PGA2.0

f you say there is nothing before the BB, no time, no matter, no space, then you propose self-creation, which is something coming into being from nothing. Is that reasonable to you? Next, the created order had a start, a time of beginning. The reason for the universe would have to be beyond the material realm or physical universe. It would have to be beyond our scope of time - timeless or eternal - thus uncaused and uncreated, self-existing, therefore not depending on anything for its existence. 

What if I say the universe is uncaused and uncreated and self existing and that the big bang necessarily follows a big crunch? What then? 

Good that you can, but how is this consistent with an amoral universe where there is no ultimate justice?

Why would the universe, the entire universe, care at all about the human concept of justice? And even if it does, I don't care. I'm living consistently with the law of the land and my own morality. Why do I need more justification than

By assigning it a different cause (God) than blind, indifferent chance happenstance, I have a reason, and explanation, for what is behind the BB or the universe.

Congratulations!

Now just prove you're RIGHT. Because I can say "I assign the big bang the cause of Zeus, and it was his first lightning bolt!" and I have exactly the same thing you do, just a different cause. Bonus, my reason is older than your reason! Lightning has existed longer than the bible, where god first appears. 

That reason would have to be a mindful being, an intentional, purposeful being. We are continually finding reasons (and I would argue purpose) in the way the universe and nature works. There is no reason why we should in a chance universe. Can you give me a reason why we SHOULD find reasons like natural laws in a chance universe? Anything else besides God as the reason for it happening, and you are still pointing to origins from chance. 

Why does it HAVE to be, exactly?

And to the question, can I tell you why we should find natural laws, no, I can't.

I can tell you that we do, and that there's nothing in them that points to Jesus. Even if I grant supernatural thinking agent, you don't get any closer to bible god, you know this already.

Calling them "laws" is a language issue, not a legal issue, and that doesn't require a law giver as I'm sure you think it does. 

An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 

Prove it.

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

I  see no reason to accept you *know* anything about origins beyond anyone else. You have origin stories which cannot be shown true.  Plus, knowing origins has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is. It's a non sequitor.

Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?

Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 

Why is a god necessary for truth?

Do you think there can be no truth if there were no gods? (this is a 'yes' or 'no' answer). No one that I know of appeals to chance as the basis for truth...or anything. Even assuming chance, truth isn't contingent on it. Conscious minds are necessary for something to be recognized as true... not chance. You're still tracking down a logical path which doesn't reach the conclusion you think it should. (Composition fallacy again methinks.)

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?

That's a "no".

I think prophecy *can* be reasonable to believe under certain circumstances (such as with limited information). I personally don't find prophecy reasonable because I understand there are many ways prophecy can be 'fulfilled' without the need for a god or anything supernatural.

To your last post. The diverse issues we are discussing have grown to the point where the conversation has become unwieldy. Decide which of the many discussions we are having here you actually want to continue first and we can start there. 

I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? 

Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?

True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 

I remember no one voting on the first one which kinda makes me think it's too tedious for potential voters to sort out or interest was limited.  Maybe, two Christians with a vested interest in the subject would be more interesting for all involved.

Ok well this has become quite the gish gallop Why don't you decide which of these many disparate and unconnected things you actually want to discuss first and we can start there. 

Why do you have to start with skepticism?

Because I know of no other way to differentiate between claims which contradict one another but have equal standards (if not amounts) of evidence. You see it doesn't matter how much flawed or insufficient evidence you have. No amount of insufficient claims adds up tonone sufficient claim.

Start with chance. Is that reasonable? Start with an eternal, necessary, omniscient, immutable, omnibenevolent being. Is that more reasonable? 

Neither of those seems particularly reasonable to me because neither has been demonstrated. In fact I am not sure I believe in chance any more than I believe in any god(s).

There are billions of fossils buried in rock layers throughout the world. 

Yes and they are in layers with the old es st rocks containing the oldest fossils and more complex life appearing in younger rocks and younger fossils exactly as we would expect to find if they had been laid down gradually over hundreds of millions of years. You are clearly not a geologist or a paleontologist and it shows. Please if you wish to offer an expert opinion look at the work of actual experts 

Do you think your worldview, devoid of God is more reasonable? 

What is actually more reasonable is to make no claim that is insufficiently demonstrated and to exercise skepticism in the face of claims which are insufficiently demonstrated.

