BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"That doesn't hold up because the author of Luke, like the author of Matthew copied Mark verbatim and they both copied Q. If Matthew had first hand knowledge, he wouldn't need to copy them, he would have an independent story to tell. Scholars are confident that the disciple Matthew counldn't write or read Greek. You haven't given any credible reason for why their names were added to those gospels a century later. But you are right about the inner circle. That's exaclty why anyone wanting these gospels to carry authority over other competing theology and gospels, they would credit the author as someone in the inner circle. Each gospel clearly has its own particular theology or slant it is trying to impart to its intended audience"

You have not invalidated anything I said. Most of what you've done is repeat yourself, the rest is conjecture.


"You don't really know because there are no well preserved rival traitions, partly because they didn't win out. Gnosticism is an example of competing theology. The point is, if the Mexicans had not written their accounts, there would be no factual history, only the Texas legends would be presumed factual. Since orthodox christianity prevailed, their traditons and legends are presumed factual by the adherents. It requires critical thinking and textual scholars to glean what is likely fact and fiction."

Gnosticism is a different topic. Gnosticism is NOT a competing tradition regarding the authorship of the gospels.

You are still trying to fallaciously conclude the gospel authorship tradition is the same thing as the Alamo tradition. This is just a heavily flawed logical argument, one that you should drop.


"Knowing the history of oral traditions being embellished and changed over time, there is every reason to doubt the realability. There are contradictions between the gospels, so they all can't be right. There are historical errors. Not to mention extraordiany mythology of the stories themselves."

Again, you're applying conjecture and presumption to the gospels instead of actual evidence and proof.
So-called contradictions and historical errors can be resolved (as you will soon see).
Invalidating the gospels due to your preconceived bias against miracles is a logical fallacy.

"I think you would get push back from a lot of Christians on that statement. Otherwise you have more than one god. The doctrine of atonement is another example."

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a salvation dependent doctrine, therefore if any Christians push back, it will be for doctrinal matters, not salvation ones. Therefore, it would not be considered "essential" in that regard.

"There are numerous. Here are two historical differences. In Acts, when Paul went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas beind in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and met up with them later in after he left Athens and arrived in Corinth (18:5). In 1 Thessalonians, Paul clearly says Timothy was with him in Athens. From Athens Paul sent Tmothy back to Thessalonica (1Thess. 3:1-3)."

The Acts account says that Paul sent command for Timothy to come to him as soon as possible. It also said that Paul "waited for them" there in Athens. There's no reason the command wasn't obeyed, and so it's very plausible that Timothy WAS with Paul at Athens, but it wasn't expressly mentioned by Luke. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There isn't necessarily a conflict here.

"Another with historical and theologic implications is in Galations. In Galations 1:15-18, Paul states he did not go to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles after his conversion experience, demonstrating that his message was independent from the church and disciples in Jerusalem. Acts 9:10-30 says the opposeite. It says he went directly to Jerusalem and meets with the apostles. Clearly, the author of Luke had his own theological message he wanted to convey. "

There is no conflict here. I don't know what you're reading.
In Galatians, Paul says after conversion he went to Arabia then Damascus, then after three years went to Jerusalem.
In Acts, Luke says Paul, after his conversion, was in Damascus, then in Jerusalem. He gives no time frame. It agrees perfectly.

Further, 1 Corinthians and Galations demonstrate Paul's differing views on adhering to the law, from what is portrayed by the author of Acts.

You've given two weak, easily debunked arguments so far. Do I dare ask your reasoning for this one?

---

"That doesn't hold up because the author of Luke, like the author of Matthew copied Mark verbatim and they both copied Q. If Matthew had first hand knowledge, he wouldn't need to copy them, he would have an independent story to tell. Scholars are confident that the disciple Matthew counldn't write or read Greek. You haven't given any credible reason for why their names were added to those gospels a century later. But you are right about the inner circle. That's exaclty why anyone wanting these gospels to carry authority over other competing theology and gospels, they would credit the author as someone in the inner circle. Each gospel clearly has its own particular theology or slant it is trying to impart to its intended audience"

You have not invalidated anything I said. Most of what you've done is repeat yourself, the rest is conjecture.

I've told you why it's unlikely that the authors of the gospels are not the individuals named. Most critical scholars accept that.


"You don't really know because there are no well preserved rival traitions, partly because they didn't win out. Gnosticism is an example of competing theology. The point is, if the Mexicans had not written their accounts, there would be no factual history, only the Texas legends would be presumed factual. Since orthodox christianity prevailed, their traditons and legends are presumed factual by the adherents. It requires critical thinking and textual scholars to glean what is likely fact and fiction."

Gnosticism is a different topic. Gnosticism is NOT a competing tradition regarding the authorship of the gospels.

I said it was a competing theology, to illustrate that there were differing views circulating in the early church that were competing for validity. Because there were competing theological ideas, people had their own agendas. The early church was not comprised of a homogenous group of believers, as much as you want to believe that.


You are still trying to fallaciously conclude the gospel authorship tradition is the same thing as the Alamo tradition. This is just a heavily flawed logical argument, one that you should drop.

You just don't want to understand or accept my analogy, which is valid. If no one was around to write and eyewitness account, the oral legends that were written down later would have erroneously become the historical fact.


"Knowing the history of oral traditions being embellished and changed over time, there is every reason to doubt the realability. There are contradictions between the gospels, so they all can't be right. There are historical errors. Not to mention extraordiany mythology of the stories themselves."

Again, you're applying conjecture and presumption to the gospels instead of actual evidence and proof.
So-called contradictions and historical errors can be resolved (as you will soon see).
Invalidating the gospels due to your preconceived bias against miracles is a logical fallacy.

You have to be kidding. Your whole belief is based in presumptions, conjecture, and supernatural powers. Christian mythology is no different than Greek mythology. Just a little more sophisticated.

"I think you would get push back from a lot of Christians on that statement. Otherwise you have more than one god. The doctrine of atonement is another example."

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a salvation dependent doctrine, therefore if any Christians push back, it will be for doctrinal matters, not salvation ones. Therefore, it would not be considered "essential" in that regard.

"There are numerous. Here are two historical differences. In Acts, when Paul went to Athens he left Timothy and Silas beind in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and met up with them later in after he left Athens and arrived in Corinth (18:5). In 1 Thessalonians, Paul clearly says Timothy was with him in Athens. From Athens Paul sent Tmothy back to Thessalonica (1Thess. 3:1-3)."

The Acts account says that Paul sent command for Timothy to come to him as soon as possible. It also said that Paul "waited for them" there in Athens. There's no reason the command wasn't obeyed, and so it's very plausible that Timothy WAS with Paul at Athens, but it wasn't expressly mentioned by Luke. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There isn't necessarily a conflict here.


I have to admit, I read the accounts in English, and that is exactly what it says. Acts says he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Galatians plainly says he didn't, and even specifically says why he chose not to go to Jerusalem. If you have a different language, or a different textual version that says different let me know. Until then, I'll believe my eyes.


"Another with historical and theologic implications is in Galations. In Galations 1:15-18, Paul states he did not go to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles after his conversion experience, demonstrating that his message was independent from the church and disciples in Jerusalem. Acts 9:10-30 says the opposeite. It says he went directly to Jerusalem and meets with the apostles. Clearly, the author of Luke had his own theological message he wanted to convey. "

There is no conflict here. I don't know what you're reading.
In Galatians, Paul says after conversion he went to Arabia then Damascus, then after three years went to Jerusalem.
In Acts, Luke says Paul, after his conversion, was in Damascus, then in Jerusalem. He gives no time frame. It agrees perfectly.

No it doesn't and you know it. The time frame and context in both is what he did next after his conversion. Galatians, which is what Paul wrote, says where he went, and why he didn't go to Jerusalem. Acts clearly says he went to Jerusalem next.

Further, 1 Corinthians and Galations demonstrate Paul's differing views on adhering to the law, from what is portrayed by the author of Acts.

You've given two weak, easily debunked arguments so far. Do I dare ask your reasoning for this one?

You have to debunk something before it is debunked. Ask if you want.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"No, just what's portrayed biblically."

Your standard of "better" is not biblically portrayed.

"No, because that's what govern's the universe."

Yes, by design. Our statements are not at odds, though you seem to believe that they are.

"Observation of reaiity tells us there are plausible, and much more probable, explanations for our universe, without requiring an unknown, un-located, behind the scenes wizard to explain anything."

Your plausible explanation for why the universe is the way it is involves an unfathomably, astronomically exquisite fine tuning that is beyond our ability to fully grasp, and to account for that you invoke the multiverse - an unknown, un-located, behind the scenes explanation that relies on faith.

"We've observed it comes from our brain. Where do you think it comes from?"

We have detected evidence of it from the brain. What it really is, or where it originates from exactly, no one really knows. I believe it comes from God, naturally.

"It's showing the unfathamable, statistical improbability, and implausibility of anything supernatural at work in the universe.

No, the unfathomable, statistical improbability of the universe is precisely what supports the universe being caused by something outside of energy, space, and time, i.e. supernatural. It's what is perpexing scientists to the point that they said things like these:

"Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

"The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

"Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

"Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

"This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

....and many others.


We have scientific plausible answers for the existence of our universe. There are far more scientists who are atheists or agnostics than religious, and more are abandoning religion than are embracing religion."

see above


"That's a religious statement that has no basis in what we objectively know about how the universe operates. You're trying to equate religious legend that has no objective emperical evidence, with what we know about the universe from scientific observation."

Again, we have objective historical evidence (which you've tried to, but failed to invalidate). Nothing you scientifically observe has, or is capable of, invalidating that statement. Rather, scientific discovery has only revealed more evidence of a designed universe.

---

Your standard of "better" is not biblically portrayed.

Your Bible is full of descriptions of a better afterlife in a place called heaven. Surely you've read your Bible.




Your plausible explanation for why the universe is the way it is involves an unfathomably, astronomically exquisite fine tuning that is beyond our ability to fully grasp, and to account for that you invoke the multiverse - an unknown, un-located, behind the scenes explanation that relies on faith.

No, you're invoking a god of the gaps faith. The laws that govern the universe are what they are, nothing more or less. To you it appears fine-tuned because you want to believe in a supernatural being who is looking out for you. If you rewound the clock and started over on planet earth it's likely that a different group of organisms would have evolved, and Homo sapiens wouldn't even exist. The only fine tuning that has occurred is that we have evolved to live under the conditions we find at this point in time on this planet. Our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the rest of the universe are all hostile to life. We are clearly an insignificant life form that has evolved under the temporary conditions we find in this remote part of the universe.



"We've observed it comes from our brain. Where do you think it comes from?"

We have detected evidence of it from the brain. What it really is, or where it originates from exactly, no one really knows. I believe it comes from God, naturally.

Ok, so when someone has irreparable brain injury, and they lose consciousness, and self-awareness, God lost the power to provide those functions for them??

