Atheism

[misesfan]

Except, of course, that it does. Google "genetic algorithm".

Reality seems to disagree with your assertions. Reality > your assertions.




Lurker

Thank you for the kind reply.

I must disagree with your presumption, since a genetic algorithm is coded first by an intelligent agent. The code itself is not created or evolved - although several attempts have been made with this idea in mind. With my limited knowledge regarding programming, I would state that letting the source code get modified by a genetic process would be disastrous. In fact, I think von Neumann stated that self-modifying code is an intractable problem - much like our friendly traveling salesman problem.

Therefore, given an agent with intelligence programming genetic algorithms, obviously the conclusion that intelligence is removed from the increase in information is false.

 

[misesfan]

Going back to the original gist of this thread: it's my position that saying there is "evidence" for the existence of God is simply naive. Tiny particles don't appear to require a God to simply pop into existence; energy needs no supernatural intervention to expand and settle down into matter; matter requires no deity to form stars, moons, asteroids, and planets; planets don't need a God to form atmospheres, organic molecules, or even (apparently) organic molecules that can make copies of themselves. Self-replicating molecules don't need the supernatural to make variations of themselves; and these variations require only natural processes to evolve more and more complex systems.

This is, doubtless, a history that many Christians would reject, nor is it one that I find particularly comforting, but this is the history recorded within the very fabric of our universe. The hard truth is that reality pays no heed to our preferences or the comforting fables we would rather believe about it.


Lurker

Indeed your suppositions have some truth. But the conclusion that God does not exist doesnt follow the premises. Because life is able to replicate without governance does not mean that life was not created in that fashion. It seems that because you dont observe God you deny His existence.

If I may presume, your requirement for evidence seems to be very narrow. You require scientific evidence only, and without it you deny the supernatural. (These are assumptions of mine, so please correct me if I am wrong.) I think were atheists and Christians fail to communicate is on the definition of evidence. I will agree with your premise that science will never prove Gods existence, although you must admit that it will never disprove His existence either.

Given that, we must rely on the many other forms of evidence that exists in human nature. For example, empirical evidence can be used. However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives. Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

In my opinion, science is extremely limited in what it can prove. In fact, science itself states that observations made are affected by the observer interacting in an experiment (see Heisenburg, for examples). Using science to disprove the existence of God, is analogous to spitting in the wind - you can try, but certainly the wind may have a lot more behind it then you think.

 

[misesfan]

My comment on electricity was an attempt to assist thiscrosshurts in his previous post.

It was not an attempt by me to change the course of the discussion.

I thought that I would clear up this area that I thought was misunderstood.

Dear misesfan, I am well aware that lightning is the result of
electrostatic discharge. You may not be aware that this is
a potential difference, also that the air itself is in effect the
conductor. Lightning is a flow of electrons from the ground up
into the clouds and beyond.

Dear B-A-C, I am a Christian, it was not my idea to introduce
electricity into the debate, read above.

I must provide more information in my posts as I am too brief
at times. This causes problems.

Thank you brother for the reply - my intention was not to be pedantic, but to clarify. I appreciate your instruction.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Thank you for the kind reply.

I must disagree with your presumption, since a genetic algorithm is coded first by an intelligent agent.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. That intelligent agents set up the model is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the model we have in genetic algorithms mimics a completely natural process to produce new information.

With my limited knowledge regarding programming, I would state that letting the source code get modified by a genetic process would be disastrous.

Given that genetic algorithms actually produce results you are once again in the position of denying reality with your assertions.




Lurker

 

[misesfan]

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. That intelligent agents set up the model is irrelevant, what is relevant is that the model we have in genetic algorithms mimics a completely natural process to produce new information.



Given that genetic algorithms actually produce results you are once again in the position of denying reality with your assertions.




Lurker

Thank you, sir, for the reply
An intelligent actor designing a genetic algorithm is relevant.

I think that we have now crossed the Rubicon in which any point that one makes will simply be dismissed without reason. No productive or enlightening debate can be made in that environment, since simply dismissing an argument as irrelevant without reason does nothing for anyone's enlightenment.