I am not making a positive or negative claim I am merely not prepared to accept yours without far better arguments to support them than I have ever heard in regards t ol any supernatural claim. No god claim has met its burden of proof and many would appear to be logically inconsistent or scientifically inaccurate.

Also evolution is entirely unconnected with the existence or non existence of some god(s). They are entirely separate issues. 

For instance, what other religious view has so much prophecy involved,

We have discussed this before and even if I grant that the bible makes prophecies that are too accurate for any naturalistic explanation like coincidence and the use of Barnum statements you would still have to establish the source of these prophecies and it is as likely to be flying spaghetti monster inspired as god inspired unless there is some way other than the claims of humans to determine the difference between the two possible sources.

And that is only if we accept the false dichotomy of the Yahweh or the pasta monster only.

what is reasonable about such a belief - Pastafarianism? 

Christianity is only more widely accepted not more reasonable.

Reason in a claim is a matter of observably true premises that support the conclusion. If you lack either the same your argument is logically flawed even if you do arrive by chance at the truth.

 I say if it is Pastafariainism it is blind and irrational. 

I agree. Now demonstrate how your religios claims differ in this regard.

I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.

The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations.

The reason I dislike the use of "reasonable" is because it can fall on both sides of the debate. Someone can come to reasonable -and wrong- conclusions when they lack crucial information. For this reason, I consider my suggestions to be more precise and preferable. 

All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

You should challenge a Christian on this proposition. Why would an atheist argue the proper way to interpret prophecy?  It holds no value for most non-believers.

Because your origins, without a Creator, are traced to chance happenstance. That is not able to DO anything. Thus, you do not have the mechanism for the BB. You can only go back to the BB, not the cause of it. 

Right. So....what then?

I can't tell you what caused the big bang, and the net effect of that on how I live my day to day life is _not consistent with what my overall belief system rests upon. It borrows from one that is__ . 

 The difference it makes is whether you build the rest of your worldview on what is true or whether your foundation is suspect and has no visible means of supporting itself. Thus once the winds of testing come it comes crashing down because its foundation (that which everything else rests upon) is weak and faulty. 

Sounds dramatic!

Except you don't know that your 'worldview' is true either. Let's say I find out the big bang is caused by a gigantic crunch. How will this change anything in my tiny life sapn?

why does anything at all exist?

Don't know. 

Do you have a reason?

Again, to make sense of it God would be the necessary explanation. 

Do I have a reason anything at all exists? I already said no, when I said "I don't know." Why is your single version of god necessary?

How does the universe begin, if you think it began?

All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.

You do not perceive of the difference it makes to your life.

You can't say what the difference is either, so...no real difference, we can agree.

Did the universe create itself, and how, why? 

Don't know. 

Again, self-creation is a self-refuting concept. Thus, if you believe the universe created itself you are not thinking logically. 

I didn't say that's what I think. I said I don't know. 

Then don't rule out God. How can you argue against God when you don't know?

I don't rule out supernatural agent out of hand, but I don't rule "in" anything that I can't support existing in a real way (not like SUperman or Thor exist, in a real way, like matter). I can argue against the character in the books with scientific evidence and the many, many logical and factual inconsistencies in the book. It's really pretty simple. 

What knowledge are you speaking of?

How the universe started. 

Although you have reason for its beginning how do you KNOW it began the way you think (chance)? What is behind the BB is key? 

I don't have a reason for its beginning, and this is where you are getting tripped up constantly: reason and cause are not the same thing. You say you make sense of the universe when what you mean is you assign it a different CAUSE.

And I don't know it happened the way the evidence points to it happening, and I don't know why what's "behind the big bang" (whatever this means) would be the key to anything.

I ask you again, what difference does it make TODAY, like what do you think people would do differently if the event right before the big bang (if that even makes sense since time starts here, there isn't a before) was suddenly available?

What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so.

Chance is your master. 

The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. 

...that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions.

Thus, you hide from God. 

In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 

I've already corrected a number of these, but if you can't break yourself out of the script, I see no reason to continue, Peter. Its clear you're not absorbing what I'm saying.

Thats the problem with a faith-based epistemology: absolutely anything can be accepted with absolute certainty with absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've denied epistemological limits and, in the process, have sacrificed knowledge on the altar of belief. 

One can't solve a mystery if one does not start at the proper starting place. 

The proper starting place is skepticism.

The understanding that we do not know and we should investigate. Do you believe that there is a diamond the size of my head at the core of Neptune? Can you say yes or no before we can investigate? 

