I can believe in both evolution and a personal God.

[buddhaschild]

We see G-D using Nature throw out the Torah and the bible like In decoding Exodus

[jackcfc4eva]

man is indeed the culmination of evoloution. the point the uploader is making is true, that our primate evoloution is detectable by science however our Consciousness which is of god and unrivalled on earth is not as detectable, it of course doesn't mean its not there it just means we cant measure it. its the same problem atheist (logic slaves) have how can something exist that we cant measure? well it can

[applecore]

You said that humans are the end goal of evolution.

Is that not completely missing the point of evolution?

[StutteringDave]

I mean that humans are the end goal of evolution as God intended it. Evolution, working by itself, has no end goal. In other words, we are the end goal of evolution in theological terms, but not in scientific terms. This is because God, who used evolution to create us, is undetectable by science. I hope that made sense!

[applecore]

Thats an interesting point.

But evolution is still going even though you said that God has reached his end goal us humans.

If evolution was a process to get to us humans then should it have ended by now?

Or are you completely separating scientific and theological elements of evolution?

[TheAgnosticAspie]

Hmm, I guess it is possible to believe in evolution and a personal God as well, but I just don't see why God would want to be personal with us. Why would God be so conscerned about wanting us to know about his existance?

[thecomputergurukid]

Maybe a spaghetti monster exists and saved you from the car accident but is untestable by any way.Does the spaghetti monster exist?

[StutteringDave]

First of all, your missing the point of the video. I was not making a positive claim towards God's existence, but showing his compatibility with the theory of evolution.

Second, I believe in the Christian God because the evidence points towards it.

[thecomputergurukid]

Fair enough but it is not that compatible really.Also I have no problem with theistic evolutionists only creationists.

[thecomputergurukid]

Also can you please show me this evidence and what you talk about is incomplete destruction i.e. god is such a nice guy crashing you car in the first place.You also say how god is undetectable so you have no reason to belive in him.

[StutteringDave]

If you go to my profile you will find a playlist of videos giving the evidence for christianity.

I said he was undetectable to the scientific method, not that one cannot demonstrate his existence to a high certainty.

[thecomputergurukid]

I have watched some of that playlist but all it seems to prove that 2000 years ago some people wrote down a story.

[chert95]

Comment directed at: thecumputergurukid

Even though this is late, your statement is just appalling. You might as well rant on how evolution is false because fossils date back to millions of years. You might as well say that stars are fake because they're billions of years old and the light we sense is imaginary. You apparently refute all of the history ever recorded on the premise that you yourself did not see it. The stupidity of your comment is rampant.

[thecomputergurukid]

What I was trying to say was just because the bible exists does not make it an accurate historical source.

Also if things are indirectly detectable they can be true e.g. If someone is murdered you don't need to directly see murder, a dead body will do.

[chert95]

I think there are a lot of thing that cannot be detected indirectly.

[chert95]

Also, a biased source isn't simply thrown out either.

[thecomputergurukid]

Indeed. Also what are you going on about a biased source, the bible is biased but I never mentioned it and just because it is not thrown out completely doesn't mean I have to take it as the word of god.

[chert95]

Now we're on the same page.

[thecomputergurukid]

So what was that comment about:

Even though this is late, your statement is just appalling. You might as well rant on how evolution is false because fossils date back to millions of years. You might as well say that stars are fake because they're billions of years old and the light we sense is imaginary. You apparently refute all of the history ever recorded on the premise that you yourself did not see it. The stupidity of your comment is rampant.

[chert95]

About you disregarding something because of its age.

[thecomputergurukid]

I never did that.

[chert95]

I can't find the comment anymore.  It was the "2000 years ago" comment. I made an exaggeration based on your comment so you would see its faults.

[thecomputergurukid]

I have watched some of that playlist but all it seems to prove that 2000 years ago some people wrote down a story.

That comment means that his videos don't prove god.

