Debating Roger's ideas

Do you have a citation for this? Thanks.
Al Leo

At the same time, you are not saying that the defendant is completely innocent. It could be that the defendant really did commit the murder, but you need to see evidence before you are convinced that the defendant is guilty.
The same applies to my position.

However under the law the person is completely innocent of this crime, because he or she has been determined innocent by the court.

Nonetheless we are not trying to convict God of a crime, We in your view are tried to establish the existence of God, but you claim that you cannot day that God exists because I have failed to prove this. That is because I thought we are talking about the nature of Reality and Methodological Naturalism.

If you want to put God on trial, then you need to accuse God of creating the universe. To be sure God would plead guilty, but for those what are skeptical of this, Let me try to give the evidence you demand to prove that God created the universe in a court of law.

First of all let me concede that no one saw God create the universe so there are no witnesses except God, Whose testimony is found in Genesis 1:1.

Second, let us say that God had a motive in creating the universe, because God loves the universe and humans who live in the universe. God had a motive.

Third, God has the opportunity to create the universe. God is the only Entity that stands outside of space and time, so God is the only Entity Who had the opportunity to create the universe.

Fourth, God had the means to create the universe, God is the only Entity Who is the Source of all Power, Truth, and Meaning, and thus is the only Entity Who could create the universe.

The evidence is overwhelming. God created the universe ex nihilo. Either God did it or it did not happen. Science proves that it did happen. God did it.

If you want to claim that it (an idea) isn’t made of matter/energy then you need to show that this is the case. From what I have seen, ideas are physical as they are the product of a very physical brain.

Information may be the product of the mind which is in part physical, but it is not physical, because it does not meet the definition of being physical, which is being composed of matter/energy. This is a philosophical, scientific question, which must be determined by the rules of philosophy and science, rather than what we want to be true.

Learning information and communicating information is cone by encoding, sending, and decoding this information. The research being done on the mind helps us to understand the relational nature of information, which is not composed of matter/energy.

Emotions like love are the product of our physical brains.

You are way behind the times. Love is a relationship, which is structured and lasting, rather than an emotion, that is based on the endocrine system. The brain may be physical in part, but the mind which governs us is relational, based on theology, education, and experience, which are4 not physical.

Those are claims, not evidence.

This is testimony, which is always welcome in a court of law.

Posit all you want. What is important is the evidence that backs a theory.

Science is the evidence that the universe is a cosmos, not chaos. Science is based on the theory that the universe is rational and works. Now Dawkins, Dennett, and other New Atheists have tried to use quantum physics and other mind games to “prove” that the universe is not rational and does not work. I hope that you are not tricked into believing that this is true like at least one person with whom I have dialogued.

People for the most part believe their experience that life is good and meaningful. Science is based on experience, not speculation. This is the evidence of evolution.

That is wrong. People are found “not guilty” in a court of law.[quote=“Relates, post:22, topic:36058”]
If you want to put God on trial, then you need to accuse God of creating the universe. To be sure God would plead guilty, but for those what are skeptical of this, Let me try to give the evidence you demand to prove that God created the universe in a court of law.
[/quote]

I am putting you on trial. You are the one claiming that God exists. Therefore, it is up to you to provide evidence that supports this claim. It is called the burden of proof. That burden lies with the one making the positive claim.[quote=“Relates, post:22, topic:36058”]
First of all let me concede that no one saw God create the universe so there are no witnesses except God, Whose testimony is found in Genesis 1:1.
[/quote]

Let’s start there. Where is the evidence that Genesis 1 is God’s testimony?[quote=“Relates, post:22, topic:36058”]
Information may be the product of the mind which is in part physical, but it is not physical, because it does not meet the definition of being physical, which is being composed of matter/energy.
[/quote]

Again, those are just bare assertions. You need evidence to back up those assertions. If you want to claim that the mind is not composed of matter/energy, then you need to provide evidence that it is not composed of matter/energy.[quote=“Relates, post:22, topic:36058”]
You are way behind the times. Love is a relationship, which is structured and lasting, rather than an emotion, that is based on the endocrine system.
[/quote]

Again, you need evidence for these claims.[quote=“Relates, post:22, topic:36058”]
This is testimony, which is always welcome in a court of law.
[/quote]

Would you find a defendant guilty based on a single witness who said, “God told me the defendant is guilty”?

Hi Roger. I can’t help but wonder if I am the one person you think has ‘been tricked’. I have enjoyed this current dialog, and I find so many of your ideas appealing. (Also those in your book.). But I also find some ideas (e.g. Dawkin’s Selfish Gene) worthy of consideration which you consider totally appalling. I think we both would like to believe that, if evolution is God’s method of creating the variety of life we see on earth, its basic mechanisms should be compatible with the end result: humans who are at least capable of becoming his image bearers. I will grant you that the concept of the Selfish Gene seems to be in conflict with that view. I just wish there wasn’t so much evidence to support it.

In the recent issue of Science (6/9/17 p,1013) is an article titled: _“Poisons, antidotes, & Selfish Genes; Genes masquerade as essential to development to ensure their transmission.”_The evidence hinges on the genetic crosses of strains of C. elegans, Bristol and Hawaiian. The Bristol strain carries a gene sup-35, a larval poison, and also pya-1, its antidote. The Hawaiian strain carries neither. “This mechanism explains how Bristol chromosome III manages to readily invade the population in crosses between the two strains.” The article also states : “This scenario is consistent with the idea that selfish-gene dynamics may hold the key to the origins of new species.”

