, etc...

Originally posted by Phaedrus

That is a powerful statement. So according to the correct definition, the word theory cannot be thrown around lightly. So stop throwing it around lightly.

Speak for yourself as well....

Originally posted by Phaedrus

You seem to be misunderstanding theory with a hypothesis.

Hypothesis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. .
No Im not...Hypothesis contains no factual evidence.....Dont put words in my mouth.....


Originally posted by Phaedrus

A theory is something that is backed with evidence, so much evidence that it makes it seem that it is the correct explanation for a given phenomena. Scientists do not throw around the word theory lightly, at least real scientists do not. .

So much evidence of theory of evolution? Are you saying God is a theory? There is far more evidence for God than for evolution, shouldnt that qualify God as above theory then?

Originally posted by Phaedrus


So understand that there is a "theory of gravity", a "theory of relativity" and many more. These are backed up with enough evidence and experiments to merit them the title "theory." We have the "theory of evolution", not the "hypothesis of evolution."

So get your facts straight and buy a dictionary.

Yes, I understand what your saying....IN SUMMARY, THEORY IS A STATEMENT AND SPECULATION BACKED WITH EVIDENCE, WHICH REQUIRES FAITH BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FACT....LIKE GOD TO YOU, FOR IT CONTAINS THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE, AND ACTUALLY MORE..IF GOD IS A FACT, EVLUTION IS A FACT. IF EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, GOD IS A THEORY...BUT BECAUSE I HAVE EXPERIENCED GOD PERSONALLY (AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS), TO OUR CONVICTION, GOD IS A FACT....MEANWHILE EVOLUTION IS A THEORY TO ALL, AND WILL ALWAYS BE A THEORY.....

and one more thing.....LOL, I was wrong about you, I thought you are smart, gravity isnt a theory, it is a law...(Well, when certain ppl questions gravity in detail, it can become a theory, like existence of God to others).

Originally posted by Zero
whatsup, your ignorance of the definition of a theory is appalling. Look up what the hell you're talking about before you open your mouth. You look stupid beyond belief.

A scientific theory is a plausible explanation of some aspect of the natural world supported by testable physical phenomena or otherwise repeatedly observable evidence. A law is a bland generalization of a theory into a single sentence or equation.

Your not knowing about black holes and gravitation is not your fault, however. Many people get it wrong. Ever heard about the special and general theory of relativity?

LOL, this paragraph belongs to you Zero. Your basically talking to yourself here....:D

I don't know much about this whatsupyall character, but he seems to me a religious zealot tainted with irrationality. And a knack for avoiding lost arguments.

But seriously, that IS the definition of a scientific theory. The phrase "that's only a theory, it's not real" is the oldest thing creationists use, and in all academic or business circles it is a sort of symbol of irrationality. Whatsupyall, you're running against something that isn't your target.

Originally posted by Maia
I don't know much about this whatsupyall character, but he seems to me a religious zealot tainted with irrationality. And a knack for avoiding lost arguments.

But seriously, that IS the definition of a scientific theory. The phrase "that's only a theory, it's not real" is the oldest thing creationists use, and in all academic or business circles it is a sort of symbol of irrationality. Whatsupyall, you're running against something that isn't your target.

I never said because it is just a theory, therefore it is not real...Dont falsely accuse me...What is it that I said that is irrational? Creationist? define whoat is creationist, and to what does it contradict to? Evolution? Before you ramble, think about what u said, you are many paragraphs late, you missed out on this subjects. but if u want me to bring it up again, I will b glad to...AND STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME, RAMBLING AND CALLING ME NAMES....If yu say I said something irrational, point it, or shut up...

Aww is someone feeling grumpy? Poor thing.

And it's pretty odd, an irrational person screaming in all caps AND halfway decent spelling. You sound like a bad actor.:p

Point out what I said wrong.

Originally posted by Maia
but he seems to me a religious zealot tainted with irrationality. And a knack for avoiding lost arguments.


Im a poor thing? Atleast I aint a lying thing...I am tainted with irratinality? Point what I have said that is irrational, point it, or shut up, and dont falesly accuse me...
Avoiding lost arguments? What arguments are those? That knowledge means "controlling"? Have u read the arguments?
Point what I said that is irrational and wrong, and dont falsely accuse me kid.....

:p You sound like a grumpy old man.

shut up, and grow up. No wonder why yur an atheist...educate yurself, then come back here when yur brain matures...

