Smart Kid

U 'r' a 'cronk'..... being an 'engineer', I'm sure you'll understand!

rcronk said:

Hmm - I've never really considered knowing God's exact location as something that's extremely important to know. As I see it, the purpose of this life is to learn right from wrong and reconcile myself to God knowing and trusting Him because of His attributes rather than His exact location at any given time. I have many testimonies of His attributes and I also have several experiments and results that are documented and I have tried those experiments and have gotten the same results and the byproduct of those experiments is that I have become a more patient, kind, happy, generous person than I was before each experiment. All of this brings me happiness and allows me to be a better contributor to society. I've lived life as an atheist and it didn't bring me the same fruits at all. In fact, it was the loneliest, saddest, emptiest time of my life - and my atheism was at the core of it all. All I have is my experience and based on that, I'll continue on the path I'm in. I am actually willing to try the experiments that God has revealed and they bore fruit. In fact, I didn't even have to completely understand God or creationism in order to try these experiments! And I'm an engineer!

Click to expand...

Well these threads get so big, so quick.

1. Atheists do not 'believe' there is no god, they don't believe there is a god. To try and say otherwise is a childish attempt to have an argument over word play.
2. It is only faithers that 'believe' that there is any difference between 'living' and 'non-living' matter. There is not. Being an engineer, I would think you knew that; but obviously not.
3. What are you exactly - an engineer? What's that? Do you have a degree in engineering? What options did you take: microbiology? biochemistry? physics? Pray tell...
4. Science says there is no soul... So it is up to a 'believer {like yourself} to show us where this soul is, what it is made of, when it first forms etc...I leave it to you to demonstrate the soul... I await your next post with eager anticipation. But then since you brush off other things you don't know anything about {like where the hell is god -- oh I don't care!} simply because you can't answer, I don't suppose I'll be getting much of an answer! Will I?
5. Finally... This is the one {this post I have quoted}. This one of your posts quite clearly indicates an experiment that we can all reproduce to gain this information that led you to god {presumably}...We need details....we are waiting with baited breath... show us to our maker!!!! I hope it involves something kinky!

I too, am willing to try these experiments 'that god has revealed to you' and I'm glad I don't have to understand god to do them {because I don't}.

I too, am an engineer.....BEng (Hons.) Chem Eng. 2nd class - I was too busy chasing girls to study all the time, so I didn't get a 1st!

...Never caught any mind you! Yours, lonely guy!

I have plenty more to say to you but first I want that experimental detail...

I once got a guy thrown out of his job because he made up some results to further his carrier....I blew them out of the water...so to speak!


Good luck! I can't wait for this one! In-fact I'll have a go....right now.

Method

1. Take one large spoon full of gullibility and add it to a larger beaker of ignorance.
2. Heat, simmer and stir for many years until arm falls off.
3. Add condescending overtones and liberality and re-flux at 60'C to prevent oxidation.
4. Titrate solution against a standard sample of bullshyt and add acid drop wise until your eyes water.
5. Slug back the whole mixture and pray for salvation.
6. If nil result, repeat 1-5 with a stick of TNT, made earlier.

Results

None.

Conclusion

Bonkers!

Evaluation

In need of psychiatric help!

References and bibliography : the good book. {not so good though is it?}.

Griff...

DanishDynamite – Have you seen this Darwin fellow? ;-P I explained that his "ramblings" have more importance than some other ramblings because I've followed what he's said and have found what he's said to be true through my own experience.

BillyJoe – Thanks for the clarification.

Mashuna – I think God wants us to choose without compulsion. I think he organized things so that people wouldn't feel compelled to believe in Him or not believe in Him based on evidence around them that could be explained either way but people could choose to believe or not based on their own free will. I could be wrong though.

