God doesn't exist - Change my mind

Judaism

@YeshuaBought

you on here too? Remember me? We debated on 'eternal security.' Still waiting for some answers on that. Also, you might like a guy by the name of @Evidence.

YeshuaBought

@Judaism No hard feelings intended. DDO became too toxic for me, so I left. We can give it a go here as well if you like. Peace.

Erfisflat

poco said:

@Erfisflat

It seems as tho you & I were mixed up re our conversation a bit ago.  I evidently was addressing you back then.  Are you still interested with discussing/debating what was brought up?

I just read back a few posts and realized what you were referring to. Was this the conversation?

"Your, "So I looked into some of your ideas in the debate "is space real?" and I have a question. Can you show me that NASA is wrong about everything because I think that if the government is spending so much money on this, and if no one in half a century in the government has gone out and supported you claim it is most probably wrong."

Am i correct that this was directed at me?

Agility_Dude

@YeshuaBought I will watch the video you posted when I get the chance.

Erfisflat

Agility_Dude said:

@YeshuaBought I will watch the video you posted when I get the chance.

Have you been convinced? You now know the earth is flat. Do you believe there a great flood, as described in the Bible?

Agility_Dude

@Evidence I think that we need to reorganize the debate of evolution. The idea of evolution is based on two different factors, natural selection and random mutation. We need to first separate these debates to see if these are both possible and then we can talk about evolution. If we can conclude that one or both of these ideas are false, the whole idea behind evolution is destroyed and we can conclude that god is the most likely cause for this. This is the final debate. However, if we come to the conclusion of the god debate we need to talk about which god is the correct one. Members of two of the three dominating religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are present for this debate, and I have a Muslim friend who doesn't yet have an account but might be able to get an account and commit to debating this topic that I can bring in to represent Islam and I think would do a good job debating this topic.

The first idea is natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals best adapted to their environment will be the ones most likely able to pass on their genes. So for example, say we have a wolf chasing two bunnies. The one that is the slowest and least agile will be the one that is most likely eaten out of the two, so it will be the one that will be killed and unable to pass on it's genes. The fastest and most agile however will be more likely to be able to pass on its genes. This means that the individuals after the fastest and agile will be faster and agile than the slower and less agile individual before it. There are countless examples of this in so many situations involving strength, intelligence, cooperation, empathy, and more.

Next is random mutation. Random mutation is the idea that it is possible that an individual can develop genes that are not of the mother's and the father's, and in some cases, can even develop extra chromosomes. We can see this with people with mental disorders or people who have down's syndrome. If random mutation was not a real thing, people with mental disorders wouldn't exist because they would simply be bred into extinction.

If we can conclude that both natural selection and  random mutation are true, we can then go onto whether evolution as a whole is true, and then we can conclude that god is not the best possible explanation for the world, but if we can conclude that one or both of these ideas are false, we can conclude that god is the best possible explanation for the world and then we can talk about which god it would be, so that I can start practicing the religion that is most likely correct.

poco

@Erfisflat

Not the flat earth thing.

What was your purpose of the 1st link?  Religious doctrines?!?  Peer reviewed by whom ..... & for what?

Seems like you missed the "scholarly" & "reliable"" words b4 re peer.  That link was rather don't you think upon reflection?

poco

@Erfisflat

No, that,  "So I looked into some of your ideas in the debate "is space real?" comment was not from me.

Erfisflat

As the second link states, the "scientific study" was written by legitimate computer scientists as a joke, but to their surprise was accepted into a scholarly, peer reviewed publication called: International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology (IJACT)

http://www.ijact.org

It would have gone on to publication for just $150 more, showing quite obviously that peer review, at least in this instance, is a myth. In other instances it is entirely possible to say that “peers” hold preconceived biases, and give stamps of approval for anything that fits into currently accepted ideas, no matter their accuracy or truthfulness. Similar to how a politician would sign a bill without reading it, many publications are eager to fill their pages with alleged studies from supposedly reputable scientists, quality of substance is substituted with quantity.

Quick question, what would a scientist like myself, or you do to become a “peer”? If I typed up a scientific paper, would you be my “peer”, whereas you could point out inaccuracies or errors in any information therein? By definition, we are scientists. Here is a scientific paper that Evidence, you and myself did. Think you could peer review it?

http://scigen.csail.mit.edu/cgi-bin/scigen.cgi?seed=617&type=pdf&author=Erfisflat&author=Evidence&author=poco&

Actually a huge problem with peer review is a lack of transparency. The authors of these scientific studies have no proof that their paper was ever reviewed at all. No reviews are forcibly published, so we as the readers are just supposed to believe the review has happened. This is a faith based belief system, is it not?

Again I pose to you my question. If a scholarly peer reviewed study is found to be false with simple experimentation, how would you know it, if you're willing to ignore the demonstration?

@poco

Erfisflat

@poco maybe i should direct the response to @agilitydude then?

Erfisflat said:

poco said:

@Erfisflat

It seems as tho you & I were mixed up re our conversation a bit ago.  I evidently was addressing you back then.  Are you still interested with discussing/debating what was brought up?

I just read back a few posts and realized what you were referring to. Was this the conversation?

"Your, "So I looked into some of your ideas in the debate "is space real?" and I have a question. Can you show me that NASA is wrong about everything because I think that if the government is spending so much money on this, and if no one in half a century in the government has gone out and supported you claim it is most probably wrong."

Am i correct that this was directed at me?

Evidence

@poco said;  What is your organization called, & what are its precepts/mission type statement?  I read a little about the formal "The Way" folks, & agree that they seem to be interested more with changing people & preconceived notions re what a person has to do to be part of them.  Not cool.

Yes, that is what the Christian Religion is really about, all the tens of thousands of denominations take the responsibility of "saving your soul", and that they speak on behalf of God. So people who wonder into their church are quickly approached with those big smiles, given all the help brochures, and of course the tithing envelopes, and instructed on how you must humble yourself before god, which is really the church you just walked into.

They want to hear all your problems, which of course most people that wonder in there have plenty of, so they can all pray for you! Now imagine these ministers of Lucifer praying for you like those here praying over Trump, .. summoning the principalities and the powers of darkness over him and his leadership over our nation! May God help us!!




They will work on you till you break down, then once you spilled your guts, they own you.

It's never about them, the focus is always you. Question them, and you are questioning God himself, and this they back up by twisting Scripture and either you submit, or (again using scripture as their authority) you are to leave, and of course if you were brought up in that church, it will be you who is demonized, and even your family will shun you! Be marked as an outcast.

I have searched high and low, from coast to coast, and did not find even one Christian church Minister, or even one member who would be willing to give up their Christian Religion over the truth as presented In The Bible. Even after they admit that their interpretation is wrong, the only thing they will agree with you, is to disagree.

I wouldn't call my organization (Organized Religion) anything, it is a way of life, which is Christ. So like those mentioned in the N.T. .. I also am follower of the Way, .. again which is Christ.

Follower of 'The Way' to where?
To God.
Which God, and this is where I am, .. shunned by all, excommunicated, feared where my old church, including big family and church friends I grew up with are not allowed to even shake my hand, because I pointed out from Scripture that they worship a different god. The god of Christianity is NOT Bible God, the One in whose image we were created!

Luke 18:26 And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?” 
27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” 
28 Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.” 
29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Ephesians 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; (NOT three like Christians have it)
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is no mention of joining, or creating an organized Religion in the NT Bible. Ministers, Teachers, Pastors, members .. we all are to serve, to be servants to each other, which is anything but in any Organized Christian Religion, I don't care what they claim, they will never bow before Christ, or lead anyone near him let alone to him. Just like Martin Luthor, Zwingli, Tyndale, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon* (see video below)  and most recently Billy Graham, all their sermons sounded as if Angels from Heaven were speaking, but they all had one thing in common, to lead you to the god of this world. I am still stunned when I hear their preaching, because about 98% is true according to the Bible. (not todays New Age Prosperity preachers, those are obvious devils). I'm talking about those so called "forefathers" of the Christian Protestant movement.
I just ran across this, 



.. more hidden secrets coming to light!

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all, .. so where is God who is "in us all"?

Our mind/spirit is who we are, in a tent, a body made of dust which is to be the temple of our God, .. and if our mind/spirit/soul is corrupted with misinformation, like we have been by having the Globe Earth burnt into our memory, well the same with good people truly seeking God been taught that God is not one, but a Trinity, but still one, .. you know, that plural one, male/female or Baphomet! And that Jesus and his Apostles were Christians like what the RCC created 1,700 years ago. And those other Christian Denominations like the JW's and some others who deny the trinity-gods, .. still worship the Christian god, not the God of the Bible.

Hope that explains a little where I stand??

God bless you.

Evidence

YeshuaBought said:

@YeshuaBought - "The Case For Christ"

So you believe the Apostles were Christian? (time 55:18) can you show where Paul was a "first generation Christian"? When the mock word Christian was adapted by Constantine and the RCC in about 320AD, so how could of Paul been a Christian? 
Or that God could be killed, that He died, and was resurrected from the dead, .. referring to "Gods not dead", .. but according to Mr. Strobel, from what info he got from different Religious denominations is that God was dead for three days.
That "if you seen Christ, you see God", then I guess the Fiery Angel that appeared to Moses was God too! If you seen that Angel in Heaven, would you bow before him as if he was God?
Do you also believe that the shroud of Turin has the blood stains from Jesus Christ? Which would mean God is flesh and blood, like Joseph Smith!?
If Jesus is also the Father "I Am" as the movie claims, then who is sitting on Jesus left up there in Heaven? Who, would that be Father #2 ?
Can you show from Scripture where the Holy Spirit is claimed to be God?

Don't you see that this movie is no different than the Catholic Jesuits, 500 years ago putting Globes in all the schools to burn the idea into children's heads that we live on a globe, which makes Gods creation the earth just an insignificant speck in NASATAN's creation, where he supposedly has billions and trillions more like it, ..  as is the Trinity Doctrine created by the same Organized Religion that created the Big-Bang story!?

No One should go to different Religions and ask them questions to build a case for Christ. Jesus words, which as he said is what God himself taught him to say, .. as witnessed by his Apostles is enough, and has been enough to build a case for Christ for millions of people, for over 2,000 years. We don't need another "Religious perspective" on who Jesus was, or if he ever existed.

What Christians need, all 2.5 billion of them is to read the Bible as if for the first time, outside of the influence of Religion and their doctrines, and NOT a Religious perspective on Christ!

God bless you.

YeshuaBought

@Evidence Did I say they were Christian? Labels don't matter as long as you have Jesus.

Evidence

Agility_Dude said:

@Evidence I think that we need to reorganize the debate of evolution. The idea of evolution is based on two different factors, natural selection and random mutation. We need to first separate these debates to see if these are both possible and then we can talk about evolution. If we can conclude that one or both of these ideas are false, the whole idea behind evolution is destroyed and we can conclude that god is the most likely cause for this. This is the final debate. However, if we come to the conclusion of the god debate we need to talk about which god is the correct one. Members of two of the three dominating religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are present for this debate, and I have a Muslim friend who doesn't yet have an account but might be able to get an account and commit to debating this topic that I can bring in to represent Islam and I think would do a good job debating this topic.

