So why doesn't God write in the sky?

[latin_rite]

Sorry, but I would like to ask atheists what they think of the Miracle of the Sun. About it being put down to some natural phenomenon by atheist reporters. I suppose it was just a coincidence that the childrens’ “lie” actually happened at the exact time and date they said it would?

I would like to ask a atheist reporter who was there what they saw. I’m sure there were more than a few. Since it wasn’t a very pro Christian enviroment. I would also ask. Why so many atheist say they saw the same thing as well? The only atheist you seem to hear disputing this event are the ones who weren’t there.

 

[abucs]

Ok. What about physics suggests that a disembodied intelligence exists?

For example, I agree that the universe runs on physical laws (“laws” here are descriptive laws…they were created by us to describe the way that matter naturally acts). What exactly about this inidicates that a disembodied intelligence exists?

Sorry, i’m not always on the internet. First of all, if there is a Creator of the physical Universe then from a Christian point of view He has to be intelligent and disembodied. For example He can’t be eternal, while creating all matter out of nothing and at the same time, be made of matter.

Secondly there are two ways to look at the Universe. The one i am guessing you have and the one i also had was to view matter/energy as being primary and cause the laws of physics to exist. That is, matter reacts with each other in certain ways which we call mathematical laws. We might wonder why the laws are so mathematically elegant such as the gravitational inverse square law but in this way of thinking, ultimately it is simply the result of matter mechanically reacting with each other.

In such a view, it does make sense to believe that no God can be present. So what you say makes perfect sense from that way of thinking. Perhaps there might be a Deist God somewhere in the distance but not a Christian concept of a personal God. I can see where your thinking is quite valid.

The other way to look at the Universe however is that all matter is simply a projection from a deeper reality and obeys abstract mathematical laws which are not physically causal but programmed to react a certain way.

To go back to your example of gravity. You could get top marks in physics if you say that :

“matter will exert a force of attraction upon other matter with a strength that is proportionally inverse to the square of the distance between the matter.” (view 1)

You would also get top marks if you say that :

“the strength of the movement of attraction (force) between any two pieces of matter is proportionally inverse to the square of the distance between that matter.” (view 2)

Both will give you a correct answer and top marks in the physics class but philosophically they are very different. The first has the philosophy written into it that the force is caused by the matter whereas the second answer allows for the possibility that the matter is obeying abstract and programmed mathematical laws.

The second way of thinking allows for those mathematical laws to be written into a deeper and more fundamental level of reality which creates an intelligible Universe in a secondary level of reality (us) that allows cause and effect to seemingly be present at the human level.

I think it is fair to say that a few decades ago the first way of thinking was the better way to see the laws of physics. Using Occam’s Razor it seemed that the second way of thinking about the laws of physics was artificially stretched to include a God that was not really necessary.

Although of course it must be added that the original founders of the Western concepts of physical laws were very religious and had the second view in what they were pioneering. This does not mean they were right but what they were developing (the ideas about laws of physics) was at least consistent with their way of looking at the world.

What changed for me (and moving from the first view to the second) was two things. Firstly it was the understanding of the history on why the underlying philosophy was changed and secondly it was the study of physics at the smallest level. I personally think that the second view is the one that more fully describes what we see scientifically and that the first view, while widespread and also allowing top marks in the physics class cannot be reconciled with what actually happens at the smallest level.

I think depending on what view we have, we will then rationalise around that view. The idea that you express that “God” doesn’t make sense is entirely rational from a position of holding the first view of the laws of physics and what they actually are.

 

[AntiTheist]

Sorry, but I would like to ask atheists what they think of the Miracle of the Sun.

Well, a large number of people saw the sun moving around the sky. We know, however, that the sun did not move around at all that day: we know this because 1) independent observers of the sun from other places on the earth did not observe movement (including observatories) and 2) if indeed the sun ever made such movements, it would have a devastating effect on the solar system (all the planets would be thrown out of their orbits, etc).