There is a wealth of scientific evidence to refute that. Science tells us those are functions of the brain. Why do they lose identity upon brain injury, if God is giving it to them instead?



No, the unfathomable, statistical improbability of the universe is precisely what supports the universe being caused by something outside of energy, space, and time, i.e. supernatural. It's what is perpexing scientists to the point that they said things like these:

"Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

"The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

"Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

"Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

"This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

....and many others.

The majority of scientists are not believers in a god like you describe. There are a few exceptions. I'm not sure Stephen Hawking said that, but if he did, you have taken it out of context, which is disingenuous on your part. Hawking is abundantly on the record as an atheist.

"In Hawking's writings about the universe's origin, he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow posited in the 2010 book, "The Grand Design," that the big bang was inevitable.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the book states. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

In discussing the book, he told ABC News: "One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator."

Hawking's earlier best-selling cosmology book, "A Brief History of Time," also discussed black holes and the big bang. The 1988 book offered his "theory of everything" that understanding the universe offers a glimpse of "the mind of God."

He also explained throughout his life his thoughts on a possible afterlife, saying, "I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful." ~ The Washington Post



Again, we have objective historical evidence (which you've tried to, but failed to invalidate). Nothing you scientifically observe has, or is capable of, invalidating that statement. Rather, scientific discovery has only revealed more evidence of a designed universe.

You think it is so improbable that we have a universe without a creator. What is the probability that there is some unseen, unknown, creator hiding out there somewhere? Who created this creator? Where did they come from? Where do they reside? Where is any objective evidence of their existence or even the need for their existence?

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

Thanks for proving my point. Ability to act is not the same as consciousness, after all.

Do you consider dogs the equal of humans as beings?

What is your basis for that judgment?

Having said that, I believe in the spirit of animals which is mentioned in Scripture. God does not dwell on the spirit life of dogs, since the book was written to humans, who have more than enough trouble getting their own house in order.

"I've told you why it's unlikely that the authors of the gospels are not the individuals named. Most critical scholars accept that."

What you presented was conjecture and assumption, not proof. Your facts were even wrong. I have historical documentation to prove my claim. No, "most" New Testament scholars do not hold your view.


"I said it was a competing theology, to illustrate that there were differing views circulating in the early church that were competing for validity. Because there were competing theological ideas, people had their own agendas. The early church was not comprised of a homogenous group of believers, as much as you want to believe that."


Yes, you strayed from the point, which was gospel authorship, to which the fact remains there was no competing tradition.


"You just don't want to understand or accept my analogy, which is valid. If no one was around to write and eyewitness account, the oral legends that were written down later would have erroneously become the historical fact."

Your analogy is just an analogy. It doesn't make your argument. You have not shown that it applies to what happened with the gospels. To say that it does is pure speculation and assumption. It's like arguing thusly: a witness says you did NOT commit pedophilia; but because of the fact that there are no competing witnesses who say otherwise, then we can't say that the witness is telling the truth, thus the assumption can be made that you DID commit pedophilia. You wouldn't like that argumentation, would you? It is an asinine argument. Ask any logic professor or expert to help you understand this if you need to.


"You have to be kidding. Your whole belief is based in presumptions, conjecture, and supernatural powers. Christian mythology is no different than Greek mythology. Just a little more sophisticated."

So you admit your belief is no greater than that of the religious you criticize? This has been my point for a long time. Christianity is based on history, not mythology. It is also based on observational reality, as I have clearly explained.


"I have to admit, I read the accounts in English, and that is exactly what it says. Acts says he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Galatians plainly says he didn't, and even specifically says why he chose not to go to Jerusalem. If you have a different language, or a different textual version that says different let me know. Until then, I'll believe my eyes."

You have not invalidated or disproven the resolution I provided to your objection to the text. Simple as that. It's up to you if you want to treat the text honestly or not. English or no english.

So let me ask you - in Acts, it tells of how Paul's sight was restored by Ananias. In Galatians, Paul does not say anything about it. Does that make Luke's or Paul's account wrong? And further, are we to conclude that because of that, Luke and Paul didn't know each other? That is what you are arguing, and it's flat out ridiculous.


"No it doesn't and you know it. The time frame and context in both is what he did next after his conversion. Galatians, which is what Paul wrote, says where he went, and why he didn't go to Jerusalem. Acts clearly says he went to Jerusalem next."

All it says in Acts 9 is that Paul was doing things in Damascus, and then, "When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples". That just doesn't say that Jerusalem was the very NEXT thing he did after Damascus. "When" does not equal "next". I thought you said you read in English? You are reading into the text what you WANT it to say, simple as that. I can't help you here if you don't understand.


"You have to debunk something before it is debunked. Ask if you want."

An honest assessment would clearly indicate that I did.

"Your Bible is full of descriptions of a better afterlife in a place called heaven. Surely you've read your Bible."

Yes, but it is YOUR assertion that "better" is ONLY without suffering, which the bible most definitely does not teach.




"No, you're invoking a god of the gaps faith. The laws that govern the universe are what they are, nothing more or less. To you it appears fine-tuned because you want to believe in a supernatural being who is looking out for you."


Your beliefs are at odds with brilliant scientists:
"If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - David Deutsch, physicist


"If you rewound the clock and started over on planet earth it's likely that a different group of organisms would have evolved, and Homo sapiens wouldn't even exist. The only fine tuning that has occurred is that we have evolved to live under the conditions we find at this point in time on this planet.

Not if God would create the exact same thing.



"Our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the rest of the universe are all hostile to life.

Obviously, it isn't, given the abundance of it which exists here on Earth.


"Ok, so when someone has irreparable brain injury, and they lose consciousness, and self-awareness, God lost the power to provide those functions for them?? There is a wealth of scientific evidence to refute that. Science tells us those are functions of the brain. Why do they lose identity upon brain injury, if God is giving it to them instead?"


God gave us a soul, which is the seat of our consciousness and awareness. We can temporarily lose our sense of it according to what is happening physically with the brain (sleep, anesthesia, injury). But it isn't permanent with sleep and anesthesia and recoverable brain injury, and science can't tell us if it is permanently gone after irrecoverable brain injury or even death. Have you died and come back to tell us if that is so? The bible teaches of someone who has, and he says otherwise. And the bible is trustworthy and true for all the reasons I have been explaining. This means that consciousness and self-awareness are really outside of the brain.



"The majority of scientists are not believers in a god like you describe. There are a few exceptions. I'm not sure Stephen Hawking said that, but if he did, you have taken it out of context, which is disingenuous on your part. Hawking is abundantly on the record as an atheist."

So are these scientists who said these things being irrational?
Aren't these scientists suggesting it is reasonable to conclude intelligent design? If so, then what is YOUR objection?



"You think it is so improbable that we have a universe without a creator. What is the probability that there is some unseen, unknown, creator hiding out there somewhere? Who created this creator? Where did they come from? Where do they reside? Where is any objective evidence of their existence or even the need for their existence?"


This isn't a probability question. However, the probability of the improbable universe IS, as delineated by the world's top scientists.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Your Bible is full of descriptions of a better afterlife in a place called heaven. Surely you've read your Bible."

Yes, but it is YOUR assertion that "better" is ONLY without suffering, which the bible most definitely does not teach.
If what you say is true, then there would be no afterlife in heaven. We'd all be spending eternity suffering here on earth. By definition you're wrong.





"No, you're invoking a god of the gaps faith. The laws that govern the universe are what they are, nothing more or less. To you it appears fine-tuned because you want to believe in a supernatural being who is looking out for you."


Your beliefs are at odds with brilliant scientists:
"If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - David Deutsch, physicist

There any number of scientists who believe in some form of higher power. Many of those you're relying on don't believe in the same god you do. The fact is, virtually every survey of scientist, whether members of the National Academy of Sciences, or Pew surveys etc. indicate that the majority of scientists either are atheists or agnostics.

"Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)." https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

"Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death."
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33


"If you rewound the clock and started over on planet earth it's likely that a different group of organisms would have evolved, and Homo sapiens wouldn't even exist. The only fine tuning that has occurred is that we have evolved to live under the conditions we find at this point in time on this planet.

Not if God would create the exact same thing.
We have evidence of evolution and how it works. We have big goose egg for evidence of every god mankind has conjured up.



"Our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and the rest of the universe are all hostile to life.

Obviously, it isn't, given the abundance of it which exists here on Earth.
You do realize that life on this planet and anywhere else requires unique circumstance, is miniscule in comparison to the size of the universe, and will eventually succumb to the perils of the universe.


"Ok, so when someone has irreparable brain injury, and they lose consciousness, and self-awareness, God lost the power to provide those functions for them?? There is a wealth of scientific evidence to refute that. Science tells us those are functions of the brain. Why do they lose identity upon brain injury, if God is giving it to them instead?"


God gave us a soul, which is the seat of our consciousness and awareness. We can temporarily lose our sense of it according to what is happening physically with the brain (sleep, anesthesia, injury). But it isn't permanent with sleep and anesthesia and recoverable brain injury, and science can't tell us if it is permanently gone after irrecoverable brain injury or even death. Have you died and come back to tell us if that is so? The bible teaches of someone who has, and he says otherwise. And the bible is trustworthy and true for all the reasons I have been explaining. This means that consciousness and self-awareness are really outside of the brain.
You have absolutely no evidence of what you are claiming. There is no evidence of a soul or spirit. If what you say is true, then why does consciousness and awareness disappear with brain injury and not come back with irrecoverable injury? It's because they are tied to brain function, plain and simple. You injure the brain, you lose those functions, and only recover them to the extent the brain recovers.



"The majority of scientists are not believers in a god like you describe. There are a few exceptions. I'm not sure Stephen Hawking said that, but if he did, you have taken it out of context, which is disingenuous on your part. Hawking is abundantly on the record as an atheist."

So are these scientists who said these things being irrational?
Aren't these scientists suggesting it is reasonable to conclude intelligent design? If so, then what is YOUR objection?
They're in a minority, and hold on to those beliefs because they can't face their own mortality.
(See my previous answer above).


"You think it is so improbable that we have a universe without a creator. What is the probability that there is some unseen, unknown, creator hiding out there somewhere? Who created this creator? Where did they come from? Where do they reside? Where is any objective evidence of their existence or even the need for their existence?"


This isn't a probability question. However, the probability of the improbable universe IS, as delineated by the world's top scientists.
It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. You didn't answer my questions because you have no objective answers to them. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"I've told you why it's unlikely that the authors of the gospels are not the individuals named. Most critical scholars accept that."

What you presented was conjecture and assumption, not proof. Your facts were even wrong. I have historical documentation to prove my claim. No, "most" New Testament scholars do not hold your view.
Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming.


"I said it was a competing theology, to illustrate that there were differing views circulating in the early church that were competing for validity. Because there were competing theological ideas, people had their own agendas. The early church was not comprised of a homogenous group of believers, as much as you want to believe that."