The first idea is natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals best adapted to their environment will be the ones most likely able to pass on their genes. So for example, say we have a wolf chasing two bunnies. The one that is the slowest and least agile will be the one that is most likely eaten out of the two, so it will be the one that will be killed and unable to pass on it's genes. The fastest and most agile however will be more likely to be able to pass on its genes. This means that the individuals after the fastest and agile will be faster and agile than the slower and less agile individual before it. There are countless examples of this in so many situations involving strength, intelligence, cooperation, empathy, and more.

Next is random mutation. Random mutation is the idea that it is possible that an individual can develop genes that are not of the mother's and the father's, and in some cases, can even develop extra chromosomes. We can see this with people with mental disorders or people who have down's syndrome. If random mutation was not a real thing, people with mental disorders wouldn't exist because they would simply be bred into extinction.

If we can conclude that both natural selection and  random mutation are true, we can then go onto whether evolution as a whole is true, and then we can conclude that god is not the best possible explanation for the world, but if we can conclude that one or both of these ideas are false, we can conclude that god is the best possible explanation for the world and then we can talk about which god it would be, so that I can start practicing the religion that is most likely correct.

@Agility_Dude

No need to bring in Islam, unless your intention is to stir up trouble like Hebdo. Not that I'm afraid of Muslims, I grew up with them in Detroit, and I have friends Muslims from Bosnia, so I know EXACTLY how they think, and what can set them off, and debating Allah is on top of the list.
So tell me, are you here to stir up racial/Religious trouble?

The gods in Christianity are at least two more than the god in both Islam and Judaism, what is it you want to debate? My God is the God of the Bible, which you won't find in any of those religions. In Christianity, god is three, in Islam and Judaism, God didn't have a son, see, my God is neither of these.

Agility - The first idea is natural selection. This is the idea that the individuals best adapted to their environment will be the ones most likely able to pass on their genes. So for example, say we have a wolf chasing two bunnies.

OK, stop right there. it all evolved from amoeba, right? We have the wolf and two bunnies on the same continent, same sun, experienced and survived the same meteor showers over those millions of years, same ice age, same tectonic plate drifts, same trees, bushes same everything, right? OK, so please tell me why in the h*ll did those bunnies evolve for the same amount of millions of years to be food to feed the wolves?? Always hiding, always in fear and trembling!?

Why didn't the bunnies evolve porcupine needles which they could shoot from their sides as they ran past the wolves, killing them instantly, then run and do the Thumper on their bleeding, dying carcass? Huh, why?
Both from the same stock (amoeba), same millions and billions of years, same sun, same moon, same water to drink from, same tectonic plate movements, same everything, yet here is the wolf and there is the two fluffy, juicy bunnies, all screaming: "Eat Me!" ?? If evolution is as you say, or as they claim, survival the main key, how in the world did Mother Nature evolve such fluffy, tender and juicy creatures right there besides the wolves? What was she thinking? It doesn't make any sense? I would understand if the bunnies evolved in the clouds not having experienced danger which they could have passed down to their offspring, and they just fell from the sky like snowflakes as food for the Wolves, you know what I mean!? They get rain from the clouds for water, why not bunnies for food?

Agility - The one that is the slowest and least agile will be the one that is most likely eaten out of the two, so it will be the one that will be killed and unable to pass on it's genes. The fastest and most agile however will be more likely to be able to pass on its genes. This means that the individuals after the fastest and agile will be faster and agile than the slower and less agile individual before it. There are countless examples of this in so many situations involving strength, intelligence, cooperation, empathy, and more.

Oh come on, it all sounds nice ignoring the rest of reality. Evolutionists paint a nice picture to justify their imaginations, but agility and speed can be even more a danger for the bunny than being slower, and more careful. Here is a good example:




Besides, you forget that: That in the past 2.5 billion years, from amoeba to us humans, no human nor animal has ever evolved or speciated into another species, .. and not only that, Evolutionist say that if one animal would have ever changed/speciated/morphed into another species within its lifetime, that this would prove evolution false!

So how could evolution of one specific species into another happen? It didn't, and according to evolution it can't. So all animals live out their lives the same species as God created them.

OK, so what do Evolutionists claim changed one species into another? How does "evolution happen"? Here:



See! It's right there, a non-human skull over millions and billions of years evolved into a human skull! Now if you can believe that, you'd make a good Christian or a member of any Religious cult.

That about ends this debate on evolution don't you think? Unless you have an idea how natural selection was able to take that non-human skull and mutate/speciate it into the human skull, in the grave? Now that would be interesting to hear!?

Evidence

YeshuaBought said:

@Evidence Did I say they were Christian? Labels don't matter as long as you have Jesus.

@YeshuaBought
Labels tell me which "Jesus" they worship. You do know that actors, and all celebrities and most Christian Ministers secretly hold the name Jesus for Lucifer don't you? Labels, hand signs, symbolism in the church, it all matters, it shows who they really are and who they worship?



The foundation of the Christian Religion is the Trinity Doctrine, plural gods, and not the God of the Bible. There is no "doctrine of the trinity" in the Bible.

poco

@Erfisflat

I learned that the only research material accepted in many college courses were from scholarly peer reviewed research documents.  I'm sure there is exception to the rule, as you have pointed out, but one exception does not by any means prove anything.  It's still the same requirement in colleges across the world.  If one uses a reference as you gave in the example, they would have received a failing grade.  I'm sure that "scholarly, peer reviewed" research papers are still the absolute go to for citing work, & will be forever. 

A "peer" is considered an actual peer by being an expert in the same discipline as the writer of the paper wishing to be read & critiqued.  I think this answers both of your questions.  If not, please let me know.

As far as, "Am i correct that this was directed at me?" question, I don't know if this particular question was directed to you, bc I did not write the question.  But that was one of the statements that I was thought to be the author.  I think it's about time to move on from that mystery, & ask relevant questions ..... if there are any.

poco

@Evidence

@poco said;  What is your organization called, & what are its precepts/mission type statement?  I read a little about the formal "The Way" folks, & agree that they seem to be interested more with changing people & preconceived notions re what a person has to do to be part of them.  Not cool.

You ;  Yes, that is what the Christian Religion is really about, all the tens of thousands of denominations take the responsibility of "saving your soul", and that they speak on behalf of God. So people who wonder into their church are quickly approached with those big smiles, given all the help brochures, and of course the tithing envelopes, and instructed on how you must humble yourself before god, which is really the church you just walked into.

Me:  I'm not sure what churches you have been to, but not all of them, or even a majority of the ones I have been to in my life, are as you describe.  It sounds as tho you may be a bit prejudiced against any organized church ..... probably from past experiences, but I assure you, not many are like that as long as you do some research online b4 venturing into that church for listen to a service.  Even if they give you some literature when you 1st enter, it's usually only about that particular day's sermon subject.

You:  They want to hear all your problems, which of course most people that wonder in there have plenty of, so they can all pray for you! Now imagine these ministers of Lucifer praying for you like those here praying over Trump, .. summoning the principalities and the powers of darkness over him and his leadership over our nation! May God help us!!

Me:  Same thing here.  Some may offer help IF YOU REQUEST, but never are pushy.  Why are you so sure these ministers are working for Lucifer?  Please be specific.

You:  They will work on you till you break down, then once you spilled your guts, they own you.

It's never about them, the focus is always you. Question them, and you are questioning God himself, and this they back up by twisting Scripture and either you submit, or (again using scripture as their authority) you are to leave, and of course if you were brought up in that church, it will be you who is demonized, and even your family will shun you! Be marked as an outcast.

I have searched high and low, from coast to coast, and did not find even one Christian church Minister, or even one member who would be willing to give up their Christian Religion over the truth as presented In The Bible. Even after they admit that their interpretation is wrong, the only thing they will agree with you, is to disagree.

Me:From what you have written here, it certainly seems as tho either you haven't been into the right church, or you are so tainted against them, you r preconceived beliefs about them are so strong that you cannot see anything but what your prejudices tell you.  I say this not as a dig at you, but from personal experience.

You:  I wouldn't call my organization (Organized Religion) anything, it is a way of life, which is Christ. So like those mentioned in the N.T. .. I also am follower of the Way, .. again which is Christ.

Follower of 'The Way' to where?
To God.
Which God, and this is where I am, .. shunned by all, excommunicated, feared where my old church, including big family and church friends I grew up with are not allowed to even shake my hand, because I pointed out from Scripture that they worship a different god. The god of Christianity is NOT Bible God, the One in whose image we were created!

Me:  & you're mot part of "The Way" that can be found on the internet right?

You:  Luke 18:26 And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?” 
27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” 
28 Then Peter said, “See, we have left all and followed You.” 
29 So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, 30 who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Ephesians 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called,
2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love,
3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; (NOT three like Christians have it)
6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

There is no mention of joining, or creating an organized Religion in the NT Bible. Ministers, Teachers, Pastors, members .. we all are to serve, to be servants to each other, which is anything but in any Organized Christian Religion, I don't care what they claim, they will never bow before Christ, or lead anyone near him let alone to him. Just like Martin Luthor, Zwingli, Tyndale, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon* (see video below)  and most recently Billy Graham, all their sermons sounded as if Angels from Heaven were speaking, but they all had one thing in common, to lead you to the god of this world. I am still stunned when I hear their preaching, because about 98% is true according to the Bible. (not todays New Age Prosperity preachers, those are obvious devils). I'm talking about those so called "forefathers" of the Christian Protestant movement.

Me:  That's true re a 'church," altho there is much in the NT about belonging to, & worshiping with, others s a group.

As far as not leading anyone to Christ ..... wow, you've certaily been hurt by one or more ministers.  I say once again, Do not let that influence your future pursuit of someone that can help you out with your walk in Jesus.  As they say re finding relationships that most have failed, you may just be looking in all the wrong places/circumstances. 

Have you ever heard Andy Stanley talk? 

I just ran across this,

You:  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all, .. so where is God who is "in us all"?

Our mind/spirit is who we are, in a tent, a body made of dust which is to be the temple of our God, .. and if our mind/spirit/soul is corrupted with misinformation,

Me:  that's why having a good understanding of the message from the bible is necessary to use as a filter to assess a church/minister.

You:  like we have been by having the Globe Earth burnt into our memory, well the same with good people truly seeking God been taught that God is not one, but a Trinity, but still one, .. you know, that plural one, male/female or Baphomet! And that Jesus and his Apostles were Christians like what the RCC created 1,700 years ago. And those other Christian Denominations like the JW's and some others who deny the trinity-gods, .. still worship the Christian god, not the God of the Bible.

Me:  See, you've already done some homework eliminating some of the offshoots that claim to be true, but really have added elements of their own for their own personal narrative of the bible's message to us.  So, those you leave alone.  But, to get riled up, & be uber focused on the ones you do not feel is right for you, takes away from the beauty of Jesus' teachings doesn't it?  Why not just focus on the good stuff, & lock the others away?

You:  Hope that explains a little where I stand??

Me:  I still a little puzzled re your last sentence of, "still worship the Christian god, not the God of the Bible."  It seems as tho you recognize the Trinity, but why differentiate between the Christian God, & the God of the bible?

God bless you.

Thanx, & to you.

Erfisflat

@poco
"I learned that the only research material accepted in many college courses were from scholarly peer reviewed research documents."

Of course, the "learning institutions" only allow approved materials for research, are you still in college? Are you allowed to state facts like "water always finds a flat and level surface"? This demonstrable fact contradicts a lot of scholarly peer reviewed studies, I'm sure, but a fact it remains. So if there was a video on youtube demonstrating that a body of water, say, 60 miles, was flat and level from shore to shore, and this contradicted a scholarly peer reviewed study, what would you say?