I appreciate the conversation, sir, but I must consider the conversation closed because of intransigence.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Thank you, sir, for the reply
An intelligent actor designing a genetic algorithm is relevant.

Only as relevant as the role of an intelligent actor designing any other model, which is to say - not at all. Someone setting up the computer program does not change the fact that the program itself models a natural process. The natural process is the relevant topic - not the set up of the model.

Of course, since we can also observe this same natural process producing new information in reality your above misunderstanding is moot anyway.

I think that we have now crossed the Rubicon in which any point that one makes will simply be dismissed without reason.

Not at all, I gave a very good reason for dismissing your point in that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. Even in genetic algorithms, the human beings setting up the programs are not causing an increase in information - the increase in information observed in genetic algorithms, as with the increase in information observed in actual genomes, is caused by the wholly natural and unintelligent forces of variation and selection. Claiming that this isn't so because intelligent actors (scientists) set up the model is like saying that an enclosed jar with hot water in it doesn't model the water cycle because an intelligent actor put the water in the jar.


Therefore your claim that "Information never increases without an intelligent agent causing it" is quite easily falsified. Enjoy.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

It seems that because you dont observe God you deny His existence.

Not at all. Rather, because I don't observe physical evidence for God I deny that there is any physical evidence for god.

However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives.

Where is this observable, empirical evidence that God exists, makes a difference, and is very active in people's lives? I truly would love to see it.

Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

How so? Every culture has stories of supernatural intervention, and every religion attributes events to their deity(s), often to the point that several gods, or versions of god, are claimed to have intervened at the same moment. How do you determine which is the correct attribution?




Lurker

 

[namith]

If I may presume, your requirement for evidence seems to be very narrow. You require scientific evidence only, and without it you deny the supernatural. (These are assumptions of mine, so please correct me if I am wrong.) I think were atheists and Christians fail to communicate is on the definition of evidence. I will agree with your premise that science will never prove Gods existence, although you must admit that it will never disprove His existence either.

What kinds of things do you consider evidence? Anything that could actually be used to test, support, or falsify a theory could be considered scientific. I'm not really sure what else we could be talking about.

Given that, we must rely on the many other forms of evidence that exists in human nature. For example, empirical evidence can be used. However, the observable evidence using empiricism is that God does exist, He does make a difference, and is very active in people's lives.

Okay, provide an example that is not explainable by natural processes and not ever ascribed to the action of any other god. There are a few medical "miracles" I've heard of, but they never extend to things like spontaneous amputee healing.

Historical evidence, that is what we have read and discover from history unique to humanity. Certainly, much of this evidence certainly points to God not only existing, but intervening throughout peoples lives.

Such as?

In my opinion, science is extremely limited in what it can prove. In fact, science itself states that observations made are affected by the observer interacting in an experiment (see Heisenburg, for examples). Using science to disprove the existence of God, is analogous to spitting in the wind - you can try, but certainly the wind may have a lot more behind it then you think.

Science likely cannot "disprove" the existence of a god, since it is almost impossible to disprove anything. However, science can cast strong doubt on the existence of a god with certain properties often ascribed to him. If God intervenes in the natural world, this is something that should be observed. However, we do not seem to observe this.

 

[misesfan]

What kinds of things do you consider evidence? Anything that could actually be used to test, support, or falsify a theory could be considered scientific. I'm not really sure what else we could be talking about.

Okay, provide an example that is not explainable by natural processes and not ever ascribed to the action of any other god. There are a few medical "miracles" I've heard of, but they never extend to things like spontaneous amputee healing.

Such as?

Science likely cannot "disprove" the existence of a god, since it is almost impossible to disprove anything. However, science can cast strong doubt on the existence of a god with certain properties often ascribed to him. If God intervenes in the natural world, this is something that should be observed. However, we do not seem to observe this.