So what we have is a large number of people seeing the sun apparently move when in fact the sun didn’t move at all – we have a large-scale error in perception. I’m not sure what caused this particular error in perception (it’s been suggested by some that it might be the effect of the sun leaving after-images on the retina…and indeed, people who stare at the sun probably do not make the most reliable eye-witnesses), but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to claim that the reason that all those people made a mistake is that a god gave them all a vision.

If your god were really going to give people a sign, why wouldn’t he give them a sign that we could independently confirm? It doesn’t add up.

buffalo:

New findings are showing DNA fights against mutations. DNA attempts to repair the mutations several times.

Yes, since the majority of mutations are harmful or neutral, we would expect DNA to resist it. You seem to think that this somehow suggests that intelligence drives evolution?

Your constant non-sequiturs are not impressive.

Prodigal Son:

The fact is we have prior commitments to different positions, and we’re letting our commitments determine the evidence – logical and empirical – that we allow into the discussion. I’m willing to admit that. Are you?

No. My position emerges from my study of the evidence: insufficient evidence exists to claim that a supernatural intelligence exists.

I’m not “sneering” at you – I’m making a valid observation: your god appears to be indistinguishable from nothingness. What practical, measurable difference is there between a universe with your god and a universe without your god?

If you want to interpret my valid observations as “sneers,” then feel free to ignore what I post. But I will not dishonestly claim that everything is a matter of “opinion” and “prior commitments.”

Change the story, then. This brother writes to me daily (although it’s really just a trick, of course), and I have met someone who I was told was him (another trick). It’s not the same person who wrote the letters and whom I met. There is no brother. And yet I love my brother.

I agree that if someone is tricked into thinking that there is sufficient evidence that person X exists, he can love person X. In fact, I think that’s exactly what’s going on when people claim to “love” their gods – they have tricked themselves into thinking that there is sufficient evidence for the god’s existence.

But without sufficient evidence for thinking that entity X exists, you cannot love entity X. The question still stands: if this god wants people to love him, why won’t he give people sufficient evidence? He could easily do it.

suppose a woman I “had relations with” conceived a child, but I was not altogether sure if a) the child survived, and b) the child was mine. I propose it is still possible for me to care about that child, despite my uncertainty over the child’s very existence.

Here, I think that a vague sense of “caring” for a child that you have reason to think may possibly exist is quite different than “love” for a person with whom you have a relationship.

 

[AntiTheist]

Well, abucs, I have to say that I am impressed with your post. Based on other posts of yours, I was expecting something very different from you. I’m pleasantly surprised.

A few comments:

In such a view, it does make sense to believe that no God can be present. So what you say makes perfect sense from that way of thinking. Perhaps there might be a Deist God somewhere in the distance but not a Christian concept of a personal God. I can see where your thinking is quite valid.

The other way to look at the Universe however is that all matter is simply a projection from a deeper reality and obeys abstract mathematical laws which are not physically causal but programmed to react a certain way.

…]

I think depending on what view we have, we will then rationalise around that view.

To my way of thinking, we don’t start out with a particular “view.” We look at the evidence and we see what is justified by that evidence.

The evidence we have tells us that matter/energy exists and that it behaves in certain regular ways. If you want to make some claim on top of that (that, for example, it was set up by an intelligent being), you need to supply evidence for that extra claim.

I don’t see any sufficient evidence for that claim in your post. The closest you get is this:

The second way of thinking allows for those mathematical laws to be written into a deeper and more fundamental level of reality which creates an intelligible Universe in a secondary level of reality (us) that allows cause and effect to seemingly be present at the human level.

I’m having a hard time figuring out the gist of your argument here. Are you saying that cause and effect can only be possible if there is a god? I don’t think that you could ever demonstrate that to be true.

You also say this:

I personally think that the second view is the one that more fully describes what we see scientifically and that the first view, while widespread and also allowing top marks in the physics class cannot be reconciled with what actually happens at the smallest level.

, which is rather vague and doesn’t really tell us anything. What is it that “happens at the smallest level” that necessarily indicates that the “second view” is correct?

 

[tonyrey]

What practical, measurable difference is there between a universe with your god and a universe without your god?