You are missing the point. Some biblical claims can be investigated scientifically and those if they happened somehow managed to leave not a shred of evidence for (in the case of the arc story) the huge landscape changing event it describes.

Those that cannot I really don't know a way to investigate. All religions make faith based claims of revealed knowledge.

I'm not sure how you would ever demonstrate any god(s) but in order to prove yours was any different than all the other proposed gods whom we agree are most likely not real you would have to first show a different kind of evidence than faith based claims, anecdotal evidence, an old book, logically flawed arguments and arguments with unsupportable premises because lots of religions have those and you haven't explained why I shouldn't believe in some non Christian religion. 

I'm prepared to embrace the worst case scenario. Pastafarianism.

Yes a joke religion that even its followers admit are not to be taken as truth. Nevertheless can you conclusively prove in any way that some pasta monster of some kind did not reach out its noodily appendages and inspire the authors of the religion to present the actual truth of the universe and its creator just for fun?

This sounds easier than it actually is. The standard you have set is that you must have faith in order to have the truth come into you and that your answer is sufficient to explain reality. Can you say you have tried sincerely to seek the pasta monster? And if not how can you say he isn't real? His noodly appendage quivers for you and only a powerful timeless spaceless eternal being could have made the universe. The fsm checks off all those boxes by definition. Do you see how absurd this all sounds? 

No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel.

You must be drawing from the OT with that number of authors. Given that Jesus wasn't mentioned by name in the OT, I'd say that's begging the question a bit. 

Let's see a *concise* proposition for this proposed debate, and we can go from there.

Maybe you'll need to narrow the subject to *a* phophecy rather than all prophecies. After all, we will need to be able to cover this in a single debate.

How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 

Ok, in reverse order: Because they have been demonstrated to be true.

Facts belong to no one...or everyone - however you want to look at it.

All life is related (a tree of life) - Kinds would have groups of related life unrelated to each other (an orchard of life).

God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 

The Christian creation is a story.  Stories don't provide 'what is necessary or rational'. The only difference between our positions is that I don't pretend to have all the answers.

I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 

I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 

Presuppositions then.

It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.

No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 

Doesn't seem like much of a debate.  The choices are 'someone recorded history after the fact'

or 'someone predicted the future'.

I bet historians don't normally have difficulty making these type of decisions...unless it's in the Bible.  ;-P

I don't think "because God did it" makes sense of anything, it simply assigns a cause out of nowhere. 

 have you demonstrated you can? 

I didn't claim that I could. I am simply wondering why you think this is critical to living life every single day, when clearly so many people mange to do so without sharing your incredible knowledge about origins.

This knowledge of yours has no practical impact on your day, as far as I can tell, because I don't make sense of origins and I'm not out raping everything in sight or causing a dystopian hellscape in my neighborhood, and I don't believe in any god at all. You tout "consistent" but don't indicate what an "inconsistent" life would lack that yours has. 

Historically prophecy is reasonable to believe for the OT writings preceed the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as do the NT writings.

It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.

That's a really long way to say "no, I can't." 

Your added wording is redundant, unnecessary. Faith in faith in God or trust in trust in God is not the same as saying trust or faith in God. 

I was only paraphrasing your own words:

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.

...in other words "Trust in faith in God'.  There is little point in denying what has been said.  As I said, this isn't a 'gotcha', just some constructive criticism.  I'm happy to drop this particular part of our conversation.

As I have mentioned before, there are three kinds of faith that I am aware of - blind faith, rational faith, irrational faith. While the biblical faith can be blind, believers are encouraged by God to worship not only with our bodies but with our minds and thinking. The biblical God is a reasoning God.

That has already been addressed. No point in re-hashing it.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.

Literalistic? You are mistaken. I believe in taking the Bible literally only where the language gives reason to do so. That means literal where literally descriptive, historical narrative, not metaphoric language is used.

Clearly, you do not understand Biblical "kinds" metaphorically, and (given that this is in conflict with the facts of the world) that is a significant point to hold literally.

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.

Then you cannot prove beginnings scientifically, something I have said all along. 

Beginnings (what caused the BB; how life came to be) cannot currently be proved.  Thus I appropriately admit ignorance. The existence of a god (or believing in the existence of a god) doesn't change this. 

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?

