Argument for God's existence.

[gaara4158]

yes and that post is in error. First, you don't bring up the evidence "other than the consensus" at all, so at this point, we should not even include it in this debate. Secondly, that is somewhat moving the goal posts, because you are adding things we were not talking about

You’re the one who keeps bringing up the bandwagon fallacy as an objection to any scientific consensus that is inconvenient to your thesis. As soon as you stop I’ll stop directing you to this knock-down argument against that objection.

We’re talking about the value of a scientific consensus in principle. If you want to discuss some kind of evidence directly, that’s fine, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what you think because you are not qualified to evaluate the evidence in the way that the scientific community is.

 

[createdtoworship]

You’re the one who keeps bringing up the bandwagon fallacy as an objection to any scientific consensus that is inconvenient to your thesis. As soon as you stop I’ll stop directing you to this knock-down argument against that objection.

We’re talking about the value of a scientific consensus in principle. If you want to discuss some kind of evidence directly, that’s fine, but ultimately it doesn’t matter what you think because you are not qualified to evaluate the evidence in the way that the scientific community is.

Realize that your the only one who thinks this argument is valid. I have not seen another athiests or agnostics attempt to validate a band wagon fallacy. Your the first in over ten years, so why aren't others believing the same thing? Now I say this to use the bandwagon fallacy against you, to see if you spot it. You say the majority of scientists agreement on something makes it true. Well several hundred years ago the majority of scientists believed in God, does that make it true (at least for them?.). See under this argument it would be true that God existed, until disproven by science. So then by that definition there was in fact scientific proof of God in the past. So you refute yourself.

secondly, Scientism cannot prove a single fact. So to use them as your sole evidence is faulty. And I suppose this is why your the first agnostic to believe this.

 

[Moral Orel]

You say the majority of scientists agreement on something makes it true.

If that was what he said, then you would be right about the Bandwagon Fallacy. But that's not what he said. Their opinion doesn't cause something to be true. If the majority of people who are knowledgable about a subject make a claim about that subject, then that is evidence the claim is probably accurate.

Well several hundred years ago the majority of scientists believed in God

That would be an Appeal to False Authority that I pointed out you used in the other thread, "Where does morality come from?". Scientists aren't authorities on the subject of God. In fact, I'd go so far to say that no one is. Theologians are experts on religion, not God Himself.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History the consensus of cosmologists believe that the universe had a definite beginning is not eternal.

That is FALSE.

What the actual consensus says, is that the Big Bang accounts for the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe.

That is not to be equivocated with the ex nihilo 'creation' of the totality of existence, which is what you are doing here. There is no 'consensus' about what constitutes the totality of existence - whether the universe is all there is to it, or not. Cosmology has nothing at all to say about anything pre-Planck time, because none of our current physics are capable of addressing it.

You've been corrected on this point at least a half-dozen times. Kindly stop spreading this canard for the sake of your crappy apologetics.

 

[Ed1wolf]

cv: This does not address my observation. If humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, seems odd that humans cannot inhabit the vast majority of His created space.

You stated '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.'

Your response seems to equivocate above. What does the logic of not being able to create a square circle have anything to do with pointing out the fact that God could have made humans with the ability to inhabit a much larger, if not all, of the known universe without dying almost immediately? Seems odd that humans are delicate and fragile, in relation to the elements of the known universe.

If God created the tenets of 'natural law' as you have asserted, not only do you need to actually account for this specific assertion, but also why natural law seems to demonstrate severe limitations to humans. You know, His most important creation.

So...

1. Demonstrate that God is the actual creator of 'natural law'. (Hint: you are begging the question)
2. Then, demonstrate why God could not create natural law in a way which seems to more favor humans, in relation to the existence of the known universe.

1. Since according to Einstein, laws require a lawgiver, for the universe that lawgiver is most likely God since only a being like Him could create a universe like this one.

2. He had an additional reason to make it so large and mostly uninhabitable and that is because He foresaw that humans would rebel against Him and do evil things. He did not want that evil to be widespread throughout the universe so by making it so large and hard to travel from earth He kept it localized to earth.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is possible, but so far the evidence says otherwise.

cv: We have yet to explore the vast majority of the known universe.

But from what we do know about the rest of the universe and what is necessary for life, it is highly unlikely.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but so far the evidence points in the other direction.

cv: We have yet to explore the vast majority of the known universe.

See above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes and maybe the same God as we worship. But so far the evidence says otherwise.

cv: We have yet to explore the vast majority of the known universe.