The practical, measurable difference is that in your Godless scheme of things we are just insignificant, irrational apes which exist by chance for no reason or purpose whatsoever in a meaningless universe where persons are reduced to particles and truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are merely sentimental illusions…

 

[tonyrey]

To my way of thinking, we don’t start out with a particular “view.” We look at the evidence and we see what is justified by that evidence.

“To my way of thinking” says it all! How could we start out without any view at all? At the very least we have to accept the reality and reliability of our thoughts and perceptions… We are the primary evidence!

 

[R_Daneel]

This is your teleological view, then, I take it?

I don’t think that the word “teleogical” is applicable here. The plants have to “aim”, no “purpose”. These are anthropomorphisms projected onto the plants.

But don’t you wonder where such a biological imperative would come from?

Not really. Just like I don’t wonder why is it that a hydrogen atom has only one proton and one electron. I don’t wonder why is it that on the electron orbitals there can be only up to 2 electrons. These are brute facts.

It points to purpose, and purpose requires an explanation. When people first discovered magnetism, they likely said that the metal stuck to the magnet “because it wants to”. But *why *does it “want” to? Any claim of purpose requires an explanation.

To find out why something is the way it is, can be a commendable endeavor. To use your example of magnetism, it was the first, anthropomorphic assumption. Then it was discovered that this anthropomorphism is not necessary.

Good luck, my Vulcan friend!

My previous screen persona was actually “Spock”, but his spaceship took off, and so he is unable to log on from the Procyon… Maybe he will come back, who knows.

I honor you for sharing openly how you feel in this way, in a somewhat hostile environment. But I do question whether you have any real objectivity, or whether I have any real objectivity. We choose our positions for certain extralogical reasons, and only then start being logical. It’s depressing, but true.

Your question is proper. I cannot know if I am “really objective” or not. I try to be objective, but I am also aware that we are all able to misinterpret our behavior.

I’ve heard of tests that work, often called “fleeces” (see Gideon). However, I guarantee that such a test, if publicized, will be little more than a “human vanity show”, and God is not, in Gandalf’s words, a “conjurer or worker of cheap tricks”. A small request for a “private” miracle will do, without any attitude or hostility. My friend, a former atheist who lives in Michigan, asked God to show him the Northern Lights if He was real. That night, He looked up and saw them. (This is NOT a common occurrence in Southeast Michigan.) I don’t think it’s a bad thing to test God in that sort of way.

The trouble with the personal tests, is exactly that - they are personal. As such they cannot be taken seriously. And to see the Aurora Borealis might be a rare occurrence, but one wish of such kind is akin to one swallow… which does not a summer make… if you see what I mean.

 

[R_Daneel]

False. How many times will you distort the meaning of my statements? The term “purpose” is often applied to non-intelligent activity, e.g. the purpose of sexual activity is procreation.

All your argument is based upon the ambiguity and imprecision of the language, then? We are using “flowery” expressions to anthropomorphize natural occurrences. So what does that “prove”? Besides our propensity to be “poetic” sometimes?

 

[abucs]

Well, abucs, I have to say that I am impressed with your post. Based on other posts of yours, I was expecting something very different from you. I’m pleasantly surprised.

A few comments:

To my way of thinking, we don’t start out with a particular “view.” We look at the evidence and we see what is justified by that evidence.

The evidence we have tells us that matter/energy exists and that it behaves in certain regular ways. If you want to make some claim on top of that (that, for example, it was set up by an intelligent being), you need to supply evidence for that extra claim.

I don’t see any sufficient evidence for that claim in your post. The closest you get is this:
I’m having a hard time figuring out the gist of your argument here. Are you saying that cause and effect can only be possible if there is a god? I don’t think that you could ever demonstrate that to be true.

You also say this:, which is rather vague and doesn’t really tell us anything. What is it that “happens at the smallest level” that necessarily indicates that the “second view” is correct?

