Can anyone

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, this is in a real, structured debate, with an impartial moderator.


you can't have that here. this forum is about having fun. about having an intellectual challenge as much as you possibly can with the likes of rjhinds or freaky posting.

if you really want a good debate that you could crown a "winner" of, you need to designate someone everyone ...[text shortened]... asier it would be to have a discussion if you wouldn't have to browse through some of the posts.

Yes, I agree that this forum is very loosely structured and hardly suited to having a moderator who adjudicates winners and losers. And yes, it is sometimes tiresome to read through a lot of dross to get at the nuggets. As one forum contributor put it, when he sees _who_ wrote a comment he sometimes just skips over it to the next comment.

If you want to ensure intelligent discussion without dross and bumping (people who hijack a thread and send it off on a tangent), you have the option of contacting someone off-forum using the RHP internal message system or private email. This, however, has the drawback that it works only for one-on-one conversation; multi-party conferencing is a ways off yet, for technical reasons. The physical infrastructure (i.e., servers) will support it (if IPv6 compatible), but the apps aren't there yet to manage multicast emailing/forum chatting.

Originally posted by divegeester
Understood.

I disagree though with your pov that "gods" a proven beyond all reasonable doubt not to exist. I disagree for a number of reasons:

- "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and therefore is not applicable in this case

- if you choose to state/make a hypothosis that "gods don't exist" then surely the onus fall o ...[text shortened]... is to prove it. If I make a hypothesis that "gods exist" them the onus falls on me.

Thoughts?

- "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and therefore is not applicable in this case

It is a term, it has a meaning that suits my purpose.

The fact that it also has a legal meaning doesn't change that.
As a side point it's no longer [wrongly in my opinion] used in English courts.
They ask a jury if they are 'sure' that the accused committed the offence.
Not whether the prosecution has proven the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Apparently because some idiot thought that juries couldn't cope with working out
what constituted 'reasonable' doubt.

Science proves things statistically, probabilistically, and so it is perfectly reasonable to
talk about things being proven beyond reasonable doubt in a scientific context.
When they announced the discovery of the Higgs it was announced that the discovery
was made with a 5 sigma level of certainty. The agreed point beyond reasonable doubt for
particle physics. [they have subsequently pushed on through 6 sigma]

- if you choose to state/make a hypothosis that "gods don't exist" then surely the onus fall on you as the owner of the hypothosis to prove it. If I make a hypothesis that "gods exist" them the onus falls on me.

Slight quibble. It's not a hypothesis. "Gods don't exist" and "Gods exist" are statements of fact,
not proposed explanatory frameworks for phenomena.

Yes, if you assert that either gods do, or do not exist, then you are making a positive statement
that gives you a burden of proof to justify your move from the neutral position of not knowing or
believing either way if gods exist.

Which is why I say that I believe that "it has been proven" beyond all reasonable doubt that
gods don't exist. Reveal Hidden Content I believe that the burden of proof has been met to make that claim.

Originally posted by googlefudge

- "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and therefore is not applicable in this case

It is a term, it has a meaning that suits my purpose.

The fact that it also has a legal meaning doesn't change that.
[i]As a side point it's no longer [wrongly in my opinion] used in English courts.
They ask a jury if they ...[text shortened]... t goes with that.] [/hidden] I believe that the burden of proof has been met to make that claim.

Is it reasonable to say that there are competent scientists that disagree with your proof that God does not exist? I have yet to find a competent Christian that believes there is no God. I have heard many times that there are more Christians than there are scientists so by a world vote I believe the God believers to have won the argument. If we put it in the legal form of jury votes and reasonable doubt. You see you can claim science has proved dust particles, gas, explosions, and anything you want but it still remains that gas and dust and particles had to all come from somewhere. Chicken, egg. whatever all has to have a beginning, All except God that is. Because in the beginning there was God. It matters not whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or several others we all including many scientist believe and know that the minority of non believers are simply wrong and blinded by their own skepticism. However I respect your own beliefs and search for truth. Otherwise I doubt you would be concerned enough to debate in a Forum entitled "Spirituality Forum", when Atheism is not spiritually based. I do believe you have reasonable thoughts however and I pray for you and your friends. I hope you won't be offended because that was not my intent.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
remember a thread where a theist won an argument against an atheist?