Yes, you strayed from the point, which was gospel authorship, to which the fact remains there was no competing tradition.
There were many competing traditions in the early church. The very writings you rely upon address them. Why else was their even a need for the Councils of Nicaea?



"You just don't want to understand or accept my analogy, which is valid. If no one was around to write and eyewitness account, the oral legends that were written down later would have erroneously become the historical fact."

Your analogy is just an analogy. It doesn't make your argument. You have not shown that it applies to what happened with the gospels. To say that it does is pure speculation and assumption. It's like arguing thusly: a witness says you did NOT commit pedophilia; but because of the fact that there are no competing witnesses who say otherwise, then we can't say that the witness is telling the truth, thus the assumption can be made that you DID commit pedophilia. You wouldn't like that argumentation, would you? It is an asinine argument. Ask any logic professor or expert to help you understand this if you need to. Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption. No, it's saying that because someone heard from someone that you committed pedophilia, we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses. And that brings to mind another point. Your argument is that your god and you believe a child who is subjected to molestation is better off for it. There simply is no way for you to justify that.


"You have to be kidding. Your whole belief is based in presumptions, conjecture, and supernatural powers. Christian mythology is no different than Greek mythology. Just a little more sophisticated."

So you admit your belief is no greater than that of the religious you criticize? This has been my point for a long time. Christianity is based on history, not mythology. It is also based on observational reality, as I have clearly explained. I don't see how you get that I am admitting anything. Christianity is based upon primitive oral stories that are unproven, and supernatural. There are numerous conflicting and competing beliefs within the Christian community. There is no universal agreement within Christianity. That's why there are so many different sects claiming the divine truth. They all can't be right. I would say that is mythology. How do you know Zeus isn't real? Observational reality? Give me examples of objective testable observed evidence of the supernatural. You have none. I'll take evidence of reality that is testable and observable.


"I have to admit, I read the accounts in English, and that is exactly what it says. Acts says he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Galatians plainly says he didn't, and even specifically says why he chose not to go to Jerusalem. If you have a different language, or a different textual version that says different let me know. Until then, I'll believe my eyes."

You have not invalidated or disproven the resolution I provided to your objection to the text. Simple as that. It's up to you if you want to treat the text honestly or not. English or no english.

So let me ask you - in Acts, it tells of how Paul's sight was restored by Ananias. In Galatians, Paul does not say anything about it. Does that make Luke's or Paul's account wrong? And further, are we to conclude that because of that, Luke and Paul didn't know each other? That is what you are arguing, and it's flat out ridiculous. You're trying to deflect. What is ridiculous is for you not to recognize that in plane English or Greek, Luke's account of what Paul did - where he went - after is conversion is completely at odds with what Paul himself wrote.


"No it doesn't and you know it. The time frame and context in both is what he did next after his conversion. Galatians, which is what Paul wrote, says where he went, and why he didn't go to Jerusalem. Acts clearly says he went to Jerusalem next."

All it says in Acts 9 is that Paul was doing things in Damascus, and then, "When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples". That just doesn't say that Jerusalem was the very NEXT thing he did after Damascus. "When" does not equal "next". I thought you said you read in English? You are reading into the text what you WANT it to say, simple as that. I can't help you here if you don't understand.
Acts 9:19 "Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus". 9:26 "When he came to Jerusalem he tried to join the disciples, but they were afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple," 27. 'But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles."28 So Saul stayed with them." All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Galations 1:16 "my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17. I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. 18. Then after Three years , I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19. I saw none of the other apostles - only James, the Lord's brother. 20. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. "

Clearly the Paul and the author of Acts had differing versions for differing theological reasons relating to the Gentiles and the Jews.



"You have to debunk something before it is debunked. Ask if you want."

An honest assessment would clearly indicate that I did.
No. Even Catholic apologists recognize there is a question about the gospels being the work of the saints, and that is only tradition that links the saints to their gospels. They fall back on a cover all belief that whether the actual saint wrote word for word or someone else wrote it later it had to be by someone inspired by the Holy Spirit. catholicstraightanswers.com Which counts you out because you've already said you don't necessarily believe there is a Trinity.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

Quote:

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

---

Evidence

Quote:

---

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used.

My responses, to yours in order:

1. "...then there would be no afterlife in heaven" - You are making absolutely no sense. If what I'm saying is true, that you are wrong that the bible teaches that it is "better" to never have suffering before heaven (which was your claim), that somehow means we should suffer eternally and never have heaven? I think you really got lost in making a point here.


2. You're rebutting a point that wasn't made. No one is saying that most scientists are Christian. But many ARE, and many of the world's top scientists who aren't explicitly Christian are deists, or at least recognize the rationality behind the belief of there being an external, intelligent cause to the universe. These top scientists do no share your flippant, dismissive attitude regarding the extraordinary and mesmerizing fine-tuning of the universe, as many of their quotes indicate. Therefore, it is obvious that, counter to your assertions, scientific knowledge is not at odds with a belief in God. No, in fact, as these top scientists confirm, it points to it.


3. Yet, an oasis of abundant life still formed on this earth, and it still continues, and will continue for a long time. So it belies your assertion that this universe and earth is hostile to life. And, the bible actually teaches that our time on earth was not meant to be forever, that there WILL be an endpoint, when Jesus remakes heaven and earth anew. So your view of the temporariness of life on earth actually agrees with the bible.

4. Our minds, our consciousness, and self-awareness is evidence of a soul and spirit. Being that you and science have NO IDEA how to explain it materialistically, you are in no position to claim that it is not. Though there is definitely a relationship between the physical brain and consciousness/self-awareness, as injury/sleep/anesthesia shows, the conclusion can NOT be drawn that the mind is reducible to only the materialistic. Leading neuroscientists acknowledge there is a gap between consciousness and materialism that they are at a complete loss to bridge. Therefore, without a definitive materialistic explanation you have no basis upon which you can claim that consciousness/mind is wholly contained within the physical brain, and ends permanently with irreparable brain injury or death.

I, on the other hand, DO have evidence that the mind continues beyond the physical brain, and is therefore not contained by it - the historical testimony of Jesus, who taught us that our mind's existence continues after death, and the historical testimony of his resurrection, which proved it. And as I have shown, there is good, rational reasons to believe the authenticity, authority, and reliability of the gospel testimonies. This, alongside the scientific observations of the universe and life on earth, which has shown us the extreme, infinitesimal improbability of a chance-based, naturalistic explanation for their cause, a fact acknowledged by top scientists themselves, gives us MORE than enough rational reasons to believe.

5. "They're in a minority" - fallacy of the majority, or bandwagon fallacy. Majority, minority... irrelevant with regard to what's TRUE. "..and hold on to those beliefs because they can't face their own mortality." Pure assumption and speculation. Putting thoughts in their heads is about all you have.

6. The answer to your questions is that given that science has shown that the universe had a beginning, and that if it had a beginning, it necessarily had a cause, and that necessarily that cause must exist outside our dimension of space, time, matter and energy - then the probability is high that this "cause" or entity exists (God). In fact, it is necessary.

And because this cause must be timeless, it has no beginning, therefore the questions "where did he come from?" or "where does He reside?" are not logical. So of course there isn't going to be objective answers. Asserting that objective answers these questions must be known in order to validate a belief in God is an absurd, illogical view.

"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

Quote:

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

---

Evidence

Quote:

---

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used.

---

"Evidence" - let's hear it.

"You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used." - Naaah, the program instruction set was already made. You just hit the "run" button. You don't take credit from Bill Gates, so you can't take credit from God.

My responses, in order of yours:

1. "Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming."
Documentation of gospel authorship from someone who likely knew and heard from the apostles like John first hand based on good evidence, is much better than the evidence you have to the contrary, which is merely the conjecture and assumptions of Bart Ehrman nearly two millenia later.

2. Again, the discussion was concerning the gospel authorship tradition. You keep trying to redirect the point.

3. "Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption." - There is no speculation and assumption about what the early church fathers said about gospel authorship. However, the only things you've offered to counter that is pure speculation and assumption. "...we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses" We do- the gospels. We also have the writings of Paul which date within nearly a decade of Jesus' life, who closely associated with the first hand witnesses, and is therefore highly reliable. We have historical references to the authorship of the gospels, and there is no debate about who wrote Paul's letters.

4. Christianity is based on the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and who left home, family, and job to proclaim the truth of what they had witness, and did so at their peril, even suffering and getting executed for it. There is no doubt that Paul was the author of his letters, and that they date close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is also no doubt that he changed from wanting to destroy Christianity into becoming one of its most ardent defenders, being close associates with Jesus' apostles themselves. He even died for his belief. No one does this for what they know firsthand is a lie. It is clear that the followers of Jesus truly believed what they were proclaiming. Their testimony is reliable and authoritative. And we can be confident that we have their accurate testimony today. Whatever sects you may be referring to, invariably they lack authority because they are not traced to these firsthand witnesses.

5. No, they aren't at odds, for the perfectly good reason I explained. Apparently, you are just not very good in "plane" English! No, it's not a deflection. It is precisely illustrating the flaw in your reasoning. You are making an argument from absence/silence. Just like how Paul leaving out details concerning his blindness and how Ananias healed him in his letter to Galatians doesn't mean it didn't happen, the same thing applies to Luke and the details he leaves out in Acts.

6. "All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus." - Where does it say that? Galatians - Paul goes to Arabia, returns to Damascus and meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem and meets apostles. Acts - he is in Damascus (after returning from Arabia), meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem to meet apostles. These seem consistent..

7. I don't know what you're saying here and how it relates to Luke and Paul's authorship. I didn't say I didn't believe in the Trinity, I said it is not a salvation-dependent belief.

"Your argument is that your god and you believe a child who is subjected to molestation is better off for it. There simply is no way for you to justify that."

The argument is and always has been that if God allows evil to happen, then it is possible that God had good reasons for it, and therefore it would not be at odds with his omnipotence and love. You still have not logically falsified this. You have only asserted YOUR standard of what is "better" based on your limited perspective and understanding, just like how a child thinks he knows what is "better" over the parents.

It is possible that there is a "best" good that can only come by way of pain and suffering, and that is what God wants for us. Immediately gifting us that good while bypassing the process might not yield the same good, therefore it isn't the "best". The argument that God can change what is "best" to involve not having suffering is a logical error, because if God can change what is "best", then "best" doesn't exist. God being all-powerful does not mean He can perform nonsense logic. If you believe that's what all-powerful means, then your understanding of it is flawed. It would also be against His character, akin to saying, "if God is all-powerful, then He can commit sin".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My responses, to yours in order:

1. "...then there would be no afterlife in heaven" - You are making absolutely no sense. If what I'm saying is true, that you are wrong that the bible teaches that it is "better" to never have suffering before heaven (which was your claim), that somehow means we should suffer eternally and never have heaven? I think you really got lost in making a point here.