 "I'm sure there is exception to the rule, as you have pointed out, but one exception does not by any means prove anything."

 Ok, this scholarly peer reviewed paper somehow got published with the phrase in brackets "should we site the crappy Gabor paper here?"
Retractionwatch has a story here:

https://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/11/overly-honest-references-should-we-cite-the-crappy-gabor-paper-here/

What's curious is that the publisher claims the oversight was added sometime after peer review and before publication, which begs the question, what is actually being peered reviewed? The finished paper just before publication, or can the writers just get their papers reviewed and change it to what they see fit before publication? 

This is just two questionable instances of peer review haphazardness. Retractionwatch reported that different Elsevier journals had reviews from fake reviewers. Another instance where a Korean scientist managed to review his own paper is included. 

" It's still the same requirement in colleges across the world.  If one uses a reference as you gave in the example, they would have received a failing grade.  I'm sure that "scholarly, peer reviewed" research papers are still the absolute go to for citing work, & will be forever."

This is the very meaning of pseudoscience, as it completely assumes the scientific method is being followed, even in cases where it clearly isn't. I'm sure this is mandatory for colleges, but as for real scientists in real life, empirical observations trump any study, I'm sure you can agree. Is this why you appear to be ignoring my question? Let me ask a 3rd time.

 If a scholarly peer reviewed study is found to be false with simple experimentation, how would you know it, if you're willing to ignore the demonstration?

"A "peer" is considered an actual peer by being an expert in the same discipline as the writer of the paper wishing to be read & critiqued.  I think this answers both of your questions.  If not, please let me know."

No. See above. Would you consider yourself my peer? If so, could you critique a video study for me? You are in a debate forum, and should, in all honesty, address all relevant points.

As far as, "Am i correct that this was directed at me?" question, I don't know if this particular question was directed to you, bc I did not write the question.  But that was one of the statements that I was thought to be the author.  I think it's about time to move on from that mystery, & ask relevant questions ..... if there are any.

Agreed, @agilitydude seems to have dropped our conversation.

Erfisflat

@poco in philosophy, this is known as the blind loyalty fallacy. In science, when you can demonstrate something with experimentation or everyday observations, this is natural science, not theoretical science. In your pseudoscientific world, you rely purely on man's word as ultimate truth. We both know that humans err. We both know that humans lie. Finding one or two people that agree with a scientist doesn't make it any more true.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, the Nuremberg Defense): The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a gravely corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth,  above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders."  See also, The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy. 

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Erfisflat

I'm thinking I've gone a little off topic. @Evidence, would this peer review point belong in science, after all the Bible does say to prove all things, does it not?

poco

@Erfisflat

You:  Of course, the "learning institutions" only allow approved materials for research, are you still in college? Are you allowed to state facts like "water always finds a flat and level surface"? This demonstrable fact contradicts a lot of scholarly peer reviewed studies, I'm sure, but a fact it remains. So if there was a video on youtube demonstrating that a body of water, say, 60 miles, was flat and level from shore to shore, and this contradicted a scholarly peer reviewed study, what would you say?

Me:  Not still in college, altho only a few years removed from it.

Problems with hypothetical problems as you pose .... they are just that, until proven true or false. 

Papers that have been proven false are discredited, & do not make it to the end of the scholarly reviewed period.

You tube videos can be manipulated to give the appearance of whatever the author wnts to "prove,"  So unless the video has been thoroughly reviewed by experts, I do not give them credence. 

 You:  "I'm sure there is exception to the rule, as you have pointed out, but one exception does not by any means prove anything."

Me:  Like all disciplines, there are dedicated people, & also not so much.  I'll still rely on experts in their field, rather than off the wall people that do not offer their findings to be reviewed by others, so it can be validated.

You can find exceptions to this & post them, but the process to check the validity of the work others do, is still the only way to find truth reliably.  If you find fault with this ...... We'll stay miles apart.

 You:  Ok, this scholarly peer reviewed paper somehow got published with the phrase in brackets "should we site the crappy Gabor paper here?"
Retractionwatch has a story here:

https://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/11/overly-honest-references-should-we-cite-the-crappy-gabor-paper-here/

What's curious is that the publisher claims the oversight was added sometime after peer review and before publication, which begs the question, what is actually being peered reviewed? The finished paper just before publication, or can the writers just get their papers reviewed and change it to what they see fit before publication? 

This is just two questionable instances of peer review haphazardness. Retractionwatch reported that different Elsevier journals had reviews from fake reviewers. Another instance where a Korean scientist managed to review his own paper is included. 

Me:  " It's still the same requirement in colleges across the world.  If one uses a reference as you gave in the example, they would have received a failing grade.  I'm sure that "scholarly, peer reviewed" research papers are still the absolute go to for citing work, & will be forever."

You:  This is the very meaning of pseudoscience, as it completely assumes the scientific method is being followed, even in cases where it clearly isn't. I'm sure this is mandatory for colleges, but as for real scientists in real life, empirical observations trump any study, I'm sure you can agree. Is this why you appear to be ignoring my question? Let me ask a 3rd time.

Me:  There is no respected scientific study that is published or thought to be worth anything, unless it's validated by others.  If others can not duplicate the findings under similar circumstances, the experiment failed, & not considered valid.  Been that way for centuries.

 You:  If a scholarly peer reviewed study is found to be false with simple experimentation, how would you know it, if you're willing to ignore the demonstration?

Me:  As long as that 'simple' experimentation' is monitored by experts, under strict conditions, then those findings should be published regardless of the outcome.  & others that duplicate the same will report their findings regardless .....

"A "peer" is considered an actual peer by being an expert in the same discipline as the writer of the paper wishing to be read & critiqued.  I think this answers both of your questions.  If not, please let me know."

You:  No. See above. Would you consider yourself my peer? If so, could you critique a video study for me? You are in a debate forum, and should, in all honesty, address all relevant points.

Me:  Not at all.  Remember a peer in this instance is said to be an expert in the same exact discipline.  I have no idea what your expertise is, & would not qualify anything unless I was sure.

Hasn't this line of discussion gone far enough?  I'll always defer to experts in any field of study after examining their findings to see that protocol was followed.

As far as, "Am i correct that this was directed at me?" question, I don't know if this particular question was directed to you, bc I did not write the question.  But that was one of the statements that I was thought to be the author.  I think it's about time to move on from that mystery, & ask relevant questions ..... if there are any.

Agreed, @agilitydude seems to have dropped our conversation.

poco

@Erfisflat

You:  in philosophy, this is known as the blind loyalty fallacy. In science, when you can demonstrate something with experimentation or everyday observations, this is natural science, not theoretical science. In your pseudoscientific world, you rely purely on man's word as ultimate truth. We both know that humans err. We both know that humans lie. Finding one or two people that agree with a scientist doesn't make it any more true.

Me:  Not at all.  Man's word along with expert observation & all the other testing that goes along with the findings of the original, & subsequent studies referring to whatever the subject matter was.  BTW, it never is only the, "Finding one or two people that agree with a scientist doesn't make it any more true."  It's usually a team researching, or many teams researching to validate or disprove whatever finding the original scientist has sought to prove.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, Unthinking Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, the Nuremberg Defense): The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) says it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a gravely corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth,  above one's own reason and above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders."  See also, The Big Brain/Little Brain Fallacy, and The "Soldiers' Honor" Fallacy.

Me:  Blind loyalty?!?  I imaging you are not familiar with the time & strict adherence to validating another one's work in the world of science. 

Once again, You're opinion is yours to follow, & I'll defer to the experts, & always be suspect to anyone that presents something that isn't actively willing to ask others to research their findings.  We can debate this forever, but not accomplish anymore than what we have.  We'll have to just agree to disagree I suppose. 

Agility_Dude

"No need to bring in Islam, unless your intention is to stir up trouble like Hebdo. Not that I'm afraid of Muslims, I grew up with them in Detroit, and I have friends Muslims from Bosnia, so I know EXACTLY how they think, and what can set them off, and debating Allah is on top of the list.
So tell me, are you here to stir up racial/Religious trouble?"

My friend who I was referring to is the only muslim I know, and from what I've seen, he's very open to discussion. We've had tons of debates on this topic and we're still close friends. Maybe other Muslims are dogmatic, I can't say but not my friend. My intent is that if evolution is false, which is a teaching in Christianity, Islam, and possibly Judaism (@Judaism I'm curious is evolution false in your religion), then the god that could be the one that exists is a very important discussion to have, especially because it might me heaven or hell in some cases. I'm not looking to stir up trouble with this, don't worry. I only aim to find out who is the true god or if there even is a god in this debate.

"The gods in Christianity are at least two more than the god in both Islam and Judaism, what is it you want to debate? My God is the God of the Bible, which you won't find in any of those religions. In Christianity, god is three, in Islam and Judaism, God didn't have a son, see, my God is neither of these."

That is, there are three parts to god. I actually am raised in a Catholic household and regularly go to church, so I am aware of the fundamentals of Christianity. The existence of Jesus and his story and purpose will be an important discussion to have down the road, so we can get to it if we can conclude that god exists, because the existence of Jesus doesn't prove the existence of god. Now if he did do everything it says in the bible, it would prove Christianity. But as of now I'm not even sure if Jesus existed. It doesn't seem to have much evidence to back it up and many accounts other than the ones in the bible.

OK, stop right there. it all evolved from amoeba, right? We have the wolf and two bunnies on the same continent, same sun, experienced and survived the same meteor showers over those millions of years, same ice age, same tectonic plate drifts, same trees, bushes same everything, right? OK, so please tell me why in the h*ll did those bunnies evolve for the same amount of millions of years to be food to feed the wolves?? Always hiding, always in fear and trembling!?

I keeps the balance. So let's say that the bunnies became omnivorous and 10 feet tall for a second, being much stronger than the wolves. The wolves would starve to death or get eaten, because they wouldn't have any food, then there would be no control of the rabbit population. The rabbits would overpopulate, eating all of the grass, then there would not be any grass left or it would become so scarce. The rabbits would then die and nothing would be left. We have observed humans be born with genetic mutations before (such as down's syndrome and autism), so we can both at least acknowledge that random mutation does happen. But it's very rare that we see extreme mutations such as people having only 1 arm, and most of the time the mutations aren't even beneficial. It's going to be extremely unlikely that a rabbit would evolve quick enough to be able to eat the wolves because it already specializes in eating grass. Do you have any idea how many modifications must be made to make the rabbit be able to get the wolf, kill it, eat the wolf, and process the nutrients to use in the body?

It's all about balance. As long as the rabbit population can sustain themselves, it's fine. That's why rabbits have a higher reproductive rate than wolves, to keep up with the demand of food from wolves. As long as 2 rabbits from every litter can survive, it's fine. If a rabbit's population spikes, more wolves can reproduce bringing the rabbit population down, bringing the wolf population down. Again the scenario you are describing is so unlikely because of what we have observed with random mutation. It almost seems like a straw man of evolution theory.

Why didn't the bunnies evolve porcupine needles which they could shoot from their sides as they ran past the wolves, killing them instantly, then run and do the Thumper on their bleeding, dying carcass? Huh, why?

Well why did the rabbits evolve specialized legs and feet? To run away from the wolves. Porcupines need needles because they have a lower reproductive rate so more individuals need to stay alive within a litter, and they have no other specializations that can help them, while other animals like rabbits do.