Glad to see your nice reply, Namith.
Some examples of reality that are not explainable by the scientific method (and these are pretty standard responses to an old question)-
1) Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven science, since science must assume mathematical proofs are true. You cannot use science to then prove it so.
2) Metaphysical reality - that is, there are external minds that exist outside one's one, or that past was not created when a person born.
3) Ethical beliefs - that murder is wrong, or that love exists cannot be proven with science. Any value system in society cannot be proven with science. How do you show by the scientific method that the Nazi scientists in Germany were evil?
4) Aesthetic judgements - a pretty girl, a delicious steak, a cool beer watching football are good things to many men, but prove it using the scientific method
5) Science itself has many unprovable assumptions - for example, in special relativity the speed of light is constant. Or unknown possibilities - in a given experiment, light will act as a wave or as a particle. (Also see Schrodinger's Cat). In fact physics has stated unequivocally that one cannot observe without changing the experiment in some manner.

What kind of things is evidence that is beyond scientific evidence?
1) eyewitness testimony - always used in a court of law as a legitimate evidence.
2) circumstantial evidence - i.e. something cannot be proven directly, but must deduced logically from the evidence at hand.
3) anecdotal and analogous evidence - which allow people to predict what may occur based on their experiences and other factors. Given that anecdotal or analogous evidence is not as strong as physical or testimonial evidence does not preclude its utility at certain times.

Finally you state that God does NOT intervene in the natural world. There is a ton evidence of the testimonial type that would disagree with you and state for a fact that He has. If you have millions of people state that God intervenes in their life in a real and physical manner, are you simply going to discount this evidence?

And finally, God did intervene in the most direct manner possible in incarnation of Jesus Christ. To a Christian like myself - that is as about as direct of an intervention as you will see. (Now, I am admittedly goading you a tad here, and I apologize. But, my undeniable reality is that this is true. Therefore, a Christian I must be.)

 

[David777]

Fascinating discussion.

So we can conclude that the evidence itself is negotiable depending on the initial assumption(s).

I see the World as created by God, therefore all evidence will support this assumption.

ItinerantLurker will see no evidence for God's existence rather the evidence conforms to a natural origin.

Obviously the next question is what does "natural" mean IL?

 

[misesfan]

Only as relevant as the role of an intelligent actor designing any other model, which is to say - not at all. Someone setting up the computer program does not change the fact that the program itself models a natural process. The natural process is the relevant topic - not the set up of the model.

Of course, since we can also observe this same natural process producing new information in reality your above misunderstanding is moot anyway.



Not at all, I gave a very good reason for dismissing your point in that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a model is. Even in genetic algorithms, the human beings setting up the programs are not causing an increase in information - the increase in information observed in genetic algorithms, as with the increase in information observed in actual genomes, is caused by the wholly natural and unintelligent forces of variation and selection. Claiming that this isn't so because intelligent actors (scientists) set up the model is like saying that an enclosed jar with hot water in it doesn't model the water cycle because an intelligent actor put the water in the jar.


Therefore your claim that "Information never increases without an intelligent agent causing it" is quite easily falsified. Enjoy.




Lurker

/sigh - I will try once again, even though I think that you simply dismiss rational argument as irrelevant. However, lets remove our intelligent designer for a moment...

No extra information is ever output from a genetic algorithm. That fact is the fitness function in a genetic algorithm, which is present in order to achieve a formal result, will limit the amount of information that is produced. You cannot get around this. While, a GA may be able to produce a better car, it will never produce an airplane.

At least currently. According to you, this will happen in the future. But, knowing what I know, especially about NP-complete problems and information theory, I disagree.

Your premise is false, GA does not add information. It manipulates existing information with a fitness function to produce new output which could be better than the original. Maximized if you will. But, not more... That is the state of your model, currently

 

[misesfan]

Not at all. Rather, because I don't observe physical evidence for God I deny that there is any physical evidence for god.



Where is this observable, empirical evidence that God exists, makes a difference, and is very active in people's lives? I truly would love to see it.



How so? Every culture has stories of supernatural intervention, and every religion attributes events to their deity(s), often to the point that several gods, or versions of god, are claimed to have intervened at the same moment. How do you determine which is the correct attribution?