Some of it I deny, other 'evidence' I find reasonable and affirm. But the point is that neither you, nor I, nor they were there for the beginning of the universe or humanity. Some of the 'evidence' we derive from history is reasonable, other 'evidence' is not.

Again, your starting point or core presuppositions without God is what you build your worldview upon, and your starting point is unreasoning (mindless, blind, random, chance happenstance) and unreasonable. 

I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 

Lost half my post due to carelessness and do not feel like responding to the rest of your post presently. (^8

I expect you'll get back to it before you respond to this post. 

To lead a purposeful life in a cosmos of meaninglessness is being inconsistent. 

Let's say for the sake of discussion this is the case. You keep saying this as if there's some huge impact, or somehow the life you're living is better or different in some way than the life secular or Skeptic are living. Can you please explain the difference?

How does this negatively affect a person's life in practical day to day terms?

In other words, PGA's "worldview makes sense of origins, therefore he is able to _  discern truth from fiction provided there is this necessary being who has revealed what is right _, while SecMer is living inconsistently with his worldivew, therefore _truth is relative and shifting, inconsistent and ultimately meaningless_."

I am suggesting that Uniformatarianists believe that the conditions in the present is somewhat similar to what was found in the past since the present is all they have to go by. There would be a number of assumptions built-in, like the rate of decay, the environmental conditions, the age of the rock layers, the progression of life, etc. 

In order to deny uniformitarianism, you've been reduced to arguing 'man can only know the present', but the entirety of human existence hasn't been in the present. And what you list as assumptions are not assumptions. For instance, the decay rates of radioactive materials can be objectively measured...

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...

...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.

YOUR NON REVEALING WEAK QUOTE AGAIN TO MY MAIN PREMISE: "Unfortunately, more nonsense."

Here is something new for you to try,  prove completely that my main premise is WRONG, or otherwise go into hiding again to save further embarrassment, understood?

What part of me stating to you in the past that I do not debate pseudo-christians like you in a formal DEBATEART setting? This is because the majority of members are of the pseudo-christian status, and will vote for you no matter in how I completely and easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ for the win, get it? Huh?

The scientific method is not a claim in and of itself and no modern scientific theory explains or claims to explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life.

Whatever anyone else might claim I am not claiming to have the answers or that science has or can provide them. What I will claim with confidence is that historically speaking any time something was believed to have a supernatural explanation and we then became able to investigate further the answer has never once been anything supernatural. Instead all such investigations lead to naturalistic explanations without exception. 

Within your "War and Peace" dissertation post #110 above, the bottom line that I have to accept as the only TRUE CHRISTIAN on this forum, is the FACT that our belief in our serial killing Jesus  and His doctrines of Christianity can ONLY be based on spiritual apprehension, rather than empirical proof!  This is because our JUDEO-Christian Bible is no more valid than the Hebrew Torah, or the Muslim Qu'ran, or the direct writings of the Greek God ZEUS, understood? Yes? Maybe?  

It is also discouraging to me that outside of our JUDEO-Christian Bible, there is not a mention of our brutal serial killer God/Jesus until 70 YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO HIM DYING UPON THE CROSS by proven interpolations within Josephus' writings!  Subsequently, the mentioning of a "Jesus character," NEVER mentioning this Jesus person as Yahweh God incarnate, is littered throughout history by hearsay only without any more proof than proving ZEUS' presence upon the earth!  GET IT?

Therefore, a TRUE Christian needs more than faith to follow the Christian belief!  Understood?

GOD principle maybe eternal, and as such the fairer skinned guy or the swarthier one are viable hypotheses, nonetheless created in mans own image.

Though it's also pertinent to question whether GOD principle is responsible for humanity or if humanity is responsible for God principle.

"And morals are a variable human construct", means exactly what it says.....Interesting that you can't get your head around that simple statement.

Faith has to have an object that one places trust in. Faith itself is not the object.

Yea, I get that.  I was objecting the the way you phrased it which was failing to communicate what you actually meant. It seems you've missed my point, but that's ok.  It's wasn't meant as a gotcha, but constructive criticism. If faith and trust mean the same thing, then 'We put our trust in faith in God' means 'we put our trust in trust in God,' or' we put our faith in faith in god'. It's redundant.

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with my evaluation of the devotional excerpt...

Your evaluation seems to doubt the evidence.

My evaluation addressed what was presented: faith with no mention of evidence.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

Intelligent Design will obviously need to hold more than just a creator god as it attempts to provide a non-natural alternative for the diversity of life evolution explains. I stand by my point.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.