Morrigan – Thanks for the biology info. Yes, I've taken biology classes and I know the difference in the attributes of living and non-living things. My point was what causes things to be living vs. non-living. In theism, it's generally a spirit, so I was wondering what the cause was in atheism – that's all. When I was an atheist, I had a desire to explain the world around me and how it came to be. In order to do that without God, I had to use evolution and abiogenesis to explain it. Some of these theories went against my own common sense – specifically dealing with elegant design and purpose spontaneously appearing from nothing – yes, even over billions of years. It also didn't answer a lot of my questions and I found out that a lot of my reason for picking atheism at the time dealt with normal teen rebellion and father figure issues or "how could there be a god when he let X happen" issues – which I have found to be common amongst the atheists I have asked. I'm sorry that many theists are "doing it wrong" and not doing it scientifically. I am doing it scientifically so please try not to map their behaviors onto me. Again, because I'm doing this scientifically, my definition of faith doesn't seem to match all of your definitions. Sorry about that. I've explained that topic already so we won't continue to have confusion over that. It may be true that one can't falsify God existing – one can, however, find out that He does exist. There have been many who have done this and they have told you and me how to do it but most people are unwilling to do what is required to gain this knowledge. Fair enough on the evolution being observed in a laboratory – was it a new species that was observed that came from newly evolved genetic material?

Apathia – I'm LDS, and it's in a book called "The Pearl of Great Price" in the book of Abraham. It contains more writings of the same Abraham found in the Bible. It's pretty interesting stuff. As for God having certain body parts – I think he'd have them all since according to Him, man was created in his image and in his likeness. The body part in question might have to do with spirit reproduction – that would just be a guess though.

polaris... – I am a software engineer. I have a BS in CIS and have been programming for 29 years total, 15 of that professionally. So I do like to pick things apart and figure out how they work and so it is difficult for me to take actions before knowing everything – but I usually find out things after I take the actions – it's counter intuitive for an engineer, but it works. Fair enough on the semantics of not believing in God or believing there is no God. According to evolutionists, non-living things cannot evolve and living things can evolve, so there are many differences between living and non-living matter – otherwise we'd see self evolving computers on mars. I don't have direct evidence that there's a soul, but I have indirect evidence like the fact that we're talking to each other and thinking and acting of our own free will, that we are organized with purpose, that we die and stop "living", and that sources that I trust have told me that souls exist. There's no evidence for string theory either but I don't see atheists mocking and calling those scientists gullible – why?

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

I'm sorry, but I don't want any part of that.

rcronk said:

Fair enough on belief systems - again, that's not my main point.I think you're misunderstanding my main point. Why can an antelope evolve but M&M's(tm) can't? How do atheists differentiate between "living" and "non-living" things? Since natural selection only applies only to "living" things - what is the difference between a living and a non-living thing? The explanation above that one is "made" and the other is not doesn't make sense to me. Anyone want to take another shot at it?

Click to expand...

OH, but they can....

kmortis said:

OH, but they can....

Click to expand...

lol - that's freaking hilarious - thanks! It reminds me a little of the twinkie experiments: http://www.twinkiesproject.com

rcronk said:

DanishDynamite – Have you seen this Darwin fellow? ;-P I explained that his "ramblings" have more importance than some other ramblings because I've followed what he's said and have found what he's said to be true through my own experience.

Click to expand...

The point of science is that you don't have to prove the existence of the scientist to validate the results of the experiment. Darwin's observations and theories would be just as valid if Darwin didn't exist. They have been repeated, with and without modification, many times and the amount of evidence that exists to support Darwin's basic theory - evolution by natural selection, operating through descent with modification - is staggering.

You didn't answer the question about the experiments you claim to have done to support your theism.

Jon. said:

The point of science is that you don't have to prove the existence of the scientist to validate the results of the experiment. Darwin's observations and theories would be just as valid if Darwin didn't exist. They have been repeated, with and without modification, many times and the amount of evidence that exists to support Darwin's basic theory - evolution by natural selection, operating through descent with modification - is staggering.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that was my exact point - the same logic applies to Abraham.

Jon. said:

You didn't answer the question about the experiments you claim to have done to support your theism.

Click to expand...

You are correct and if you read closely, you'll see that I explained why I did not answer that question.

rcronk said:

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

I'm sorry, but I don't want any part of that.

Click to expand...

Well I haven't made any disparaging remarks concerning you beliefs and like to regard myself as a truth-seeker, so how about you teach me some of these lessons. While according to you they are free and available, I must confess that I am at a loss as to where one might find them. Besides, if you have any confidence in these arguements then you should be confident my fellow posters would be unable to effectivly pick them apart, just as they are unable to pick apart things such as evolution or gravity (although that doesn't stop some trying).

rcronk said:

Thanks - that was my exact point - the same logic applies to Abraham.

Click to expand...