2. You're rebutting a point that wasn't made. No one is saying that most scientists are Christian. But many ARE, and many of the world's top scientists who aren't explicitly Christian are deists, or at least recognize the rationality behind the belief of there being an external, intelligent cause to the universe. These top scientists do no share your flippant, dismissive attitude regarding the extraordinary and mesmerizing fine-tuning of the universe, as many of their quotes indicate. Therefore, it is obvious that, counter to your assertions, scientific knowledge is not at odds with a belief in God. No, in fact, as these top scientists confirm, it points to it.


3. Yet, an oasis of abundant life still formed on this earth, and it still continues, and will continue for a long time. So it belies your assertion that this universe and earth is hostile to life. And, the bible actually teaches that our time on earth was not meant to be forever, that there WILL be an endpoint, when Jesus remakes heaven and earth anew. So your view of the temporariness of life on earth actually agrees with the bible.

4. Our minds, our consciousness, and self-awareness is evidence of a soul and spirit. Being that you and science have NO IDEA how to explain it materialistically, you are in no position to claim that it is not. Though there is definitely a relationship between the physical brain and consciousness/self-awareness, as injury/sleep/anesthesia shows, the conclusion can NOT be drawn that the mind is reducible to only the materialistic. Leading neuroscientists acknowledge there is a gap between consciousness and materialism that they are at a complete loss to bridge. Therefore, without a definitive materialistic explanation you have no basis upon which you can claim that consciousness/mind is wholly contained within the physical brain, and ends permanently with irreparable brain injury or death.

I, on the other hand, DO have evidence that the mind continues beyond the physical brain, and is therefore not contained by it - the historical testimony of Jesus, who taught us that our mind's existence continues after death, and the historical testimony of his resurrection, which proved it. And as I have shown, there is good, rational reasons to believe the authenticity, authority, and reliability of the gospel testimonies. This, alongside the scientific observations of the universe and life on earth, which has shown us the extreme, infinitesimal improbability of a chance-based, naturalistic explanation for their cause, a fact acknowledged by top scientists themselves, gives us MORE than enough rational reasons to believe.

5. "They're in a minority" - fallacy of the majority, or bandwagon fallacy. Majority, minority... irrelevant with regard to what's TRUE. "..and hold on to those beliefs because they can't face their own mortality." Pure assumption and speculation. Putting thoughts in their heads is about all you have.

6. The answer to your questions is that given that science has shown that the universe had a beginning, and that if it had a beginning, it necessarily had a cause, and that necessarily that cause must exist outside our dimension of space, time, matter and energy - then the probability is high that this "cause" or entity exists (God). In fact, it is necessary.

And because this cause must be timeless, it has no beginning, therefore the questions "where did he come from?" or "where does He reside?" are not logical. So of course there isn't going to be objective answers. Asserting that objective answers these questions must be known in order to validate a belief in God is an absurd, illogical view.

---

My responses, to yours in order:

1. "...then there would be no afterlife in heaven" - You are making absolutely no sense. If what I'm saying is true, that you are wrong that the bible teaches that it is "better" to never have suffering before heaven (which was your claim), that somehow means we should suffer eternally and never have heaven? I think you really got lost in making a point here.

That was not my claim. That is the narrative you want to make. What I've been saying, is your belief is illogical. If there is an all loving powerful god, there is no need for any suffering or even being here. He could just plop you down in heaven to begin with and avoid the suffering of this world, and you would be the same person, soul or spirit, whatever you believe, without having endured this life. Do you really believe that molested children are better off? Apparently a lot of clergy must believe that.


2. You're rebutting a point that wasn't made. No one is saying that most scientists are Christian. But many ARE, and many of the world's top scientists who aren't explicitly Christian are deists, or at least recognize the rationality behind the belief of there being an external, intelligent cause to the universe. These top scientists do no share your flippant, dismissive attitude regarding the extraordinary and mesmerizing fine-tuning of the universe, as many of their quotes indicate. Therefore, it is obvious that, counter to your assertions, scientific knowledge is not at odds with a belief in God. No, in fact, as these top scientists confirm, it points to it.

You're trying to imply most 'top' scientists believe in a deity, and that simply is not true. A minority don't believe, and even less believe in the Christian god.
They recognize there is no Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. There are far more top scientists who are atheist or agnostic, believe that science is at odds with belief in your type of god. And why do you suppose they are not Christians? Because they came to the same conclusion as Stephen Hawking. - "I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful." Stephen Hawking
Your top scientists believe because the want to believe, and they try to devise ways to rationalize their belief. Invoking any god as an explanation simply is not required to explain anything.

3. Yet, an oasis of abundant life still formed on this earth, and it still continues, and will continue for a long time. So it belies your assertion that this universe and earth is hostile to life. And, the bible actually teaches that our time on earth was not meant to be forever, that there WILL be an endpoint, when Jesus remakes heaven and earth anew. So your view of the temporariness of life on earth actually agrees with the bible.

Life does not exist ubiquitous in the universe because the environment is hostile, and given the size of the universe the sparsity of life attests to that. That doesn't mean that I don't believe there are other life forms, and even intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. Life is fragile, as evidenced by mass extinction events, and the resets of the direction of evolution in our own history. We're in a mass extinction event now, and there no doubt will be others in the future. The earth will come to an end, but not through your religious scenario.

4. Our minds, our consciousness, and self-awareness is evidence of a soul and spirit. Being that you and science have NO IDEA how to explain it materialistically, you are in no position to claim that it is not. Though there is definitely a relationship between the physical brain and consciousness/self-awareness, as injury/sleep/anesthesia shows, the conclusion can NOT be drawn that the mind is reducible to only the materialistic. Leading neuroscientists acknowledge there is a gap between consciousness and materialism that they are at a complete loss to bridge. Therefore, without a definitive materialistic explanation you have no basis upon which you can claim that consciousness/mind is wholly contained within the physical brain, and ends permanently with irreparable brain injury or death.

I have far more evidence than your opposing claim. It's clear that consciousness and awareness are products of the brain. That is simply indisputable. There is absolutely no reason to believe that any god is pulling strings behind the scenes. The task of science is to continue to chip away at the unknown. We're learning more and more about ourselves from a neurological standpoint. It is abundantly clear that when you irreparably damage the brain you can lose mental and physical functions, including consciousness and awareness. The degree of injury determines the degree of loss of those functions, ranging from partial to complete. If there is a soul, as you hypothesize, it would be dependent upon the brain for existence. And, what good would it do to have a soul if it isn't tied to a brain to give you awareness and consciousness? You would be asleep according to you.

I, on the other hand, DO have evidence that the mind continues beyond the physical brain, and is therefore not contained by it - the historical testimony of Jesus, who taught us that our mind's existence continues after death, and the historical testimony of his resurrection, which proved it. And as I have shown, there is good, rational reasons to believe the authenticity, authority, and reliability of the gospel testimonies. This, alongside the scientific observations of the universe and life on earth, which has shown us the extreme, infinitesimal improbability of a chance-based, naturalistic explanation for their cause, a fact acknowledged by top scientists themselves, gives us MORE than enough rational reasons to believe.
You haven't shown anything of the sort. The world and history is full of charlatans, imposters, and people whose legends were embellished and exalted to levels beyond that of their mortal existence. Christianity bears every mark of such. In fact it is completely irrational to believe any of the Christian legends. That is why Christians require faith. I'll grant you there is a vested interest of Christian apologists who have made a profession and racket out of trying to rationalize the irrational over the years.

5. "They're in a minority" - fallacy of the majority, or bandwagon fallacy. Majority, minority... irrelevant with regard to what's TRUE. "..and hold on to those beliefs because they can't face their own mortality." Pure assumption and speculation. Putting thoughts in their heads is about all you have.
You're the one who implied that so called Christian 'top' scientists are in the majority. Prove I'm wrong.

6. The answer to your questions is that given that science has shown that the universe had a beginning, and that if it had a beginning, it necessarily had a cause, and that necessarily that cause must exist outside our dimension of space, time, matter and energy - then the probability is high that this "cause" or entity exists (God). In fact, it is necessary.
There are several ideas or theories about possibility that the Big Bang is part of an oscillating universe that has no beginning. However, Quantum Mechanics gives us the best of answers, explaining how something can in fact come from nothing, without a causal agent. Spontaneous origin is the most likely reason we are here. It fits very well with the observations being made about the universe and its expansion. Your imagination just says God did it, without any evidence or mechanism for how he did it. Quantum Mechanics tells us God isn't needed.

And because this cause must be timeless, it has no beginning, therefore the questions "where did he come from?" or "where does He reside?" are not logical. So of course there isn't going to be objective answers. Asserting that objective answers these questions must be known in order to validate a belief in God is an absurd, illogical view. What you just described is nothing, therefore no god.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

---

"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

I've already answered this point, in the previous post above - that this is a minority viewpoint among some scientists who mostly come from engineering or mathematical backgrounds. However, I notice you continue to misrepresent out of context Stephen Hawking, who was an atheist. Not a single NASA scientist relies on god as opposed to science in exercising their work.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

Quote:

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

---

Evidence

Quote:

---

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used.

---

"Evidence" - let's hear it.

"You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used." - Naaah, the program instruction set was already made. You just hit the "run" button. You don't take credit from Bill Gates, so you can't take credit from God.

---

Again, and end product of the process of evolution.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My responses, in order of yours:

1. "Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming."
Documentation of gospel authorship from someone who likely knew and heard from the apostles like John first hand based on good evidence, is much better than the evidence you have to the contrary, which is merely the conjecture and assumptions of Bart Ehrman nearly two millenia later.

2. Again, the discussion was concerning the gospel authorship tradition. You keep trying to redirect the point.

3. "Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption." - There is no speculation and assumption about what the early church fathers said about gospel authorship. However, the only things you've offered to counter that is pure speculation and assumption. "...we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses" We do- the gospels. We also have the writings of Paul which date within nearly a decade of Jesus' life, who closely associated with the first hand witnesses, and is therefore highly reliable. We have historical references to the authorship of the gospels, and there is no debate about who wrote Paul's letters.

4. Christianity is based on the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and who left home, family, and job to proclaim the truth of what they had witness, and did so at their peril, even suffering and getting executed for it. There is no doubt that Paul was the author of his letters, and that they date close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is also no doubt that he changed from wanting to destroy Christianity into becoming one of its most ardent defenders, being close associates with Jesus' apostles themselves. He even died for his belief. No one does this for what they know firsthand is a lie. It is clear that the followers of Jesus truly believed what they were proclaiming. Their testimony is reliable and authoritative. And we can be confident that we have their accurate testimony today. Whatever sects you may be referring to, invariably they lack authority because they are not traced to these firsthand witnesses.