That being said, it does seem your particular beliefs (or something close to them) was being mocked by Henderson. So, I'll concede Christianity as you know it was being mocked.

What you view as a weakness, I view as a strength.  The problem isn't ignorance in a position, but how it is treated. That's the point of this thread.  Faith can argue ignorance as knowledge.  Science seeks to diminish ignorance.

Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable.

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?

I think therefore I am...That's as certain as I can be.

I don't claim to be Atheist...I prefer not to be a labellist.

I don't necessarily need to explain the universe....Though I do like to contemplate such things....Though the only plausible explanation for the existence of matter, is magic...All other hypotheses fall down before they start.

I exist thanks to my parents...Though whether or not existence is a good thing, I've no idea.

And morals are very much a variable human construct.

You obviously never had bibles with pictures when you were a kid....And we all get brainwashed, it's the nature of the beast....Ultimate questions are not the exclusive remit of Christians.  We're all allowed to have a stab at them, you know.

Maybe newer P.C. picture bibles have a swarthier dark haired version of god.

Vishnu is as reasonable or unreasonable as any god hypothesis.

I don't believe in either, as belief overlooks proof.

Interestingly though, "chance happenstance" is as plausible as any other hypothesis that relies upon a magical beginning....And that's all of them.

Pooooff!....And there was a god.

 Is it reasonable to believe He is necessary for a reasonable explanation?  

Without your explanation of WHY he'd be necessary, the answer is short: no,

it is not remotely reasonable to pick a character from a book less than 2000 years old and pretend that's the "because" for every single thing that's ever happened. I'll say it again: it is not remotely reasonable. Why do you think such a character is necessary? 

I'm giving you two options. Include a more reasonable one if you think there is a more reasonable explanation than either of these two.

All I'm saying is this isn't the only two options.

You're adding 'reasonable' in a subsequent post. It's on you to define reasonable, not me to guess what you think reasonable means in this context.

Cosmic origins don't need to necessarily even be 'reasonable.'

Perhaps part of the reason we DON'T quite understand them is because we're constantly trying to graft our current understanding of the world onto them when in fact stuff like black holes and time dilation are on their surface NOT reasonable or logical.

Your big problem is you're trying to graft an illiterate people's understanding of the world around them 2000 years ago to what we know about science today.

In your context, it's more reasonable to believe in demonic possession than it is to believe in germ theory or mental disorders. 

I give an example of what someone who rejects a God or creator would have to believe 

Someone who rejects your god doesn't have to believe in the Big Bang. There are literally thousands of creation myths in history. 

Fine, but how do you explain the universe, your existence, morality by tracing it back in time to origins? 

Answers to these questions are not required to be skeptical. And saying "jesus" doesn't "explain" anything. 

Which is more reasonable to believe for you, God or chance happenstance? 

False dichotomy. 

Faith is what we put our trust in. Faith = trust IN God. 

Yah, I guess we're talking passed one another here because you're not contradicting my view when you say "faith is what we put our trust in". Do you put your trust in faith or god? Because you're saying both...as though faith and God are interchangeable.

I found your devotional excerpts to be in-line with faith as defined in the OP too - ie, faith itself is the important part, and not the reasons for it.

The three aspects of faith "Notitia, Ascension, and Fiducia" (object of trust, conviction, and reliance) support conviction is not a matter of evidence, but of acceptance that the Bible is true. If these words were directed at something for which you had no knowledge or understanding, you, like me, would think them absent a crucial part: information, data, evidence. Notice there is no mention of an informed belief, an informed conviction, because, as far as this devotional is concerned, justified belief isn't important, just belief.

I think we should all have the discussion [...]

...sounds like a plan. Tag me when you get around to it.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

When you target believers of a young earth you think there is no evidence for such a belief [...]

The misconception propograted online is the Christianity has no evidence. 

I accept anecdote, hearsay, revelation, etc., as evidence thus it is not my view that YEC or Christianity "has no evidence". I just happen to find it not very compelling and/or too weak to overcome objective evidence we *all* have access to (this last qualifier is most definitely directed at YEC).

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

You assume that what we see and understand now is what happened in the distant past. 

Uniformitarianism is well accepted and provides us with much explanatory power, Peter. You're arguing an antique viewpoint to maintain, I guess, a (purely subjective) belief in a young Earth that is mortally wounded by uniformitarianism. 