I would say it depends on where you start from. The people who first “discovered” the laws of physics had one starting point, you have another and i have yet another. When you say “WE know … and I am making claims on top of that”, you may be right from your point of view. But do “WE” really have the same starting point where we can agree on what is the basics we know? And what personal history and intellectual history is it that “WE” are coming from to agree on that?

I would say our concepts of what matter and energy actually are would be quite different. Is your starting point view the default? Why? Who says? Who and what has influenced that view?

To my way of thinking, it is not the default view of science. Science studies the relationships between things of the physical Universe. It hasn’t as yet actually said anything about what they are or where they ultimately came/come from.

For example, some people think everything in the Universe is made up of small pockets of matter, others concentrated balls of energy, still others again believe that the physical Universe is made up of vibrating strings that stretches over 14 dimensions of space (I believe this was or is Stephen Hawkins working model).

But we can keep on going further into this - what is energy? what are electrons? what is 14 dimensions? what are pockets of matter? etc. Each of us might have a working relationship in our heads on what is actually there, but science does not have a default. Science simply studies the relationship between that which we can see at only a macro level.

We cannot see ‘balls of energy’ but we know something is there because we study how it reacts with other “stuff”. So science doesn’t know much about what is there and even less about where it originally comes from and the mechanism for how it interacts. We can only study those things from a macro view. But there is no default scientific view which we can agree on in what that fundamentally is.

So i would not agree that we have a common starting point and that someone (me) is putting something “on top” of that. It depends on your own scientific background on how much you actually know to begin with and what is a coherent starting point that agrees with ALL the scientific testing of matter.

A common simple view is what is taught at school. In order to help students think about atoms we give the model of little bits/balls of matter (electrons) rotating around other bits/balls of matter (protons and neutrons) but this is simply a basic model to help students understand how atoms interact. We know that these “particles” have independent “weights”, we know some of them have “charge”, we know they are organised in different ways and can be suitably broken and re-assembled but the model that is given is only that - a model. “Weights” and “charge” when we really look at it are simply descriptions of how some matter reacts with other matter.

The simple model works for physics at the macro level, but we know that this view does not agree with what we see at the micro level. We go back to the question - what exactly is an electron made up of and what is the environment it is active in and why does it behave in that environment in certain ways?

From my study and reading I personally think that it has become evident that the “simple” models that are used for say high school and even into University physics may be a good model for “resultant” macro physics but are untenable when we roll our sleeves up and try to actually get at the question of - what is reality.

The two views i expressed earlier are both consistent with the scientific relationship of things we see in the physical Universe up to a point.

The first view i believe though is not tenable on a closer view of the science. You are of course correct, i have not outlined exactly why it is untenable. I don’t want to hijack the thread and perhaps we can talk offline. As i originally said, the public adversarial format of such forums does not support proper investigation and reasoned reflection.

Of course, i am not dependent on you ultimately seeing things from my view even when/if i do present such a case. I respect your continued view to give more weight to other sources of evidence. I am convinced though and that is what is naturally important (to me).

OK, i am going now and i’ll let you respond and send me a private mail if you want the case presented as to why i am convinced.

 

[buffalo]

Well, a large number of people saw the sun moving around the sky. We know, however, that the sun did not move around at all that day: we know this because 1) independent observers of the sun from other places on the earth did not observe movement (including observatories) and 2) if indeed the sun ever made such movements, it would have a devastating effect on the solar system (all the planets would be thrown out of their orbits, etc).

So what we have is a large number of people seeing the sun apparently move when in fact the sun didn’t move at all – we have a large-scale error in perception. I’m not sure what caused this particular error in perception (it’s been suggested by some that it might be the effect of the sun leaving after-images on the retina…and indeed, people who stare at the sun probably do not make the most reliable eye-witnesses), but I don’t think the evidence is sufficient to claim that the reason that all those people made a mistake is that a god gave them all a vision.

If your god were really going to give people a sign, why wouldn’t he give them a sign that we could independently confirm? It doesn’t add up.

buffalo: Yes, since the majority of mutations are harmful or neutral, we would expect DNA to resist it. You seem to think that this somehow suggests that intelligence drives evolution?

Your constant non-sequiturs are not impressive.