So what did Abraham say that can be verified by external evidence?

rcronk said:

You are correct and if you read closely, you'll see that I explained why I did not answer that question.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean this:

rcronk said:

As for the experiments – the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth. I don't see that here with statements like:

"spoon full of gullibility"
"ignorance"
"condescension"
"psychiatric help"
"[adding] extra to nail this turkey"

combined with the fact that all of these experiments have been available to you all for free for your entire lives but you are asking me to hand them to you – for what purpose? For you to pick them apart and make fun? To prove to me how stupid and gullible I am? To "nail this turkey"?

Click to expand...

So you're not going to tell us what these experiments are because one twit said some stupid things (here's a hint: take a look at Polaris' other posts; he's not exactly representative of most people on these forums, or even on this thread)?

Or is it because "the prerequisite is a willingness to sincerely find and accept the truth and do whatever it takes to find that truth"? Because I think most scientists and skeptics would meet that criterion, unless of course it's code for having to believe in the validity of someone's personal revelation from God before the contents of that revelation make any sense.

Do these experiments only apply to Abrahamic traditions, or would they also work for Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or any other tradition for which we have many texts and writings that can be attributed to a single source? If the experiments can only be applied to Abraham, why?

kinkymagic said:

Well I haven't made any disparaging remarks concerning you beliefs and like to regard myself as a truth-seeker, so how about you teach me some of these lessons. While according to you they are free and available, I must confess that I am at a loss as to where one might find them. Besides, if you have any confidence in these arguements then you should be confident my fellow posters would be unable to effectivly pick them apart, just as they are unable to pick apart things such as evolution or gravity (although that doesn't stop some trying).

Click to expand...

Ok, here is the first experiment. I will share the conditions of the experiment and then my own experience with it.

1. Read "The Book of Mormon". They're free - contact an LDS missionary or member to get a free one. "Mormon" is the name of the historian who put the book together.

2. As you read it, think about what you're reading and compare it to truths you already know.

3. Pray to ask God if the contents of the book you just read are true. This can be a simple prayer similar to "God, I just read this book and it says you exist and I want to know if you exist and if this book is true." According to the book, the answer will come to you through the power of the Holy Ghost and will cause you to feel and know that the book is true. Once you have received this answer, you will know that the book is true with more assurity than knowing the sun will rise the next day. That was my experience and the experience of hundreds of people I have talked to who have also done this experiment.

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

These instructions and conditions appear in the book itself in Moroni chapter 10 verses 3 through 5. If you do all of this, you will know for yourself the truth about God and much more. And faith in Christ will come to you as you sincerely read the book.

When I was in high school, I read the book and prayed about it and didn't get an answer at all. I found that I had not performed the experiment correctly. I lacked a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ I was looking to disprove it and for an excuse to go party instead of being "religious". I then became the partying atheist for a while until I figured out that that didn't give me any lasting peace and happiness. To make a long story short, several years later, after investigating many religions and philosophies, I decided to try the experiment again - this time I was sincerely wanting to know the truth about the book and I received an answer. It's a little difficult to explain, but it was a combination of a deep feeling of peace accompanied by a knowledge of the truthfulness of the book that I cannot deny. I have since received other reconfirmations of its truthfulness. I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.

The book itself describes God, who He is, His relation to us, His plan for us, the role of Jesus Christ in that plan and why it was necessary for Him to be a part of the plan, where we came from before this mortal life, where we're going after this mortal life, how to acquire true and lasting joy, etc. It does all this through a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

There's the first free experiment. If you have questions, let me know. I would like to know if anyone is willing to try this experiment.

BillyJoe said:

If there are no changes in the environment there is nothing to drive evolution. Put another way, evolution occurs because of changes in the environment.

Click to expand...

In a way, yes. But even "living fossil" species are still evolving. If we could compare the DNA of a 70 million year old coelacanth with a living descendant there would be discernible phylogenetic differences.

Hokulele said:

Do these experiments only apply to Abrahamic traditions, or would they also work for Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, or any other tradition for which we have many texts and writings that can be attributed to a single source? If the experiments can only be applied to Abraham, why?

Click to expand...

Someone asked where God was and Abraham said "near Kolob" and that's how Abraham got into this discussion.

These experiments apply to all religions, faiths, atheists - anyone who performs the experiment properly.