[chert95]

It could have saved me a lot of time by stating that god is supernatural, therefore cannot be proven by natural concepts. I'm not sure what connotation story has. Story as in santa claus? Story as in madman rantings? The bible definitely has historical value. Also, 2000 years ago is a bad way to look at it. The old testament was most likely oral before it was written down, so it's hard to determine its age, but it's much older than the new testament gospels and other writings, for sure.

[Syrinx69]

@StutteringDave

Actually, all the evidence points to the Christian god being a man made myth. Historical and archaeological facts show the origins of The Bible and its god are clearly rooted in the earlier gods and religious texts of Mesopotamia. 

[CrucieFiction]

Your car example is a complete disconnect from the paradox put forth. And you are conveniently ignoring the quite likely proposition of a bad result of the car crash (because we know there are both good/bad outcomes in crashes) in completely dismissing the hypothetical argument as ignoring a good result only because it was good. That's an illogical exercise but very much suits the illogical mindset of belief in a deity because it's always carte blanche when excuses or reasons are required to ...

[CrucieFiction]

2)

defend it -- anything goes, and logic goes out the window.

While any reasoned person must agree with you that we can't say it's not true that your god intended for the earth to exist for 4.5 billion years before humans came to be (though extremely nonsensical given its supposed omnipotence), any reasoned person also cannot say it is true. Yet, on not a shred of empirical evidence whatsoever, your exposure to ancient religious poppycock has somehow convinced you it is indeed true.

[CrucieFiction]

3)

Any reasoned person hearing of such a proposition MUST take the position that we do not know either way. And the ability to surrender the critical thinking mind so as convince/reason oneself of/into practically anything one may imagine or hear from another, makes this psychosis known as religious "faith" in all things supernatural (another word for fiction) a most dangerous threat to humanity.

[CrucieFiction]

4)

In short, it is a display that is quite pathetic in observing a mind stretch beyond all bounds of reasoned logic and everything we know of nature and natural processes in order to manufacture wild hypotheses and excuses just to keep clinging onto that which is so clearly illogical & irrational that it cannot be anything but an indoctrinated delusion.

[StutteringDave]

We may not know 100% either way(with the exception of mathematics), but we can determine what is probably true. The evidence points towards Christianity.

[CrucieFiction]

ROFL!!

No. We know 0% either way! There is NO "evidence" pointing toward Christianity. That's simply your delusion speaking again which is triumphing over any sense of reason & logic you may otherwise have that guides you throughout your daily life on the side of reality.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Actually, CrucieFiction, historical scholars go both ways on the issue. What they are fully decided on is that your copycat thesis is total BS. Yet you still promote that. Is that hypocrisy I smell?

[CrucieFiction]

"Both ways" on what?...whether your fantasy realm of gods, ghosts, talking snakes, unicorns, and demons are of reality or not? WTF are you even talking about? Every time you appear it's the same bullshit of leaning on argumentum ad verecundiam -- scholars, scholars, scholars, blah, blah! Who are you to decide who is or isn't a legitimate scholar -- just those you agree with of course. It's you who are "fully decided" and can't break through those mind shackles of superstition that stupify you.

[CrucieFiction]

2)

So-called "scholars" are human too, and may have had their brain fried on fantastic nonsense as a young child just like you. These apologists/scholars are dependent upon keeping the fraud alive so you credulous cretins will keep throwing your money their way. Grow up and cut that hair that's obviously blinding you -- "Cousin Itt" was also a fictional character.

Learn what 'hypocrisy' means and when to charge it. Oh, and that smell is probably the stench of your rotting Christ!

[Kabane52]

Oh yes, atheists like Robin Lane Fox, Michael Grant, and Bart Ehrman who laugh at the pagan parallels have their brain fried by Christianity. But I will admit that your refutation of my hair clearly disproves Christianity. I'm not going to be offended by your blasphemy, you pitiful creature.

[Kabane52]

No you moron, what decides a legitimate scholar is credentials. Erhman disagrees with me, but he is a legitimate scholar. Fool. Just find sometime to present evidence for pagan parallels and maybe someone will take you seriously.