Want me to point out what's irrational about your posts? All of them. Simple enough, old man?

I continue to be amused. I might even go so far as to call you cute.

Your right, intelligent designer have been repeatedly tested as a fact to be the cause of ordered, and functioning matters.

Could you please cite some references?

Simply put, labeling athiests everything that's wrong with this world makes him everything that's right with the world. Pretty tempting fantasy.

Originally posted by Maia
Want me to point out what's irrational about your posts? All of them. Simple enough, old man?

I continue to be amused. I might even go so far as to call you cute.

LOL, all of them? Name one.....im waiting...

As I said, ALL of them. I've pointed them out.

OK, for example that last one. Or the one before. Or the one before that. Etc etc...

NAME ONE PARTICULAR SUBJECT that Im wrong....if u cant, then shut up....and dont falsely accuse me...NAME ONE...

whatsupyall,
I've never personally insulted you. I've often complimented you on your faith. I've defended you in many cases... Yet you never reply to my posts. Is it because I'm athiest? Is the fact that I'm an athiest and not falling in to your stereotypical evil-athiest label confusing you?

I'm really not trying to insult you, but I've had many interesting conversations with christians, and I wonder why you refuse to have one with me... Not that I have any conversation in mind at the moment...

Whatswhat

NAME ONE PARTICULAR SUBJECT that Im wrong

Religion.

notme2000, i only reply to posts that directly supports atheism, because I am a theist, thats why I am here, to see the best arguments of the atheists (however I am disappointed when we cant even get passed through common sense, many dont even know what "faith" and "theory" is) thats why I scream in caps and get mad, because I am expecting an intelligent debate, but instead I am given stupid arguments. So I apologize if I didnt notice yur posts for there are so many that I desire to reply...

I put this on God and I mean it. Seriously I never knew people this stupid exist, i mean are this kids acting like it or are they really this stupid? Are they pretending to not know what the word "faith" means? Im serious, thats why i scream in caps....

notme2000, i only reply to posts that directly supports atheism, because I am a theist, thats why I am here
So you are here to change others' beliefs. Hmm. I am here to change my own.
thats why I scream in caps and get mad, because I am expecting an intelligent debate, but instead I am given stupid arguments
I recommend realizing that to understand their arguments you have to at least emulate a paradigm shift. You aren't expecting an intelligent debate, you are expecting one you can understand. No insult intended. Even if you "know" there's a God, PRETEND you don't so you can understand the arguments of athiests. I understand your posts completely cause I can look at things from your point of view. Does not mean I believe it, but it has always kept my debates civil. Just a recommendation.

w,

many dont even know what "faith" and "theory" isCould you then please give us your definitions in concise and clear statements so that we can compare those definitions with our own and see where we are going wrong.

Whatswhat

NAME ONE PARTICULAR SUBJECT that Im wrong

Religion.

lol, throw science in there too

Anyway, I've unignored whatsupyall for now. I've had a break from his ranting and I feel I can endure some of his stupidity once again.

Originally posted by whatsupyall
I put this on God and I mean it. Seriously I never knew
people this stupid exist, i mean are this kids acting like it
or are they really this stupid? Are they pretending to not
know what the word "faith" means? Im serious, thats why
i scream in caps....
Do you feel that this bible quote doesn't apply to you?

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way
you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure
you use, it will be measured to you. -Matthew 7:1-2

WHY IS IT A THEORY? BECAUSE IT IS UNACCESSIBLE, INCAPABLE OF PHYSICAL OBSERVATION AND STUDY, THEREFORE YOU BASED ITS EXISTENCE UPON VISUALIZATION AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT "APPEARED" TO MATCH THE BLACKHOLE'S IMAGE...THE BLACKHOLE IS A THEORY AND WILL ALWAYS BE A THEORY, UNLESS OF COURSE THERE WILL BE A HUGE GIANT SPACESHIP THAT WILL OBSERVE THE BLACKHOLE UPCLOSE AND PERSONAL. No, no, no. Black holes have been confirmed by observation. While we cannot 'see' black holes with directly there are certain phenomena associated with them that has been detected and that confirms their existence.

You really don't understand what a scientific theory is. A theory is a substantiated hypothesis for which there are no refuting facts. A hypothesis is a testable and refutable explanation of observed facts. Once a hypothesis has been formulated experiments and predictions can be made to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Only after a considerable amount of testing and prediction has been shown to be congruent with the hypothesis and only if every observed fact is congruent with the hypothesis is it considered a theory. Much later in the process, if the theory continues to hold without modification it will sometimes be called a law.