"Both from the same stock (amoeba), same millions and billions of years, same sun, same moon, same water to drink from, same tectonic plate movements, same everything, yet here is the wolf and there is the two fluffy, juicy bunnies, all screaming: "Eat Me!" ?? If evolution is as you say, or as they claim, survival the main key, how in the world did Mother Nature evolve such fluffy, tender and juicy creatures right there besides the wolves? What was she thinking? It doesn't make any sense? I would understand if the bunnies evolved in the clouds not having experienced danger which they could have passed down to their offspring, and they just fell from the sky like snowflakes as food for the Wolves, you know what I mean!? They get rain from the clouds for water, why not bunnies for food?"

This is assuming that the wolves were there before the bunnies were which is not true. At first it was a battle between all against all with microorganisms. Organisms became larger, and underwater plants started to evolve to take advantage of the sun. Then herbivores evolved to take advantage of the plants and carnivores evolved to take advantage of the herbivores, and in some cases apex predators evolved to take advantage of the lower carnivores (the wolf is an example of an apex predator). This isn't always how it works, sometimes what is referred to as the lower carnivores are actually apex predators such as in the wolf example, but you get the point. Now note that things at the top of the chain cannot reproduce faster than things lower down in the food chain or it destroys the balance as explained before.

"Oh come on, it all sounds nice ignoring the rest of reality. Evolutionists paint a nice picture to justify their imaginations, but agility and speed can be even more a danger for the bunny than being slower, and more careful. Here is a good example:"

This is actually a very anecdotal example of a danger of being fast and agile, or else rabbits would go extinct because they would constantly get severe head injuries making it more easy for predators and scavengers to kill the bunnies.

"Besides, you forget that: That in the past 2.5 billion years, from amoeba to us humans, no human nor animal has ever evolved or speciated into another species, .. and not only that, Evolutionist say that if one animal would have ever changed/speciated/morphed into another species within its lifetime, that this would prove evolution false!"

It could like in your example of you having you skin tone changed but it wouldn't pass on through genetic code because your changed skin tone doesn't change your genetic code.

"So how could evolution of one specific species into another happen? It didn't, and according to evolution it can't. So all animals live out their lives the same species as God created them."

It happens through random mutation when genes are passed on. It happens every time reproduction happens just sometimes large scale and sometimes very small scale. It usually hardly changes a species.

"OK, so what do Evolutionists claim changed one species into another? How does "evolution happen"? Here:"

Random mutation. I clicked on the link and saw nothing the the pic didn't say.

"See! It's right there, a non-human skull over millions and billions of years evolved into a human skull! Now if you can believe that, you'd make a good Christian or a member of any Religious cult."

That's what happens. Now throughout this entire rebuttal you don't say anything about random mutation which was one of the things I was really wanting to talk about and don't argue with it scientifically, rather rant about how absurd the idea sounds. Please let's keep this on the topic of whether or not random mutation could happen.

"That about ends this debate on evolution don't you think? Unless you have an idea how natural selection was able to take that non-human skull and mutate/speciate it into the human skull, in the grave? Now that would be interesting to hear!?"

Random mutation. I explained it in my last post. Of course it wouldn't happen through gen 1 - gen 2, but it would happen over millions of years, so at slowest according to evolution theory over 333,333 generations from this:



To this:


Not much change over a million years. And note that the first picture is of Homo Erectus, an already developed human. Now this chart I disagree with I think that homo Erectus was an ansestor to us according to the many sources I've read about this, but for a visual reference here:



Top third transition over 1 million years and about 33,333 generations assuming that every species reproduces at age thirty, and this is unlikely. Humans probably reproduced at around age 20 giving 50,000 generations to make the transition shown in the top third. Highly reasonable.

Judaism

@Agility_Dude

Yes, in my faith, Judaism, evolution of man happened. This is not some modern response to Darwinism, not by far, our sages spoke of it centuries ago, when Christians laughed and kept killing us for our so-called "stupidity." I don't know why your opponent says his NT god is different than mine? G-d has always been one, not three, but Jesus invented his new religion to be an "addition" to Judaism, same with the Quran. So I don't follow what he's trying to suggest.

Thanks for asking though, and if you want sources, give me a buzz on here.

YeshuaBought

@Judaism ;https://debateisland.com/discussion/2292/christians-cant-lose-their-salvation-change-my-mind#latest

Erfisflat

@Poco said
"Problems with hypothetical problems as you pose .... they are just that, until proven true or false."

What is hypothetical about flat water? Maybe you don't have access to a large body of water, but I do. Together we can calculate how much of a bulge of water that a spherical object that is 25,000 miles in circumference   must exhibit over that same 60 miles, we both confirm what that bulge should be hiding behind it. We now are at a crossroads:

 I could:

a) write a paper about it, pay to have the paper reviewed by some strangers and then later on when it is published (assuming it does) I could then link you the study. Or...

b) Take a picture or even better, a video proving that I was where I said I was, then you could see firsthand that the water was flat and does not exhibit the required curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Which would be more effective?

"Papers that have been proven false are discredited, & do not make it to the end of the scholarly reviewed period."

Actually, that is the main reason why there are papers that are retracted. So an article that you assumed was correct one day and form a belief system from are illegitimate and retracted tomorrow. Whereas you may be directed to a video on Youtube that shows a simple experiment that you can test for yourself as per the scientific method, thus eliminating the requirement to believe anyone. You can know something by examining the results empirically, which is much more effective and scientific.

"You tube videos can be manipulated to give the appearance of whatever the author (wants) to "prove,"  So unless the video has been thoroughly reviewed by experts, I do not give them credence."

What if the video is performed by multiple experts and a paper just isn't the most effective means to convey the information? I'm not saying the documentary hasn't been reviewed by experts, it more than likely has. But at least you give a stipulation to viewing videos. 

http://convexearth.org

These experts prove definitively what some scholarly peer reviewed articles assume, sometimes taking that assumption as a foundation for the study.

"Man's word along with expert observation & all the other testing that goes along with the findings of the original, & subsequent studies referring to whatever the subject matter was."

Either way, you're assuming that humans and how they interpret data, expert or not, is infallible which is illogical. What's worse is that there is hardly if any verifiable evidence to support the conclusions. Granted there are exceptions to the rule, but demonstrating a scientific standpoint supercedes expert opinions by far.

"  BTW, it never is only the, "Finding one or two people that agree with a scientist doesn't make it any more true."  It's usually a team researching, or many teams researching to validate or disprove whatever finding the original scientist has sought to prove."

Usually, except in the cases cited above, and probably more that haven't been discovered. Scientist Cyril Labbé found out that a large number of papers published by the IEEE and Springer in supposedly peer reviewed conference proceedings  were fake or duplicates. Given a few hundred more reasons aside from the several mentioned earlier, how can you rationally know fact from fiction if you only trust peer reviewed scholarly studies?

"There is no respected scientific study that is published or thought to be worth anything, unless it's validated by others.  If others can not duplicate the findings under similar circumstances, the experiment failed, & not considered valid.  Been that way for centuries."

So why not exclude the proverbial middle man and perform the experiments yourself (where applicable)?

"Not at all.  Remember a peer in this instance is said to be an expert in the same exact discipline.  I have no idea what your expertise is, & would not qualify anything unless I was sure."

Call me a Jack of all trades. My expertise is observing the world around me. Note how nowhere in the definition we find the words "scholarly peer review"

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

poco

@Erfisflat

"Problems with hypothetical problems as you pose .... they are just that, until proven true or false."

What is hypothetical about flat water?

You're referring to something literal, while I am talking about generalities re hypothetical problems.  I have no idea what you're referring to re 'flat water" if in fact you're serious about it.  As I stated b4, I addressed the OP re God, not flat water, or flt earth, or whatever. 

Maybe you don't have access to a large body of water, but I do. Together we can calculate how much of a bulge of water that a spherical object that is 25,000 miles in circumference   must exhibit over that same 60 miles, we both confirm what that bulge should be hiding behind it. We now are at a crossroads:

 I could:

a) write a paper about it, pay to have the paper reviewed by some strangers and then later on when it is published (assuming it does) I could then link you the study. Or...

Paying someone to review your findings only works if they are experts in that field.  & one review does not gain acceptance as peer reviewed in the scholarly world.  I think you have a skewed perception of what the purpose of a research paper is, & when papers are qualify for something that is deemed worthy of scientific review to be published ...... being worthwhile that is.

b) Take a picture or even better, a video proving that I was where I said I was, then you could see firsthand that the water was flat and does not exhibit the required curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference.

Pictures can be modified as you are aware of. 

Scientific research papers that have been reviewed by experts in that field that are deemed correct by experts would be much more convincing than a photograph that can be manipulated.

Which would be more effective?

"Papers that have been proven false are discredited, & do not make it to the end of the scholarly reviewed period."

Actually, that is the main reason why there are papers that are retracted. So an article that you assumed was correct one day and form a belief system from are illegitimate and retracted tomorrow. Whereas you may be directed to a video on Youtube that shows a simple experiment that you can test for yourself as per the scientific method, thus eliminating the requirement to believe anyone. You can know something by examining the results empirically, which is much more effective and scientific.

How many youtube videos created have been changed thru the video making process to seem like it's one thing, but in reality is something else? 

I really think you are mistaking a scholarly reviewed paper for something that does not have the same requirements in the scientific world.  Paying someone to review a paper by you is not the same as what I'm referring to.

"You tube videos can be manipulated to give the appearance of whatever the author (wants) to "prove,"  So unless the video has been thoroughly reviewed by experts, I do not give them credence."

What if the video is performed by multiple experts and a paper just isn't the most effective means to convey the information? I'm not saying the documentary hasn't been reviewed by experts, it more than likely has. But at least you give a stipulation to viewing videos.

If the video has been verified in the same manner as scientificly researched papers are, then it's pretty much the same as a research paper & considered valid.
http://convexearth.org

These experts prove definitively what some scholarly peer reviewed articles assume, sometimes taking that assumption as a foundation for the study.

"Man's word along with expert observation & all the other testing that goes along with the findings of the original, & subsequent studies referring to whatever the subject matter was."

Either way, you're assuming that humans and how they interpret data, expert or not, is infallible which is illogical. What's worse is that there is hardly if any verifiable evidence to support the conclusions. Granted there are exceptions to the rule, but demonstrating a scientific standpoint supercedes expert opinions by far.

Once again, I think you're not seeing what it takes to validate research. 

"  BTW, it never is only the, "Finding one or two people that agree with a scientist doesn't make it any more true."  It's usually a team researching, or many teams researching to validate or disprove whatever finding the original scientist has sought to prove."

Usually, except in the cases cited above, and probably more that haven't been discovered. Scientist Cyril Labbé found out that a large number of papers published by the IEEE and Springer in supposedly peer reviewed conference proceedings  were fake or duplicates. Given a few hundred more reasons aside from the several mentioned earlier, how can you rationally know fact from fiction if you only trust peer reviewed scholarly studies?

It's just that trusting something that has been validated by unbiased entities, surely garners more validity than an invalidated study.  Plain & simple. 

I think you're making this into something much more than it needs to be.  It's like you're stuck in 2nd gear unable to get into 3rd.

"There is no respected scientific study that is published or thought to be worth anything, unless it's validated by others.  If others can not duplicate the findings under similar circumstances, the experiment failed, & not considered valid.  Been that way for centuries."

So why not exclude the proverbial middle man and perform the experiments yourself (where applicable)? 

