Argument for God's existence.

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 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.

so you honestly believe that if they realized they had no evidence that they would still adhere to evolution? You are probably correct. But that makes my point even more important. That people should be honest with themselves when they see that there is no evidence.
 
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
so you honestly believe that if they realized they had no evidence that they would still adhere to evolution? You are probably correct. But that makes my point even more important. That people should be honest with themselves when they see that there is no evidence.
If in some bizarre turn of events it turned out that evolution was wrong, it would be scientists who found out and told the press. It happens all the time with widely-held beliefs. But you have no evidence that evolution isn’t true, so this point is moot.
 
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
and you have no evidence God isn't real. So I guess we are even.
Well, none of my arguments hinge on the premise that God isn’t real, whereas all of yours hinge on evolution not being real, so actually it just looks like you’ve failed.
 
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
Well, none of my arguments hinge on the premise that God isn’t real, whereas all of yours hinge on evolution not being real, so actually it just looks like you’ve failed.

sir I have never once said that evolution is impossible. This is a red herring. To distract from what I have said. When you get cornered you tend to use fallacy. Normally it's insults, in this case its misrepresenting what was said for the purpose of making your point.
 
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
sir I have never once said that evolution is impossible. This is a red herring. To distract from what I have said. When you get cornered you tend to use fallacy. Normally it's insults, in this case its misrepresenting what was said for the purpose of making your point.
By all means, highlight what you’ve said that I’m trying to distract from. You just tried to declare us even after I pinned you on scientific consensus because I couldn’t prove something that I never claimed. That’s not even, in my opinion, but if it helps you retain the information I’ve provided you over this exchange I don’t mind if you tell yourself that.
 
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
By all means, highlight what you’ve said that I’m trying to distract from. You just tried to declare us even after I pinned you on scientific consensus because I couldn’t prove something that I never claimed. That’s not even, in my opinion, but if it helps you retain the information I’ve provided you over this exchange I don’t mind if you tell yourself that.

I am unsure what you are saying here, it's not very clear.
 
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 am unsure what you are saying here, it's not very clear.
You tried to say our positions are equally valid because you can’t demonstrate that evolution isn’t true and I can’t demonstrate that God doesn’t exist, right? Because if that’s what you meant, it is false because my position is not a denial of God’s existence whereas yours is a denial of evolution (specifically macro evolution). So where failure to demonstrate the falsity of evolution really is a problem for your position, failure to demonstrate the non existence of God is not a problem for mine.

But we were discussing scientific consensus in this thread, and if you’ve learned that you can’t dismiss scientific consensus as a bandwagon fallacy then I don’t care what else you think, this has been a success.
 
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 tried to say our positions are equally valid because you can’t demonstrate that evolution isn’t true and I can’t demonstrate that God doesn’t exist, right? Because if that’s what you meant, it is false because my position is not a denial of God’s existence whereas yours is a denial of evolution (specifically macro evolution). So where failure to demonstrate the falsity of evolution really is a problem for your position, failure to demonstrate the non existence of God is not a problem for mine.

But we were discussing scientific consensus in this thread, and if you’ve learned that you can’t dismiss scientific consensus as a bandwagon fallacy then I don’t care what else you think, this has been a success.

I never tried to demonstrate evolution isn't true, that is impossible. Like proving God does not exist. All one need to do is say that it appears that there is no evidence for evolution. But you cannot do that with God due to proving His existence in the OP.
 
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 never tried to demonstrate evolution isn't true, that is impossible. Like proving God does not exist. All one need to do is say that it appears that there is no evidence for evolution. But you cannot do that with God due to proving His existence in the OP.
Well, it doesn’t appear that way because the scientific community is in near-unanimous agreement that there is evidence, and we have established that that counts, so what you’re saying is false.
 