Thus we have:
The fact of gravity (things fall to the Earth when dropped).
The hypothesis of gravity (masses exert an attractive force upon each other)
The theory of gravity (confirmation of the hypothesis with no refuting facts)

Now then, using the theory of gravity some scientists predicted/hypothesized that there could be phenomena where a body was so massive and small (dense) that the force of gravity it exerted would cause even light to fall towards it, causing it to appear black. In actuality they were laboring at the time under the misconception that light was a particle and had mass. Luckily they were working with a mathematical model that was correct even if their interpretation of what it meant was not. Later on, Einstein developed a hypothesis (that is now a theory) as to why gravity can affect light even though it has no mass. Still the math holds out and black-holes continued to be a viable prediction/hypothesis. More recently, we have discovered facts that support the hypothesis of black-holes it to the point where we can call it a theory.

That is my point, YOU CANNOT "PROVE" BLACKHOLE TO ME, BUT YOU CAN PRESENT "EVIDENCE"One judges the veracity of a hypothesis by the amount of substantiating evidence and the lack of contrary evidence. Proof is merely the amount of substantiating evidence required to convince you.

IN SUMMARY ACCORDING TO YOU, KING HENRY, EVOLUTION, SHAKESPEARE, QUEEN ELIZABETH, GOD THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, AND BLACKHOLE ARE ALL FAKENo this would not follow at all. You are incorrect.

YOU CAN ONLY PROVIDE "EVIDENCE" BUT IF SUCH AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE I HAVE GIVEN TO YOU IS NOT "PROOF" What evidence have you provided? All I've seen so far consists primarily of hearsay and other unsubstantiated claims. If you want to believe in God based on those claims or upon your own subjective experience, that's fine with me, but when you start speaking about proof and evidence and theory you're making claims that require quite a bit more.

You might say "Blackhole are visible" No, I would never said that black holes are visible although some of their affects are.

Trillions upon trillions of people have diedNo, "trillions upon trillions" of people have not even been born in the whole history of the planet. I believe the estimate is still under 1 trillion. Once again, you exaggerate.

without having to see the blackhole, does it mean blackhole is a myth because they have not seen it? Now see, here's the cool thing about science. If you are so inclined you can examine the evidence for yourself. If you doubt the scientists you can collect the evidence and offer your own alternative hypothesis, substantiate it, and win a Nobel Prize. Or if you're merely curious you can look up the evidence and the theory and analyze it yourself.

I have never seen blackhole in my life, is it then a myth?? Photos? Like I was saying it could have been a picture of anything but a blackhole myth...Who has seen blackhole? Scientist claimed to have seen blackhole..but I havent, therefore its a myth?
Who has seen God? Saints claim to have seen God.. But I haven seen God, does it mean he is a myth?Once again, you're simply not understanding. It's not a matter of hearsay evidence. A scientist cannot simply claim 'I saw X' and all the other scientists believe him.

~Raithere

Whatsup, you're wrong in ALL of the subjects discussed. If you can't defend yourself then shut up (*quote* from whatsup, modified) :p

You grumpy old man, go home and drink tea.

This article was written by one of my professors, I would like everyone to read it and I am sorry for the length of it, but it is well written. This article addresses a few points that we have been debating over. - Phaedrus

The Cobb County Creationism battle: Should alternate theories be taught along with Evolution?
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Dr. David R. Schwimmer

During this past month, Georgia and much of the Nation have learned about a battle over science education that raged in the school board of Cobb County. If this were a rural Georgia county, it might not attract much attention; but, being a gentrified suburb of the Atlanta Metro area, the events in Cobb Co. have great impact. Letters already appearing in the Ledger-Enquirer show that the outcome of this contest has begun to spill over into Columbus, and we can predict that the controversy will eventually land squarely on our school board.

The specific contest in Cobb Co. was whether alternatives to Evolutionary Theory could be allowed (not required) in the county’s public schools. The wording of the final resolution, passed by the board on September 26th, can be summarized by this quote from the resolution:

“…the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views
of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education,
including the study of the origin of species. This subject remains an area of
intense interest, research, and discussion among scholars….”

It goes on to state that this policy neither restricts the teaching of Evolution nor promotes the teaching of Creationism.