Again Dunstan - sorry for the thread hijack.

rcronk said:

Ok, here is the first experiment. I will share the conditions of the experiment and then my own experience with it.

1. Read "The Book of Mormon". They're free - contact an LDS missionary or member to get a free one. "Mormon" is the name of the historian who put the book together.

2. As you read it, think about what you're reading and compare it to truths you already know.

3. Pray to ask God if the contents of the book you just read are true. This can be a simple prayer similar to "God, I just read this book and it says you exist and I want to know if you exist and if this book is true." According to the book, the answer will come to you through the power of the Holy Ghost and will cause you to feel and know that the book is true. Once you have received this answer, you will know that the book is true with more assurity than knowing the sun will rise the next day. That was my experience and the experience of hundreds of people I have talked to who have also done this experiment.

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

These instructions and conditions appear in the book itself in Moroni chapter 10 verses 3 through 5. If you do all of this, you will know for yourself the truth about God and much more. And faith in Christ will come to you as you sincerely read the book.

Click to expand...

See, that third condition there is a dealbreaker for me. I have no problem with reading a book and praying to ask God to reveal himself to me and reveal whether the book is true or false. However, if I have to already have faith in Christ, then, sorry, that's not going to happen. This is what I was referring to above:

Jon. said:

code for having to believe in the validity of someone's personal revelation from God before the contents of that revelation make any sense

Click to expand...

In a scientific experiment, the results are the results whether the reader agrees with the experimenter's beliefs or not. And if the reader doesn't believe it, s/he can re-do the experiment, and if s/he gets a differing result, publish that. Enough differing results and the first experiment is regarded as invalid. There is no such process for the Book of Mormon. Or, if enough of us perform your experiment and come back and say "nope, no God spoke to me", will you accept that the Book of Mormon is not true?

Further, a valid experiment should have objective outcomes. This has only a subjective outcome.

rcronk said:

When I was in high school, I read the book and prayed about it and didn't get an answer at all. I found that I had not performed the experiment correctly. I lacked a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ I was looking to disprove it and for an excuse to go party instead of being "religious". I then became the partying atheist for a while until I figured out that that didn't give me any lasting peace and happiness. To make a long story short, several years later, after investigating many religions and philosophies, I decided to try the experiment again - this time I was sincerely wanting to know the truth about the book and I received an answer. It's a little difficult to explain, but it was a combination of a deep feeling of peace accompanied by a knowledge of the truthfulness of the book that I cannot deny. I have since received other reconfirmations of its truthfulness. I now know that the Book of Mormon is a true book.

Click to expand...

Is the truth of the Book of Mormon compatible with the truth of the Qu'ran? If not, how does the fact that many, many people "know" that the Qu'ran is a "true book", using the exact same method you used with respect to the Book of Mormon, affect your observations?

Have you tried this method with any other books, such as the Qu'ran, Dianetics or for that matter, the collected works of Bob Dylan? If not, why not? Of course, with those books, your condition #3 would have to be changed to faith in Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard or the Zim respectively.

rcronk said:

The book itself describes God, who He is, His relation to us, His plan for us, the role of Jesus Christ in that plan and why it was necessary for Him to be a part of the plan, where we came from before this mortal life, where we're going after this mortal life, how to acquire true and lasting joy, etc. It does all this through a combination of stories about people and discourses starting in Jerusalem in 600 B.C., following a family from Jerusalem to the American Continent until about 421 A.D.

Click to expand...

How would your belief in the truth of this book be affected if it were proven scientifically - that is, with objective, replicable results - that at least some of the events described in it just didn't happen?

rcronk said:

There's the first free experiment. If you have questions, let me know. I would like to know if anyone is willing to try this experiment.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't go into experiments by assuming a particular outcome as one of the premises.

So your emotional reaction to reading a book and praying constitutes a scientific experiment in your opinion?

ETA: Covered better and in much more detail above!

rcronk said:

There are some conditions. When you pray, you must pray:

1. with a sincere heart
2. with real intent
3. having faith in Christ

Click to expand...

We get this a lot. The problem is, what it essentially boils down to is, "Believe in what I say, then pray, and then you will believe!" It assumes what it sets out to establish.

I can't pray with a sincere heart, because my sincere belief is that there's no one listening -- any attempt at prayer would simply be going through the motions, or, at best, a "what if?" type of thing. Likewise, I can't have faith in Christ, because I see no reason to believe there was anything supernatural about him, if he even existed at all.