Prodigal Son: No. My position emerges from my study of the evidence: insufficient evidence exists to claim that a supernatural intelligence exists.

I’m not “sneering” at you – I’m making a valid observation: your god appears to be indistinguishable from nothingness. What practical, measurable difference is there between a universe with your god and a universe without your god?

If you want to interpret my valid observations as “sneers,” then feel free to ignore what I post. But I will not dishonestly claim that everything is a matter of “opinion” and “prior commitments.”

I agree that if someone is tricked into thinking that there is sufficient evidence that person X exists, he can love person X. In fact, I think that’s exactly what’s going on when people claim to “love” their gods – they have tricked themselves into thinking that there is sufficient evidence for the god’s existence.

But without sufficient evidence for thinking that entity X exists, you cannot love entity X. The question still stands: if this god wants people to love him, why won’t he give people sufficient evidence? He could easily do it.

Here, I think that a vague sense of “caring” for a child that you have reason to think may possibly exist is quite different than “love” for a person with whom you have a relationship.

People who knew nothing of the events saw the sun dance from 25 -50 miles away. If it was 1 million people, it wold not be enough for skeptics.

you - “buffalo: Yes, since the majority of mutations are harmful or neutral, we would expect DNA to resist it. You seem to think that this somehow suggests that intelligence drives evolution?”

Let’s examine this: If DNA is actively resisting mutations, the time necessary for evo just went way up. Time to recalculate the age of the earth, but wait, they just revised it downward, so that won’t work. (show me a paper from say twenty years ago admitting this was expected)

I have posted many many science and peer reviewed links to show that intelligence is driving the process.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal Son: No. My position emerges from my study of the evidence: insufficient evidence exists to claim that a supernatural intelligence exists

.

I agree with you. The same evidence claimed for God may very well point to an intelligent power that set the “world” in motion (deism) or the claim that we exist within or a computer program or to the claim that everything occurs because of chance. Evidence won’t decide it.

You present a picture of the world, and within that picture of the world the existence of God is implausible (perhaps even irrelevant). But how did you get your picture of the world? Wittgenstein, who was once a positivist like you, says this:

I did not get my picture of the world by satisfying myself of its correctness; nor do I have it because I am satisfied of its correctness. No: it is the inherited background against which I distinguish between true and false.

So if you tell me that there is not evidence for God, all you are telling me is that you don’t take for evidence what I take for evidence. And please, spare me your insistence that your view is superior to mine. Superior, in what sense? That you have better sources of evidence? But how, pray tell, do we *empirically *decide which evidence sources are better?

I’m not “sneering” at you – I’m making a valid observation: your god appears to be indistinguishable from nothingness. What practical, measurable difference is there between a universe with your god and a universe without your god?

I suppose you might be able to measure heaven and hell, when the time comes, but I’m not sure you’d want to. Christianity does make one massive prediction, though, a prediction which **is **testable: but I’m not sure the experiment involved (committing suicide) is well-advised.

If you want to interpret my valid observations as “sneers,” then feel free to ignore what I post. But I will not dishonestly claim that everything is a matter of “opinion” and “prior commitments.”

Then I will consider you an uber-objectivist, if you will. Objectivists believe that truth exists; I am one of them. Uber-objectivists insist that they (and those who agree with them) have privileged access to truth. If you say that your view is not merely an “opinion”, then you must be an uber-objectivist. Or have I misinterpreted you?

All my views are merely opinions. They could be wrong.

The question still stands: if this god wants people to love him, why won’t he give people sufficient evidence? He could easily do it.

“All lies and jest,
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest…” - Paul Simon

:harp: :harp: :harp: :harp:

 

[tonyrey]

All your argument is based upon the ambiguity and imprecision of the language, then? We are using “flowery” expressions to anthropomorphize natural occurrences. So what does that “prove”? Besides our propensity to be “poetic” sometimes?

You are obviously unaware that in his book “Chance and Necessity” the atheist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod coined the term “teleonomic” to describe the purposeful activity of living organisms. Was he guilty of anthropomorphizing natural occurrences?