The resolution may seem fair and reasonable because it appears to promote the spirit of balance and open inquiry that Americans applaud. However, this same policy has scientists and educators all over the state and nation concerned, frustrated, and militant. Many hundreds of PhD biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and others scientists have signed petitions or written personal letters to the Cobb County School Board deploring the resolution. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences (with 170 Nobel Laureate members), the American Astronomical Society, The Geological Society of America, and other major scientific societies have published formal denunciations of the policy. Why are these scientists and others so angry? Are we so afraid of competing ideas?

In this article, I would like to frame this controversy as “Frequently Asked Questions” on Evolution and the alternatives. Of course, I do this from the viewpoint of a conventional scientist working in a field that deals squarely the history of life on earth—and clearly I have my philosophical biases. I can’t pretend to do an adequate job of presenting the “Intelligent Design” or “Creationist” arguments, but I will try to frame the questions in such a manner that the reader can at least understand where conventional scientists are coming from. The following FAQ’s are arranged in the order in which they are most frequently asked of me.


“Question 1: Evolution just a theory; shouldn’t other theories also be examined in science classes?
This basic question is critical to the subject, so please allow a bit of lecturing. The term “theory” is used in entirely different ways by technical scientists and by the public. (Don’t take my word for it, check any dictionary). We all know the everyday definition, which is “an idea” as in “it’s just a theory.” That would never apply to the scientific definition, which is some variation of “the best explanation of a phenomenon, based on observations, experimentation and reasoning”. Many philosophical books have been written about the nature of scientific theories, and none of them deals with “just an idea.”

The Theory of Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory, as are Atomic and Electromagnetic Theories in physics, the Germ Theory in medicine, Plate Tectonics Theory in geology, and many other pillars of modern science. If a person ever claims “evolution is just a theory,” you may be sure that person is either unaware of the concept, or is playing fast and loose with the truth. “Just” and “theory” cannot be used in the same definition in science rhetoric.

Now, are there other scientific theories dealing with the history of life, besides Evolution? (If they exist, I believe they should be taught in science classes.) Specifically, are “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” legitimate scientific theories? So far, the answer is no, as the next set of questions will address. These two notions are “theories” in the popular sense, that is “just ideas,” but definitely not in the scientific sense.

Question 2: The alternatives to Evolution proposed to the Cobb Co. Board are “Intelligent Design Theory” and “Creation Theory:” what are they?
Intelligent Design (I.D.) is based on the central concept that most life forms are too complex to have evolved by random or non-directed processes. One key aspect of this argument is “irreducible complexity,” which claims that the makeup of many organic structures is so critical, that were any component missing, the entire thing would not work. One may ask, how can such structures as bird’s wings, vertebrate eyes, bacterial flagella, etc., evolve gradually? Many of the publications supporting I.D. are detailed, esoteric, and use mathematical models to prove the complexity of life and the unlikelihood of randomness in its occurrence. Some I.D. proponents accept the majority of evolutionary reasoning, except for the part that assumes the process results from undirected natural phenomena. Other I.D.-ers believe that an ”Intelligent Designer” has micro-managed nearly every detail of nature.

“Biblical Creationism” has been around for centuries, whereas “Creation Science” dates to ca. 1950; both are shades of the idea that all life on earth was specifically created by God, within a literal week at the beginning of the earth. Most mainstream Creationists also believe that the earth is no more than around 6400 years old and is located at the center of the universe. Further, the leading “Creation Science” Institutes aggressively support the concept that the entire fossil record derives from Noah’s Flood, and that all surviving life derives from individual pairs of animals transported on Noah’s Ark (except, perhaps, the fish).


Question 3: Why aren’t “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” valid scientific theories?
The answer is threefold: first, because there is no legitimate published data to support either idea; second, because the reasoning behind both concepts lies outside the realm of science; and third, because most of their arguments are based only on negative reasoning.
On the first point, certainly many lengthy books and articles have been written in support of both concepts, including many published critiques of evolutionary. But none of these, to date, constitutes the type of evidence that can be used to elevate a popular notion to a scientific theory. To explain this I must clarify what is meant by “legitimate” published data.

In the sciences (including medicine and engineering), professional workers publish their significant findings in peer-reviewed (also called “refereed”) journals. The reasoning behind this is that technical science, being very complex and specific, requires colleagues at the same level of expertise and knowledge as the author to scrutinize a proposed publication for errors of logic or method before it is accepted for journal publication. The science community understands this is a form of censorship; but, it is censorship intended to suppress poor methods and poor quality, not to suppress unpopular results.