Bc I'm no expert & have no means to be considered an expert ..... especially w/o the equipment needed.

"Not at all.  Remember a peer in this instance is said to be an expert in the same exact discipline.  I have no idea what your expertise is, & would not qualify anything unless I was sure."

Call me a Jack of all trades. My expertise is observing the world around me. Note how nowhere in the definition we find the words "scholarly peer review"

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

"Systematic," is the key word.  Any new discovery has always needed outside validation.  That's part of the 'system.'

As I stated b4, let's get off of this particular subject, & agree to disagree bc it's growing tiresome saying the same thing over & over again.  I am not a flat earther, or even close to it.  If you're trying to prove the earth is flat, then show some studies whereas it makes sense, & I'll listen.

But please get off this "peer reviewed" subject bc you'll never convince me that something in science is more valid when there's some video that's not been studied, over research that's been reviewed by unbiased experts in that fiild of study.  It seems as tho you really are not familiar of what it takes to have something validated in the scientific field ....... so, let's move on .... for the last time OK?

Agility_Dude

@Evidence just making sure you get my post. I forgot to put @Evidence on my post it's the last post I put.

Mr_Bombastic

@PyromanGaming

Some simple facts. The universe is a physical construct. Nothing physical can create itself. It violates the law of causality, which is the basis of all scientific investigation. Since the universe cannot create itself, what does that leave us with?

Agility_Dude

@Mr_Bombastic:

This is my new account (PyromanGaming's) that I am using. If you are going to stick around to address my points, use @Agility_Dude from now on. This doesn't prove god. Let's use the example of the big bang for a second (I am questioning the big bang after debating with ErfIsFlat about flat earth theory however, but that shouldn't discredit my point). This is such a hard question to answer, understanding the creation of the universe, to the point that we have no idea where to begin, but there are some things we can know. As far as we know, matter cannot be created or destroyed and same with energy, but in the energy case it can be transferred. Of course infinity is a mathematically impossible concept, so it has to have been created. How was it created is the question you are asking. I don't know and we can never know at this point. There could be a natural process, there could be aliens, or it could very well be Yahweh or Allah or the Jewish god (when I look it up the name of the Jewish god I get a little bit confused). So the question is what is it. What do I think that it is and why?

I believe that it is a natural process, something that I cannot prove, but I can demonstrate it on a smaller scale. The process of evolution is a small scale example where we can observe that we don't need a god to change a species. Note, many of these religions say that we and every other species have been created exactly or almost exactly as we are, so the existence of evolution discredits all of these "holy" books. Secondly in order to make a theory you need to have the least number of assumptions made possible in order to make it so that it is most likely true. Evolution, a natural process does not require any divine being to intervene so assuming that one did would be less likely than not assuming that one did because you need to make the least number of assumptions possible. We can apply this to the universe. If natural processes can manipulate a species over billions of years from a microbe to us, natural processes can probably create the universe as it is.

Mr_Bombastic

@Agility_Dude

Scripture tells us that everyone is born with an awareness of God. I believe this to be true. It's a sad fact that the vast majority of people reject Him.

They do so because of pride. They love their sin more than their Creator.

Scripture also tells us that God will reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

So, my question for you is this.

If God exists, would you surrender your pride, ask Him to forgive you, give up control of your life and follow Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?

It is not a matter of belief. It is all about obedience.

The evidence is out there. It is compelling.

All you need to is ask God to forgive you. You could do it right now. It is the simplest thing to do, but also the hardest. Because you must submit to the will of God. Most people are incapable of doing so.

Erfisflat

@poco,  

We can agree to disagree, if you'd like. I do want to stress that peer review studies aren't infallible facts.

http://time.com/81388/is-the-peer-review-process-for-scientific-papers-broken/

 I do want to touch on the flat earth theory before we part though. Although the study link I gave above is the only one I have found. I do not rely solely on other people to do my research. I do have a logical argument though.

Planes

Anyone who has ever piloted a plane will agree to the fact that in order to maintain any given altitude, the only thing needed is to level off with the horizon, and keep it there. This would be nonsensical on a spherical earth. Logically, a plane that flew in any straight line would eventually, out of necessity of flying over a sphere, gain altitude, eventually ending up in a nose up stall, or fly off into space, hypothetically, of course. The lamen would say: "but the earth is so big, we do not notice the plane's slight drop over long distances." Of course mathematics don't lie and the lamen has no idea how much curvature there should be on a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. The answer can be found with a simple formula that we curiously weren't taught in school, though the idea that we live on a spinning ball most assuredly was a "fact" from preschool. Are you aware how much curvature should exist over say 100 miles, or the distance that would be covered by a commercial plane's average speed of 500 mph in 20 minutes? 

Mr_Bombastic

Enough of this ignorant . The Earth is round. How do I know this? Because I,  as well as others, have circumnavigated the globe. I did it from East to West. I left from Long Beach, CA. Sailed to Hawaii. Australia was next. Then we hit the Suez Canal, visiting Spain, Turkey, Egypt and Italy. After that I sailed to the Philipines. Panama was the last stop, then back to Long Beach. The whole trip, we were heading mostly West. Never East. Now, explain how we traveled in the same direction and ended up where we started, if the Earth was flat. You cant. Have a nice day. You lose.

Evidence

Agility_Dude said:

"No need to bring in Islam, unless your intention is to stir up trouble like Hebdo. Not that I'm afraid of Muslims, I grew up with them in Detroit, and I have friends Muslims from Bosnia, so I know EXACTLY how they think, and what can set them off, and debating Allah is on top of the list.
So tell me, are you here to stir up racial/Religious trouble?"

@Agility_Dude said -  My friend who I was referring to is the only muslim I know, and from what I've seen, he's very open to discussion. We've had tons of debates on this topic and we're still close friends. Maybe other Muslims are dogmatic, I can't say but not my friend. My intent is that if evolution is false, which is a teaching in Christianity, Islam, and possibly Judaism (@Judaism I'm curious is evolution false in your religion), then the god that could be the one that exists is a very important discussion to have, especially because it might me heaven or hell in some cases. I'm not looking to stir up trouble with this, don't worry. I only aim to find out who is the true god or if there even is a god in this debate.

There is only One God, the Only Possible One: Infinite and Eternal "I Am".
If you can't see/understand what Infinite and Eternal means, then you will never find the One True God looking through all the tens of thousands of man-made gods created by man-made Religions.

Evidence - "The gods in Christianity are at least two more than the god in both Islam and Judaism, what is it you want to debate? My God is the God of the Bible, which you won't find in any of those religions. In Christianity, god is three, in Islam and Judaism, God didn't have a son, see, my God is neither of these."

Agility- -That is, there are three parts to god. I actually am raised in a Catholic household and regularly go to church, so I am aware of the fundamentals of Christianity. The existence of Jesus and his story and purpose will be an important discussion to have down the road, so we can get to it if we can conclude that god exists, because the existence of Jesus doesn't prove the existence of god. Now if he did do everything it says in the bible, it would prove Christianity. But as of now I'm not even sure if Jesus existed. It doesn't seem to have much evidence to back it up and many accounts other than the ones in the bible.

Tell me this then; are you sure Darwin existed?

What I mean is like; there have been claims that many books were written by a sitting vegetable in a wheelchair, .. I doubt he wrote even one of those books? I am talking about Stephen Hawking



(Time 6:53 - 7:20) I know how TPTB operate, so from my observation, they are giving this person who is a total vegetable, small currents of electrify to his face that make him grimace a bit, which is most likely is freaking him out, and everything else is a "prerecording message on a 70's answering machine".



Please tell me you don't actually believe he was giving all those answers here with twitches and tiny, delicate head movements picking through all the possible answers?

Evidence -OK, stop right there. it all evolved from amoeba, right? We have the wolf and two bunnies on the same continent, same sun, experienced and survived the same meteor showers over those millions of years, same ice age, same tectonic plate drifts, same trees, bushes same everything, right? OK, so please tell me why in the h*ll did those bunnies evolve for the same amount of millions of years to be food to feed the wolves?? Always hiding, always in fear and trembling!?
Agility- - It keeps the balance.

Who says Evolution must keep balance? I thought it is all through chaotic chance, with no purpose or will of anyone or anything? Where are all the billions of senseless mutations going on that are dying out, like croc a ducks with internal organs growing on the bottom of their feet? Or humans with eyes on the back of their heads, some on their knees, and arms grown out like tree branches? Why is it that all we see is this perfect balance after 2.5 billion years of biological evolution where we have 8 million perfect species, we should see all the billions of dying ones!? Where are they? What, them skull & bones?
Never mind; Missing, … clink!

Agility- - So let's say that the bunnies became omnivorous and 10 feet tall for a second, being much stronger than the wolves. The wolves would starve to death or get eaten, because they wouldn't have any food, then there would be no control of the rabbit population. The rabbits would overpopulate, eating all of the grass, then there would not be any grass left or it would become so scarce. The rabbits would then die and nothing would be left..

So what if they grew 10 feet tall and reproduced to take over the entire earth and they eat all the grass? It's not like anyone is keeping track of every step here, it's what works, works, .. and what doesn't work, dies a slow agonizing death! Some going blind as they walk on their eyeballs grown out on the bottom of their feet, or hearts hanging between their legs which bursts every time they run, .. and the billions and billions of other mutations between the 8 million working ones.

It is evident that someone is organizing, carefully planning everything ahead of time from the way things look, wouldn't you agree? I mean this, .. umm, .. this Organizer/Planner is so meticulous about everything from weather, to air quality, to the amount of oxygen plants give out, to the temperature of all the animal, especially the human body within 1/2 a degree, and the heart rate; up when we need more oxygen, down when we're relaxed, .. I mean I could go on for years listing the perfection just in the human body, let alone our entire ecosystem, it is so dialed in that you Evolutionist can't even find any gross mutating living creatures!? As if they all gone missing, or someone hid them so we don't see them suffering as they agonizingly mutate over thousands of generations!?

Agility- - We have observed humans be born with genetic mutations before (such as down's syndrome and autism), so we can both at least acknowledge that random mutation does happen.

Yes They Do! Isn't that amazing, here is proof of evolution, random mutation, and they try to cure them?? What are all these Evolutionary scientists thinking, don't they know not to mess with evolution but let Mother Nature set the course? Pets grow tumors, let it grow, they are just evolving. We have trillions of dollars invested the Pharmaceutical industry to stop mutation before it has a chance to speciate! Why do Evolutionary scientist so against evolution? Always trying to correct what Mother Nature dialed in so perfectly, .. why?

Agility- - But it's very rare that we see extreme mutations such as people having only 1 arm, and most of the time the mutations aren't even beneficial.

WHAT? Look around you, all you see is perfect natural harmony as you were explaining, yet now you say that "most of the time mutations aren't beneficial"? Most of the time? Show me one animal in the animal kingdom of 8 million different species, all evolving as we speak that their evolution/speciation is not perfect? Just one? There are 7 billion human-apes alone, show me where from the 8 million different species that their mutation (all are evolving) aren't beneficial? Which mutation, is it the elephant, or the birds eating the bugs off of them? Is it the lions, whales, .. which?
I don't mean sickness or disease, Evolutionist pharmacists are curing those and making billion$ on them, so even the sickness is "beneficial" to the Evolutionist-Pharmacist!

Agility- - It's going to be extremely unlikely that a rabbit would evolve quick enough to be able to eat the wolves because it already specializes in eating grass.