Lurker

1) The physical evidence is that the universe had a beginning in the first place. The logic from this one bit evidence will show that God exists. (read - circumstantial evidence)

2) You only need to talk to any Christian to see how God makes a difference. I would love to discuss this with you, as I am sure most of my brethren on this forum would as well. Christ has forgiven us and given us liberty from evil. And by God enormous, amazing Grace we are affected and changed, and a difference is made. That is real, and it has been happening for millennium. Here is a quote from Isaac Newton that may enlighten those who think science and religion are incompatible - "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

 

[namith]

Some examples of reality that are not explainable by the scientific method (and these are pretty standard responses to an old question)-

Perhaps my point was made poorly. I asked for things not explainable by "natural processes". I probably should have said something like: "things that can only be explained by a supernatural intelligence." Or perhaps for which the best explanation is a supernatural intelligence.

1) Logical and mathematical proofs cannot be proven science, since science must assume mathematical proofs are true. You cannot use science to then prove it so.

In a way you can, because you can test logical and mathematical proofs and they remain consistently true. But that's not my point. How do these serve as evidence for God? Bear in mind that God could not have created these laws, since he himself is bound by them. Unless you have formulated a new answer to "can God create a rock so big even he can lift it".

2) Metaphysical reality - that is, there are external minds that exist outside one's one, or that past was not created when a person born.

If you wish to use this as evidence, you need to first provide evidence for this.

3) Ethical beliefs - that murder is wrong, or that love exists cannot be proven with science. Any value system in society cannot be proven with science. How do you show by the scientific method that the Nazi scientists in Germany were evil?

Science can demonstrate that people feel that murder is wrong, and that people experience something they call love. But again, not my point. These once again are not evidence for the supernatural. Ethics result from evolution (groups that didn't murder each other survived better), the ability to reason, and societal pressures.

4) Aesthetic judgements - a pretty girl, a delicious steak, a cool beer watching football are good things to many men, but prove it using the scientific method
5) Science itself has many unprovable assumptions - for example, in special relativity the speed of light is constant. Or unknown possibilities - in a given experiment, light will act as a wave or as a particle. (Also see Schrodinger's Cat). In fact physics has stated unequivocally that one cannot observe without changing the experiment in some manner.

Again, this comes down to miscommunication between what exactly we were talking about. Neither serves as evidence for the supernatural.

What kind of things is evidence that is beyond scientific evidence?

The distinction I was making was largely semantic. I would say that any of the things you mentioned, if used to support or cast doubt on a theory, would constitute scientific evidence.

Finally you state that God does NOT intervene in the natural world. There is a ton evidence of the testimonial type that would disagree with you and state for a fact that He has. If you have millions of people state that God intervenes in their life in a real and physical manner, are you simply going to discount this evidence?

Can they present evidence that this intervention occurred? I asked for examples, and you provided a few that didn't really fit what I was looking for, although I asked the question poorly, so this could merely be the result of a mistake.

As for testimonials, so what? They are often contradictory, referencing different gods. And they likely merely reflect misunderstood events. I had some experiences early in my life that I interpreted as divine, but looking back, I realized that they were just coincidences or inventions of my own mind that I interpreted as divine. Never were the laws of physics violated or anything demonstrably miraculous. I do not discount testimonial evidence. I believe those people experienced things. I do not believe that they accurately interpreted those experiences.

And finally, God did intervene in the most direct manner possible in incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The whole point here is that I am asking for evidence that this actually occurred.

1) The physical evidence is that the universe had a beginning in the first place. The logic from this one bit evidence will show that God exists. (read - circumstantial evidence)

This is evidence that the universe exists. It either always existed in some form or another, or came to exist. If it came to exist, it either came from nothing, (things come from nothing all the time, look up virtual particles) or something. If something, that something could very well have been something natural that we do not yet understand properly. There are theories about how the universe came to be and what happened "before" the big bang.
And if God cause it, then what caused God? If God needs no cause, then why not simply a natural phenomenon that also needs no cause? The universe's existence alone in no way points to an intelligent agent.

2) You only need to talk to any Christian to see how God makes a difference.

You could also talk to any Buddhist or Muslim to hear similar things. Or talk to an atheist who feels newly liberated from religion. "Because it makes me happy" is in no way evidence of a fact about reality.