5. No, they aren't at odds, for the perfectly good reason I explained. Apparently, you are just not very good in "plane" English! No, it's not a deflection. It is precisely illustrating the flaw in your reasoning. You are making an argument from absence/silence. Just like how Paul leaving out details concerning his blindness and how Ananias healed him in his letter to Galatians doesn't mean it didn't happen, the same thing applies to Luke and the details he leaves out in Acts.

6. "All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus." - Where does it say that? Galatians - Paul goes to Arabia, returns to Damascus and meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem and meets apostles. Acts - he is in Damascus (after returning from Arabia), meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem to meet apostles. These seem consistent..

7. I don't know what you're saying here and how it relates to Luke and Paul's authorship. I didn't say I didn't believe in the Trinity, I said it is not a salvation-dependent belief.

---

My responses, in order of yours:

1. "Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming."
Documentation of gospel authorship from someone who likely knew and heard from the apostles like John first hand based on good evidence, is much better than the evidence you have to the contrary, which is merely the conjecture and assumptions of Bart Ehrman nearly two millenia later.

The Catholic Church and other institutions and scholars recognize that it is not likely the Gospels are authored by those whose names were added to them a century later.

2. Again, the discussion was concerning the gospel authorship tradition. You keep trying to redirect the point.


That 'tradition' was created by those with a theological agenda.

3. "Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption." - There is no speculation and assumption about what the early church fathers said about gospel authorship. However, the only things you've offered to counter that is pure speculation and assumption. "...we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses" We do- the gospels. We also have the writings of Paul which date within nearly a decade of Jesus' life, who closely associated with the first hand witnesses, and is therefore highly reliable. We have historical references to the authorship of the gospels, and there is no debate about who wrote Paul's letters.

As I recall scholars recognize Paul clearly is the author of seven of the letters, and the remaining six are not authored by him. Similar to the Gospels.

4. Christianity is based on the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and who left home, family, and job to proclaim the truth of what they had witness, and did so at their peril, even suffering and getting executed for it. There is no doubt that Paul was the author of his letters, and that they date close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is also no doubt that he changed from wanting to destroy Christianity into becoming one of its most ardent defenders, being close associates with Jesus' apostles themselves. He even died for his belief. No one does this for what they know firsthand is a lie. It is clear that the followers of Jesus truly believed what they were proclaiming. Their testimony is reliable and authoritative. And we can be confident that we have their accurate testimony today. Whatever sects you may be referring to, invariably they lack authority because they are not traced to these firsthand witnesses.

Christianity is based upon oral, third hand at best, stories circulating at the end of the first century well into the second century. There is no original writing preserved of any of the gospels. We all know what happens with retelling of oral stories. Paul's letters weren't based upon the Gospels. They came later. Paul's letters, the ones he actually wrote, did come earlier than the Gospels, and the purpose in terms of content and subject matter are different.

5. No, they aren't at odds, for the perfectly good reason I explained. Apparently, you are just not very good in "plane" English! No, it's not a deflection. It is precisely illustrating the flaw in your reasoning. You are making an argument from absence/silence. Just like how Paul leaving out details concerning his blindness and how Ananias healed him in his letter to Galatians doesn't mean it didn't happen, the same thing applies to Luke and the details he leaves out in Acts.

I quoted to you the differences in plain English. You should be able to comprehend the differences in the sequences of where he went and why he went.

6. "All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus." - Where does it say that? Galatians - Paul goes to Arabia, returns to Damascus and meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem and meets apostles. Acts - he is in Damascus (after returning from Arabia), meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem to meet apostles. These seem consistent..
I'm glad you recognize he didn't go to Jerusalem in Galatians after his conversion, and he tells you why he didn't go there first. Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem after going to Arabia. It says he went to Jerusalem, for the opposite reason expressed in Galatians. They are plain and simple in contradiction.

7. I don't know what you're saying here and how it relates to Luke and Paul's authorship. I didn't say I didn't believe in the Trinity, I said it is not a salvation-dependent belief.

Why put it in the Nicene Creed if it is not important to Christianity? I guess you believe Mormons don't have salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Your argument is that your god and you believe a child who is subjected to molestation is better off for it. There simply is no way for you to justify that."

The argument is and always has been that if God allows evil to happen, then it is possible that God had good reasons for it, and therefore it would not be at odds with his omnipotence and love. You still have not logically falsified this. You have only asserted YOUR standard of what is "better" based on your limited perspective and understanding, just like how a child thinks he knows what is "better" over the parents.

It is possible that there is a "best" good that can only come by way of pain and suffering, and that is what God wants for us. Immediately gifting us that good while bypassing the process might not yield the same good, therefore it isn't the "best". The argument that God can change what is "best" to involve not having suffering is a logical error, because if God can change what is "best", then "best" doesn't exist. God being all-powerful does not mean He can perform nonsense logic. If you believe that's what all-powerful means, then your understanding of it is flawed. It would also be against His character, akin to saying, "if God is all-powerful, then He can commit sin".

---

What you're saying is illogical and not rational, but a convoluted attempt to justify your belief. If your god is all powerful and all loving, he would not have created a place of pain and suffering, created and inserted you into it, just so you can get to a better place where there is no suffering. He could have/would have skipped the pain and suffering and inserted you into heaven to begin with. To do otherwise means he is either not all loving or not all powerful. That is logic. What you argue is nonsense.

TS is trying very hard to convince himself. Not so well at addressing what Dusty actually wrote.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying very hard to convince himself. Not so well at addressing what Dusty actually wrote.

---

^^^ Translate = I've addressed everything he wrote, more than adequately.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying very hard to convince himself. Not so well at addressing what Dusty actually wrote.

---

^^^ Translate = I've addressed everything he wrote, more than adequately.

---

You posted 'translate' when the accurate word is 'fiction'.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying very hard to convince himself. Not so well at addressing what Dusty actually wrote.

---

^^^ Translate = I've addressed everything he wrote, more than adequately.

---

You posted 'translate' when the accurate word is 'fiction'.

---

Fiction is your bible.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS is trying very hard to convince himself. Not so well at addressing what Dusty actually wrote.

---

^^^ Translate = I've addressed everything he wrote, more than adequately.

---

You posted 'translate' when the accurate word is 'fiction'.

---

Fiction is your bible.

---

Allow me to disagree.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My responses, in order of yours:

1. "Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming."
Documentation of gospel authorship from someone who likely knew and heard from the apostles like John first hand based on good evidence, is much better than the evidence you have to the contrary, which is merely the conjecture and assumptions of Bart Ehrman nearly two millenia later.

2. Again, the discussion was concerning the gospel authorship tradition. You keep trying to redirect the point.

3. "Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption." - There is no speculation and assumption about what the early church fathers said about gospel authorship. However, the only things you've offered to counter that is pure speculation and assumption. "...we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses" We do- the gospels. We also have the writings of Paul which date within nearly a decade of Jesus' life, who closely associated with the first hand witnesses, and is therefore highly reliable. We have historical references to the authorship of the gospels, and there is no debate about who wrote Paul's letters.

4. Christianity is based on the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and who left home, family, and job to proclaim the truth of what they had witness, and did so at their peril, even suffering and getting executed for it. There is no doubt that Paul was the author of his letters, and that they date close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is also no doubt that he changed from wanting to destroy Christianity into becoming one of its most ardent defenders, being close associates with Jesus' apostles themselves. He even died for his belief. No one does this for what they know firsthand is a lie. It is clear that the followers of Jesus truly believed what they were proclaiming. Their testimony is reliable and authoritative. And we can be confident that we have their accurate testimony today. Whatever sects you may be referring to, invariably they lack authority because they are not traced to these firsthand witnesses.

5. No, they aren't at odds, for the perfectly good reason I explained. Apparently, you are just not very good in "plane" English! No, it's not a deflection. It is precisely illustrating the flaw in your reasoning. You are making an argument from absence/silence. Just like how Paul leaving out details concerning his blindness and how Ananias healed him in his letter to Galatians doesn't mean it didn't happen, the same thing applies to Luke and the details he leaves out in Acts.

6. "All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus." - Where does it say that? Galatians - Paul goes to Arabia, returns to Damascus and meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem and meets apostles. Acts - he is in Damascus (after returning from Arabia), meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem to meet apostles. These seem consistent..

7. I don't know what you're saying here and how it relates to Luke and Paul's authorship. I didn't say I didn't believe in the Trinity, I said it is not a salvation-dependent belief.

---

My responses, in order of yours:

1. "Your 'documentation" is suspect and doesn't prove anything you are claiming."
Documentation of gospel authorship from someone who likely knew and heard from the apostles like John first hand based on good evidence, is much better than the evidence you have to the contrary, which is merely the conjecture and assumptions of Bart Ehrman nearly two millenia later.

The Catholic Church and other institutions and scholars recognize that it is not likely the Gospels are authored by those whose names were added to them a century later.

2. Again, the discussion was concerning the gospel authorship tradition. You keep trying to redirect the point.


That 'tradition' was created by those with a theological agenda.

3. "Your whole belief is nothing more than pure speculation and assumption." - There is no speculation and assumption about what the early church fathers said about gospel authorship. However, the only things you've offered to counter that is pure speculation and assumption. "...we can't give it any weight unless we have first hand documented evidence from first hand eyewitnesses" We do- the gospels. We also have the writings of Paul which date within nearly a decade of Jesus' life, who closely associated with the first hand witnesses, and is therefore highly reliable. We have historical references to the authorship of the gospels, and there is no debate about who wrote Paul's letters.

As I recall scholars recognize Paul clearly is the author of seven of the letters, and the remaining six are not authored by him. Similar to the Gospels.

4. Christianity is based on the historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and who left home, family, and job to proclaim the truth of what they had witness, and did so at their peril, even suffering and getting executed for it. There is no doubt that Paul was the author of his letters, and that they date close to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. There is also no doubt that he changed from wanting to destroy Christianity into becoming one of its most ardent defenders, being close associates with Jesus' apostles themselves. He even died for his belief. No one does this for what they know firsthand is a lie. It is clear that the followers of Jesus truly believed what they were proclaiming. Their testimony is reliable and authoritative. And we can be confident that we have their accurate testimony today. Whatever sects you may be referring to, invariably they lack authority because they are not traced to these firsthand witnesses.

Christianity is based upon oral, third hand at best, stories circulating at the end of the first century well into the second century. There is no original writing preserved of any of the gospels. We all know what happens with retelling of oral stories. Paul's letters weren't based upon the Gospels. They came later. Paul's letters, the ones he actually wrote, did come earlier than the Gospels, and the purpose in terms of content and subject matter are different.

5. No, they aren't at odds, for the perfectly good reason I explained. Apparently, you are just not very good in "plane" English! No, it's not a deflection. It is precisely illustrating the flaw in your reasoning. You are making an argument from absence/silence. Just like how Paul leaving out details concerning his blindness and how Ananias healed him in his letter to Galatians doesn't mean it didn't happen, the same thing applies to Luke and the details he leaves out in Acts.

I quoted to you the differences in plain English. You should be able to comprehend the differences in the sequences of where he went and why he went.

