Argument for God's existence.

[InterestedAtheist]

Again the God of the gaps saves the day.

Oh dear...

you saw the earth being created four billion years ago?

CA221: Were you there?
Claim CA221:
(In response to any claim about the history of life) Were you there?
Source:
Ham, Ken. 1989. Were you there? Back To Genesis 10a (Oct.), The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

1. Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.
   
   
2. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.
   
   
3. A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.

Why can't God rub atoms together? If He exists as we say He does, why can't He who is all powerful do those things?

And perhaps you think that if I drop a pencil it would just hang there, unless God were kind enough to carry it down to the ground?

Evolutionists, when they don't have answers anymore, create new phrases, that no one has heard, label it a fallacy and expect us all to honor them. It's begging the question.

Hey! Stop making up words!

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay. Please provide your evidence that the universe is conscious.

what? who said that?

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh dear...


CA221: Were you there?
Claim CA221:
(In response to any claim about the history of life) Were you there?
Source:
Ham, Ken. 1989. Were you there? Back To Genesis 10a (Oct.), The Institute for Creation Research
Response:

1. Yes, because "there" is here. Events in the past leave traces that last into the present, and we can and do look at that evidence today.
   
   
2. If this response were a valid challenge to evolution, it would equally invalidate creationism and Christianity, since they are based on events that nobody alive today has witnessed.
   
   
3. A more useful and more general question is, "How do you know?" If the person making a claim can not answer that question, you may consider the claim baseless (tentatively, as someone else may be able to answer). If the answer is subjective -- for example, if it rests on the person's religious convictions -- you know that the claim does not necessarily apply to anyone but that person. If you can not understand the answer, you probably have some studying to do. If you get a good answer, you know to take the claim seriously.

And perhaps you think that if I drop a pencil it would just hang there, unless God were kind enough to carry it down to the ground?


Hey! Stop making up words!

your article you quoted from says this:
"Events in the past leave traces that last into the present,"

so please provide evidence the universe started 4 billion years ago.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hey! Stop making up words!

look up the definition of God of the gaps, it was created specifically in context of debating theists. That is begging the question. That would be like me creating a fallacy of origins, right now. Saying you are committing the fallacy of lack of causation. You believe in a universe that has no evidence of being caused by natural means. So it's a fallacy now, because I made it. So now honor it, whenever I say that you are committing the fallacy of lack of causation, please refrain, because now it is a fallacy.

it's absurd when I do it.

but totally acceptable when you do it with God of the gaps.

It is this hypocrisy that makes me believe atheism is one of the biggest hoaxes of the century.

 

[createdtoworship]

Cognitive dissonance, at its best.

I see the temptation to post insults and leave the thread, refusing to help your brothers in their predicament of finding evidence. But is that the most respectable action to perform?

 

[createdtoworship]

You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours.



No, a lack of good would just be innocuous - neither good nor evil.

actually I was responding to this positive claim being made:

we found that God does not do many things.

if that is the case, please provide evidence that God does not do many things. Again evil is a lack of character and not a positive action, but please prove that God does not do positive actions in the world.

this is a positive statement,

one would need to go all over the universe and make sure that a god was not doing an action behind some meteor somewhere.

it's is comments like this that convince me that atheism is the biggest hoax of the century. IF people can believe a rock made itself, then evolved into humans, or a rock was made by another rock in a multiverse (that made itself), and the second rock developed human DNA, and not have intellectual reservations about it at all, those people can really believe anything. I know you are going to say that this is a mischaracterization of stellar and chemical evolution, but it's not. I will post an illustration in my next post, please by all means provide evidence.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is how I see evolution: It's actually hilariously sad that people adhere to it...

fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This is how I see evolution: It's actually hilariously sad that people adhere to it...

fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys.

or this one:

that life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.

above illustrations from good brother

I can count on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of creationists I've come across who have even the slightest clue what the theory of evolution is. You are not one of them. Thank you for making an example of yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

I can count on one hand, with fingers left over, the number of creationists I've come across who have even the slightest clue what the theory of evolution is. You are not one of them. Thank you for making an example of yourself.

at least you admit that abiogenesis is evolution, that is a step in the right direction. I thought I was going to have to quote google scholar, and how many times it speaks of chemical evolution and abiogenesis as one and the same. Good talk. But do you understand every theological concept of christianity? So why do you ask that I do the same with evolution? Again atheism commands rules of other people, that they are not willing nor inclined to follow.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

at least you admit that abiogenesis is evolution, that is a step in the right direction.

You're confused. You equated them, because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're confused. You equated them, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Many scholars on Google scholar speak of chemical evolution in a premordial soup, so sorry if I don't take your word for it.

