Choosing a faith

Logic like that will lead you into mistaking swans and geese for ducks.You want to see design so you see design, but natural processes for which we have mountains of evidence produce the diversity of life we see today and that we know from fossil evidence existed in the past. There's no evidence for design or the designer.The direction you think you see in evolution is not there. Increasing complexity is a natural outcome of evolutionary processes since mutational changes can build upon what came before, and there is also an evolutionary arms race where, for example, the greater speed of the cheetah is met with greater speed in the rabbit which in turn is met with greater speed in the cheetah and so forth, each increase in speed potentially requiring compensatory changes that likely include increased complexity.But all that matters in evolution concerning selection is differential reproductive success, which is just the scientific way of saying that you get more of what works (increasing population size), and less of what doesn't work (decreasing population size and potential extinction). Evolution is not a relentless march of progress. Cavefish lost their eyesight. Penguins and dodos lost the ability to fly. Snakes lost their legs. Birds lost their teeth. These happened because losing these capabilities provided greater survival opportunities.If you're being honest that you're in favor of science then you need to incorporate what science actually says into your thinking instead of making up fantasies. A scientifically accurate picture of evolution is that it has no direction, and you need to accept that.--Percy

You're just describing your position again from scratch.No, you are wrong. Krauss claiming plausibility for certain views in no way impacts the plausibility of your own views. Your views must earn their plausibility on their own merits. I didn't comment on whether you're competent to carry out this strategy. I said this is the strategy you're employing, whether you're consciously aware of it or not.And it isn't a matter of competence. It's a matter of impossibility. No one is going to buy that because Krauss claimed plausibility for a couple of his ideas that it implies plausibility for your ideas, but instead of dropping the idea you just keep repeating it with vaguer and vaguer wording. It isn't going to work.--Percy

A good example of modern hubris. Sure, we have far greater accumulated knowledge but how do you know you're so much smarter than your ancient ancestors?

We both have evidence without proof.

But the Bible is the foundation of your beliefs. Millions before you have said the exact same thing as you about the Bible, but there is no right answer about which portions of the Bible to accept except when based upon evidence. John the Baptist, who did nothing more than baptize people, was likely a real person because there is confirmatory evidence from Josephus. Jesus was likely not a real person because despite his incredible works, far far greater than anything John the Baptist did, he is mentioned nowhere but in the Bible. Why do you think any of this is evidence of anything? Here's another list, "evidence" you forgot:

1. Wars
2. Genocide
3. Parasites
4. Murder
5. Rape
6. Torture
7. Injuries
8. Drownings
9. House fires
10. Disease
11. Birth defects
12. Earthquakes
13. Hurricanes
14. Droughts
15. Floods
16. Tsunamis
17. Famine
18. Sea level rise
19. Climate change
20. Rot and decay
21. Forest fires
22. Infidelity
23. Betrayal
24. Lies and deceit
25. Theft

If your list is evidence of something, then this list must be evidence of something, too, especially since everything on it is objectively tangible while the items on your list are either subjective or a statement of fact with no supernatural implications or just silly.Your first item fits in this last category. Since when do the parts or substances that make up anything, whether a truck or a building or dirt or a gas, have to have the same qualities. Are hydrogen or oxygen wet? Of course not. But do you think it supernatural that when combined chemically in a 2-to-1 ratio they form water? Or is it maybe making less sense to you now that a sentient being must be made up of sentient atoms and molecules?The actual truth is that there is no evidence for the supernatural in either list.--Percy

True enough. All I really see is that his list emphasizes positive hope for humanity while your list highlights our worst traits. What are we to make of that?
​

Why are you making us tell you this is wrong yet again? It understandably causes frustration when you ignore what people say and force them to repeat themselves. You are causing the very escalation you dislike.First, for the nth time, science doesn't prove anything.Second, also for the nth time, yes, we have evidence.Third, again for the nth time, no, you do not have evidence. You've conceded as much. Why are you now saying that you do have evidence? Can we not somehow make progress? Is there nothing you say that you won't later qualify or pretend you never said?You also don't have information from the world, which is just evidence.You''re obviously not a creationist with a literal interpretation of the Bible, but your style of argumentation in the way you keep returning to the same points as if they'd never been discussed before and in the way you seem to believe that the way you say things is more important than what you say is very much like them.--Percy

I think that GDR is testing his beliefs by bouncing them off of you. He may prematurely make conclusions, but they are really him speaking to himself. Both of you have good hearts (if any human really does! ) so I'm sure a consensus will eventually be formed.