That's what I'm asking about, it had the same amount of years, billions of them just as the wolves had starting from the same stock (amoeba), same tectonic plate, same everything including evolution time, so why did the rabbit not evolve some defensive/survival of the fittest characteristics like the wolves, or the lions, or the bears? How could evolution be so to forget it's evolution, survival of the fittest, .. dog-eat-dog out there!? 
But nooo, .. the rabbit amoeba decides to evolve for billions of years to eat grass, and grow nice and fat with a fluffy fur that just screams "Eat Me Please!?" while the wolves plan to stick around, and evolved to eating the bunnies!
Besides, once the wolves realize that the bunny population was dwindling, they could start evolving to eat grass.

Agility- - Do you have any idea how many modifications must be made to make the rabbit be able to get the wolf, kill it, eat the wolf, and process the nutrients to use in the body?

Oh yes I do, .. and they had 2.5 billion years of "modifications" to do it in.

Agility- - Well why did the rabbits evolve specialized legs and feet? To run away from the wolves. Porcupines need needles because they have a lower reproductive rate so more individuals need to stay alive within a litter, and they have no other specializations that can help them, while other animals like rabbits do.

Why, oh why did the amoeba evolve to rabbits with specialized legs and feet to "RUN for their lives" all the time, .. why, oh why did the porcupines evolve to have lower reproduction rate, .. why oh why didn't the gorilla keep evolving bigger brain, instead of just staying a huge dumb target for human hunters? I m4ean at least the apes could have evolved to speak the humans language, after all, we all evolved within the same perimeters, same time, same everything, so what happened?
You see, evolution makes absolutely no sense, but a Creator planning all this out and creating all the animals for us man for our entertainment makes perfect sense.

Agility_Dude -Not much change over a million years. And note that the first picture is of Homo Erectus, an already developed human. Now this chart I disagree with I think that homo Erectus was an ansestor to us according to the many sources I've read about this, but for a visual reference here:

They are skulls, they can't homo Erectus anything because, .. Oh what's the use? Look, I know how indoctrination works, especially when they throw in MK-Ultra TV programming we been subjected to all our lives, I really do. And from these long conversations I can see that you really do see developed humans and what-not in that poster, .. but we are here to help you see, that the poster you have does not have ANY living creature on it, .. honest, .. not One! All skull&bones of most likely some innocent Black African Pygmies who were murdered?

Agility_Dude - It could like in your example of you having you skin tone changed but it wouldn't pass on through genetic code because your changed skin tone doesn't change your genetic code.

Or like the human genetic code doesn't change the human genetic code, or the gorilla doesn't change into a giraffe , nor does a bonobo change into a human, .. etc. and so on. That's why Evolutionist agree that Evolution or speciation does NOT happen, ever.

Evolution Theory is just a bad, discriminating Religious cult doctrine! They worships Lucifer by killing darker skinned people, robbing graves, and worshipping skull & bones that they steal from there!

sear

It is convention to define terms at the start of debate.

Do we have a working definition of "god"?

A supernatural busy-body?

The power that created us?

The guy running the church scam around the world?

Defining the term sets us a long way toward answering the topic question.

Agility_Dude

@Mr_Bombastic:


"Scripture tells us that everyone is born with an awareness of God. I believe this to be true. It's a sad fact that the vast majority of people reject Him.

They do so because of pride. They love their sin more than their Creator."

Actually worldwide I believe that atheists are a minority. I believe that about 30% of the world's population identifies as non-religious or atheist. As for western society, the number of atheists and non-religious people will go up.

"Scripture also tells us that God will reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him."

I'm honestly not surprised. If you look for evidence that god doesn't exist with bias, you will find it, same with looking for evidence for god. This is where critical thinking comes in.

"So, my question for you is this.

If God exists, would you surrender your pride, ask Him to forgive you, give up control of your life and follow Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

I assume that you mean pride as in one of the seven deadly sins. I would. I'm not sure if I have pride right now, I probably do. But I would be more conscious of how I act and treat people if god exists (I think that I should do that even as an atheist for other reasons but believing in god would incentivise me to try to be a better person). I certainly would follow Christ, even if I disagree with the morals that he teaches (I agree with all that I've heard), out of fear. It would be in my best interest (that sounds like a reason to worship but I believe that the only reason people are nice to each other in the first place is because they subconsciously realize that it's in their best interest).

"It is not a matter of belief. It is all about obedience.

The evidence is out there. It is compelling."

Belief would have something to do with it. I would obey god's words either because he exists or because of peer pressure. I am currently being raised in a Catholic family so I go to church and sort of pretend to believe in god sometimes out of pressure. My parents still know that I am deep down an atheist but they don't like me talking about it. This is why I set up this debate. I thought that because so many people believe in god there would have to be some evidence of god somewhere, even if 0.01% of people know it.

"All you need to is ask God to forgive you. You could do it right now. It is the simplest thing to do, but also the hardest. Because you must submit to the will of God. Most people are incapable of doing so."

I have done this in the past many times for reconciliation, in mass, and I never got one hint of evidence of god. I did it earlier today saying I'm sorry for not being a better person and that if he was real, I want a sign so that I can help others out with getting the salvation they deserve. It didn't feel any different than if I didn't pray. No revelation (not that I would expect something that big even if he existed), not even a tiny sign. I agree with the morals that the bible teaches (except for hell), so I am in a way submitting to god's will. Was there anything I missed? My mom and dad told me of their moments that made them believe in god, and they seemed coincidental or irrationally based.

@Evidence:

"There is only One God, the Only Possible One: Infinite and Eternal "I Am".
If you can't see/understand what Infinite and Eternal means, then you will never find the One True God looking through all the tens of thousands of man-made gods created by man-made Religions."

I'm actually confused now. Infinite means a number without limits or is another word for god, am I correct? Eternal means that he has lived forever. You can't just define things into existence. Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I'm seeing you keep reiterating the same phrase over and over that is basically a tautology. You say "God is infinite", which is basically like me saying "dragons are dragons", which says nothing about the existence of dragons.

"Tell me this then; are you sure Darwin existed?

What I mean is like; there have been claims that many books were written by a sitting vegetable in a wheelchair, .. I doubt he wrote even one of those books? I am talking about Stephen Hawking

(Time 6:53 - 7:20) I know how TPTB operate, so from my observation, they are giving this person who is a total vegetable, small currents of electrify to his face that make him grimace a bit, which is most likely is freaking him out, and everything else is a "prerecording message on a 70's answering machine".

Please tell me you don't actually believe he was giving all those answers here with twitches and tiny, delicate head movements picking through all the possible answers?"

I laughed at this post, not because I think that it's ridiculous, you bring up a good points, but because of the word choice here talking about Stephen Hawking and the idea. I'm just trying to imagine it. I'm actually taking it seriously don't worry. I'm not sure if Darwin existed. He might not have. Let's entertain the idea. So the story is that Charles Darwin, a naturalist who worked for the science community in I think England, sailed around the world to study wildlife around the world for a year or two. Every finding he would find would be shipped back to England for investigation. He observed how different finches on the Galapagos islands had different beaks specializing in what they ate. Darwin created a theory, known now as Darwinian evolution that explained that animals change over time to specialize in things and to survive. Random mutation, the missing puzzle to this theory has now been proven to be true. He wrote a book "On the origin of species" and won a Nobel prize. Good luck discrediting that and disproving the existence of him.

"Who says Evolution must keep balance? I thought it is all through chaotic chance, with no purpose or will of anyone or anything? Where are all the billions of senseless mutations going on that are dying out, like croc a ducks with internal organs growing on the bottom of their feet? Or humans with eyes on the back of their heads, some on their knees, and arms grown out like tree branches? Why is it that all we see is this perfect balance after 2.5 billion years of biological evolution where we have 8 million perfect species, we should see all the billions of dying ones!? Where are they? What, them skull & bones?
Never mind; Missing, … clink!"

I was referring to how evolution is intertwined with the food web of the ecosystem and how it can disrupt the chain and how it is always mitigated. And for the species that die out? Yes they are the skulls and bones that we have found, what else could they be? And what about the very rare traces of fossilized skin that we've found? How do you explain that?

"WHAT? Look around you, all you see is perfect natural harmony as you were explaining, yet now you say that "most of the time mutations aren't beneficial"? Most of the time? Show me one animal in the animal kingdom of 8 million different species, all evolving as we speak that their evolution/speciation is not perfect? Just one? There are 7 billion human-apes alone, show me where from the 8 million different species that their mutation (all are evolving) aren't beneficial? Which mutation, is it the elephant, or the birds eating the bugs off of them? Is it the lions, whales, .. which?
I don't mean sickness or disease, Evolutionist pharmacists are curing those and making billion$ on them, so even the sickness is "beneficial" to the Evolutionist-Pharmacist!"

As for mutations not being beneficial I was referring to the ones on individuals that cause a large noticeable change. A whole species with a non-beneficial genetic mutation would be very unlikely. It actually does happen to some species though, such as the blind cave tetra's bulging piece of tissue on it's face.

It originally had eyes where the two bulges are but this species no longer needed eyes because it lives in pitch black areas.

"That's what I'm asking about, it had the same amount of years, billions of them just as the wolves had starting from the same stock (amoeba), same tectonic plate, same everything including evolution time, so why did the rabbit not evolve some defensive/survival of the fittest characteristics like the wolves, or the lions, or the bears? How could evolution be so to forget it's evolution, survival of the fittest, .. dog-eat-dog out there!? 
But nooo, .. the rabbit amoeba decides to evolve for billions of years to eat grass, and grow nice and fat with a fluffy fur that just screams "Eat Me Please!?" while the wolves plan to stick around, and evolved to eating the bunnies!
Besides, once the wolves realize that the bunny population was dwindling, they could start evolving to eat grass."

The rabbits don't need defense, they have a high reproductive rate so that they can sustain themselves and they are quick and agile to get away from prey. Also, about the wolves eating grass comment, they couldn't do that in the time they have left, a few generations.

"So what if they grew 10 feet tall and reproduced to take over the entire earth and they eat all the grass? It's not like anyone is keeping track of every step here, it's what works, works, .. and what doesn't work, dies a slow agonizing death! Some going blind as they walk on their eyeballs grown out on the bottom of their feet, or hearts hanging between their legs which bursts every time they run, .. and the billions and billions of other mutations between the 8 million working ones."

This is so unlikely to happen even over the time that rabbits have lived (50 million years).

"It is evident that someone is organizing, carefully planning everything ahead of time from the way things look, wouldn't you agree? I mean this, .. umm, .. this Organizer/Planner is so meticulous about everything from weather, to air quality, to the amount of oxygen plants give out, to the temperature of all the animal, especially the human body within 1/2 a degree, and the heart rate; up when we need more oxygen, down when we're relaxed, .. I mean I could go on for years listing the perfection just in the human body, let alone our entire ecosystem, it is so dialed in that you Evolutionist can't even find any gross mutating living creatures!? As if they all gone missing, or someone hid them so we don't see them suffering as they agonizingly mutate over thousands of generations!?"

No species has gotten even close to perfection because perfection would be the greatest conceivable thing, and as theists have said, god, the greatest conceivable being cannot be comprehended. I can also look at the imperfections in species such as the blind cave tetra, the appendix, the pinky toe, and the claws under an emu's wings. I also can find a mutating creature. The peppered moth that I explained a long time ago would have to have passed on its genes over the 20 years because no moth lives that long, proving mutation and natural selection.