If you wish to rectify your ignorance you can refer to online extracts from The Directiveness of Organic Activities:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=UNE8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=directiveness+of+biological

 

[R_Daneel]

You are obviously unaware that in his book “Chance and Necessity” the atheist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Monod coined the term “teleonomic” to describe the purposeful activity of living organisms. Was he guilty of anthropomorphizing natural occurrences?

Since he coined a new word for it, obviously he did see a need to make a distinction. To say that the plants “purposefully” try to grow toward the sunshine is sheer nonsense.

 

[tonyrey]

Since he coined a new word for it, obviously he did see a need to make a distinction. To say that the plants “purposefully” try to grow toward the sunshine is sheer nonsense.

You still don’t seem to realise that unlike inanimate molecules living beings have goals, one of which is to survive. They don’t have to “try”, they act instinctively. This is where your mechanistic view of life breaks down…

 

[AntiTheist]

But we can keep on going further into this - what is energy? what are electrons? what is 14 dimensions? what are pockets of matter? etc. Each of us might have a working relationship in our heads on what is actually there, but science does not have a default. Science simply studies the relationship between that which we can see at only a macro level.

These are all good questions – what is this stuff exactly? Studying these questions is the job of scientists.

I don’t see any justification for claiming that these things come from some transcendental realm or were created by an intelligence. You certainly haven’t offered any in your post. What you seem to be suggesting is a kind of grand argument from ignorance: “There’s a lot we don’t know! Therefore a god exists!”

As I said, you need sufficient evidence to support your claim, not just the fact that we don’t know everything.

The first view i believe though is not tenable on a closer view of the science.

Well, even if you could demonstrate this – and I don’t think that you can – it wouldn’t demonstrate that “the second view” is automatically correct. There could be dozens of other potential “views” that could be true.

Again, you need sufficient evidence that supports the “view” you have. Without this sufficient evidence, your “view” is not justified.

I appreciate your offer to talk with me “offline,” but I do not generally have discussions of this type one-on-one. I realize that I’m unlikely to convince you (and vice-versa), so I’d rather have our discussion out in public, where people on the fence can read what we’re saying and decide for themselves.

Feel free to start a thread if you want to present your evidence in public.

Buffalo:

People who knew nothing of the events saw the sun dance from 25 -50 miles away.

But, importantly, observatories with instruments trained on the sun did not see it do anything unusual. No observatory recorded any of the serious gravitational effects that we would expect to see if the sun ever “danced” (for one thing, the solar system would be destroyed because the planets would all fly out of their orbits…that appears not to have happened).

The only conclusion is that people who saw the sun “dance” were mistaken. Now, why they were mistaken is a question that is open to discussion, but I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to claim that it had to be a supernatural reason. I’m content with “I don’t know” as my answer.

If DNA is actively resisting mutations, the time necessary for evo just went way up.

That’s far from necessarily true, but even if it were…even if you could demonstrate empirically that evolution is impossible, it wouldn’t be evidence for the existence of your god.

tony:

“To my way of thinking” says it all! How could we start out without any view at all? At the very least we have to accept the reality and reliability of our thoughts and perceptions… We are the primary evidence!

We start by looking at evidence. Some people – like you, for example – don’t start by looking at evidence. You want to pay attention to your fantasies and your desires for the world to work the way you want it to work.

 

[AntiTheist]

So if you tell me that there is not evidence for God, all you are telling me is that you don’t take for evidence what I take for evidence.

Well, of course I’m telling you that. That’s what we’ve been talking about this whole thread: people have been claiming that some things are sufficient to support the claim that a god exists (like the existence of a universe), and I’ve been explaining that those pieces of data are not sufficient evidence.

Do you think it’s not possible to decide whether or not a piece of evidence is sufficient to support a particular claim?

But how, pray tell, do we *empirically *decide which evidence sources are better?

We don’t empirically decide that question – we logically examine the evidence to see if it’s sufficient to support the claim.