[CrucieFiction]

Oh, do those scholars know Jeebus rose 3 days after dying and flew into the sky to be FACT?

NO! While you cling desperately to the words of certain individuals who hold credentials that say they're educated, all they can do is attempt to figure out if the main character of your book of fiction relates to a real human. BFD! Prove he is a man-god of the universe. Prove that bushes and snakes can talk. You/they can't, because it's stupid make-believe and you're as a little child stuck in fantasy.

[Kabane52]

Look, stupid, we were talking about pagan parallels. If you believe in the resurrection, you are a Christian. Demanding that we have a non Christian scholar supporting the resurrection is a stupid thing to ask. When presented with evidence, you start whining about talking snakes. Put up or shut the hell up.

[CrucieFiction]

No, you're the only one who jumped in here, hair all on fire, ranting with objection over the [clear] evidence of the adoption into xtianity of previous gods' traits/fables who came before. You really are a lunatic! You believe the resurrection fable and other fantasy nonsense, and outright refuse to subject it to YOUR OWN CRITICAL REASON whatsoever. That is, assuming you even have any sense of reason left. Just keep dismissing the tons of biblical NONSENSE so your delusion remains intact. ROFL!

[Kabane52]

Well roffle my waffles, let's hear the clear evidence, you moron.

[DiMagRocks]

How difficult is it to name a specific parallel?

[CrucieFiction]

The "parallels" are FAR too many to mention. Perhaps the most recent to be exposed is the Hebrew tablet pre-dating xtianity which speaks to a resurrection after 3 days.

tinyurl[DOT]com/5wnx8u

One does not need this or that scholar to tell a person, who does their own research in comparative religions, what is true or what is not. When you look at all the evidence with a reasoned and logical mind (and without emotional/indoctrinated attachment), it becomes self-evident.

[CrucieFiction]

2)

But what really matters above all else is, do bushes and snakes talk, or was the entire earth under water, or did people live more than 800 years? Or are any of the other absolutely ridiculous claims in the bible actually true? Of course they are not, and we know enough of the ancients to know exactly why they're not true. THAT is what it all needs to come down to -- believe the absurd and that which is contrary to nature, or not!

[CrucieFiction]

3)

I take it Kabane accepts evolution. So he apparently rejects the creation myth, but because he's so emotionally attached to his god delusion he has yet to critically subject the rest of the nonsense to logic and reason. We've seen how he simply chooses to repeatedly dismiss these notions when raised as though they're not even at issue. He refuses to answer truthfully and honestly of his opinion on this questions. He's just an immature kid with a lot to learn and realize about reality.

[DiMagRocks]

1. Oh dear. Christianity is stemmed out of Judaism. I'm shivering. The diversity within the new data on Jewish messianism indicated by that tablet is more exciting that disturbing, if anything.

Blomberg/Habermas write on the tablet extensively on their websites.

2. So secular scholars who reject this thesis... are, what? Too blind in their blatant rejection of Christianity that they laugh at a theory that could destroy Christianity in a heartbeat?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[CrucieFiction]

Nothing you say "makes sense".

To any reasoned mind, the fact that a tablet which existed nearly a century before your man-god's supposed resurrection after 3 days which speaks of resurrection after 3 days (not to mention that this fable existed even earlier in other religions), makes something smell pretty rotten in Jerusalem. But your whole gig depends on you and others making lame and illogical excuses so as to keep the other weak and deluded minds in check.

[DiMagRocks]

I already touched on why the tablet does nothing to harm Christian belief (which again, Blomberg and Habermas expand on.)

You've apparently got your head so far up your butt that you're reaching for your intestines. Seriously.

[StutteringDave]

You're missing the point of the argument. If a deity exists outside of the universe it is quite possible that it is able to control the natural world without our detection.

[CrucieFiction]

IF!!! Yet, you IGNORE the IF you have provided yourself and chose to believe it nonetheless. What is it that so drives the mind to abandon all reason as you've allowed yours?