Statements like these puzzle me, because they reflect an attitude that people can change what they believe like flipping a lightswitch. Maybe it's like that for some people, but for me, what I believe changes based on what I've experienced. The experience has to come before the change, and for that reason exhortations like "pray really, really hard" seem completely backwards.

rcronk said:

Someone asked where God was and Abraham said "near Kolob" and that's how Abraham got into this discussion.

These experiments apply to all religions, faiths, atheists - anyone who performs the experiment properly.

Again Dunstan - sorry for the thread hijack.

Click to expand...

So to make sure I understand you correctly, if I read one of the Sutras and request that Kanon reveal herself and assure me that it is true, she will reveal herself and assure me that the particular verse I am reading is true?

rcronk said:

Ok - I'll explain who I believe God is - my theory. [thread derail warning]

Each one of us has a spirit within us. It has the same organs and organization that our physical body has. It is where our free will and consciousness originates. "God" is the father of our spirits. Before this world was created, God created our spirits and we were His children. He taught us and helped us to acquire as much knowledge as we could as spirits. He then knew that to progress further and to know "right" from "wrong" or in other words to know what gives the most people the most lasting joy and what doesn't, we needed to have physical bodies and be away from him so we could act for ourselves - kind of like finding out how hard an employee will work when the boss is gone. So, he created a world for us so we could come down here to get a physical body that would further help us acquire knowledge and also it would help us to experience each other being nice and mean, sharing and stealing, giving new life and murdering. So that we could all know what "works" and what "doesn't work" in a society and within ourselves. I think he organized things here so that we could choose to believe in him or not. He actually appeared to some people and told them to go give people hints as to what works and what doesn't (the "right" and "wrong" ways). He did this, keeping himself hidden so that we could all choose of our own free will to choose good or evil and to follow His ways or not with no compulsion whatsoever. So, God is our father and we are all his children, all living and experiencing life and learning as we go - acquiring knowledge in ways that we otherwise couldn't have and choosing all the while what we want for ourselves. He wants the best for us, but wants us to choose it. He is all powerful and all knowing and he is perfected in all of his attributes such as mercy, justice, forgiveness, honesty, truth, etc. He will not take away our right to act in the ways we desire and so we see much good and much evil in the world.

So there's a basic theory that I believe in currently based on my own research, study, and experiments that I have performed throughout my life to see if He exists and to find out who He is. The theory evolves (no pun intended) as I learn more and as I try to refine my own biases and weaknesses out of myself using the processes He has given to prophets through the centuries. I've tried them and they work. That's my understanding of God, His plan for me, and how He relates to me.

As I have said before, I have been an atheist and I have believed in evolution before and my theories have changed based on evidence, testimonies, and my own experiences.

Click to expand...

That is not a theory. It isn't even an hypothesis. How do you propose to test this? How can it be falsified?

This may have already been covered, but I'll spell it out bluntly.

There is no selection pressure for your rows of M&Ms over non-rows. Without selection, it WOULD be totally random. M&Ms are also incapable of reproducing. These are not minor nitpicks. Both are utterly fundamental aspects of evolution. If you are going to make an analog, you need to have something that at least imitates those qualities.

Now then, make your M&Ms capable of having young. Now envision a scenario where lining up in rows helps them to reach a point where they can reproduce and pass on that particular behavior. Well, it doesn't sound so impressive and rare now does it? Randomness is part of evolution, but only in providing the raw material for evolution to work with. The process of natural selection OUT of those available mutations isn't random at all.

The problem is, any analogy you cook up that actually does analog evolution, well, it just ends up supporting evolution.

If we designed computers that could replicate, and made that replication just a little flawed (not so flawed as to prevent them from producing viable offspring but flawed enough to allow for mutations and adaptation), we'd have better and stronger computers, though it would take a lot longer than engineers doing it. But, we can speed it up. Let's make a computer program that simulates natural selection and random mutations of a strain. Well, not only has that been done, it's being used CONSTANTLY in evolution programs everywhere to get work done. They have used them to design some truly unique looking robots that move in unusual ways, the selection criteria being whichever one is fastest. It's being used in warehouses to determine the best way to stock and load up shipped goods in a timely manner (scheduling basically). Don't bother saying that since it's done by a program an intelligence is involved which "defies the natural laws", in this case, no aspect of the program operates any differently than nature would, except that nature has no specific end goal in mind at all. If you think that changes everything, please, explain why you think so. The only thing it changes is that in the real world, it produces countless different strains in all sorts of niches, while in the computer, it produces strains that only fill one specific predetermined niche.