Yes, but see above. And if there are other life forms they are most likely to be something more like bacteria not advanced creatures due to the hostile environments on other planets.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, you failed to demonstrate fallacious reasoning.

cv: "What else could it be", followed by invoking the Christian God is fallacious reasoning - using the argument from ignorance and conformation bias, which is not a failure in demonstration.

No, I didnt use the argument from ignorance, I used an argument from knowledge. What we know about effects and how we reason from the effects to determine a cause, this is done everyday in science.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because of the evidence derived from the characteristics of the universe/effect.

cv: Nope. 'Universe creating pixies' created it. And as soon as there is a book, published by humans, the 'evidence' might then be equal, in relation to your asserted God.

My point being, anyone can invent practically anything imaginary. You can assert, at will, about a timeless, transcendent, all powerful, and all knowing agent; just like the person next to you.

No, I am referring only to real religious beliefs not something made up with hindsight to try to win argument. And that has many people that actually believe in it.

cv: The concept of cause/effect is your argument for the universe. But here is the crux of the matter...

I would assume you assert Yahweh is eternal. Thus, my question again is... What if the universe is eternal?

Even if it was eternal (which goes against all the evidence so far as I have shown in other posts) it is still contingent since everything in it is contingent therefore there is something upon which it depends for its existence and that would most likely be God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

cv: I'm aware that early scientists were Christian. But isn't it interesting, that the more that has been discovered through the scientific method, that the Christian number has vastly diminished? Just an observation, but again, interesting....

That primarily happened because at first after Darwin came up with his theory the evidence seemed to strongly support his theory so Christians became intimidated especially after the Scopes Trial but then later the tide turned with the discovery of DNA in the 1950's and ever since then the scientific evidence in both cosmology and biology has started strongly pointing toward an intelligent designer.

cv: I only ask because you appear to reject the concept of macroevolution, and I wanted to know why.

Many reasons. For one the systematic gaps in the fossil record between genera and phyla. And how even beneficial mutations result in a net loss over time of genetic information resulting in what is called genetic entropy and therefore making it impossible to progress toward a more advanced organism.

 

[gaara4158]

Realize that your the only one who thinks this argument is valid. I have not seen another athiests or agnostics attempt to validate a band wagon fallacy. Your the first in over ten years, so why aren't others believing the same thing? Now I say this to use the bandwagon fallacy against you, to see if you spot it. You say the majority of scientists agreement on something makes it true. Well several hundred years ago the majority of scientists believed in God, does that make it true (at least for them?.). See under this argument it would be true that God existed, until disproven by science. So then by that definition there was in fact scientific proof of God in the past. So you refute yourself.

secondly, Scientism cannot prove a single fact. So to use them as your sole evidence is faulty. And I suppose this is why your the first agnostic to believe this.

I can do this all day, Gradyll. Your hand-waving isn’t going to make this go away. Please actually engage these points:

So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.

As Nicholas Deka has told you, the fact that scientist all agree about something doesn’t make it true, but it counts as evidence that it’s probably true. So when you ask people for evidence of something and they point to the scientific consensus, that counts. That’s evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

As Nicholas Deka has told you

To be fair, I don't know if he's just ignoring me or if I'm actually on his Ignore List at this point. I'm correcting all of his many mistakes for the sake of any lurkers that actually want to understand how to make a logical argument. He seems to be responding to show people how not to.

 

[cvanwey]

1. Since according to Einstein, laws require a lawgiver, for the universe that lawgiver is most likely God since only a being like Him could create a universe like this one.

First and foremost, you are not providing evidence for God. No more or less so then appealing to evidence for 'universe-creating pixies' anyways.

If your unfounded blank assertion is true, then your asserted God would also have a 'law giver'. Unless you then invoke special pleading? - Yet another example of fallacious reasoning....

2. He had an additional reason to make it so large and mostly uninhabitable and that is because He foresaw that humans would rebel against Him and do evil things. He did not want that evil to be widespread throughout the universe so by making it so large and hard to travel from earth He kept it localized to earth.

Come on now... Seriously? It doesn't even mention this type of explanation in the Bible. You appear to be starting to grasp at straws.

Following your logic, it would appear that God already knew humans would become 'wicked'.

A better question might be... Why knowingly create something so wicked and allow it to continue for thousands/millions of years across the globe? What's the difference really - (containing it to this world only vs a larger/greater area)?

But from what we do know about the rest of the universe and what is necessary for life, it is highly unlikely.

See above.

Yes, but see above. And if there are other life forms they are most likely to be something more like bacteria not advanced creatures due to the hostile environments on other planets.

We have explored a very small area thus far. We have no clue what lurks out there....