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
Well, it doesn’t appear that way because the scientific community is in near-unanimous agreement that there is evidence, and we have established that that counts, so what you’re saying is false.
first of all are you sure that it's unanimous? there is a list of a thousand scientists that reject evolution here: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

secondly science cannot prove a single fact, so who really cares what scientists think. What ever it is they are trying to do, is failing.

thirdly this is a bandwagon fallacy (and yes I still believe it is), it is also called appeal to the populus. Basically it is saying, because the majority believe something, that it is therefore true, and we don't need to examine the facts.

fourthly, this faith you have in the consensus, do you look down on theists that have a similar faith? It appears so.
 
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
first of all are you sure that it's unanimous? there is a list of a thousand scientists that reject evolution here: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

secondly science cannot prove a single fact, so who really cares what scientists think. What ever it is they are trying to do, is failing.

thirdly this is a bandwagon fallacy (and yes I still believe it is), it is also called appeal to the populus. Basically it is saying, because the majority believe something, that it is therefore true, and we don't need to examine the facts.

fourthly, this faith you have in the consensus, do you look down on theists that have a similar faith? It appears so.
I said near-unanimous, you need to read carefully. It’s enough of a consensus to go ahead and accept as a non-expert.

Secondly science proves facts all the time, just not mathematically. You will hear that there is no proof in science, and that’s accurate in the strict philosophical use of the word proof, but in the colloquial sense yes, science does prove things. It’s the only thing that proves things in that sense. So it’s time to retire that point as well.

Thirdly I still have my handy dandy knock-down argument for that point of yours, I never get tired of using it. Now, before you skip reading it again, see if you can spot which word I've changed this time: 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.


Fourthly, as explained above, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the consensus of scientists on matters of science, but your faith has no such reasonable foundation.
 
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 said near-unanimous, you need to read carefully. It’s enough of a consensus to go ahead and accept as a non-expert.

Secondly science proves facts all the time, just not mathematically. You will hear that there is no proof in science, and that’s accurate in the strict philosophical use of the word proof, but in the colloquial sense yes, science does prove things. It’s the only thing that proves things in that sense. So it’s time to retire that point as well.

Thirdly I still have my handy dandy knock-down argument for that point of yours, I never get tired of using it. Now, before you skip reading it again, see if you can spot which word I've changed this time: 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.


Fourthly, as explained above, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the consensus of scientists on matters of science, but your faith has no such reasonable foundation.

so it's ok to have faith in scientists, but not have faith in God?

so you admit, you have a religion?

It's called the religion of scientism.

and I am still waiting for a fact that science can prove.

(I do technically state that 99.99% of science is unprovable (the non math type of science),

but feel free and put your money where your mouth is, and at least provide a cogent argument that science can prove things, and provide examples. I don't care about the colloquial use of the word, that is moving the goal posts), please provide one concrete fact that science can prove. But really you should provide ten, seeing that you have said that science can prove things.

we will wait. (btw I used your word against you).
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Forgive me for addressing this so late in the thread. If it was dealt with somewhere in the past 70 pages, I apologize. It just started bugging me.

Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational.

Why do you think that it must have intelligence and be rational according to cause and effect?

In fact, earlier in the post, when talking about cause and effect, you said "We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism." Your conclusion that cause and effect implies intelligence and rationality seems to be a leap in logic.
 
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
Forgive me for addressing this so late in the thread. If it was dealt with somewhere in the past 70 pages, I apologize. It just started bugging me.



Why do you think that it must have intelligence and be rational according to cause and effect?

In fact, earlier in the post, when talking about cause and effect, you said "We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism." Your conclusion that cause and effect implies intelligence and rationality seems to be a leap in logic.

Yes sir, imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can do that, then a creator can create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause.
 
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

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Yes sir, imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can do that, then a creator can create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause.

Thanks, I see what you had in mind now.
 
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:
Over time they can convince themselves that they truly believe that. But initially that is not the case.

ia: Unproven claim, based simply on your own opinion.
I admit it is unproven but it is not based on my opinion, it is based on truths that God has revealed to us. Though I know you dont believe that.