 

[createdtoworship]

athiesm isn't living. Athiesm is existing but not living. There are two Greek words for ‘life’. The word ‘bios’, from which we get the word ‘biological’ means the condition of being alive rather than dead – mere existence. The other word ‘zoe’ means the full, abundant, spacious, open-hearted, richness of life that Jesus speaks about – a life of fulfilment and purpose. Believing by faith on a multiverse that suddenly happened to aquire creative abilities decided to create a universe, our universe. For no reason at all. I guess just to waste energy. And thus because of not having motive for creating the universe, and because the universe started evolving itself by natural processes (stellar evolution ), and because microorgan isms decided to exist to, out of spontanious generation. All life is a big question. Why are we here? Why did a multiverse create an entirely separate universe for no reason at all, just to waste energy and resources? Why did DNA evolve? It's a program language. More complex than any human could program. In fact only in recent years was the genome even mapped. But yes, it happened all by chance. And yet christians are the ones living by faith. Athiests have scientific evidence for all of this, it's just that it's too complicated to post. Yes, I would desire for athiests to get a life. An abundant life in Christ.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Many scholars on Google scholar speak of chemical evolution in a premordial soup, so sorry if I don't take your word for it.

The theory of evolution is concerned with biological evolution. Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution. It takes about forty-five seconds worth of research to learn that. What is your excuse?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

athiesm isn't living. Athiesm is existing but not living. There are two Greek words for ‘life’. The word ‘bios’, from which we get the word ‘biological’ means the condition of being alive rather than dead – mere existence. The other word ‘zoe’ means the full, abundant, spacious, open-hearted, richness of life that Jesus speaks about – a life of fulfilment and purpose. Believing by faith on a multiverse that suddenly happened to aquire creative abilities decided to create a universe, our universe. For no reason at all. I guess just to waste energy. And thus because of not having motive for creating the universe, and because the universe started evolving itself by natural processes (stellar evolution ), and because microorgan isms decided to exist to, out of spontanious generation. All life is a big question. Why are we here? Why did a multiverse create an entirely separate universe for no reason at all, just to waste energy and resources? Why did DNA evolve? It's a program language. More complex than any human could program. In fact only in recent years was the genome even mapped. But yes, it happened all by chance. And yet christians are the ones living by faith. Athiests have scientific evidence for all of this, it's just that it's too complicated to post. Yes, I would desire for athiests to get a life. An abundant life in Christ.

Good thing I'm not an "athiest".

 

[Moral Orel]

But I would not know the answer to your question.

Okay, that's fair, but if you don't know why there is a god instead of nothing why are you asking us why there is stuff instead of nothing?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

what? who said that?

You did. You said, "I don't think God exists inside of anything else. I think He is, He is existence."
"Existence" is the Universe (which, by definition, includes everything there is). You said that you think God is existence. Therefore, you said that you think God is the universe. And since God is a conscious being, you said that you think the Universe is a conscious being.
If I'm wrong about you thinking this, I'd like to know what you meant by "I don't think God exists inside of anything else. I think He is, He is existence."

so please provide evidence the universe started 4 billion years ago.

Sure thing. There's lots of it. Here's an article to get you started.
Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts

look up the definition of God of the gaps, it was created specifically in context of debating theists. That is begging the question.

It wasn't actually like that. Christians and other theists were making the logical fallacy of saying that because you can't answer a question, their preferred answer wins by default, without needing to provide evidence. More reasonable people - atheists and others - pointed this out, and the phrase "God of the Gaps" was created as a fairly accurate description.

That would be like me creating a fallacy of origins, right now. Saying you are committing the fallacy of lack of causation. You believe in a universe that has no evidence of being caused by natural means.

No, I believe that the universe exists, and withhold judgement on how it came to exist because I do not, as yet, have any evidence.
Why, doesn't that strike you as a reasonable position? Saying "I don't know" when you don't know? Or should I instead make up a reason that pleases me?

it's absurd when I do it, but totally acceptable when you do it with God of the gaps. It is this hypocrisy that makes me believe atheism is one of the biggest hoaxes of the century.

Good. I hope I've now changed your beliefs by pointing out why our respective positions differ.

if that is the case, please provide evidence that God does not do many things.

I already did. People used to believe plenty of things were the work of God, until scientists proved they were the work of perfectly natural forces.
If you answer "And God created those natural forces," you are committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

one would need to go all over the universe and make sure that a god was not doing an action behind some meteor somewhere.

Yes. Ridiculous, isn't it? I trust you now understand why Russell's Teapot shows how silly that would be, and how the person making this type of claim has the burden of proof?

IF people can believe a rock made itself, then evolved into humans, or a rock was made by another rock in a multiverse (that made itself), and the second rock developed human DNA, and not have intellectual reservations about it at all, those people can really believe anything. I know you are going to say that this is a mischaracterization of stellar and chemical evolution, but it's not.

You, sir, are a prophet. That's exactly what I was going to say, because "a mischaracterization of stellar and chemical evolution" puts it very neatly.

athiesm isn't living. Athiesm is existing but not living.