This peer-review process has served us well for the past 150 years. Consider, for example, how you would feel about your doctor trying out a new procedure or medication that he learned from the National Star, or Cosmopolitan, rather than, say, the peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. Now, it may be surprise many people following the Creation/Evolution controversies to learn that, to date, no peer-reviewed publications have ever documented any aspect of either Creationism of Intelligent Design “theories:” none, period.

One of the strongest evidences that there is little or no substance to these alternate ideas on life history is the fact that some professional scientists who decry evolution (see Question 6) and somehow fail to publish on those same ideas in the refereed journals, still publish on non-evolutionary aspects of science in the peer-reviewed literature. One has to ask why they are not confident enough to submit “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” information to professional scrutiny? Why do they publish anti-evolutionary ideas only in the popular press?

The real reason that Creationism and I.D. articles are not peer-reviewed is because of the second flaw in their philosophical nature: they are based on assumptions about the supernatural, whereas modern science must be based on the natural. The concept of modern “Supernatural Science” is an oxymoron. (Which is not to say that the supernatural is impossible but, rather, that it is outside the realm of scientific analysis.) For example, how can we presume to understand the mechanics of the Earth, or the motions of the stars, or the chemistry of matter, if the laws of nature may be suspended by supernatural forces? (This was the problem with Alchemy, Medieval medicine, and pre-Copernican astronomy). Recognizing these limitations, the modern proponents of “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” have carefully omitted the word “Divine” from either name in order to attempt an appearance of naturalism. Ironically, many public supporters of Creationism and I.D. bring up having God in the science curriculum, while the professional supporters of these notions shy away from the same topic because they know it is anathema to science.

The third fatal flaw is that “Creation Science” and “I.D. Theory” are based mostly on negative attacks on Evolution. For example, Creationists doubt the information about the earth’s age known by geologists, doubt the chain of relationships among organisms documented by biologists, and seriously doubt the close physical and ancestral relationships of apes and humans observed by anthropologists. Intelligent Design theorists doubt that natural events alone could cause the complexities of life. Nevertheless, even if these negative arguments were grounded in firm data, all that would be proven is that Evolution is invalid. Neither alternative would be proven true by this line of reasoning. This follows because there are innumerable additional “origins” arguments and legends, including those of indigenous natives on every continent as well as more recent ideas such as intergalactic “Panspermia.” None of these is any more or less reasonable scientifically than is “Intelligent Design” or “Creationism” in the absence of actual, positive data.

Question 4: But isn’t Evolution a “Theory In Crisis” since many PhD scientists question Darwinism?”
The short answer is “not at all.” This argument is roughly equivalent to proposing that rocket science is no good because we have an occasional accident and no one has yet landed on Mars. Going back to the nature of scientific theories, they are, by their design, supposed to be modified as new information arises. In the case of Darwin’s original ideas, one must keep in mind that they are over 140 years old! Imagine if students were taught ca.1859 physics, or medical practice of days before antisepsis, antibiotics or anesthesia. Yet, critics attack Darwin as if he both began and ended our knowledge of evolutionary theory.

Every technical critique of evolutionary theory in the professional journals has been about details of the theory, rather than about the concept as a whole. For example, we recognize today that evolution may proceed much faster than Darwin envisioned, or it may not occur in some groups for extended periods of geological time (such creatures often called “living fossils,” including alligators and sharks). It is also recognized today that natural selection may not be the only driving force behind evolution, in contrast with Darwin’s ideas. For example, natural catastrophes may have a major effect on the course of life history (such as the asteroid impact that ended the reign of dinosaurs). But, my colleagues in paleontology, organismal biology, and related sciences, have never critiqued the basic framework of evolutionary theory. The “crisis” is perceived only by opponents.

Question 5. If Evolution is a scientific theory, what kind of evidence is there and how can you know what happened in the past?
A simple summary of “Evolutionary Theory” is that new species and higher groups arise from older forms over time, and that most or all life forms have common ancestry. It is the fact of evolution that life has changed throughout earth’s history: we have a superabundant fossil record to prove that. Of course, we cannot go literally back to the prehistoric past to see events transpiring, but we have abundant, material evidence of past events. My discipline of paleontology is based precisely on that material evidence, and molecular biologists, botanical and biological systematists, and other scientists deal every working day with evidence of the interrelationships of living organisms.