I again ask.... What IF there exists intelligent life out there? Intelligent enough to communicate and harbor cognitive thoughts like humans? Then what?

No, I didnt use the argument from ignorance, I used an argument from knowledge. What we know about effects and how we reason from the effects to determine a cause, this is done everyday in science.

Nope. You did, I'm afraid. You stated, 'what else could it be?' Instead of using evidence to demonstrate the existence of your specific God, you instead deduced that it 'has to be God.' Also, "every law has a law giver". So why couldn't it just as well be 'universe-creating pixies?"

Also, there exists no scientific theory regarding an initial origin over being eternal. It remains theoretical...

You see, you are begging the question. The 'evidence for God's existence' actually requires evidence for His existence. Thu far, you have presented a small series of 'rule outs', and then assert your God.

Well, thus far, your arguments violate reasoning. Meaning, demonstrating fallacious reasoning.

No, I am referring only to real religious beliefs not something made up with hindsight to try to win argument. And that has many people that actually believe in it.

It's not about 'winning an argument.' As I stated a while back...

Demonstrate the existence of your specific God, and game over. Until then, you can quote Bible passages, 'connect dots', express how many people have believed for centuries, and maybe even argue for 'divine hiddeness.'

If God's existence was 'known', then this entire topic would not exist.

So I again ask, where exists this direct evidence?

Even if it was eternal (which goes against all the evidence so far as I have shown in other posts) it is still contingent since everything in it is contingent therefore there is something upon which it depends for its existence and that would most likely be God.

Um, like I stated prior, I can provide credible attachments, demonstrating the likelihood that the universe is eternal; just like you can provide the contrary As I stated, it is a divided topic entirely. Unlike biologists and the conclusion of 'macroevolution'.

Again, if the universe is eternal, the concept of creation becomes silly.

That primarily happened because at first after Darwin came up with his theory the evidence seemed to strongly support his theory so Christians became intimidated especially after the Scopes Trial but then later the tide turned with the discovery of DNA in the 1950's and ever since then the scientific evidence in both cosmology and biology has started strongly pointing toward an intelligent designer.

And yet, but not that it really matters, it would appear a larger majority of such are not Yahweh believers.

The more many study, the harder it becomes for many to retain the same fundamental beliefs. Again, just an observation. The number of believers/non-believers is not really relevant.

But even IF some intentional agent WAS the creator of our known universe, why assume this agent still exists, is perfect, and is 'good'? Side questions, yes, but still curious....

Many reasons. For one the systematic gaps in the fossil record between genera and phyla. And how even beneficial mutations result in a net loss over time of genetic information resulting in what is called genetic entropy and therefore making it impossible to progress toward a more advanced organism.

Maybe you should attempt to publish a paper, have it peer reviewed, and challenge the scientific community. It's been said, not by me, that evolutionary theory is widely supported. If you have ground-breaking crucial data to share, why not share it with authority? You could be famous

 

[createdtoworship]

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters.

out of that text wall this was the only logical argument I saw and it fails for one simple reason: you provide not evidence for it. So simply saying you have "good reason" is not a good enough " reason" when you keep that reason to yourself, or more likely don't have it.

 

[gaara4158]

To be fair, I don't know if he's just ignoring me or if I'm actually on his Ignore List at this point. I'm correcting all of his many mistakes for the sake of any lurkers that actually want to understand how to make a logical argument. He seems to be responding to show people how not to.

In any case, you put it in a way that didn’t occur to me, so I thank you for that!

 

[gaara4158]

out of that text wall this was the only logical argument I saw and it fails for one simple reason: you provide not evidence for it. So simply saying you have "good reason" is not a good enough " reason" when you keep that reason to yourself, or more likely don't have it.

You want evidence for the fact that scientists are better at science than laymen? Well, other than the fact that that’s their job and they’re required to go through higher education and discover something new to earn the title, scientists are responsible in part for all of the technology that surrounds you and even enables this conversation to take place. Your objection to scientific consensus as good evidence rests on your assumption that scientists aren’t any better-informed than laymen on matters of science, and the evidence for that just isn’t there.

 

[createdtoworship]

You want evidence for the fact that scientists are better at science than laymen? Well, other than the fact that that’s their job and they’re required to go through higher education and discover something new to earn the title, scientists are responsible in part for all of the technology that surrounds you and even enables this conversation to take place. Your objection to scientific consensus as good evidence rests on your assumption that scientists aren’t any better-informed than laymen on matters of science, and the evidence for that just isn’t there.

no sir, you repeatedly say that evolution is true because science believes it. But hundreds of years ago, science believed God was creator. So apparently science can be wrong by your own admission. For your theory to work, you must believe God was creator at least until proven wrong by science, so that means that for a few hundred years, that God existed because science had not proven that there was no evidence of Him existing (still hasn't). And thus if He existed then, then He can exist today.