I'm afraid I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. In fact, Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book about it - "The Magic of Reality".
Also, here's a funny little cartoon about this, from the XKCD website:
xkcd: Beauty
- The problem with scientists is that you take the wonder and beauty out of everything by trying to analyze it.
- Dude! My plasmoidal slime molds have heightened pigment production! Check out that yellow color! That actually makes them zinc-resistant. Amazing, huh?
- It looks like dog barf.
- Hah, yeah! F. Septica is nicknamed "dog vomit slime mold." Cool, huh? Check out my slides!
- Okay, never mind: What's wrong with scientists is that you do see wonder and beauty in everything.
- Oh God, it's moving! It wants to hug you! So cute!

But yes, it happened all by chance. And yet christians are the ones living by faith. Athiests have scientific evidence for all of this, it's just that it's too complicated to post.

Yes, we do, and yes, it is. What, did you expect science to be easy?
And by the way, it's not "atheists" have evidence for science, it's scientists. Many of whom are Christian.

Yes, I would desire for athiests to get a life. An abundant life in Christ.

Funnily enough, XKCD has me covered there too:
xkcd: Nihilism

 

[createdtoworship]

The theory of evolution is concerned with biological evolution. Chemical evolution is not the same as biological evolution. It takes about forty-five seconds worth of research to learn that. What is your excuse?

But they are both evolution as per their definitions.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

But they are both evolution as per their definitions.

It really did take me less than a minute. Here you are:
What is the difference between chemical evolution and biological evolution

 

[createdtoworship]

You did. You said, "I don't think God exists inside of anything else. I think He is, He is existence."
"Existence" is the Universe (which, by definition, includes everything there is). You said that you think God is existence. Therefore, you said that you think God is the universe. And since God is a conscious being, you said that you think the Universe is a conscious being.
If I'm wrong about you thinking this, I'd like to know what you meant by "I don't think God exists inside of anything else. I think He is, He is existence."

I said he was existence, the universe is not conscious. God has all the positive aspects of the universe, but the universe does not have to have all the positive aspects of God. That is illegitimate totality transfer.

Sure thing. There's lots of it. Here's an article to get you started.
Our Expanding Universe: Age, History & Other Facts

so you personally tested the hypothesis and found out they were not lying, nor in it to make money, and you made everyone take lie detector tests to verify that they were not lying? And every test is absolutely falsifiable, and repeatable in a laboratory setting? No, and thus it's not only not proven, it's not to be considered science. As I just quoted they scientific method, and it failed.

It wasn't actually like that. Christians and other theists were making the logical fallacy of saying that because you can't answer a question, their preferred answer wins by default, without needing to provide evidence. More reasonable people - atheists and others - pointed this out, and the phrase "God of the Gaps" was created as a fairly accurate description.

yes it was like that. They created a fallacy because they could not disprove the theists premise otherwise. Lets put it this way, if it was not for saying I committed the god of the gaps fallacy, what argument would you have against the OP? Nothing. So that proves my point.


No, I believe that the universe exists, and withhold judgement on how it came to exist because I do not, as yet, have any evidence.
Why, doesn't that strike you as a reasonable position? Saying "I don't know" when you don't know? Or should I instead make up a reason that pleases me?

Good. I hope I've now changed your beliefs by pointing out why our respective positions differ.

uuuhhm. My views haven't been changed by you or anyone here. As the Bible says, "what is wheat to the chaff?" Jeremiah 23:28, basically like saying, what is a lettuce plant to a weed? One is good for nourishment and food, the other is prickly and hurts you, if not poisons you to eat

I already did. People used to believe plenty of things were the work of God, until scientists proved they were the work of perfectly natural forces.
If you answer "And God created those natural forces," you are committing the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

So you took pictures of God at the exact same time those things were happening, and you know God did not do it? After all God is invisible, so even pictures would not work. I just say this to prove that you have no evidence God did not do those things behind the scenes. I pray everyday, and probably 80-90 percent of my prayers are answered positively. I see Him work in every day of my life, from fixing cars, to healing common colds. He can manipulate physical laws, or use hidden back doors of those laws, that science has not understood. He can do things directly against physical laws of science, more like a quantum physical property as well, He can do it all. So to have innate knowledge that God didn't do something, well I would like to hear this evidence. I presume it's not true evidence.

Yes. Ridiculous, isn't it? I trust you now understand why Russell's Teapot shows how silly that would be, and how the person making this type of claim has the burden of proof?

it was your claim, I never made a claim that God was not doing something.

And by the way, it's not "atheists" have evidence for science, it's scientists. Many of whom are Christian.

yes, I do agree, christians make the best scientists. In fact I know hundreds of them, and can post them if you want, as well as dozens of nobel laureates.

 

[Moral Orel]

look up the definition of God of the gaps, it was created specifically in context of debating theists.

God of the Gaps is one specific application of an already well established fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance. It wasn't specially created to argue against theists, the theistic tactic of constantly using the Appeal to Ignorance was just given a label. If you make any version of the claim, "You don't know X, therefore God" you're appealing to ignorance, and more specifically because your conclusion is God, using the God of the Gaps.