 

[misesfan]

Perhaps my point was made poorly. I asked for things not explainable by "natural processes". I probably should have said something like: "things that can only be explained by a supernatural intelligence." Or perhaps for which the best explanation is a supernatural intelligence.


In a way you can, because you can test logical and mathematical proofs and they remain consistently true. But that's not my point. How do these serve as evidence for God? Bear in mind that God could not have created these laws, since he himself is bound by them. Unless you have formulated a new answer to "can God create a rock so big even he can lift it".


If you wish to use this as evidence, you need to first provide evidence for this.


Science can demonstrate that people feel that murder is wrong, and that people experience something they call love. But again, not my point. These once again are not evidence for the supernatural. Ethics result from evolution (groups that didn't murder each other survived better), the ability to reason, and societal pressures.


Again, this comes down to miscommunication between what exactly we were talking about. Neither serves as evidence for the supernatural.


The distinction I was making was largely semantic. I would say that any of the things you mentioned, if used to support or cast doubt on a theory, would constitute scientific evidence.


Can they present evidence that this intervention occurred? I asked for examples, and you provided a few that didn't really fit what I was looking for, although I asked the question poorly, so this could merely be the result of a mistake.

As for testimonials, so what? They are often contradictory, referencing different gods. And they likely merely reflect misunderstood events. I had some experiences early in my life that I interpreted as divine, but looking back, I realized that they were just coincidences or inventions of my own mind that I interpreted as divine. Never were the laws of physics violated or anything demonstrably miraculous. I do not discount testimonial evidence. I believe those people experienced things. I do not believe that they accurately interpreted those experiences.


The whole point here is that I am asking for evidence that this actually occurred.


This is evidence that the universe exists. It either always existed in some form or another, or came to exist. If it came to exist, it either came from nothing, (things come from nothing all the time, look up virtual particles) or something. If something, that something could very well have been something natural that we do not yet understand properly. There are theories about how the universe came to be and what happened "before" the big bang.
And if God cause it, then what caused God? If God needs no cause, then why not simply a natural phenomenon that also needs no cause? The universe's existence alone in no way points to an intelligent agent.


You could also talk to any Buddhist or Muslim to hear similar things. Or talk to an atheist who feels newly liberated from religion. "Because it makes me happy" is in no way evidence of a fact about reality.

My apologies - my misunderstanding of your point really caused the subject to meander.

I would state that anything relating to morality or ethics will be evidence of the supernatural intelligence. You may state that evolution can account for morality, but in a truly naturalistic process the only reason that we would not kill would be to maintain some sort of advantage. However, I would state that people understand that people understand throughout history and cultures that murder is an evil deed. The fact that it still is an occurrence means further that it is one in which man has not outgrown.

However, I think the biggest evidence of a supernatural intelligence is that we do have free will. We have the freedom to even deny that we have free will, but the choices we make in life are indeed our own. To a Christian our choice is clear - to submit to Christ. To an atheist, his choice is to deny God exists. If free will is a naturalistic process then these two mutually exclusive choices should lead to a survival advantage.

Here is the kicker, atheism is demonstrably not a survival advantage. In terms of birth rates, longevity, and other factors in human existence, those who label themselves as theist (or Christian) have the survival advantage even if you think atheism is correct. How can the atheist resolve this paradox? The debatable superior intellect of the atheist is trumped by the simplicity and freedom of Christian love.

There are plenty of examples of personal testimony on how God has saved men and women from certain destruction (either personally caused or not). To me, the personal testimony of those who do believe is very, very strong.

(Again, I am admittedly goading you a tad, but it is done to make sure that we keep things light and no hard feelings develop.)

 

[namith]

I would state that anything relating to morality or ethics will be evidence of the supernatural intelligence. You may state that evolution can account for morality, but in a truly naturalistic process the only reason that we would not kill would be to maintain some sort of advantage. However, I would state that people understand that people understand throughout history and cultures that murder is an evil deed. The fact that it still is an occurrence means further that it is one in which man has not outgrown.

No, again, populations that had a strong compulsion against murder were more likely to survive. That's why we still have such strong compulsions. Also, human reason serves to develop moral ideas that help benefit societies. Compassion and altruism also helped the survival of communal animals such as early humans.