It's not uniformitarianism (which has withstood scrutiny) that's the problem, but a Biblical belief that can't be validated with it.

Interesting how you incorrectly associate atheism with the Big Bang.

I personally, am sceptical of all creation hypotheses.....Scepticism tends to be the result of a lack of real proof.

When I was a child, the ethereal light skinned humanoid version  was the image portrayed in bibles and bible literature..... The time when people attempted to brainwash me with tall tales.

Maybe there is a newer P.C. Semitic version available now. Nonetheless a god created in mans own image.

And Vishnu was an example of an alternative god.....Humanoid, but with modifications.

As ever, I will always accept the idea of a GOD principle....Simultaneously, nothing and everything to do with the above.

The onus is on the believer of tall tales, to prove that they are not tall tales.

Typically believers will always try and avoid this little issue by shifting responsibility.

It's not a case of which came first.

Gods were invented.....Scepticism came later.

Prove the existence of a god and the time worn debate ends......Simple.

Any god will do.....It doesn't need to be the ethereal light skinned American/European version.

A four armed version will suffice.

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

[...] The object of our faith is a rational, reasoning Person....

So, faith = the object of trust, and the object of trust(faith) = god? That would mean faith = god.  Let's try that in a sentence: "Atheism is the kind of faith/god happening in Kenosha right now." Nope... that doesn't seem to work.

This could be much clearer if you wouldn't define words with the words you're defining...

Human beings? Complete organisms that begins at conception, directs their growth from within, and contain in their makeup biological information from a male and female human being.

By secondary (second class) human beings I mean that pro-choice treats the unborn as less than it is, usually dehumanizing it.

I look forward to you're thread.  Be sure to tag me.

You claim as your religion a satire, a mocking of Intelligent Design as believed in Christian circles. 

*some* Christian circles.

Now, when you say that versions of Christianity are mocked because the data is not real and verifiable, I claim that what is called science (it is really scientism) but looks at beginnings has exactly the same problem. 

Uh, I didn't say that. I said versions of Christianity which run afoul of real and verifiable data deserved to be mocked. As an example, some Young Earth Creationists reject evolution, think dinosaurs and man co-existed, and, of course, believe the Earth is 6-10k years old in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary.  If education coupled with reason can't reach those who hold such beliefs then mockery is appropriate. YEC is a more sophisticated version of believing Elvis is still alive.

A normal person would not believe something unless they thought of it as true. The object of that faith is important

What does it feel like to be wrong and not know it? ...Just like being right. So, thinking your belief  (or "object of faith") is true doesn't make it so.

A belief that is not logically consistent shows it has falsity to it. That, as a start, should be a discouragement and warning sign that something is wrong with a persons thinking. 

We agree.

No, there is no guarantee that what happens today will happen tomorrow in a universe where random chance happenstance (that is not driven by intent and purpose) is its cause (somehow).

Logic does not require chaotic function from unknown origins.

How do you know the same rate of decay was present in the past?

This is basically 'how do you know something happened when you weren't looking.' The obvious answer is we infer it just like each and everyone of us do everyday. How do you know a tree fell during the night? We can see the tree laying on the ground the next morning. How do you know a car accident happen before you arrived?  We can see the damaged cars in the road, deployed airbags, sirens in the distance, etc. How do we know the decay rate of uranium? We've taken measurements uranium decay, and we've made those measurements in many different conditions (and they've never changed). 

The question isn't why should we use the present as a template to the past, but why shouldn't we? 

As I said before, there are three types of faith, blind, rational, and irrational. The Christian faith is a rational faith even though many accept it blindly

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

Either, both, but I'm lazy right now and do not want to do the leg work. I would rather debate the central issue of abortion, why pro-choice treat the unborn as secondary human beings. 0 :^)

Secondary human beings? Sounds like you're assuming your conclusion in the question....how are you defining human beings so that germ cells, cancer, or teratomas aren't included? Feel free to start a thread.

At worst, Pastafarianism mocks versions of Christianity which reject reality as we've come to know it through real and verifiable data. Those versions dogmatically cling to ignorance (and deserve mockery). On the whole, Pastafariansim is not in opposition to any religious view which does not seek to undermine verified and validated knowledge.

You equated the same defense to other religions, not me. I'm asking you to show me how the evidence is same regarding prophecy. 

They are the same because the evidence for each is faith itself.