But, I don't expect you'll listen to this. You'll ignore the "selection pressure" part completely, continuing to think it is PURE chance. Or, you'll likely say "sure selection pressure works with existing genes, but there is NO WAY a beneficial mutation can ever occur ever", in spite of direct evidence, in computer programs and tests involving bacteria cultures and the introduction of stuff to kill those cultures, and go on and on about chance and so on.

You were just never taught correctly what evolution is, but you were taught never to bother finding out.

Jon. said:

See, that third condition there is a dealbreaker for me. I have no problem with reading a book and praying to ask God to reveal himself to me and reveal whether the book is true or false. However, if I have to already have faith in Christ, then, sorry, that's not going to happen. This is what I was referring to above:

Click to expand...

The faith in Christ comes automatically as you read the book. You don't have to have it right now. It would be like saying that a byproduct of the first step of an experiment is needed for the final step in the experiment.

Jon. said:

In a scientific experiment, the results are the results whether the reader agrees with the experimenter's beliefs or not. And if the reader doesn't believe it, s/he can re-do the experiment, and if s/he gets a differing result, publish that. Enough differing results and the first experiment is regarded as invalid. There is no such process for the Book of Mormon. Or, if enough of us perform your experiment and come back and say "nope, no God spoke to me", will you accept that the Book of Mormon is not true?

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. It's not just a "feeling" I get after reading a book but nobody here can understand that until they have tried the experiment. It is a bit difficult for me to explain, but the nature of the result is such that someone else getting a negative result just means they didn't do the experiment correctly. I know you'll are going to hate that response, but it's true. Try it and find out. Refusing to even try the experiment because it doesn't match what you've seen in the past is strange to me.

Is it possible that there is a different way to acquire knowledge than what you're used to?

Jon. said:

Further, a valid experiment should have objective outcomes. This has only a subjective outcome.

Click to expand...

It's only subjective to the person who hasn't run the experiment yet. It's completely objective to the one who has run the experiment. Again, there is another way to acquire knowledge - rejecting it simply because it doesn't match other ways of proving something is like saying you don't like carrots before you've tried them.

Jon. said:

Is the truth of the Book of Mormon compatible with the truth of the Qu'ran? If not, how does the fact that many, many people "know" that the Qu'ran is a "true book", using the exact same method you used with respect to the Book of Mormon, affect your observations? Have you tried this method with any other books, such as the Qu'ran, Dianetics or for that matter, the collected works of Bob Dylan? If not, why not? Of course, with those books, your condition #3 would have to be changed to faith in Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard or the Zim respectively.

Click to expand...

Truth is compatible with all other truth no matter where it is found. I've read parts of the Qu'ran and have found truth in it, certainly. I have done this experiment on the new testament and I have found that this method works to find the truth of all things regardless of the name of the book or whether the item in question is "religious" or not. I have found truth in a lot of different sources. Truth doesn't come from books, books can document pieces of the truth though. The experiment doesn't require faith in anything other than Christ, which again, is a byproduct of the first part of this experiment.

Jon. said:

How would your belief in the truth of this book be affected if it were proven scientifically - that is, with objective, replicable results - that at least some of the events described in it just didn't happen?

Click to expand...

I would assume that men are fallible and help them continue their research until they found the truth of the matter. You'll hate that response too and unless you've tried the experiment, you'll not understand that response. Once you've successfully tried the experiment, you'll understand why I would take such a stance.

Jon. said:

Sorry, I don't go into experiments by assuming a particular outcome as one of the premises.

Click to expand...

You don't have to assume anything. Start at the first step and move from there.

Is anyone out there willing to run the experiment?

Dark Jaguar - I completely get the selection pressure and reproduction, etc. I was asking why some things are living and why some things are not - what is at the cause of "life" to an atheist?

It's funny that you said "If we designed computers that could replicate" - since that would take intelligent creators (we) to do such a thing. That whole argument supports creationism simply because only intelligent beings could make such computers. I'm a computer programmer by the way and it is truly an interesting science.