However, I think the biggest evidence of a supernatural intelligence is that we do have free will. We have the freedom to even deny that we have free will, but the choices we make in life are indeed our own. To a Christian our choice is clear - to submit to Christ. To an atheist, his choice is to deny God exists. If free will is a naturalistic process then these two mutually exclusive choices should lead to a survival advantage.

Well, it's debatable whether free will exists or not. Some scientists think it doesn't, some Christian theologians (Martin Luther, John Calvin) thought it didn't. Personally, I think the illusion of free will is strong enough that I don't particularly concern myself with the ultimate answer to the question.

But to say that it is evidence for God is, well, unfounded. If you are a collection of naturalistic processes that believes it has free will, what would that be like? It would be exactly like your current existence.

Here is the kicker, atheism is demonstrably not a survival advantage. In terms of birth rates, longevity, and other factors in human existence, those who label themselves as theist (or Christian) have the survival advantage even if you think atheism is correct. How can the atheist resolve this paradox? The debatable superior intellect of the atheist is trumped by the simplicity and freedom of Christian love.

What paradox? What does the effect of a belief or lack thereof have to do with the truth of said belief?

There are plenty of examples of personal testimony on how God has saved men and women from certain destruction (either personally caused or not). To me, the personal testimony of those who do believe is very, very strong.

I make no attempt to deny the effect that faith and belief can have on a person. As I have mentioned before in this thread, my being a Buddhist helped save me from a problem I had been dealing with for some time. But once again, "it makes me feel good" is not evidence.

I have brought this point up before as well, and it has never been addressed: by what standard do you accept Christianity while simultaneously rejected Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Hellenism, Asatru, Wicca, Shamanism, Druidism, Shinto, Taoism, Ba'hai, Sikhism, Scientology, and any other religion that all use the same evidence?

 

[brakelite]

I have brought this point up before as well, and it has never been addressed: by what standard do you accept Christianity while simultaneously rejected Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Hellenism, Asatru, Wicca, Shamanism, Druidism, Shinto, Taoism, Ba'hai, Sikhism, Scientology, and any other religion that all use the same evidence?

We embrace Christianity because of what it promises.
1. Forgiveness and mercy.
2. A relationship with out Creator.
3, Power in this life to overcome sin,
4. A resurrection to eternal life.

The first three are realisable and effective in this life, and our lives are radically and deeply changes as a result. Not just superficially like the solving of some personal issue , but deep lasting changes that affect our entire way of thinking and behaving, nor just once a week on Sundays but from the time we wake up to the time we retire at night, our thoughts, motives, and our actions reflect a change only brought about through the power of God. This changed life brings about attributes that to the normal person is unnatural, even hateful.
To the true Christian however, former things he once hated he now loves, and former things he once loved, he now hates. Even enemies are loved, and forgiven, even as they are preparing the very fires at our feet to destroy us. That my friend is the power of a gracious God.

 

[misesfan]

No, again, populations that had a strong compulsion against murder were more likely to survive. That's why we still have such strong compulsions. Also, human reason serves to develop moral ideas that help benefit societies. Compassion and altruism also helped the survival of communal animals such as early humans.


Well, it's debatable whether free will exists or not. Some scientists think it doesn't, some Christian theologians (Martin Luther, John Calvin) thought it didn't. Personally, I think the illusion of free will is strong enough that I don't particularly concern myself with the ultimate answer to the question.

But to say that it is evidence for God is, well, unfounded. If you are a collection of naturalistic processes that believes it has free will, what would that be like? It would be exactly like your current existence.


What paradox? What does the effect of a belief or lack thereof have to do with the truth of said belief?


I make no attempt to deny the effect that faith and belief can have on a person. As I have mentioned before in this thread, my being a Buddhist helped save me from a problem I had been dealing with for some time. But once again, "it makes me feel good" is not evidence.

I have brought this point up before as well, and it has never been addressed: by what standard do you accept Christianity while simultaneously rejected Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Hellenism, Asatru, Wicca, Shamanism, Druidism, Shinto, Taoism, Ba'hai, Sikhism, Scientology, and any other religion that all use the same evidence?