RJ's

Fossil record supports creation

Originally posted by RBHILL
RJ's

Fossil record supports creation

How so?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There are several ways in which 'an argument' can be 'won' in given contexts.

If you are having a formal debate then there can be judges and/or an audience vote.
Or informally a community can indicate which side 'won' the argument.
Politicians might be said to 'win' a debate if they get the biggest [positive] change in
their polling numbers and/or wi ...[text shortened]... how to determine
fact from fiction. I am sure that he thinks he wins most/all of his 'arguments'.

Originally posted by wolfgang59 (OP)
remember a thread where a theist won an argument against an atheist?

It's interesting that an atheist's priority is winning arguments against theists as if the accretion of such wins on a zero base represents anything of durable value in the grand scheme of human life facing forward to eternity. Is this all there is to the 'spiritual life' of a human being alone without hope and without God having said, "No" to His Grace Gift of Eternal Life? Sad.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by wolfgang59 (OP)
[b]remember a thread where a theist won an argument against an atheist?

It's interesting that an atheist's priority is winning arguments against theists as if the accretion of such wins on a zero base represents anything of durable value in the grand scheme of human life facing forward to eternity. Is ...[text shortened]... ing alone without hope and without God having said, "No" to His Grace Gift of Eternal Life? Sad.[/b]

It's interesting how pathetically bad you are at both reading comprehension,
writing comprehensibility.

I find it telling how pathetically frightened of us you are that you cannot possibly
listen to what we tell you lest it destroy your mean little faith.

Run away little coward, run away.

For every punch there is a counter-punch; for every counter-punch there is a counter-counter-punch. Only fools and horses would think there is such a thing as winning such a contest.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's interesting how pathetically bad you are at both reading comprehension,
writing comprehensibility.

I find it telling how pathetically frightened of us you are that you cannot possibly
listen to what we tell you lest it destroy your mean little faith.

Run away little coward, run away.

Isn't it interesting how the mere mention of an abhorrent three letter word "God" or His Perfect Plan or the Person of Christ always produces an effect: either positive response or negative reaction. Isn't it the breadth and depth and height of irony that an atheist's profoundly quiet or vehement protestations attest to God's Sovereignty as stated in His Word.

"The Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and of the joints and the marrow, and is a critic of thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

Originally posted by cashthetrash
Is it reasonable to say that there are competent scientists that disagree with your proof that God does not exist? I have yet to find a competent Christian that believes there is no God. I have heard many times that there are more Christians than there are scientists so by a world vote I believe the God believers to have won the argument. If we put it ...[text shortened]... nd I pray for you and your friends. I hope you won't be offended because that was not my intent.

Science isn't up for a vote, it isn't a popularity contest.

And don't pray for me, I want nothing your religion purports to offer.

How do we know that any particular fossil was the parent of some other creature ?

Originally posted by sonship
How do we know that any particular fossil was the parent of some other creature ?

Morphology. Look it up.

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's interesting how pathetically bad you are at both reading comprehension,
writing comprehensibility.

I find it telling how pathetically frightened of us you are that you cannot possibly
listen to what we tell you lest it destroy your mean little faith.

Run away little coward, run away.

Dude your Karma is too negative, i know you are an evil tyrant and all that, but even Ming the merciless smiled 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dude your Karma is too negative, i know you are an evil tyrant and all that, but even Ming the merciless smiled 😀

Evil Overlord... There's a difference.

They're spelled differently for one thing.

Originally posted by sonship
How do we know that any particular fossil was the parent of some other creature ?

We don't know that any particular fossil [or rather the creature that made that fossil]
ever reproduced.

However the fossils show us the kind of creatures around at the time to reproduce.


And we don't necessarily know for certain that any given fossil is of a direct ancestor of
any other creature we see in the fossil record.

It could be a fossil of a line that died out.

For example looking at human evolution, there were many different 'attempts' at humans
with different hominids, branching off, most of which died out.
So working out which fossils we find of various hominids are of species we directly descend from
as opposed to near cousins, like chimps but closer, is very hard.

However we can still see the overall shape of our evolution tracking forwards in time from fossil
to fossil.


Genetics is a very powerful tool for determining how closely modern species are related.
But that's a different topic.