It is [logical consistency] the starting point in showing that a belief is at least logical. 

Logical consistency is one of many  rudimentary hurdles a belief must clear to be considered logical.  Being logically consistent alone doesn't make a belief true.

I know the sun will rise because I have what is necessary for its uniformity. How does an atheist know it will? 

All that is needed to be certain there will be a sunrise tomorrow is every yesterday in recorded history - ie. Evidence. Same goes for being able to know what will happen to a dropped ball and the decay rate of uranium.

With uranium decay, you assume that what we determine in the present is the key to the past. 

Rightly so.

And non-mythical is your assumption.....Same old same old.

The Christian bible is as much a copy cat as any other mythological hypothesis. Copy cat is simply the development of ideas.

Faith is the object trusted in.

We agree.  As I stated earlier, Hebrews 11:1 holds faith as evidence.

This functionally makes belief more important than actual evidence. Anyone who accepts this epistemology will find "evidence" for anything they belief simply because they have the belief. 

In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one. 

Yes, I pushed against your statement as you continually push against mine. I pushed against it because it deserved a reply. You have admitted you work from ignorance about God, origins, existence, morality. I ask what would be necessary for the knowledge of such things? I say that it is your belief system and structure that is unreasonable (granting you are still an atheist or agnostic, although you are hiding behind Pastafarianism), not mine.  

What kind of debate would you suggest? Would you pit Pastafarianism against Christianity as to which is more reasonable? (There would be a lot of work to such a debate). Or do you still consider yourself truly as an atheist or agnostic? How reasonable are those beliefs? 

Lol, for some reason I was thinking we were on debateisland where a "debate" is a forum event. I meant for you to start a new thread.  That being said, I'm not opposed to a debate if that is your preference. I'm not sure why you've changed the subject of the proposed debate though.  Did you not want to defend you statement that the U.S was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? 

I've already told you Pastafarianism is not in opposition to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is a tool to highlight the need for religion and state to be seperate, and my religious position has not changed. If you want to believe otherwise I don't care, but don't expect me to continue to correct your misapprehensions. You either get it or you don't.

I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence. 

Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.

Show me how their prophecies come true and what they are based upon.

You're missing the point. It's not up to me to argue someone else's belief. It is for believers to provide real evidence (not faith). 

A belief that is not internally consistent shows that it is not logical to believe in. If I say "a dog is a dog" then later on I say "a dog is a cat," I am not being consistent. Inconsistency goes against logic. 

Yep...no disagreement there. If Internal consistency were the only qualification for acceptance of claims - it would be an extremely low bar.

What you build your worldview upon are core beliefs or values that are not verifiable in the same way normal science is verifiable.

I agree we all have presuppositions.

And, as I have said many times (building upon others), we take for granted that what we learn in the present and look at in the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present. Do you think and know that the present is the key to the past? 

Do you think the sun will rise tomorrow - if so, why? If you hold a ball up and let it go, will it fall?  How fast does Uranium decay and how do you know? 

Well.

The Christian bible is as much a copy cat as any other mythological hypothesis. Copy cat is simply the development of ideas.

If I actually knew there was a god then I might have a chance of understanding it's real capabilities. This is not the same as understanding the mythical capabilities of a mythical god.

Death or not living is as essential as living, the two are inter-dependant.

Human emotion is and human bias is inevitable and therefore we oftentimes have a tendency to be selectively moral.. Nonetheless what is life and how do you unbiasedly differentiate between the life potential contained within one species and another, without being hypocritical.

And logic is believing in mythical deities and logic isn't believing in mythical deities....Relativism if you like.

Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.

But it does make it important.

No, it doesn't. If I believe something on faith that is demonstrably false, it is not more important than what is actually true.

Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.

You made a statement. I aswered it. 

In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one. 

That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.

I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence. 

Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.

You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic. 

You lack certainty of knowledge and cannot get there unless such a revealed God exists [...]

I have certainty of knowledge not absolute (and unreasonable) certainty - a god is not necessary for either.

That makes it [Christianity] different from other religious beliefs.

Being different is unimportant. Being substantiated outside (and apart from) the religious texts and belief is. Christianity cannot be objectively shown to be true - if it could, and were, your Christian views wouldn't be considered heretical by other Christians. Thats the whole point of Pastafarianism. Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.

I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative? 

Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.

Still claimed by adherents of every religion.

And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from. 

That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.

You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.

I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins [...]

You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic.