Argument for God's existence.

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As useful as this thread has been, it seems like this would be a good time to just turn off the lights and call it a day...
I think I said that like 20 pages ago... we just can’t seem to resist the low-hanging fruit.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You've been trying and failing to do so for sixty pages so far.

Doesn't apply, I'm afraid. I wasn't making an argument there, I was offering advice.
oh yeah I forgot, because atheism doesn't not have anything worthy of living for as a life's goal, accept ruining someone elses fun. That is truly honorable and just.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Because your argument is that because the article doesn’t explicitly state that it’s not a worldview, it is. I agree, it’s a very odd request, but you’re the one who made it.
you said it did say it wasn't a wordview, so I simply asked for proof. then when I called you out on it, it was awkwardly silent for a while. Please don't humor yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
The BB theory which shows that the universe had a definite beginning and will end in a heat death is the strongest theory known to science, far greater evidence than the theory of evolution. So actually we do know and we are more certain about it than evolution.

cv:Again, if we don't know, we don't know. If the universe is eternal, then the concept of creationism is absurd.

Uhh we do know as well as science can tell us about anything, that the universe is not eternal.

cv: "Even if" the universe we live in had an absolute beginning, what's to say sparked this universe's beginning? It could very well be an infinite regress of prior states, forming and dying; and we are merely in the 'current' or parallel successive one?.?.?. But again, prior to this, no one knows. Pure speculation at this point... However, you are introducing basic fallacious reasoning - (argument from ignorance). See underlined below...

ed: No, I refuted the infinite regress in my previous post. And as I stated earlier, we determine what caused something by studying the characteristics of the effect. This is exactly how black holes and dark matter were discovered.


Ed1wolf said:
Almost every atheist I have ever debated gets more and more angry the more evidence I present. I believe that most atheists push their hatred of God into their subconscious and take it out on Christians. And then of course, deny their hatred of God and rather say that they dont like Christians shoving their religion down their throats.

cv: I cannot speak for all these supposed 'angry atheists'... However, you have presented no evidence for your asserted God. Do you actually have any? And again, if I doubt the mere existence of something, the only thing that might 'bother' me in this discussion, is my opponent repeatedly blindly asserting the existence as such, while appealing to fallacy in doing so. Thus far, you are demonstrating fallacious reasoning. Again, see underlined below.
I would hardly call the existence and characteristics of the universe no evidence. There is no bigger piece of evidence than that.

Ed1wolf said:
Where else could it come from? We know that humans did not create animals, and humans are the only other personal being known about. Now you could say ETs, but there is no evidence that ETs created animals or us either.

cv: "I can't think of a better answer.' Or, 'if you cannot come up with an alternative answer, in direct opposition to my assertion, then I win.'

"Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

No, this is called abductive reasoning, ever heard of it? If not look it up.


cv: - I say the 'transcendent cosmic human creating factory' created humans. Prove me wrong.
I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for it, unlike the Christian God.

cv: - I say 'universe creating pixies' created the universe. Prove me wrong.
Again, I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for them, unlike the Christian God.

cv: Addressing your implications above, all we seem to have evidence for is humans writing in a book (i.e.) the Bible, and many many many other claimed holy books, asserting a God(s). We actually do not seem to have any evidence for this particular God of yours, any more than we have evidence for Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, etc..
Yes, we do, all those other gods do not have the right characteristics for creating a universe like this. BTW, those you just named are all considered ultimately the same god in Hinduism.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You've been trying and failing to do so for sixty pages so far.

Doesn't apply, I'm afraid. I wasn't making an argument there, I was offering advice.
So lets try this another way, is flaming someone wrong even when not making statements? Lets go even further, is flaming illogical in debate. Is it an honest tactic? Even when not making arguments. If you agree it's making logical errors, then me exposing logical errors is actually the more moral stance to take. I disagree that an argument needs to be present for their to be fallacies, I believe that all that is required is a statement, either positive or negative. So in this case simply replying to a comment, granted it is a statement, can be fallacious. Now at this point you may find some blog somewhere that states you need to have an argument, but that is because they wish the argument to have some premises. But premises are not needed to have a fallacy, as you can commit a fallacy of begging the question when you offer no premises, a fallacy of assuming your conclusion without evidence. Since you don't need premises to commit that fallacy, you don't need an argument either. So thus all that is needed is either a negative or positive statement.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
you said it did say it wasn't a wordview, so I simply asked for proof. then when I called you out on it, it was awkwardly silent for a while. Please don't humor yourself.
I can see how you thought I had said that, but it’s not what I said. If you read the article, you can clearly see that none of its definitions of atheism match any of the definitions of “worldview” you provided. That’s what was meant by “it’s in the article.” Don’t get emotional about it, you were wrong, and that’s ok. That’s how you learn things.

Anyway, we’re wrapping it up in this thread. Go reply to another.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I can see how you thought I had said that, but it’s not what I said. If you read the article, you can clearly see that none of its definitions of atheism match any of the definitions of “worldview” you provided. That’s what was meant by “it’s in the article.” Don’t get emotional about it, you were wrong, and that’s ok. That’s how you learn things.

Anyway, we’re wrapping it up in this thread. Go reply to another.
I hope you are not offended that I disagree with this post. As you didn't provide any citations to prove your point you just assume that we know what you are talking about. I will probably see you in other threads. I am slowing down myself for a few days to do some stuff.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I hope you are not offended that I disagree with this post. As you didn't provide any citations to prove your point you just assume that we know what you are talking about. I will probably see you in other threads. I am slowing down myself for a few days to do some stuff.
I used your citation. All you have to do is read it and understand.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I used your citation. All you have to do is read it and understand.

no, using a citation is actually quoting from the source explaining your reservation concerning my interpretation of the citation.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
no, using a citation is actually quoting from the source explaining your reservation concerning my interpretation of the citation.
What do you want me to do, quote the entire article and ask you to highlight what you thought matched your definition of “worldview?”
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What do you want me to do, quote the entire article and ask you to highlight what you thought matched your definition of “worldview?”
you said the article did not match my definition. So please prove that. It should not be that hard. It either agrees or disagrees with it. You said it disagrees. So please verify that with citations. Asking me to prove something that I never said, would be reversing the burden of proof. I never even said that the article agrees with my definition. But now that you said it doesn't you transfer that burden to yourself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
you said the article did not match my definition. So please prove that. It should not be that hard. It either agrees or disagrees with it. You said it disagrees. So please verify that with citations. Asking me to prove something that I never said, would be reversing the burden of proof. I never even said that the article agrees with my definition. But now that you said it doesn't you transfer that burden to yourself.
What? If you don’t claim the article supports your assertion that atheism is a worldview, I don’t care about it. All I’m saying is atheism isn’t a worldview. It can be many things, but it’s not a worldview.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
No, that occurred by natural selection, which He also created. It is macroevolution that cannot occur.

cv: I think you've missed my point. God would not create a creature/animal/insect/etc with eyes, knowing it did not need eyes.

First, how do you know? Are you a theologian? Second, in the example I provided regarding the cave fish that lost its eyes over time, this was an adaptation brought about by natural selection. Once God created an organism He gave them ability to adapt thru natural law. So He does not have to intervene every time there is a slight change in the environment. But the fossil record shows that if there are huge changes in the environment then He does intervene.

Ed1wolf said:
The Anthropic Principle has shown that if the universe was not exactly the way it is, human life would not exist. And since God's goal was to make it habitable for humans using primarily natural law, the universe had to be this large and uninhabited.

cv: Seems as though an all mighty god might be able to do whatever he wants. Meaning, seems odd that God would purposefully make the majority of the earth uninhabitable for human life; especially if we are God's primary creation and the most important species on earth.
No, contrary to popular belief, there are limits to what God can do, for example He cannot make a square circle and He cannot make a rock so heavy He cannot pick it up. We know from the bible that He created a universe that operates primarily by natural law and that contains intelligent free will beings. In order to have these things, this may be the only type of universe that can exist. And science in fact points in this direction.

cv: Could it also be possible that there exists many many many planets completely inhabitable for life in the universe???

It is possible, but so far the evidence says otherwise.

cv:And could it also be possible that there may exist extremely intelligent life somewhere out there???
Yes, but so far the evidence points in the other direction.

cv: Intelligent enough so to also invoke or invent a 'creator(s)', and tell stories, write books, and/or some other form of forwarding communication about this/these asserted God(s)???
Yes and maybe the same God as we worship. But so far the evidence says otherwise.


ed: No, see above how strong the evidence is that the universe is not eternal.

cv: Nope. All you have presented is fallacious reasoning; as demonstrated above in red underline.
No, you failed to demonstrate fallacious reasoning.

Ed1wolf said:
Stronger than the theory of evolution. Since God is a Cause and not an effect, He doesn't need a cause or creator. Also see below about infinite regress.

cv: In regards to God being the 'cause', you know this because?

Because of the evidence derived from the characteristics of the universe/effect.

cv: Seems as though you do accept some science. What would happen if you took an evolutionary biology class and found there does exist ample evidence to support macroevolution? Would this 'shake your current faith?' Just asking..
Of course I accept science, Christians invented modern science in case you didn't know. Actually, I am biologist that has studied evolution for 40 years. And in fact used to be an evolutionist, so I do know a little about it! And no it has not shaken my current faith. But I dont deny that God could have used evolution to create. My primary problem with macroevolution is based on science not my religious beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What? If you don’t claim the article supports your assertion that atheism is a worldview, I don’t care about it. All I’m saying is atheism isn’t a worldview. It can be many things, but it’s not a worldview.
so you cannot prove your assertion, so lets strike that entire comment from the record and move on. Do you have any other way to disprove that atheism is not a worldview, because as I see it a worldview is simply a way we view the world.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Function is what a thing does. My eyes focus and receive light. That is their function. I choose to use that function to see, yes.
No, you didn't choose to use your eyes to see. That is all you can use them for. You started using them to see unconsciously the day you were born. Because that is their purpose. Function and purpose are basically the same thing and all biologists agree that eyes are for seeing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Almost every atheist I have ever debated gets more and more angry the more evidence I present. I believe that most atheists push their hatred of God into their subconscious and take it out on Christians. And then of course, deny their hatred of God and rather say that they dont like Christians shoving their religion down their throats.

ia: You're wrong. Atheists don't hate God. If they did, they would be theists. It's really very simple.
Over time they can convince themselves that they truly believe that. But initially that is not the case.

Ed1wolf said:
No, that occurred by natural selection, which He also created. It is macroevolution that cannot occur.

ia: And why is that? Please explain how a lot of small changes can not, over time, add up to big changes, and what barrier there is to prevent microevolution from leading to macroevolution.
Because almost all beneficial mutations that allow for the small changes over time result in a net loss of genetic information so that eventually there is no more significant genetic information to bring about the large changes needed for macroevolution.

Ed1wolf said:
The Anthropic Principle has shown that if the universe was not exactly the way it is, human life would not exist. And since God's goal was to make it habitable for humans using primarily natural law, the universe had to be this large and uninhabited.

ia: Unfounded claim, which can therefore be summarily dismissed.
The anthropic principle is a VERY well founded claim. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
 
Upvote 0