"Yes They Do! Isn't that amazing, here is proof of evolution, random mutation, and they try to cure them?? What are all these Evolutionary scientists thinking, don't they know not to mess with evolution but let Mother Nature set the course? Pets grow tumors, let it grow, they are just evolving. We have trillions of dollars invested the Pharmaceutical industry to stop mutation before it has a chance to speciate! Why do Evolutionary scientist so against evolution? Always trying to correct what Mother Nature dialed in so perfectly, .. why?"

In the wild a person with down's syndrome would most likely die, but that doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial to society. Even down's syndrome people help the economy by getting jobs even though it's hard.

"Oh yes I do, .. and they had 2.5 billion years of "modifications" to do it in."

Actually rabbits only appeared within the past 50 million years.

"Why, oh why did the amoeba evolve to rabbits with specialized legs and feet to "RUN for their lives" all the time, .. why, oh why did the porcupines evolve to have lower reproduction rate, .. why oh why didn't the gorilla keep evolving bigger brain, instead of just staying a huge dumb target for human hunters? I m4ean at least the apes could have evolved to speak the humans language, after all, we all evolved within the same perimeters, same time, same everything, so what happened?
You see, evolution makes absolutely no sense, but a Creator planning all this out and creating all the animals for us man for our entertainment makes perfect sense."

The rabbits evolved specialized legs to survive. The porcupines didn't evolve a lower reproduction rate, the rabbits evolved a higher one because they needed it. Gorillas and apes don't need to evolve more intelligently or to speak because they already specialize in strength to sustain themselves. I will admit that if evolution is false I will accept a creator god as an explanation. Maybe not the christian one because I need to be persuaded on which one I should choose as well. That's why I suggested getting a Muslim representative to join this debate.

"They are skulls, they can't homo Erectus anything because, .. Oh what's the use? Look, I know how indoctrination works, especially when they throw in MK-Ultra TV programming we been subjected to all our lives, I really do. And from these long conversations I can see that you really do see developed humans and what-not in that poster, .. but we are here to help you see, that the poster you have does not have ANY living creature on it, .. honest, .. not One! All skull&bones of most likely some innocent Black African Pygmies who were murdered?"

This would be so unlikely to find in a fossil site because "innocent black african pygmies" would be very rare. Very few living things get fossilized, so any individual who has a negative genetic mutation such as the example you described would be very rare compared to other individuals, hurting their chances of getting fossilized. If you respond to one paragraph in this whole rebuttal, respond to this one because I think this will make you understand. We look at the gradual evolution of humans hot oil couldn't do that to a skull. Only a dead primitive or deformed person can have that look.

"Or like the human genetic code doesn't change the human genetic code, or the gorilla doesn't change into a giraffe , nor does a bonobo change into a human, .. etc. and so on. That's why Evolutionist agree that Evolution or speciation does NOT happen, ever.

Evolution Theory is just a bad, discriminating Religious cult doctrine! They worships Lucifer by killing darker skinned people, robbing graves, and worshipping skull & bones that they steal from there!"

It wouldn't go through the code, but it could mutate into that tone of skin, just a very low chance of a white man and a white woman having a black child. The idea of a species turning into another species in one generation is ridiculous, and this is a misrepresentation. It happens gradually from Homo Erectus to us in 50,000 generations.

Also, the only reason that example of the deformed black man in a cage is famous is because it was so rare. They couldn't have bones from dozens if not hundreds of individuals often looking very similar. I do not believe in killing black people, I think that we should help them out in society, however just because the science was used for bad doesn't mean that it's pseudoscience.

Agility_Dude

@Sear:

I think that everyone defines god here as what is portrayed in religions. A powerful being who created everything we know and takes an invested interest in our daily lives and tests us to see if we are worthy of salvation.

poco

@Agility_Dude

Your, "I think that everyone defines god here as what is portrayed in religions. A powerful being who created everything we know and takes an invested interest in our daily lives and tests us to see if we are worthy of salvation."

Me:  What you seem to leave out, is the love God shows us throughout history.  (Jesus' sacrifice for our salvation).  Also, I do not buy that God "tests" us.  Sure, we experience many problems, & other circumstances that shows our integrity re God, or otherwise.  How we handle those situations may be referred as "tests," altho those times are a result of our own, or someone else's doing, not God's.  God will see how we react, but it's not like God created a situation to see what we would do ........... there's enough in this world that will show our worth.  But, even that doesn't matter if we believe in His Son Jesus.  Once we do, we continue to improve in God's eyes with the help of the Holy Spirit. 

We can never be worthy enough for salvation on our own.  It's the grace of God thru Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, & our belief in Him that qualifies us for salvation only ....... not any test, or being "good enough" bc we all fall short of what God want from us .... no matter how many good acts we do for others, or the world.

Agility_Dude

@Poco:

God is portrayed as loving, however, I do not think that he is. As far as being worthy of salvation in its current state (heaven), we can never be deserving of it. However, the same applies to hell. This isn't an argument against the existence of god, rather that god is not as good as we think that he is. Take the story of Jesus and how he saved everyone from hell. Sure, what Jesus did is amazing, but what people seem to forget is the ignorance that god displays before Jesus does this. God sends people to hell regardless of if they're good or bad, and even after god still sends people to hell. How does even terrorism justify being thrown into a lake of lava to suffer forever. Of course there should be a punishment I just think that these punishments and rewards are unjustified. I think that a finite reward or a finite punishment should be given to people and then to live in a place similar to earth. Sure, I would enjoy heaven, i'm just not deserving of going there. My scenario would make a great god, but a heaven with only finite punishments before would make a greater god.

poco

@Agility_Dude

"
You:  God is portrayed as loving, however, I do not think that he is.

me:  Why not? 

you:  As far as being worthy of salvation in its current state (heaven), we can never be deserving of it. However, the same applies to hell.

me:  How so?  If the only way that guarantees a heavenly reward is belief in Jesus, choosing a life of sin w/o Jesus surely is one way to deserve hell.  hen we make a choice to do ...... anything, we face & deserve the consequences .... good or bad.

you:  This isn't an argument against the existence of god, rather that god is not as good as we think that he is. Take the story of Jesus and how he saved everyone from hell.

me:  A potential save from hell, not everyone does what it takes to be saved from hell.

Sure, what Jesus did is amazing, but what people seem to forget is the ignorance that god displays before Jesus does this.

me:  Examples please.

you:God sends people to hell regardless of if they're good or bad, and even after god still sends people to hell.

me:  The Pharisees are a prime example why God's grace, (getting something in which we do not deserve & cannot do anything to get grace on our own).  They lived according to the letter of the law, yet were corrupt.  They lived a life as good as the bible told them at that time.   They thought that living that 'good' life was all that's necessary.  That's why God took matters into His own hands & told us that being 'good' isn't what is necessary.  Think about this ...... just how good is good?  We all have our own version of good.  Andy Stanley does a great explanation of "Just how good is good?" 

& does God send people to hell, or do they make choices in their life that they deserve hell?  God never makes choices in this regard.  We are what we live like.  Something like reaping what you sow. 

you:  How does even terrorism justify being thrown into a lake of lava to suffer forever.

me:  Are you sure of this?  & if so, how can you be sure?

you:  Of course there should be a punishment I just think that these punishments and rewards are unjustified. I think that a finite reward or a finite punishment should be given to people and then to live in a place similar to earth.

me:  Do we really know what hell or heaven is like ..... other than heaven is with God, & hell is w/o God?   

you:  Sure, I would enjoy heaven, i'm just not deserving of going there.

me:  It says in the bible many times that no one deserves heaven, bc we all sin.  That's why God came up with the grace thing.  No one can ever do ANYTHING that can make them deserving of heaven. 

you:  My scenario would make a great god, but a heaven with only finite punishments before would make a greater god."

me:  When it's so very easy to attain heaven with the present scenario?!?  Can't get any easier than believing in Jesus & trying to follow His teachings.  What Jesus taught only makes this world a better place ..... & us better individuals.

What is you scenario?

Agility_Dude

@Poco:

I used the wrong word choice. I think that he is a bad person, because I don't think that hell is justified in any circumstance. As far as I've seen, hell is described as a place where you go to burn in a lake of fire, and never being let out. Punishments are made to justify sins. A sin cannot be infinite, so it can only be finite. Because you are never let out of hell, your punishment is going to surpass the badness of the finite sin that you committed. Therefore, hell is immoral. The same can be applied to heaven, except it would be an argument that heaven is very generous. My next question would be, why does not believing in god justify hell. In my example where I said that god is ignorant, it's not the ignorance himself that makes him bad, but the action that was associated with that ignorance. The only bad thing that I am doing is preventing me from knowing god more and worshiping him, which is imposed onto me more by me being sent to hell, so is contradictory. I have a very similar morality to the one that Jesus and god advocates for, I just believe in it for different reasons, so the only act that I am committing is not believing in these figures.

poco

@Erfisflat

I have to ask you how can you explain earth's gravity re flat earth.

poco

@Agility_Dude

You:  I used the wrong word choice. I think that he is a bad person, because I don't think that hell is justified in any circumstance. As far as I've seen, hell is described as a place where you go to burn in a lake of fire, and never being let out.

me:  As I asked you b4, how do you know what hell is like since it's not described in the bible literally.

you:  Punishments are made to justify sins. A sin cannot be infinite, so it can only be finite. Because you are never let out of hell, your punishment is going to surpass the badness of the finite sin that you committed. Therefore, hell is immoral.

me:  I see that you're attempting to use your personal perspective to object to the way God handles things.  A God that created a sustaining universe billions of years ago from nothing, & gave us everything we could ever want ..... & what did we do with God's rules & generosity?  Told Him many many times that we do not want Him. 

So, God made it easy or us to be guaranteed an eternal reward thru His grace.  Yet, we still turn our backs on God.  We, the same human race that live immoral lives since we've come onto this earth.  Don't we all choose which way we want to go re God?  Yet, you want to blame God, not the choices we make as human individuals.  Don't we all know what the consequences are as we make these important decisions? 

you:  The same can be applied to heaven, except it would be an argument that heaven is very generous.

me:  As I asked you b4, how do you know what heaven is like?

you:  My next question would be, why does not believing in god justify hell.

me:  God's rules since He created everything, wouldn't it make sense He can do whaat He wants to? 

Thing is, how do you know what it absolutely takes to go to hell, since Jesus told us leave all that type stuff to God's perfect justice.  I don't know what that means ...... how do you know?

you:  In my example where I said that god is ignorant, it's not the ignorance himself that makes him bad, but the action that was associated with that ignorance.

me:  Like what?

The only bad thing that I am doing is preventing me from knowing god more and worshiping him, which is imposed onto me more by me being sent to hell, so is contradictory. I have a very similar morality to the one that Jesus and god advocates for,

That's where you're missing the point of it all.  It's not the negative consequence that should motivate a person to do the opposite of whatever to deserve that, it's doing the right thing bc we WANT to do the right thing ...... bc it's in our hearts to do the right thing. 

How do you know you have the correct impression of God?  Could you just be mistaken, & not like Him all this time bc you have labeled God wrongly?  What if you're wrong?  What if your interpretation of certain verses that have you upset, or believing the wrong thing is incorrect?  How do you know what you believe is right?

I just believe in it for different reasons, so the only act that I am committing is not believing in these figures.

What reasons are those? 

& what figures don't you believe in?