6. "All of this was was a few days after his conversion on the road to Damascus." - Where does it say that? Galatians - Paul goes to Arabia, returns to Damascus and meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem and meets apostles. Acts - he is in Damascus (after returning from Arabia), meets disciples, then on to Jerusalem to meet apostles. These seem consistent..
I'm glad you recognize he didn't go to Jerusalem in Galatians after his conversion, and he tells you why he didn't go there first. Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem after going to Arabia. It says he went to Jerusalem, for the opposite reason expressed in Galatians. They are plain and simple in contradiction.

7. I don't know what you're saying here and how it relates to Luke and Paul's authorship. I didn't say I didn't believe in the Trinity, I said it is not a salvation-dependent belief.

Why put it in the Nicene Creed if it is not important to Christianity? I guess you believe Mormons don't have salvation.

---

"The Catholic Church and other institutions and scholars recognize that it is not likely the Gospels are authored by those whose names were added to them a century later."

I don't think Catholics believe this, but if they and other scholars do, it can only be due to the same kind of speculation and assumption that Bart Ehrman employs, rather than good evidence. On the other hand, believing that the gospels were written by those whose names are attached is based on good historical evidence as previously delineated.



"That 'tradition' was created by those with a theological agenda."

Or, the tradition was an accurate attestation to authorship. You simply have not refuted this. Your only argument is putting thoughts and motivations in others' heads. That is not a tenable argument. In fact, that is really terrible logic and argumentation.


"As I recall scholars recognize Paul clearly is the author of seven of the letters, and the remaining six are not authored by him. Similar to the Gospels."

And of the letters that you would agree Paul wrote, they were written within decades of Jesus' life and clearly indicate he was a close associate of Jesus' disciples, and that he preached a corroborating gospel to theirs, preaching a risen Jesus, having witnessed and encountered the risen Jesus himself, and to which he gave his life for. This is documented, authentic, and reliable first-hand witness which you denied Christianity has.


"Christianity is based upon oral, third hand at best, stories circulating at the end of the first century well into the second century. There is no original writing preserved of any of the gospels. We all know what happens with retelling of oral stories. Paul's letters weren't based upon the Gospels. They came later. Paul's letters, the ones he actually wrote, did come earlier than the Gospels, and the purpose in terms of content and subject matter are different."

Christianity is based on the written testimony of first hand witnesses of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. We have early, reliable attestations and a good, unbroken chain of evidence supporting that, as outlined previously. Saying "we all know what happens with retelling of oral stories" is not proof against this, it is merely speculation and assumption, which is pretty much the nature of all your objections. Simply put, you have failed to invalidate the fact that believers have very good reasons to believe in the authenticity and reliability of the gospels.

And it's good that you are validating the historical authenticity and reliability of Paul's witness. He corroborates the central point in all the gospels - the risen Jesus.



"I quoted to you the differences in plain English. You should be able to comprehend the differences in the sequences of where he went and why he went."

And in "plane" english, I explained how there can be consistency between the two sequences, but apparently you are not able to comprehend.



"I'm glad you recognize he didn't go to Jerusalem in Galatians after his conversion, and he tells you why he didn't go there first. Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem after going to Arabia. It says he went to Jerusalem, for the opposite reason expressed in Galatians. They are plain and simple in contradiction."


Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion, either. You are merely reading into the text in order to suit your beliefs. As to the "why" difference, I'm just not seeing any, and you never explained the nature of this difference.


"Why put it in the Nicene Creed if it is not important to Christianity? I guess you believe Mormons don't have salvation."


It's important for doctrinal matters, but not salvation. The thief on the cross was directly told by Jesus he was going to heaven, and it was solely because of his faith in Jesus. I highly, highly doubt it had anything to do with his belief about the Trinity.

Whether a Mormon has salvation or not depends on the exact same thing as it does for anyone else - who do they believe Jesus was and is, and do they put their faith solely in him.

"That was not my claim. That is the narrative you want to make. What I've been saying, is your belief is illogical. If there is an all loving powerful god, there is no need for any suffering or even being here. He could just plop you down in heaven to begin with and avoid the suffering of this world, and you would be the same person, soul or spirit, whatever you believe, without having endured this life. Do you really believe that molested children are better off? Apparently a lot of clergy must believe that."

Simply put, you have failed to logically refute that it is possible for a better, or best, good to come from allowing suffering, compared to not having any suffering at all.


"You're trying to imply most 'top' scientists believe in a deity, and that simply is not true. A minority don't believe, and even less believe in the Christian god."

I didn't imply that at all, you are again putting thoughts and intentions into people's minds for your argument.


"They recognize there is no Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. There are far more top scientists who are atheist or agnostic, believe that science is at odds with belief in your type of god. And why do you suppose they are not Christians? Because they came to the same conclusion as Stephen Hawking. - "I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful." Stephen Hawking
Your top scientists believe because the want to believe, and they try to devise ways to rationalize their belief. Invoking any god as an explanation simply is not required to explain anything."

I can also argue that YOUR scientists are rationalizing their beliefs. What you should be realizing is that what all this shows is that belief in a God is not a scientifically refutable position. Scientific knowledge does not preclude a belief in God. In fact, as many top scientists have acknowledged, it points to it.


"Life does not exist ubiquitous in the universe because the environment is hostile, and given the size of the universe the sparsity of life attests to that. That doesn't mean that I don't believe there are other life forms, and even intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. Life is fragile, as evidenced by mass extinction events, and the resets of the direction of evolution in our own history. We're in a mass extinction event now, and there no doubt will be others in the future."

As the top scientists have learned, the ONLY way ANY universe can exist to support life, is for all the universal constants and quantities to fall in the exquisitely fine-tuned range that our universe exists in. So in other words, virtually NO OTHER universe could theoretically have existed that could support the amount of life that we have in our universe. The odds are astronomically, infinitesimally small. So your argument is essentially meaningless. Virtually ANY conceivable universe would be "hostile to life". We just happen to find ourselves in a universe that does. So the question isn't why is our universe hostile to life, but rather, why did we end up with one that does allow life, against extraordinarily enormous, enormous odds? I truly believe God intended it this way, so that upon discovering that fact, it would be plainly obvious there was intent and purpose, i.e. a mind, behind it all. Unfortunately, there are none so blind as those who will not see.


"The earth will come to an end, but not through your religious scenario."

I put far more weight upon the one who died and came back, who told us that it will, rather than the assumptions of a feeble, limited, fallible mind.


"I have far more evidence than your opposing claim. It's clear that consciousness and awareness are products of the brain. That is simply indisputable."

Sorry, no, you have NO evidence that consciousness and awareness are ONLY products of the physical brain. The only way we can know whether it is or not is for someone to come back from the dead and tell and show us. We have that, based on the written historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one of them being the apostle Paul, who you affirmed as being a contemporary and associate of Jesus' own disciples, having written his testimony within decades of Jesus' life.


"There is absolutely no reason to believe that any god is pulling strings behind the scenes."

The reasons to believe are strong for all the reasons that I've discussed in this forum, and the plain fact is you have failed to invalidate any one of them. No matter how many times you repeat to yourself that there's no reason, it doesn't make it so.


"The task of science is to continue to chip away at the unknown. We're learning more and more about ourselves from a neurological standpoint. It is abundantly clear that when you irreparably damage the brain you can lose mental and physical functions, including consciousness and awareness. The degree of injury determines the degree of loss of those functions, ranging from partial to complete. If there is a soul, as you hypothesize, it would be dependent upon the brain for existence. And, what good would it do to have a soul if it isn't tied to a brain to give you awareness and consciousness? You would be asleep according to you."

Leading experts in the neurology fields acknowledge that they don't have any bridge between the gap that exists between biology and mind. Therefore, your assertion that the soul depends on the brain for existence is pure speculation. If I may speculate here a bit, it may be that a soul tied to a physical brain is subjected to the constraints of that physical brain while alive; thus injury, dysfunction, and sleep can disrupt our consciousness and self awareness temporarily. Once the soul is released from the physical brain upon death, we might be capable of much, much more now that the physical constraints are removed. If, however, the fact is that we do stay "asleep" after death, that may be the reason why Jesus says he is going to give those he resurrects from death a new body and new brain for our soul to be "awake" again- a brain that has far, far more capabilities than our previous one, including the ability to experience love, joy, and happiness. This is a hope based on faith in Jesus. And again, we have good reasons to have faith in Jesus for all the reasons put forth.


"You haven't shown anything of the sort. The world and history is full of charlatans, imposters, and people whose legends were embellished and exalted to levels beyond that of their mortal existence. Christianity bears every mark of such."

Your opinion that you failed to prove. That's the bottom line. It even ignores all the strong evidence to the contrary. This is just the belief that you have chosen.


"In fact it is completely irrational to believe any of the Christian legends. That is why Christians require faith. I'll grant you there is a vested interest of Christian apologists who have made a profession and racket out of trying to rationalize the irrational over the years."

I have given very strong, very rational reasons to believe them. Just because you reject them simply because you don't want to believe them, it doesn't make them irrational. Yes, it still requires faith, but faith is not founded on irrationality, it is founded on rationality. Everyone makes a leap of faith at some point. You do so, in your rejection of these beliefs in favor of embracing a belief that things happened, the odds against which are so improbable, so immensely and infinitesimally small, that it is unreasonable. Some might call THAT irrational. So what's the name of your religion?


"You're the one who implied that so called Christian 'top' scientists are in the majority. Prove I'm wrong."

I merely gave you examples of top scientists and their beliefs about the implications of the physics of this universe. You really have a bad habit of putting thoughts and motivations into other people's heads.

Why don't YOU prove that's what I implied, since that is your assertion?


"There are several ideas or theories about possibility that the Big Bang is part of an oscillating universe that has no beginning."

The oscillating theory of the universe was quashed by Hawking and Penrose's singularity model that pointed to a beginning. The problems with the oscillating theory include: 1) not having known physics to explain it, 2) the mean mass density of the universe is too small to generate the required gravitational force to halt expansion and reverse it towards contraction, 3) the thermodynamics of the oscillating model still point to a beginning.


"However, Quantum Mechanics gives us the best of answers, explaining how something can in fact come from nothing, without a causal agent. Spontaneous origin is the most likely reason we are here. It fits very well with the observations being made about the universe and its expansion. Your imagination just says God did it, without any evidence or mechanism for how he did it. Quantum Mechanics tells us God isn't needed."

Quantum cosmology doesn't give us any answers, it only deals with mathematical and imaginary abstractions rather than observable astronomy and physics. It deals with the physics of the universe at the earliest beginning when the universe was so tiny that it isn't known how gravity works. Thus, it has allowed theoretical physicists to play with the numbers. Physicists developed a wave function of the universe that might happen at the quantum level, that depends on quantum fluctuations which could produce a set of possible universes, one which could have been our own.