For example, if I claimed to be Napoleon, and cited, as evidence, my deep inner conviction that I am Napoleon or, perhaps, the fact that I asked god if I was Napoleon and, two seconds later, turned on the television and saw a documentary of Napoleon – we could have a discussion and absolutely conclude that the evidence I’m offering is insufficient to support that claim.

Uber-objectivists insist that they (and those who agree with them) have privileged access to truth.

When I say that my ideas aren’t based on “opinions” or “prior commitments,” I was specifically responding to your ridiculous assertion that you and I were both working backwards from wanting a particular conclusion to be true.

All I’m saying is that I don’t do that. Perhaps “opinion” was a bad word to use in this context (I was using it, roughly, to mean, “a belief held without sufficient evidence, just because I want it to be true”). What I meant to say was that I don’t just decide that something is true and then select my evidence accordingly. I do the opposite: I look at evidence, and I see what that evidence justifies.

Access to truth isn’t privileged. Those who correctly use evidence are most likely to be correct, and I think we can have a legitimate discussion about who is using evidence correctly.

 

[buffalo]

T

Buffalo: But, importantly, observatories with instruments trained on the sun did not see it do anything unusual. No observatory recorded any of the serious gravitational effects that we would expect to see if the sun ever “danced” (for one thing, the solar system would be destroyed because the planets would all fly out of their orbits…that appears not to have happened).

The only conclusion is that people who saw the sun “dance” were mistaken. Now, why they were mistaken is a question that is open to discussion, but I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to claim that it had to be a supernatural reason. I’m content with “I don’t know” as my answer.

That’s far from necessarily true, but even if it were…even if you could demonstrate empirically that evolution is impossible, it wouldn’t be evidence for the existence of your god.

There is another conclusion. God performed a local miracle for those who assembled. He is under no obligation to make sure other parts of the world saw it. Further, if God performed a miracle nothing necessarily would happen to the planets.

If evolution is proven impossible, what are the other choices?

 

[buffalo]

Access to truth isn’t privileged. Those who correctly use evidence are most likely to be correct, and I think we can have a legitimate discussion about who is using evidence correctly.

Then you need to show positively how we are using the historical evidence incorrectly.

Not allowed - modern science has found that _____________, therefore documented history is wrong.

 

[AntiTheist]

There is another conclusion. God performed a local miracle for those who assembled.

That’s one possible conclusion. Another possible conclusion is that a lot of people made an honest mistake, and there have been a variety of optical illusions suggested for this (for example, staring at the sun can cause the sun to leave after-images on your retina, which might very well be interpreted as the sun frantically moving around).

Frankly, I don’t know why so many people made the mistake that they did, but I don’t see sufficient evidence for thinking that their mistake was caused by a god.

If evolution is proven impossible, what are the other choices?

I don’t know. Perhaps living creatures arose through some other natural process. Perhaps aliens created all living creatures on this planet. Perhaps some other god created all living creatures on this planet. Perhaps some other supernatural being – like Cthulhu – created all living creatures on this planet. etc, etc.

Even if you could somehow demonstrate that evolution is impossible – which you can’t…not with the sorry excuse for “evidence” you keep bringing up – it doesn’t mean that your god automatically exists.

“Evolution couldn’t have happened…therefore god exists” is a non-sequitur that is based in a false dichotomy.

 

[AntiTheist]

Then you need to show positively how we are using the historical evidence incorrectly.

Not allowed - modern science has found that _____________, therefore documented history is wrong.

What “historical evidence”? If you’re referring to the Gospels, you have a number of documents written long after the purported events took place, written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses from oral tradition, that claim that supernatural things happened decades earlier.

That is not sufficient evidence that supernatural things happened.

Even if you had eye-witness accounts that were written down the next day, that’s not sufficient to demonstrate that something supernatural happened. As an example, there are people in the world right now – whom you can go and talk to today – who can give you their eye-witness testimony about being abducted by UFOs…sometimes multiple people claim to have been abducted at once.

Their testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate that UFOs really abduct people.

Testimony – particularly third- or fourth-hand testimony about supposed events that took place decades ago – is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of something supernatural.