Last question first - I think Christianity is true because of the the testimonial evidence as given in the Bible and in my infinitesimal understanding of the nature of the mind our Lord as it has been revealed to me. Faith is the hope for things unseen - I cannot see Heaven but I have faith it exists. I cannot prove that to you, and wouldnt even attempt it. I can state that this is not an emotional response but, I think, a carefully reasoned one, given the facts as I understand them.

Further, I do think that sometimes people do not see with clarity even when the facts are staring them in the face. I have witnessed people who undeniably know evil exists but refuse to acknowledge good. Its simply a fact that people do not wish to believe, and anything Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus) can say or do will never change their mind.

Let me add that you bring up good criticisms regarding the faith. The scientific method will never prove God exists. Our Lord, however, is not one to stand idly by. He isnt content to wind the watch and then count time until the end... He gets down into the mud, blood, and misery that can be our lives and lives in a fashion that redeems us from our own stupid selfishness. Then He is brutally killed, an innocent man, only to sneer at even death with His Resurrection.

These facts as told and recorded many years ago serves as evidence that our Lord indeed lives. No one can deny His life, His death, and His resurrection. That is the primacy in which all Christians are happy to live and submit. It is central to our lives as much as breathing oxygen or taking food - in fact more so, because as eyewitnesses testify, Jesus stated that man does not live by bread alone...

Its a little long winded on this response, so I will give you a chance to respond in kind.

 

[brakelite]

No, again, populations that had a strong compulsion against murder were more likely to survive. That's why we still have such strong compulsions. Also, human reason serves to develop moral ideas that help benefit societies. Compassion and altruism also helped the survival of communal animals such as early humans.

It is ironic that the French revolution, an event that gave birth to modern atheism, discovered the opposite, When religion of all persuasions was banned from the nation and 'reason' was officially announced the 'new goddess', restraint vanished, and society rapidly fell into utter disarray with murder and robbery and unrestrained immorality everywhere. Without God, morality declined to levels of total debauchery and cruelty. This lasted 3 years when the French said 'enough' and invited the churches to return, along with their Bibles and higher standards.

 

[namith]

We embrace Christianity because of what it promises.
1. Forgiveness and mercy.
2. A relationship with out Creator.
3, Power in this life to overcome sin,
4. A resurrection to eternal life.

The first three are realisable and effective in this life, and our lives are radically and deeply changes as a result. Not just superficially like the solving of some personal issue , but deep lasting changes that affect our entire way of thinking and behaving, nor just once a week on Sundays but from the time we wake up to the time we retire at night, our thoughts, motives, and our actions reflect a change only brought about through the power of God. This changed life brings about attributes that to the normal person is unnatural, even hateful.
To the true Christian however, former things he once hated he now loves, and former things he once loved, he now hates. Even enemies are loved, and forgiven, even as they are preparing the very fires at our feet to destroy us. That my friend is the power of a gracious God.

Okay, but many other religions have the same or similar promises/results. Once again, how does this differ from any other faith?

These facts as told and recorded many years ago serves as evidence that our Lord indeed lives.

I still have seen no evidence whatsoever that I should accept these events. The earliest manuscripts we have of the gospels have been tentatively dated to 125 AD. It is generally thought that they were written around 60-80 AD, at least 30 years after the events they describe. The earliest writings are those of Paul, and he never even met Jesus. And there are no contemporary, non-Christian sources writing of Jesus's life at the time it happened.

No one can deny His life, His death, and His resurrection

Whether or not he existed is debatable. Death would logically follow from life, and resurrection is almost entirely unsupported. Even if we had eye-witness accounts, should that be taken as sufficient evidence? What about eye-witness accounts of alien abductions? Do you believe them?

My question remains: why do you reject things that use the exact same standards of evidence as Christianity?

 

[ItinerantLurker]

No extra information is ever output from a genetic algorithm.

Again, reality seems to contradict your assertions given that genetic algorithms regularly produce solutions to problems. In the real world this translates into variation and selection on living genomes producing novel traits. If that's not "new information" then your understanding of genetic information is seriously flawed and/or irrelevant.





Lurker