6 - The goal to achieve Maximum Greatness can never achieved if Maximality is altered by a lesser image of Maximality in any and every possible world!

Thommo wrote:4. is fucking fantastic.

Highest possible maximal greatness. As opposed to the other types of maximum.

Stuart Davis We know there were no slaves in Egypt from the time of Moses.

We do not know what time that was. Conventional chronology is largely based on 200 year old information and for the most part hasn't been revised since.Dr David Rohl has some really good material on this.You can find some of his videos and lectures online.

Stuart Davis We know the senses that Joseph had to take part in wasn't a thing till centuries later.

Census of Quirinius took part in 6Ad and this is just one such known census.

Stuart Davis But the biggest one to me is how wrong the bible is about Pontius Pilate.

Pontius Pilate?We have archeological evidence of the existence for him.

Stuart Davis What outside Source do you have that can verify the authenticity of the New Testament?

Numerous.

zulumoose wrote:
AFAIK there is general agreement Moses is not a historical character, there is no evidence for any of the events of the Moses story at all is there, not the presence of the Hebrews at the time, nor any Exodus?

zulumoose wrote:
The usual argument concerning the census is that it was never conducted as described biblically, where families had to return to their home towns, that was never a thing. It was shoehorned in to square the circle regarding messianic prophesy.

Great theologian and scientist Leibnitz defined a principle of sufficient reason that is often misunderstood as casuality. It states that if B is a consequence of A we have to prove that all other possible outcomes from A will result in a logical contradiction.

Creationists point out that an engineered solution is recognizable as it is always developed from the stated purpose going from most complex back to simplest.
Darwinists will argue that it is from simplest to complicated but there is a fixing mechanism of "positive" mutations. So an electric eel started with one accidentally developed electric organ that generated 0.15 v and probably killed some plankton in a water that increased it chances to survive, the next generation could have two stacked cells that killed maybe a bigger plankton, then more and more up to 5000 stacked cells when it can kill a real fish and have a real positive effect. Arguments that between two "positive" mutations lay thousands and millions of "negative" or neutral steps won't convince them, failure of their own experimental proofs won't sway them.
Creationists find their opponents’ arguments absurd, but Darwinists demand: show us the Designer right now!...why He isn’t talking to us?... Would that it were so simple)

Fenrir wrote:I find it disconcerting that it's always strawmen all the way down.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The bible is one big shoehorn.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

So enlighten me on new and exciting evolutionary mechanisms, please?

I am familiar with most of evolutionists arguments because I spent first 30 years of my life in Soviet Russia and remember the "marxist shaming" that was an last and definitive argument in all philosophical discussions. "So you don't believe in omnipotent materialistic theory of Marx/Lenin and Communism as the last and highest stage of human development?"..."Deniers" were declared legally insane and could spend years in mental institution, and that is exactly the way how modern-time materialists and evolutionists fight "reactionaries" today.

We programmers have discovered many interesting things - relational database theory, object oriented design, methods of encrypting and virus protection - and when we look at the most complex program of all - the living cell, and recognize in its code many methods and dirty tricks we use in our everyday work, even mistakes - we have to ask question: is it possible that this infinitely complex program was created by blind accident? Or by some self-evolving software mechanism? Or there is an intelligent being and we can communicate to him and learn something from him? We have to apply the principle of sufficient reason and ask yourself questions: why the Universe is created the way it is? Why there is a multidimensional space, time, atomic structure, gravitational, electromagnetic and other forces, constants, law of preservation? Those are legitimate questions and cannot be simply brushed aside as a religious nonsense.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Great theologian and scientist Leibnitz defined a principle of sufficient reason that is often misunderstood as casuality. ...

I find it disconcerting how apologists seem to think that it is more important who said something, than what arguments they actually provide for their claim.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then there's this:

We programmers have discovered many interesting things - relational database theory, object oriented design, methods of encrypting and virus protection - and when we look at the most complex program of all - the living cell, and recognize in its code many methods and dirty tricks we use in our everyday work, even mistakes - we have to ask question: is it possible that this infinitely complex program was created by blind accident? Or by some self-evolving software mechanism? Or there is an intelligent being and we can communicate to him and learn something from him? We have to apply the principle of sufficient reason and ask yourself questions: why the Universe is created the way it is? Why there is a multidimensional space, time, atomic structure, gravitational, electromagnetic and other forces, constants, law of preservation? Those are legitimate questions and cannot be simply brushed aside as a religious nonsense.

Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And then there's this:

We programmers have discovered many interesting things - relational database theory, object oriented design, methods of encrypting and virus protection - and when we look at the most complex program of all - the living cell, and recognize in its code many methods and dirty tricks we use in our everyday work, even mistakes - we have to ask question: is it possible that this infinitely complex program was created by blind accident? Or by some self-evolving software mechanism? Or there is an intelligent being and we can communicate to him and learn something from him? We have to apply the principle of sufficient reason and ask yourself questions: why the Universe is created the way it is? Why there is a multidimensional space, time, atomic structure, gravitational, electromagnetic and other forces, constants, law of preservation? Those are legitimate questions and cannot be simply brushed aside as a religious nonsense.

Hasn't this idiot heard of evolutionary algorithms? If he hasn't, he's a piss poor programmer.

Atheists can't call theists "delusional" because atheists don't actually exist. They aren't real, and Richard Dawkins is a fairy tale. Dawkins was made up by his disciples and he never wrote the book The God Delusion. It doesn't exist either.

And you know how I know it doesn't exist? Because some really stupid books exist! How can Dawkins' book be real, when all these ridiculous books exist!

So tell me, if Dawkins' book actually existed, how could it have been printed? Everybody knows that books explode into existence from a singularity when they decide the time is right, they're not designed and printed! What a delusional idea!

And not only that, some people that have written books have done terrible things! Some murderers have written books! Hitler wrote a book!

That means that anybody that writes books is evil! Don't you see how this proves that The God Delusion isn't real? The disciples of Dawkins made the whole story up!

And look at all the different kinds of books that exist! Some of them even contradict each other! How can atheists be real if people that write books can't even agree on anything?

Are you beginning to see the problem here?

Atheists love to point out how many "religions" there are. But "religion" is a separate question from whether or not the universe is designed and created.

Some silly views of god(s) exist. If atheists can point out how silly some are, this is not evidence that the universe was not created by design. It is a separate subject.

We hear that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Well guess what. A pre-big bang singularity is an extraordinary claim. The idea that the universe was designed and created with a purpose, by an intelligence is no less extraordinary.

Atheists will point to evil things people who claim to follow one god or another have done. Though it's a demonstrable historical fact that pagans have killed many times more people, they still point to all these evils as if this were evidence that no god exists.

Excuse me? Aren't these completely separate questions? None of this is evidence that it's an unreasonable conclusion that the universe may have been created for a reason, by an intelligence.

You can disagree with this conclusion, but atheists have failed to show that it's an unreasonable one, let alone a "delusional" one.

Most outspoken atheists are well aware of logical fallacies. Yet they repeatedly commit this one. It doesn't matter how many different views of God there are. It doesn't matter how badly some people behave. This is not evidence that theist conclusions aren't reasonable.

In fact, if there is a Designer/Creator of the universe, it would not and could not happen any other way than that human views of a god vary widely, since such an entity would be superior to us more than we are to ants.

I'm not asking atheists to see what I call evidence as I see it. Their opinion is their opinion and they have a right to it.

What I AM saying is, that atheists have not earned the right to call the views of theists "delusional" any more than theists have earned the right to call theirs delusional.