Erfisflat

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/23795/#Comment_23795

@poco

poco

@Erfisflat

You:  Why do you think gravity happens? It's the natural order of things. Objects act a certain way due to their density in a given fluid. What happens when dropping a feather and a bowling ball depends on the fluid, whether it be air, water, or any other fluid. In water the basketball will not fall to the "center of the earth" (down) as the rock does because of their difference in density,  and their relationship to the fluid they are in.

me:  Please explain "natural order of things," please, & how it applies to gravity.  

Yes, objects act differently due to their density, but that's only one aspect that has to do with gravity.  How about when an object is weighed at different altitudes w/o being affected by fluids? 

Can you explain why it's lighter the higher the altitude ..... no matter where it is in the world, a long as all the other aspects that affect gravity are the same?  It's the pull from the center of the earth that determines the weight of an object,  That's the same principle why the same objects weigh less on the moon.  Moon has less mass than the earth, ergo, less pull downward toward its center equates to weighing less on the same scale.

I have to wonder why all the physicists have a different view re gravity than you do?  Are they all wrong & you correct?

Erfisflat

"Please explain "natural order of things," please, & how it applies to gravity. "

I thought you just quoted me doing just that. Just because we're all not floating around aimlessly doesn't mean there is a law that says everything is attracted to everything else.

"Yes, objects act differently due to their density, but that's only one aspect that has to do with gravity.  How about when an object is weighed at different altitudes w/o being affected by fluids?

Can you explain why it's lighter the higher the altitude ..... no matter where it is in the world, a long as all the other aspects that affect gravity are the same?  It's the pull from the center of the earth that determines the weight of an object,"

I know of no experiments that show this. Even if one were to weigh something at sea level, then go on an airplane ride, the change in weight would be about as much as having a pre-flight sandwich I suppose. There is also barometric pressure and other axioms to take into consideration.

  "That's the same principle why the same objects weigh less on the moon.  Moon has less mass than the earth, ergo, less pull downward toward its center equates to weighing less on the same scale."

That is the theory, yes. The question is will we ever be able to empirically test it, or do we have to take NASA's word for that. I mean they allegedly went to the moon in the 60's with the computing power of a gameboy, shouldn't there have been enough advancements in every relative filed to have a Mcdonald's on the moon by now? They're making plans to populate mars, did they forget about the moon? At a fraction of the distance, we could be using that as a trial run, correct?

"I have to wonder why all the physicists have a different view re gravity than you do?  Are they all wrong & you correct?"

This is a broad assumption. But most physicists go through years of intense indoctrinations under the assumption that the earth is a ball. My intention is to disprove gravity by disproving the ball. No ball, no gravity.

poco

@Erfisflat

You: I thought you just quoted me doing just that. Just because we're all not floating around aimlessly doesn't mean there is a law that says everything is attracted to everything else.

me:  That's ..... sorta true, but ..... bc the earth 's gravitational pull is s much stronger than most other things, so something else must overcome earth' gravitational pull to have a noticeable effect. 

Plus there is such a law re massed attraction to each other called, "Law of universal Gravitation."

"Yes, objects act differently due to their density, but that's only one aspect that has to do with gravity.  How about when an object is weighed at different altitudes w/o being affected by fluids?

  Can you explain why it's lighter the higher the altitude ..... no matter where it is in the world, a long as all the other aspects that affect gravity are the same?  It's the pull from the center of the earth that determines the weight of an object,"

you:  I know of no experiments that show this. Even if one were to weigh something at sea level, then go on an airplane ride, the change in weight would be about as much as having a pre-flight sandwich I suppose. There is also barometric pressure and other axioms to take into consideration.

me: 

me:  here's one, "https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=15&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwib2paa76HcAhWtt1kKHczOBWcQFjAOegQIBBAB&url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/&usg=AOvVaw3E4M9cafwsOELeT1MBXkuC"

All you have to do is google for more.

A bit ago I watched a documentary with an experiment using diff instraments to prove the same thing.

  "That's the same principle why the same objects weigh less on the moon.  Moon has less mass than the earth, ergo, less pull downward toward its center equates to weighing less on the same scale."

That is the theory, yes. The question is will we ever be able to empirically test it, or do we have to take NASA's word for that. I mean they allegedly went to the moon in the 60's with the computing power of a gameboy, shouldn't there have been enough advancements in every relative filed to have a Mcdonald's on the moon by now?

me:  Sure, but not enough money to keep funding this type of trip. 

I would recommend that you google many gravity questions any way you want to phrase it, to see all the experiments & explanations of gravity.  Evidence is overwhelming.  Plus they all have the same outcomes.

you:  They're making plans to populate mars, did they forget about the moon? At a fraction of the distance, we could be using that as a trial run, correct?

me:  Ummmm, you're kidding here, or you believe some off the wall financiers that would LIKE to populate Mars.  But there's no actual plans in the works.

"I have to wonder why all the physicists have a different view re gravity than you do?  Are they all wrong & you correct?"

This is a broad assumption. But most physicists go through years of intense indoctrinations under the assumption that the earth is a ball. My intention is to disprove gravity by disproving the ball. No ball, no gravity.

"Indoctrination?!?"  So, you are contending that every school on the planet that has study of physics is conspiring to keep some conspiracy alive?  For what reason? 

So, what keeps us & all things glued to the earth ..... so to speak?  & why do things weigh less the higher in altitude one goes?  & why would one weigh nothing if they were to be at the center of the earth?  Bc the gravitational forces would be equal in all directions .... which would mean weightlessness.

Please check many many diff sites re gravity.  If you can disprove any of them, then please be my guest doing so. 

& are you saying that all pictures, taken by ALL persons, of the earth that show it spherical, are in cahoots with EVERYONE to keep a lie going re a spherical earth?  Not only would that be impossible knowing humans desire to prove someone wrong, but what's the benefit to lie about it?

Erfisflat

"That's ..... sorta true"

Im glad we can agree.

", but ..... bc the earth 's gravitational pull is s much stronger than most other things, "

I don't follow. The gravitational pull is not stronger than "other things" such as magnetism, whereas, two magnets exhibit a notable attraction. We can drop a wadded paper off the side of a sheer cliff and aside from wind resistances, there is no attraction to the nearest thing, the cliff. We notice the paper going down until it hits critical density, where it will rest.

"so something else must overcome earth' gravitational pull to have a noticeable effect.  

Plus there is such a law re massed attraction to each other called, "Law of universal Gravitation.""

You will either have to ellaborate or restate this, it is too vague, too many "things" i guess.

"All you have to do is google for more.

A bit ago I watched a documentary with an experiment using diff instraments to prove the same thing."

Im sorry, your link lost me at "NASA and the European Space Agency both have satellites with highly sensitive accelerometers that map the planet’s gravitational field, but these are only accurate to within a few kilometres."

 This is an appeal to a dishonest authority fallacy. If there were some sort of repeatable experiment, I'd be more inclined to repeat it, but I have no faith in anything NASA says. There is also the overlooked issue of barometric pressure at varying altitudes, temperature differences, etc.


A meteorologist does some experiments regarding this issue.



"Sure, but not enough money to keep funding this type of trip."

Surely you jest. Since when is $20,000,000,000.00 a year on average "not enough money"? As was overlooked, there are allegedly plans on moving to mars, why not the moon?

"I would recommend that you google many gravity questions any way you want to phrase it, to see all the experiments & explanations of gravity.  Evidence is overwhelming.  Plus they all have the same outcomes."

You're kidding right? Scientists are as about as close to understanding gravity as they are to Pluto. I'm not sure what you're Googling.

Here is a quote from Universe Today:

"Gravity still remains one of the biggest mysteries of physics and the biggest obstacle to a universal theory that describes the functions of every interaction in the universe accurately. If we could fully understand the mechanics behind it, new opportunities in aeronautics and other fields would appear."




Then there's this:
https://youtu.be/k-W2kQZgIoU





Even Newton found it hard to believe:

"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting}  constantly according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers."  A letter correspondence between Newton and one of his associates.

There will still be many reading thinking I am a conspiracy theorist etc, but PBS NOVA questions gravity, QUORA questions gravity, GSU questions gravity, Live Science questions gravity, Live Science 2.0 questions gravity, Astronomy Today questions gravity, and Nature.com questions gravity.

Notice in some of those links, they say gravity is "an extremely weak force" contradicting your statement earlier.

"Indoctrination?!?"  So, you are contending that every school on the planet that has study of physics is conspiring to keep some conspiracy alive?  For what reason?"

The same reason a globe is implemented into every elementary school. To hide God's flat earth and firmament. This is what @evidence and I are trying to explain. 

"So, what keeps us & all things glued to the earth ..... so to speak?"

See above explanation for critical density.

"& why do things weigh less the higher in altitude one goes?"

IF that were true, and you've yet to demonstrate it being so, there are issues of barometric pressure, temperature differences, etc.

  "& why would one weigh nothing if they were to be at the center of the earth?  Bc the gravitational forces would be equal in all directions .... which would mean weightlessness."

You do realize these are hypothetical question based on the assumption yet to be proved (ball earth)? Tell you what, when you test that, take a video camera and prove it.

"Please check many many diff sites re gravity.  If you can disprove any of them, then please be my guest doing so."

Supply one, I've already shown some that disprove others above.

"& are you saying that all pictures, taken by ALL persons, of the earth that show it spherical, are in cahoots with EVERYONE to keep a lie going re a spherical earth?  Not only would that be impossible knowing humans desire to prove someone wrong, but what's the benefit to lie about it?"

That would be an assertion, I'm actually demonstrating that fact, go ahead, give me a real picture of earth as a ball. Better still, how about a real video of earth as a ball? With all the probes at varying altitudes, there should be thousands, agreed?

Evidence

sear said:

It is convention to define terms at the start of debate.

Do we have a working definition of "god"?

A supernatural busy-body?

The power that created us?

The guy running the church scam around the world?

Defining the term sets us a long way toward answering the topic question.

@sear Try defining God outside of our Religious indoctrination. First from a scientific perspective, then a philosophical one: look at this picture





Two are playing soccer here, one took hundreds of miners, chemists, scientists, engineers, machinists over 100 years to meticulously mine, mold, machine, program, assemble, test and retest to create, and the other just evolved from a rock with no will or plan of anyone or anything. Can you tell which one just evolved, and which one took thousands of intelligent designers to 'create'?

Evidence

poco said:
Erfisflat

I have to ask you how can you explain earth's gravity re flat earth.

@poco , @Agility_Dude and the rest of Globe-Earthers, I love this video @Erfisflat posted



But this is if we accept that we live on a Globe, and the stars of heaven are planets and suns with great mass, of which our own sun is supposedly weighs 4.385 X 10^30 lbs. from observation, It is NOT some giant burning planet that never seems to burn up, just as our moon is not some chunk of rock knocked off from a globe-earth billions of sci-fi years ago.

The problem here is that we all want to know; "What keeps the heavier objects falling to earth, .. like why is the water in our oceans denser as we go deeper, or why is there lesser dense air as we go higher? To answer this, we must clear our minds and start from the beginning using what we have been taught, and what we actually observe of the heavens, and the earth that is always below our feet!?

First, what we've been taught, .. so let's go into the imaginary NASA space, and ask ourselves:

1. Where is the globe earth?
2. What holds it there?

Let me see everyone's answers, and then we can go from there to figure out if this mysterious gravity exists or not? And why things fall to the ground?