The very same thing could be said of the super-duper all-powerful Blue Smurf religion who claims His Divine Blueness exists WITHIN the natural world but evades all detection while controlling everything around him. When you postulate any kind of god and believe it exists, anything is possible. That's simply insanity!

[StutteringDave]

It is because I have evidence the God of the Bible already exists. Check out KabanetheChristian's videos on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[tivibtr3d]

"It is because I have evidence the God of the Bible already exists. Check out KabanetheChristian's videos on the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Check out tooltime's videos on the same subject.

[KabaneTheChristian]

Tooltime regurgitates a lot of barf. It's nothing new really. Anastasis777 is planning to to a complete rebuttal to it, though I might do it if I have the time.

[tivibtr3d]

I'm looking forward to it.

[facilisdescenus]

I was watching part of the tooltime series.He makes a big deal out of the synoptic problems .(And even quotes JohnLarmstrong -who has been thoroughly discredited by others).

And he doesn't touch on really strong evidence like the early 1 Corinthians 15 creed and the eyewitnesses and skeptics (lke James and Paul) who saw it . It was a decent effort but I found it unconvincing . You should check out Veritas48's series.he deals with a lot of objections there-Habermas' site too .

[KabaneTheChristian]

Hey Dave, CrucieFiction doesn't deserve a reply, he is a mindless promoter of the pagan copycat thesis and is worse than a creationist in his assessment of evidence.

[CrucieFiction]

I just love when faith-heads think they know what constitutes evidence-

"See that tree over there? That's evidence of God."

No, that's delusion bathing in wishful thinking.

[KabaneTheChristian]

I never said a tree was evidence for God you fool.

[theman77777777232]

You should probably capitalize "God" in your title. It's respectful. Other than that, good vid.

Peace.

[StutteringDave]

Oh yeah, thanks for pointing that out.

[theman77777777232]

No problem. Thanks for changing it : )

[JJTecumseh87]

is God an asshole?

[StutteringDave]

As a Christian, I obviously don't think so.

[Hez0]

Do you just take the asshole parts metaphorically or something?

[StutteringDave]

Well, it depends on what you are talking about. If you are thinking about Leviticus and the like, you have to keep it in a historical context.

[Hez0]

Historical context? I thought God was omniscient and knew the past and present before he made it. Regardless of context, killing insolent children and homosexuals is very wrong.

[StutteringDave]

Yes, but one must realize that the laws given in Leviticus were meant to be followed only in certain situations.

"Regardless of context, killing insolent children and homosexuals is very wrong."

God has the right to punish sin.

[Hez0]

I can't believe I'm hearing this from you man. :(

You're sounding like VFX.

[WilltheAtheist]

++"Regardless of context, killing insolent children and homosexuals is very wrong."

God has the right to punish sin.++

By sinning? isen't breaking his own rules very weak and unexpected from a "perfect" being?

++I can't believe I'm hearing this from you man. :( You're sounding like VFX++

Remember that he's a theist evolutionist and therefore got a ugly part. The theist one.

[Hez0]

I should probably add that said God made sin, so he is really punishing his own creations: Hence the whole asshole thing.

[migkillertwo]

I think this begs teh question: how can non-intelligence and non-consciousness produce intelligence and consciousness?

[tivibtr3d]

"I think this begs teh question: how can non-intelligence and non-consciousness produce intelligence and consciousness?"

We do not know yet.

How can imperfect things be the product of a perfect being?

[vivthefree]

Well, if we were perfect, then we would be God.

I don't see how an all-powerful creator couldn't make something imperfect.

[tivibtr3d]

"Well, if we were perfect, then we would be God." Why didn't he just create other Gods? Why create a flawed process to create flawed beings?

"I don't see how an all-powerful creator couldn't make something imperfect."

God isn't forced to create imperfect things, so why would an all-powerful being choose imperfection over perfection?

[vivthefree]

Maybe he wanted to create something new! Perhaps perfection isn't that important to him. Humans will seek perfection because they've never witnessed it. Do you think God craves perfection, given he is perfect?

Besides, it's impossible for there to be two omnipotent beings at once, so God wouldn't create another God.