Josephus mentions Jesus twice although I agree that the first account was likely edited later. However Josephus did mention Him again after that. There are other references including the early Patristic Fathers some of whom had contact with the original eye witnesses.Yes that list is evidence as well. There is a reason that youAlso at the time of Constantine they would in all likelihood had records of the events surrounding Pilate and Jesus or He wouldn't have converted nor would Rome have adopted Christianity.Anyway the suggestion that He didn't exist is simply bizarre. Yes it is evidence, and I agree that it provides difficulty for people of faith. However how did you come to know and deplore those things and why do the people and societies do what they can to prevent those occurrences and to mitigate the effects.

Because you guys keep asking the same questions so I give the same answer. What am I suppose o do. We disagree. I agree there is no scientific evidence but I gave what I consider as non-scientific evidence which might be called philosophical which the majority of you discount.

I'm surprised you thought this worth mentioning. Yes, there's the obvious insertion, and there's a reference to "Jesus, who was called Christ" in a passage about the death of James. What writings do you mean? Look at the evidence. The Jesus of the Bible travels all over Judea drawing crowds in the thousands and performing miracle after miracle and then experiences an absolutely stunning death and subsequent resurrection but gets no historical mention. But John the Baptist and even James get mentions of their deaths, but not Jesus. Makes sense to you?Also, the story of Jesus follows the familiar pattern of mythology, with details increasing rather than diminishing with time. The real world always presents difficulties for people trying to maintain belief in fantasies. This is an absurd argument.--Percy

As far as this argument goes, you’ve already agreed with me that regardless of the odds, you think a deistic God irrelevant. A god that takes no interest in us IS irrelevant. (He’s definitely more interested in his stars and miscellaneous cosmic bodies than us. Perhaps we’re an oops! moment?)So we’re left with the odds of you being born into the right religion.According to wiki there are about 10,000 religions, I don’t know whether that includes all the dead and unknown ones. I don’t like those odds, might as well be a painted-faced heathen.Of course being a member of only one of the 30,000 Christian variants of those 10,000 probably reduces the odds further - certainly the Catholics think so. Not a Catholic? Sorry, no Golden Gates for you.
​
I’ll be ok though, I’m baptised Catholic. Couldn’t make this nonsense up could you?

The evidence of this thread says otherwise. Here's you doing it again right in this message you just posted: This is not an accurate characterization. You repeatedly claim that your "evidence" is on an equal footing with scientific evidence ("We both have evidence"), and when challenged how this is so have no answer. You haven't even answered the simple question, "What is philosophical evidence?" The first time I asked you replied that, "It is conclusions that are inferred by observing the world around." I replied in Message 384: What was your response? Nothing.Then there's all the times you've conceded you have no evidence, but balanced by all the times you say you do have evidence. You're equivocating all over the place. Answer the damn question honestly and forthrightly with no gobbledygook about philosophical evidence being "observations of the world around", because that's just plain old evidence.--Percy

A talking snake? Really? The point is since that time the obvious errors and stupidities have not been corrected but, instead have been institutionalized and weaponized. It's like you religion guys don't want to see the progress of human intellect since the stone age.

GDR, sorry, but my quip was a slap at your intellect. It was not a serious observation.I have loads of real evidence. The kind of evidence anyone can see, feel, experience.You have not but your emotions and your personal incredulity as your evidence. Your evidence cannot be experienced outside your own mind. You cannot explain your evidence since it is but a list of your personal emotional preferences. No one else can experience your god, GDR. Not from the evidence you present to us. It is vacuous.