I’ve had no formal training in biology or genetics, and so I am no judge as to the dependability of the experiments (described in the Research Reports of this issue) or to the conclusions drawn from them, but they are somewhat disturbing to me and must be even more so to you. Perhaps some of the more qualified contributors to this Forum would care to comment.
Al Leo

@aleo

Thank you for the information.

In reading a condensation of this article it is clear that the “selfish genes” cited is not the Selfish Gene of Richard Dawkins which is every gene, but a specific family of parasite genes who use chemical warfare to defeat their rivals.

Parasites are thought of as negative actors in life, but many if not all do provide a valuable service in return for their parasitism. It is not clear from what I read what the situation is here, but if the alleles which do not have the parasitic genes do better than the others, the infected alleles would still not thrive. This is how ecological evolution works.

Genes thrive which make the ecology work and thus benefit all or almost all.

  1. This is a blog and not a formal debate or court of law.

  2. I find that people with your point of view want to fight over every aspect of this discussion, rather than accept many things as common knowledge

  3. This needs to be a search for truth and common ground, rather than determining who is the better debater. Ideology is not the basis for understanding.

  4. If you think that you have definition of the physical which is better than composed of matter/energy, please show how it is better and how it is related to dictionary definitions, please provide it so we can discuss it or any other aspect of this situation.

The case that I proposed to you, did God create the universe?, the evidence is quite clear. God alone had the motive, opportunity, and means/ability to do this. Case closed unless you have some evidence otherwise that has been overlooked.

Would you find a defendant guilty based on a single witness who said, “God told me the defendant is guilty”?

This is a non sequitur. I was not talking about what God told a third party about a defendant. God has not testified against defendants in the past, nor is their any reason to think God will in the future.

If so I am sure that God will follow the rules of testimony and make sure that his testimony can be validated by other evidence, just as the statement that God created the universe is sustained by scientific evidence of the Big Bang, even though is thousands of years after the fact.

I am merely discussing my position as an atheist. I am defining what I view as evidence and what I view as claims (i.e. assertions).

What I won’t do is accept things as “common knowledge” when they are actually “commonly held faith based beliefs”. My position is that I need to see verifiable and independent evidence before I will accept something as true. People may view my position as too strict or too impersonal, but it is my position nonetheless.[quote=“Relates, post:26, topic:36058”]
Would you find a defendant guilty based on a single witness who said, “God told me the defendant is guilty”?

This is a non sequitur. I was not talking about what God told a third party about a defendant. God has not testified against defendants in the past, nor is their any reason to think God will in the future.
[/quote]

What I was trying to do is contrast evidence with assertions. Evidence isn’t someone claiming that God told them something. That would be a claim. I think even you would agree with this.

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:27, topic:36058”]
My position is that I need to see verifiable and independent evidence before I will accept something as true.
[/quote

Please tell me what is your verifiable and independent evidence that indicates there is no God.

I don’t believe that there is no God, so why would I need evidence for a belief I don’t hold?

Then why do you say that you are an atheist?

Because I lack a positive belief in any deities.

To use another analogy, I don’t believe that Jimmy Hoffa is buried under Wrigley Field. However, I have no evidence that Jimmy Hoffa is not buried under Wrigley Field, so I simply stay open to the possibility.

Do believe that Jimmy Hoffa is dead?

If not, I would say that you are an agnostic.

If you do, you believe in something without independent verification.

I would be surprised if Jimmy Hoffa is still alive, since he would be 104 years old and didn’t seem like the healthiest person before his disappearance. I really don’t have a belief one way or the other.

As to the titles “atheist” and “agnostic” as it applies to beliefs in deities, they are not mutually exclusive. Agnostics can be atheists and atheists can be agnostics. Agnosticism deals with the ability to know if God exists, while atheism deals with belief in Gods. At the end of the day, a person is what they deem themselves to be, be it theist, atheist, or agnostic.

That made me smile. Sometimes we lose track of things, and those who have gone from our sight are fixed in our memory are forever young, at least until you see them again at your class reunion.

[quote=“T_aquaticus, post:33, topic:36058”]
I really don’t have a belief one way or the other.
[/quote]

Your statement indicates otherwise. True is no big thing, but still it shows that people live by faith and not by sight. We do not know that we will be alive tomorrow, but that is how we live.

At the end of the day, a person is what they deem themselves to be, be it theist, atheist, or agnostic.

It is true that humans determine what they believe, but most people think that it is a good idea to try to determine the truth. Of course if there is no truth as most New Atheist believe, then that is moot.

What faith are you talking about? I said that I don’t have a belief one way or another when it comes to Jimmy Hoffa.

You seem to be projecting your own views onto others.

There is a difference between the existence of truth and our ability to determine what that truth is. I think we can all agree that humans are flawed, so we should never take a dogmatic position of what the truth is. I don’t see why a bit of humility and tentativeness is a bad thing.

Well, let us see what it means to take the position that math is not true. Does that mean that I can write a check for any amount and my bank has to honor it because I do not agree that math is true?

I do not have a dogmatic view of truth. I have a relational view of truth. Truth is still truth, and even if I do not completely understand it or don’t like it, I live by it, unlike the President and his gang who act as if the Truth is what they want it to be.

Humility is acknowledging that we can know the truth, but we do not determine the truth. It is beyond ourselves.

If you can demonstrate that math is not true, then I would certainly be more open to the idea.[quote=“Relates, post:37, topic:36058”]
Humility is acknowledging that we can know the truth, but we do not determine the truth. It is beyond ourselves.
[/quote]

I would agree. Truth is independent of ourselves, and we shouldn’t forget that.

It looks like we agree. I am glad to see people from different points of view can agree. Thank you for a good dialogue.