The problems with this universe wave theory in quantum cosmology are these:

1) It is still based on the singularity model understanding of the universe, thus there's still a singularity, thus a beginning that it doesn't account for. Thus, it is NOT showing that something came out of nothing. Oops.

2) It is math. Math doesn't cause things to come into existence. Math doesn't cause anything to happen, it is causally inert. It's a concept that exists in - yep, you guessed it - minds. In fact, one of the proponents of this very quantum cosmology that you're espousing, Alexander Vilenkin, even reflects on this fact, acknowledging that math indeed is a concept in the mind, so therefore he asks a rhetorical question - "Are we therefore saying that a mind predates the universe?" The other proponent of quantum cosmology, Stephen Hawking, said in his book A Brief History of Time - "What puts fire in the equations that gives us a universe to describe? The equations don't give us a universe to describe. Something else must do that." So even the proponents of quantum cosmology are acknowledging that they haven't really shown a non-causal origin of the universe.

3) To get the universal wave function in quantum cosmology that is needed to explain the origin of the universe, physicists need to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation. However, this equation yields an infinite number of solutions, therefore physicists have to consciously choose boundary constraints in this equation, with the purpose of ending up with a universe like ours!! So this only supports the idea of a mind behind a universe, i.e. intelligent design!!


"What you just described is nothing, therefore no god."

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

That would take several intelligent designers to create a machine to do what the human nose can do. I bet someone, intelligent, is already working on it.

---

Machines can identify chemicals, but I think conscious recognition of a quality of a sense is far away, yet.

---

Man can't make consciousness and never will. Consciousness needs a soul, and only God gives that.

---

But it is fun watching secularists try to define consciousness.

Much less quantify it.

---

Dogs have consciousness. Octopuses have consciouness. Where is their soul? Men and women are manmade with consciousness.

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

Quote:

---

How do you know they don't have a soul?

---

Evidence

Quote:

---

Men and women are "man-made"? Now there's a chicken or the egg situation, if I've ever heard one. Also implies intelligent design, btw.

---

You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used.

---

"Evidence" - let's hear it.

"You were man-made through intercourse. A fact and no intelligent design needed or used." - Naaah, the program instruction set was already made. You just hit the "run" button. You don't take credit from Bill Gates, so you can't take credit from God.

---

Again, and end product of the process of evolution.

---

What's the name of your religion?

Also, no evidence from you that animals don't have a soul, when you said there was "evidence"? Come on, we're waiting.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

---

"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

I've already answered this point, in the previous post above - that this is a minority viewpoint among some scientists who mostly come from engineering or mathematical backgrounds. However, I notice you continue to misrepresent out of context Stephen Hawking, who was an atheist. Not a single NASA scientist relies on god as opposed to science in exercising their work.

---

A lot of these scientists are astronomers, physicists, and astrophysicists, but nice try.

You can't rationalize out of this one. You're just gonna have to eat the fact that these top scientists show there to be rationality behind a belief in a God, based on scientific discovery about the universe. It clearly shows that scientific knowledge does not diverge away from a belief in God, but rather it points to it.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Your argument is that your god and you believe a child who is subjected to molestation is better off for it. There simply is no way for you to justify that."

The argument is and always has been that if God allows evil to happen, then it is possible that God had good reasons for it, and therefore it would not be at odds with his omnipotence and love. You still have not logically falsified this. You have only asserted YOUR standard of what is "better" based on your limited perspective and understanding, just like how a child thinks he knows what is "better" over the parents.

It is possible that there is a "best" good that can only come by way of pain and suffering, and that is what God wants for us. Immediately gifting us that good while bypassing the process might not yield the same good, therefore it isn't the "best". The argument that God can change what is "best" to involve not having suffering is a logical error, because if God can change what is "best", then "best" doesn't exist. God being all-powerful does not mean He can perform nonsense logic. If you believe that's what all-powerful means, then your understanding of it is flawed. It would also be against His character, akin to saying, "if God is all-powerful, then He can commit sin".

---

What you're saying is illogical and not rational, but a convoluted attempt to justify your belief. If your god is all powerful and all loving, he would not have created a place of pain and suffering, created and inserted you into it, just so you can get to a better place where there is no suffering. He could have/would have skipped the pain and suffering and inserted you into heaven to begin with. To do otherwise means he is either not all loving or not all powerful. That is logic. What you argue is nonsense.

---

There simply is no way around the fact that you have failed to logically refute the possibility that the "best" good can only come from allowing pain and suffering. Until then, all you are doing is repeating the same unproven premise based on the perspective of a limited and heavily biased mind. Calling it "nonsense" is a lot easier than having to refute.

"The Catholic Church and other institutions and scholars recognize that it is not likely the Gospels are authored by those whose names were added to them a century later."

I don't think Catholics believe this, but if they and other scholars do, it can only be due to the same kind of speculation and assumption that Bart Ehrman employs, rather than good evidence. On the other hand, believing that the gospels were written by those whose names are attached is based on good historical evidence as previously delineated.

How about the Baylor Religion Department. That's where I first learned about the Gospels and the six letters Paul didn't write. You're out of step with knowledgeable Catholic and Protestant scholars.

"That 'tradition' was created by those with a theological agenda."

Or, the tradition was an accurate attestation to authorship. You simply have not refuted this. Your only argument is putting thoughts and motivations in others' heads. That is not a tenable argument. In fact, that is really terrible logic and argumentation.

You certainly haven't proven authorship of anything, and only offer assertions as fact oral traditions.

"As I recall scholars recognize Paul clearly is the author of seven of the letters, and the remaining six are not authored by him. Similar to the Gospels."

And of the letters that you would agree Paul wrote, they were written within decades of Jesus' life and clearly indicate he was a close associate of Jesus' disciples, and that he preached a corroborating gospel to theirs, preaching a risen Jesus, having witnessed and encountered the risen Jesus himself, and to which he gave his life for. This is documented, authentic, and reliable first-hand witness which you denied Christianity has.

You continue to try to make false claims about what I have said or believe in an effort to strengthen your thin positions. Paul would be a firsthand witness to what he claims he experienced. Paul is not a firsthand witness to the life and teachings of Jesus.

I have no doubt that he was in contact with disciples, and more particularly spent time with James, the brother of Jesus. Paul's ideas of Christianity in terms of the Jewish Law and who Christianity is primarily for is for is not quite the same as the local Christian Jewish community. Paul preached his message to the gentiles without keeping the Jewish Law.

"Christianity is based upon oral, third hand at best, stories circulating at the end of the first century well into the second century. There is no original writing preserved of any of the gospels. We all know what happens with retelling of oral stories. Paul's letters weren't based upon the Gospels. They came later. Paul's letters, the ones he actually wrote, did come earlier than the Gospels, and the purpose in terms of content and subject matter are different."

Christianity is based on the written testimony of first hand witnesses of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. We have early, reliable attestations and a good, unbroken chain of evidence supporting that, as outlined previously. Saying "we all know what happens with retelling of oral stories" is not proof against this, it is merely speculation and assumption, which is pretty much the nature of all your objections. Simply put, you have failed to invalidate the fact that believers have very good reasons to believe in the authenticity and reliability of the gospels.

And it's good that you are validating the historical authenticity and reliability of Paul's witness. He corroborates the central point in all the gospels - the risen Jesus.


That's simply not true. You do not have written testimony by first hand witnesses, and you do not have an unbroken chain of anything. How can you call second century fragments of texts that not the same in all respects that are only copies of copies. You couldn't enter that into a court of law in this country as an unbroken chain of evidence. Everything else is hearsay. Paul's statements about the resurrection are a recitation of what he says he heard. He wasn't there.

"I quoted to you the differences in plain English. You should be able to comprehend the differences in the sequences of where he went and why he went."

And in "plane" english, I explained how there can be consistency between the two sequences, but apparently you are not able to comprehend.

There are numerous inconsistencies between the gospels. It's irrefutable. They simply don't say the same thing in many instances. Your speculations are nothing more than an effort to harmonize them, which creates your own version of an additional gospel.



"I'm glad you recognize he didn't go to Jerusalem in Galatians after his conversion, and he tells you why he didn't go there first. Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem after going to Arabia. It says he went to Jerusalem, for the opposite reason expressed in Galatians. They are plain and simple in contradiction."


Acts doesn't say he went to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion, either. You are merely reading into the text in order to suit your beliefs. As to the "why" difference, I'm just not seeing any, and you never explained the nature of this difference.

I'm following what it literally says. You're trying to harmonize what it says to create your own version of a different gospel.


"Why put it in the Nicene Creed if it is not important to Christianity? I guess you believe Mormons don't have salvation."

It's important for doctrinal matters, but not salvation. The thief on the cross was directly told by Jesus he was going to heaven, and it was solely because of his faith in Jesus. I highly, highly doubt it had anything to do with his belief about the Trinity.

Or Jesus death, because he wasn't dead yet. That's your problem. Christian doctrine is variable, situational, and dependent upon what you want to believe.

Whether a Mormon has salvation or not depends on the exact same thing as it does for anyone else - who do they believe Jesus was and is, and do they put their faith solely in him.
That's the problem, not all Christians agree on how to get to salvation. It's a man made concept subject to man's interpretation of the differing views and concepts.

"That was not my claim. That is the narrative you want to make. What I've been saying, is your belief is illogical. If there is an all loving powerful god, there is no need for any suffering or even being here. He could just plop you down in heaven to begin with and avoid the suffering of this world, and you would be the same person, soul or spirit, whatever you believe, without having endured this life. Do you really believe that molested children are better off? Apparently a lot of clergy must believe that."

Simply put, you have failed to logically refute that it is possible for a better, or best, good to come from allowing suffering, compared to not having any suffering at all.

Only if your god isn't all loving and/or all powerful. Otherwise, your argument is totally illogical. Keep trying to force that square peg in the round hole, if you want.



"They recognize there is no Judeo/Christian/Islamic god. There are far more top scientists who are atheist or agnostic, believe that science is at odds with belief in your type of god. And why do you suppose they are not Christians? Because they came to the same conclusion as Stephen Hawking. - "I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful." Stephen Hawking
Your top scientists believe because the want to believe, and they try to devise ways to rationalize their belief. Invoking any god as an explanation simply is not required to explain anything."

I can also argue that YOUR scientists are rationalizing their beliefs. What you should be realizing is that what all this shows is that belief in a God is not a scientifically refutable position. Scientific knowledge does not preclude a belief in God. In fact, as many top scientists have acknowledged, it points to it.

Most scientists rely on the evidence of reality and the fact that you don't need to invoke a god or gods to explain anything. You leave out an important point in your claims. Some scientists who believe in the possibility of a deity, don't believe it is the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god, or any other god. Your argument, if true, doesn't preclude that deity from being any of the other various manmade gods, nor even the infamous "Flying Spaghetti Monster."