I am often asked to “describe the evidence for evolution.” This is akin to describing the evidence for microorganisms causing infections. One hardly knows where to begin because the amount of data available is staggering. There are perhaps a hundred and fifty peer-reviewed journals, in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, etc., (many entitled “The Journal of Evolutionary …..”), publishing data on the evolutionary relationships of specific groups of organisms. Assume ten articles appear per issue, six or more issues per year, 150 journals averaging perhaps 20 to 50 years of publication each, and you get a sense of the volume of documentation we have for the facts of evolution.

One “test” of Evolutionary Theory bears on my personal research, so I will describe it in some detail. It is widely accepted by evolutionary science that dominant forms of life characterize various times of earth history (for example, the Mesozoic Era was the “Age of Reptiles” and we now live in the “Age of Mammals.”) When I first moved to Columbus, the sedimentary rocks of the region were dated by prior study to the Mesozoic Era, but no dinosaurs or other “ruling reptiles” (pterodactyls, etc.) had been found here. Based on the assumption that local rock of Mesozoic Age might contain dinosaur and related fossils, I predicted they might be found here, and they were. Had I found modern mammal fossils in those Mesozoic rocks, I would have created a significant problem with Evolutionary Theory. By passing the test, the theory achieves another confirmation and more factual data. Neither I nor countless other paleontologists find significant occurrences of life forms out of chronology (i.e. dogs do not appear before algae and sponges in the fossil record, nor do people appear before monkeys). Independently, molecular biologists have discovered that the genomes of higher organisms can be grouped into relationships that parallel their assumed evolutionary histories. Likewise, animals often bear signs of their ancestries as vestigial organs (e.g. the hind legs of primitive whales), which support independent assumptions of their evolutionary ancestries. Note that these are positive evidences for evolution, not negatives about Creationism.


Question 6. Why have many scientists recently signed statements opposing “Darwinism”?
This may seem an anomaly indeed, unless we closely examine who we are talking about. First, I doubt anyone really knows how many “anti-evolutionary” scientists there really are. For example, I have before me the latest issue of Acts and Facts from the “Institute for Creation Research.” I have received these mailings for over 20 years, and they no doubt include me in their lists of “scientists in support of Creationism” (for the record, I did not request the mailings).

However I have met a handful of anti-evolution PhD Scientists, and I am sure there are hundreds I do not know. Who are they? An examination of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism coming from the “Discovery Institute” (the leading organization sponsoring I.D. before the Cobb County Board), is revealing. (And, note, the statement refers to “Darwinism,” not Evolutionary Theory!) This document was alleged signed by over 100 scientists, listed by degrees, titles and specializations. It looks impressive, until one considers that the majority have degrees in physics, chemistry, math, and medicine. In fact, the originators of modern “Creation Science” were Henry Morris, a civil engineer, and Dr. Duane Gish, an organic chemist. “Intelligent Design Theory” was largely formulated by Dr. Phillip Johnson, a law professor, Dr. William Dembske, a mathematics professor, and Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry. None, except, perhaps, Dr. Behe, deals professionally with actual aspects of life. As a paleontologist, I may have strong opinions about the relationships among the teeth of extinct reptiles, but I do not presume to advise dentists about doing root canals.

Returning to the “Discovery Institute” statement, I observe that there are no paleontologists or physical anthropologists I can identify among the names, and a great many of the biologists are Emeritus professors (i.e. retired), or have unusual affiliations (for example, many are at “Biola University” and the biologists include some at “Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,” “Dordt College,” Cedarville University” “University of Steubenville,” etc.). What are conspicuously rare in this document are working biologists and other life scientists from mainstream universities. I am sure some of the scientists signing this statement are knowledgeable individuals who, for some reason, just cannot accept the Theory of Evolution. That was my impression of several unusual geological scientists I have met and chatted with, including some of the better-known PhD anti-evolutionists. I won’t presume to explain their motives; but, I can state that every such person I have met was openly deeply religious.

Skeptics have and will exist in all fields of science. For example, some working geologists held out against the Theory of Plate Tectonics for a decade after it became mainstream thinking. And, as of the late 1990’s, there were still trained virologists who doubted the causal link between HIV and AIDS. Sometimes the skeptics perform a service by forcing mainstream scientists to carefully examine our models and consider the philosophical roots we profess. Sometimes skeptics only slow down understanding or progress. But where non-supported