Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof

@indonesia-phil said
Daleks can't use calculators, they only have sink - plungers or exterminators. Very handy for the odd plumbing job, otherwise they get by by exterminating people who disagree with them.

🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Buy me a coffee sir (and maybe a cake) and all is forgiven.

🙂 You come this way I'll take you to an all you can BBQ place with a Doc. Who, TARDIS out front. Ribs, Brisket, Sausage, and assorted sides. Live music on the weekends.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

A recurrent fallacy.

Who here has claimed everything came into existence from nothing? Name one person.

Well, you presumed to answer for caissadr4.

Atheistic physicist Lawrence Krauss, Though professional philosophers point out that his "nothing" is not really nothing.
[My bolding]

From Wiki
[quote] [b] A Unive ...[text shortened]... n stated. But it has also been backed away from by some.
Don't pretend that it was never claimed.

Again, name one person on this site who has claimed everything came from nothing. If caissadr4 has, quote her.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
With 1 billion trillion stars in the observable universe alone, do you not think God has 'over-created' if life only exists on this planet?

I'm not sure what some of the values the universe needs to maintain life requires. If the universe needed to be this big for it all to work, what is that to God? If time is meaningless to God, wouldn't matter and space be also? If a cell requires a myriad parts working together within a cell to be a cell reproductive machine. Then having a variety of cells work together for life in part of the universe that is so small. I see no reason why would stars and galaxies and endless space be any different. How big is God, a little one that people can imagine and frame in their minds no, but the one in scripture He can.

@kellyjay said
🙂 You come this way I'll take you to an all you can BBQ place with a Doc. Who, TARDIS out front. Ribs, Brisket, Sausage, and assorted sides. Live music on the weekends.

Vegetarian alert!

@deepthought said
I'm happy enough with your first paragraph. The problem I have is when religious narratives are treated as if they are scientific statements, or for that matter vice versa. Science can only deal with material evidence, in the sense that it needs something on which experiments can be performed or repeatable observations made.

I want to make a small point about ...[text shortened]... o be debated over in the Science forum in the thread on abiogenesis as that's the appropriate place.

I have the same problem when religious narratives are treated as scientific statements they have to be kept separate, or they both loose meaning and truth. If truth is the goal they both should be kept as pure and honest as possible, but some want to pit one against the other, suggesting one can dispel the other. I think if truth is allowed to be seen without restriction it will speak for itself.

Science can only deal with material evidence but that doesn't mean science escapes from the non-material world. Science can look at the world/universe and come up with findings, does this mean those findings should be honestly presented, and not altered or hidden? (Someone else brought this up else where, don't recall who) The material world doesn't touch what should we do, that is something else completely that cannot be measured or weighted. So what isn't just material is very real too, and where there are no material answers, you think it is wrong to believe there are answers not bound to the material world?

Did you watch the first video in the A bio genesis thread, I think both are good but the second speaker had to retract some of the things he said personally about someone's honesty, so I don't push that one much there was no need to get personal and he did. Leaving that aside I thought it was informative too.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Vegetarian alert!

I'm sure they could find a carrot or something for you to chew on. 🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Vegetarian alert!

I have some vegan friends I'd make sure you had something tasty to eat. 🙂

@sonship said
@caissad4

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a valid response.
Like using Harry Potter to prove the truth of Harry Potter.
Like using Lord of the Rings to prove Lord of the Rings is true history.
What else you got ?

I have other questions on the writing of the New Testament documents.

You know that the age of the first century was a ...[text shortened]... b].

Doesn't its candid inclusion lean more towards indicating the authenticity of the record ?

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a valid response.

@sonship said
Caissad4, what would YOU say?

Which is more of an extraordinary claim ?

1.) Everything came into existence by nothing and for nothing.

2.) Everything came into existence by something for something.

Now that I shown that #1 has been claimed. Which claim do you think is more extra-ordinary?

I do not know.
Check out Richard Dawkins.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Again, name one person on this site who has claimed everything came from nothing. If caissadr4 has, quote her.

I have never claimed everything came from nothing.
Only a physicist or maybe a religionist might. I am neither.
Does Richard Dawkins post on this site ?

@caissad4

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a valid response.

I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I saying that the characteristics four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is more indicative of historical writing.

If men of a patriarchal society wanted to portray themselves positively as the pioneers of a new religion - WHY would they record that THE most significant tenet of that faith (a resurrected Savior) was first discovered by women, while they were off hiding and afraid they might be the next to be executed?

It is a non-flattering detail which suggests to historical research that the candidness about this embarrassing detail more likely means they were telling the truth.

Objecting to "Using the Bible to prove the Bible" is just your excuse for not dealing with the historical nature of the Gospels.

@caissad4

I have never claimed everything came from nothing.

I think this response was meant for me - me, sonship rather than Ghost-of-a-Duke.

Unless I missed something all you did to demonstrate that the claim of God's existence is extraordinary was to beg the question and just say "Well it is." [paraphrased].

"It is because it is because it is " sounds very dogmatic and frankly "religious".

@caissad4

I do not know.
Check out Richard Dawkins.

Why can' you explain why the claim that "God is" is an extraordinary claim.

On your wink and smile we just ASSUME it is ?

Is it extraordinary to claim that there is an ultimate reality then (just as long as it is not God) ?

@sonship said
@caissad4

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a valid response.

I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible. I saying that the characteristics four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) is more indicative of historical writing.

If men of a patriarchal society wanted to portray themselves positively as the pioneers of a new religion - WHY would t ...[text shortened]... e to prove the Bible" is just your excuse for not dealing with the historical nature of the Gospels.

Historical nature, That is a laugh.
According to your book of fable the dead rose from their graves and were walking about at the time of the crucifiction . That is an extraordinary claim and there is zero, zip and nada historical evidence. Were the walking dead so normal that no one mentioned it in any historical documents ?
The smell alone should have made some writers put pen to papyrus.