"Life does not exist ubiquitous in the universe because the environment is hostile, and given the size of the universe the sparsity of life attests to that. That doesn't mean that I don't believe there are other life forms, and even intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. Life is fragile, as evidenced by mass extinction events, and the resets of the direction of evolution in our own history. We're in a mass extinction event now, and there no doubt will be others in the future."

As the top scientists have learned, the ONLY way ANY universe can exist to support life, is for all the universal constants and quantities to fall in the exquisitely fine-tuned range that our universe exists in. So in other words, virtually NO OTHER universe could theoretically have existed that could support the amount of life that we have in our universe. The odds are astronomically, infinitesimally small. So your argument is essentially meaningless. Virtually ANY conceivable universe would be "hostile to life". We just happen to find ourselves in a universe that does. So the question isn't why is our universe hostile to life, but rather, why did we end up with one that does allow life, against extraordinarily enormous, enormous odds? I truly believe God intended it this way, so that upon discovering that fact, it would be plainly obvious there was intent and purpose, i.e. a mind, behind it all. Unfortunately, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

That's not right at all. Science tells us it's entirely possible that there are other universes with different constants and laws that govern their existence and that could have different life forms. There is no reason to believe that there cannot be a universe with silica based life forms, or some other unknown element. In fact our universe is not perfect for longevity of life. IF omega were 1, and the total energy of the universe were zero, life could go on without limitation. However, we know that omega is about .3, the total energy of the universes is not quite zero, and that the energy in empty space will continue to cause accelerated expansion, which ultumately will not end well for life. Omega would be one in a perfect universe for life. This universe is hostile to life overall, but it is not surprising, given the size of the universe that there are some oasis scattered throughout the universe where conditions are temporarily right for the existence of life forms. Your question about why we ended up in a universe that allows life presupposes there is a purpose behind this universe. There is no evidence of any purpose behind this universe. A better question, is how we ended up with life in this universe, something science can answer and Christianity cannot.



"The earth will come to an end, but not through your religious scenario."

I put far more weight upon the one who died and came back, who told us that it will, rather than the assumptions of a feeble, limited, fallible mind.

Really? You're description of feeble, limited and fallible minds is exactly the mind of primitive first century iron age and earlier primitive people, who didn't even know the earth orbited the sun. Your primitive people invented many different religions and gods with outlandish and unbelievable tales to account for what their minds could not comprehend.


"I have far more evidence than your opposing claim. It's clear that consciousness and awareness are products of the brain. That is simply indisputable."

Sorry, no, you have NO evidence that consciousness and awareness are ONLY products of the physical brain. The only way we can know whether it is or not is for someone to come back from the dead and tell and show us. We have that, based on the written historical testimonies of those who witnessed the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one of them being the apostle Paul, who you affirmed as being a contemporary and associate of Jesus' own disciples, having written his testimony within decades of Jesus' life.

Your claim is based upon flimsy evidence, if you want to accept unbelievable claims as evidence. I've pointed out previously that absent brain function there is no consciousness and awareness, and partial brain damage can lead to partial or impaired consciousness and awareness. That is demonstrable and testable evidence. You have nothing that is demonstrable or testable. There is no credible evidence of mysticism behind consciousness. It's pretty clear that when your brain dies, your soul (consciousness and awareness) dies. Since dogs and cats have much more limited consciousness and awareness than Homo sapiens, does that mean their souls are smaller?


"There is absolutely no reason to believe that any god is pulling strings behind the scenes."

The reasons to believe are strong for all the reasons that I've discussed in this forum, and the plain fact is you have failed to invalidate any one of them. No matter how many times you repeat to yourself that there's no reason, it doesn't make it so.

I think it's more the other way around. I'm waiting for any empirical objective evidence you can produce to substantiate your mystic claims.


"The task of science is to continue to chip away at the unknown. We're learning more and more about ourselves from a neurological standpoint. It is abundantly clear that when you irreparably damage the brain you can lose mental and physical functions, including consciousness and awareness. The degree of injury determines the degree of loss of those functions, ranging from partial to complete. If there is a soul, as you hypothesize, it would be dependent upon the brain for existence. And, what good would it do to have a soul if it isn't tied to a brain to give you awareness and consciousness? You would be asleep according to you."

Leading experts in the neurology fields acknowledge that they don't have any bridge between the gap that exists between biology and mind. Therefore, your assertion that the soul depends on the brain for existence is pure speculation. If I may speculate here a bit, it may be that a soul tied to a physical brain is subjected to the constraints of that physical brain while alive; thus injury, dysfunction, and sleep can disrupt our consciousness and self awareness temporarily. Once the soul is released from the physical brain upon death, we might be capable of much, much more now that the physical constraints are removed.

Sure they do. Where is your soul?? What is it made of?? Your claims are all speculation with a hint of science fiction. Where is your evidence for a soul tied to a brain, and how is it tied? If it were true, then what you're saying is it is dependent upon the brain, which we know is temporal.


If, however, the fact is that we do stay "asleep" after death, that may be the reason why Jesus says he is going to give those he resurrects from death a new body and new brain for our soul to be "awake" again- a brain that has far, far more capabilities than our previous one, including the ability to experience love, joy, and happiness. This is a hope based on faith in Jesus. And again, we have good reasons to have faith in Jesus for all the reasons put forth.

Where do you think your soul came from? What is its origin? The process for your brain development started at conception. Where was your soul before that? And, again, if god is all powerful and all loving (stress all loving) why wouldn't he just start with the equivalent of a resurrected body and brain experiencing love, joy, and happiness ab initio. Otherwise he is not all loving or all powerful.



"You haven't shown anything of the sort. The world and history is full of charlatans, imposters, and people whose legends were embellished and exalted to levels beyond that of their mortal existence. Christianity bears every mark of such."

Your opinion that you failed to prove. That's the bottom line. It even ignores all the strong evidence to the contrary. This is just the belief that you have chosen.

You're the one making extraordinary claims with WEAK evidence, not me.


"In fact it is completely irrational to believe any of the Christian legends. That is why Christians require faith. I'll grant you there is a vested interest of Christian apologists who have made a profession and racket out of trying to rationalize the irrational over the years."

I have given very strong, very rational reasons to believe them. Just because you reject them simply because you don't want to believe them, it doesn't make them irrational. Yes, it still requires faith, but faith is not founded on irrationality, it is founded on rationality. Everyone makes a leap of faith at some point. You do so, in your rejection of these beliefs in favor of embracing a belief that things happened, the odds against which are so improbable, so immensely and infinitesimally small, that it is unreasonable. Some might call THAT irrational. So what's the name of your religion?

If what you say were true, no faith would be needed. The odds of a particular sperm uniting with particular egg in the chains of conceptions leading up to your conception is also infinitesimally small, yet probable. If something is probable, then at some point it may occur.


"However, Quantum Mechanics gives us the best of answers, explaining how something can in fact come from nothing, without a causal agent. Spontaneous origin is the most likely reason we are here. It fits very well with the observations being made about the universe and its expansion. Your imagination just says God did it, without any evidence or mechanism for how he did it. Quantum Mechanics tells us God isn't needed."

Quantum cosmology doesn't give us any answers, it only deals with mathematical and imaginary abstractions rather than observable astronomy and physics. It deals with the physics of the universe at the earliest beginning when the universe was so tiny that it isn't known how gravity works. Thus, it has allowed theoretical physicists to play with the numbers. Physicists developed a wave function of the universe that might happen at the quantum level, that depends on quantum fluctuations which could produce a set of possible universes, one which could have been our own.


The problems with this universe wave theory in quantum cosmology are these:

1) It is still based on the singularity model understanding of the universe, thus there's still a singularity, thus a beginning that it doesn't account for. Thus, it is NOT showing that something came out of nothing. Oops.

2) It is math. Math doesn't cause things to come into existence. Math doesn't cause anything to happen, it is causally inert. It's a concept that exists in - yep, you guessed it - minds. In fact, one of the proponents of this very quantum cosmology that you're espousing, Alexander Vilenkin, even reflects on this fact, acknowledging that math indeed is a concept in the mind, so therefore he asks a rhetorical question - "Are we therefore saying that a mind predates the universe?" The other proponent of quantum cosmology, Stephen Hawking, said in his book A Brief History of Time - "What puts fire in the equations that gives us a universe to describe? The equations don't give us a universe to describe. Something else must do that." So even the proponents of quantum cosmology are acknowledging that they haven't really shown a non-causal origin of the universe.

3) To get the universal wave function in quantum cosmology that is needed to explain the origin of the universe, physicists need to solve the Wheeler-Dewitt equation. However, this equation yields an infinite number of solutions, therefore physicists have to consciously choose boundary constraints in this equation, with the purpose of ending up with a universe like ours!! So this only supports the idea of a mind behind a universe, i.e. intelligent design!!

You're off in the weeds trying to impart opinions to people that they don't hold, and ignoring that we have very plausible mathematical explanations of a spontaneous universe without cause. Hawking, Guth and many others acknowledge that, including Vilenkin. You have no mathematical explanations for any of your mystical beliefs. Just mysticism.

TexasScientist said:

"Again, and end product of the process of evolution."

What's the name of your religion?

A nonsense question as you know I have no religion.

Also, no evidence from you that animals don't have a soul, when you said there was "evidence"? Come on, we're waiting.

I don't believe animals have souls and never said that. However, if what you believe is true, then animals would have souls also.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
TexasScientist said:
"It's probable that our universe exists the way it is. Plausible explanations have been given for its existence. The universe itself is testimony to the improbability of your god."

Once again, a view not shared by top scientists:


- "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely." - physicist David Deutsch

- "Somebody had to tune [the universe] very precisely," - Marek Demianski, a Polish cosmologist.

- "The odds against a universe like ours coming out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications" - Stephen Hawking

- "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule....A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics. . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question" - astronomer Fred Hoyle

- "Through my scientific work, I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as brute fact." - physicist Paul Davies

- "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the universe. The impression of design is overwhelming." - physicist Paul Davies

- "This is the most powerful evidence for the existence of God ever to come out of science." - Robert Jastrow, former Head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

I've already answered this point, in the previous post above - that this is a minority viewpoint among some scientists who mostly come from engineering or mathematical backgrounds. However, I notice you continue to misrepresent out of context Stephen Hawking, who was an atheist. Not a single NASA scientist relies on god as opposed to science in exercising their work.
A lot of these scientists are astronomers, physicists, and astrophysicists, but nice try.

You can't rationalize out of this one. You're just gonna have to eat the fact that these top scientists show there to be rationality behind a belief in a God, based on scientific discovery about the universe. It clearly shows that scientific knowledge does not diverge away from a belief in God, but rather it points to it.

What is evident is that some scientists, no matter how irrational, when considering their own mortality, want to believe in the irrational, and will devise ways to pseudo rationalize their belief in the irrational. But, just like you, when faced with difficult problems in life, they all rely upon scientific answers and solutions, as opposed to relying on mysticism.