So really, I don't see why you keep trying to say this stuff, it is so obviously wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

But hundreds of years ago, science believed God was creator.

Appeal to False Authority

 

[Ed1wolf]

What is a “halfway eye?” As you say, different animals have different levels of eyesight. Some can even see light frequencies that we can’t. As far as I’m concerned any animal’s eye along the spectrum between totally blind and all-seeing could be considered a halfway-eye.

No, because in all cases the eye is doing what it is supposed to be doing, IOW it is fully functional even if it is "simpler". If evolution were true, there would be eyes still under construction and therefore not fully functional yet.

 

[gaara4158]

No, because in all cases the eye is doing what it is supposed to be doing, IOW it is fully functional even if it is "simpler". If evolution were true, there would be eyes still under construction and therefore not fully functional yet.

Think about what you’re saying. Every eye is fully functional as long as it’s doing what it does. You’re proposing evolution produce an eye that does nothing. That’s not how evolution works.

 

[gaara4158]

no sir, you repeatedly say that evolution is true because science believes it. But hundreds of years ago, science believed God was creator. So apparently science can be wrong by your own admission. For your theory to work, you must believe God was creator at least until proven wrong by science, so that means that for a few hundred years, that God existed because science had not proven that there was no evidence of Him existing (still hasn't). And thus if He existed then, then He can exist today.

So really, I don't see why you keep trying to say this stuff, it is so obviously wrong, it's sort of sad.

No, I repeatedly correct you every time you accuse me of saying that. What’s sad is that you make no effort to understand it, you’re just so committed to being wrong. You can kick and scream about how it’s not fair that I get to use science to support my position and there’s no science supporting yours, but that could easily be fixed if you’d just take a better position.

 

[cvanwey]

In case this point has not already been drilled down extensively; doesn't it seem odd that a claimed all powerful God's existence is still being debated after such time?

It also appears odd that God used to 'intervene' with His creation often, but now chooses to remain 'hidden' to many/most.

Seems as though the mundane knowledge of the one true God's existence might be common knowledge by now?

And yet, instead, theists appear reduced to presenting such argumentation for His mere existence, to this day; and most likely moving forward.

Does anyone have anything tangible/useful/relevant to at least lay to rest further skepticism, doubt, or disbelief for His claimed mere existence?

 

[Moral Orel]

In case this point has not already been drilled down extensively; doesn't it seem odd that a claimed all powerful God's existence is still being debated after such time?

It also appears odd that God used to 'intervene' with His creation often, but now chooses to remain 'hidden' to many/most.

Seems as though the mundane knowledge of the one true God's existence might be common knowledge by now?

And yet, instead, theists appear reduced to presenting such argumentation for His mere existence, to this day; and most likely moving forward.

Does anyone have anything tangible to at least lay to rest further skepticism, doubt, or disbelief for His claimed mere existence?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I repeatedly correct you every time you accuse me of saying that. What’s sad is that you make no effort to understand it, you’re just so committed to being wrong. You can kick and scream about how it’s not fair that I get to use science to support my position and there’s no science supporting yours, but that could easily be fixed if you’d just take a better position.

yes I am jealous over a group of scientists that cannot prove basic facts (that they don't support my theory). I hope you can tell I am joking. But by the way the majority of scientists (52%) believe in either God or a higher power.

Scientists and Belief

so I guess you can say the consensus are theists. It's just that the majority are not creationists, they are theistic creationists. But that is because they don't know that there is no evidence. They assume the majority can't be wrong. Even though the majority was wrong a few hundred years ago.

 

[gaara4158]

yes I am jealous over a group of scientists that cannot prove basic facts (that they don't support my theory). I hope you can tell I am joking. But by the way the majority of scientists (52%) believe in either God or a higher power.

Scientists and Belief

so I guess you can say the consensus are theists. It's just that the majority are not creationists, they are theistic creationists. But that is because they don't know that there is no evidence. They assume the majority can't be wrong. Even though the majority was wrong a few hundred years ago.

52% isn’t a consensus, and the existence of God isn’t a scientific question so the opinion of scientists isn’t actually relevant. Try again.

And of course you’ve just completely made up your assertion that biologists who accept evolution merely do so because they are unaware that there is no evidence. You have no evidence for that.