Ed1wolf said:
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.

ia: Jolly good. All you have to do, then, is publish a paper proving that evolution is impossible. Looking forward to it.
No, I am not claiming it is impossible, just unlikely.

Ed1wolf said:
The anthropic principle is a VERY well founded claim. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

ia: Actually, I meant that you saying "God's goal was to make it habitable for humans using primarily natural law" is an unfounded claim, which can therefore be dismissed.
No, it is not unfounded, it is based on what God has told us in His word and what we have learned from His creation.
 
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
You have an extremely poor track record of representing primary scientific literature in your favor. Last time you tried this, you tried to cite a 'study' from Cornell that didn't even exist.

I'll still read those sources when I get the chance, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
efm: Because fossils are extremely rare. Why would you expect to find a complete fossil record of every living thing that hasn't ever existed?

Of course, if there were no fossils AT ALL, the evidence from genetics would still be more than enough on its own.
No, the problem is not that there are randomly assorted gaps which is what would be expected if there was just a lack of fossils, it is that they are systematically at the places where the biggest morphological changes would be taking place, such as genera and phyla.

efm: Punctuated equilibrium is not 'large changes', individual to individual. It's relatively brief periods of rapid changes - still small, and still cumulative - that result in relatively 'fast' speciation, followed by stasis.

It's also not mutually exclusive to the concept of gradualism. They have exactly the same mechanisms, just different circumstances. They can both happen. Some scientists put more emphasis on one or the other, and as in all fields, there is ongoing debate.

That is how they explain it, but nevertheless it confirms that those systematic gaps exist and they are attempting to hold to the paradigm by coming up with basically an ad hoc explanation.

efm: There is no debate about whether evolution happens. There is only the overwhelming consensus, and a minuscule fringe of dissenters.
That was true with the epicycle theory too, until Galileo confirmed the fringe dissenter Copernicus.

efm: You don't know that, of course. You have an extemely narrow experience of what constitutes 'life'. Given an infinite set of possible conditions, there is no telling how many of them could have resulted in a universe where intelligent life could exist, in forms that are unimagined by you or anyone else. It's a gussied-up argument from ignorance.

No, it is based on knowledge not ignorance, the life we have on earth is the only life we know about, so it is rational to assume that is the only life possible and so we look for those conditions in exoplanets and other areas of the universe. Scientists that study exoplanets make this rational assumption everyday. You have no way of knowing that there is an infinite set of possible conditions, in fact all the empirical scientific evidence says otherwise. You can theorize anything but that tells us next to nothing about reality.

efm: Which is all to say nothing of the theological implications. You are proposing a god whose intended purpose was to create life, who couldn't find a better way than to make a universe that is 99.99999999999999999999% deadly to us. This is gargantuanly wasteful. If hydrogen molecules could think, they would have a much better case than humans do, in thinking the universe was created with them in mind.

Not if He wanted a universe that operates primarily on natural law and keeps the evil of humans in check from spreading throughout the universe. Which according to His word that is partially one of His goals.

efm: All of that is really beside the point, though. Your implication earlier was that the idea of the anthropic principle as evidence for Yahweh was 'well supported'. Which is false.
Fraid not, see above about the rational assumption of what type of life could live in our universe.[/QUOTE]
 
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
so it's ok to have faith in scientists, but not have faith in God?

so you admit, you have a religion?

It's called the religion of scientism.
No, it’s not faith, it’s reasonable confidence, and it’s the furthest thing from a religion that you can get.

and I am still waiting for a fact that science can prove.

(I do technically state that 99.99% of science is unprovable (the non math type of science),

but feel free and put your money where your mouth is, and at least provide a cogent argument that science can prove things, and provide examples. I don't care about the colloquial use of the word, that is moving the goal posts), please provide one concrete fact that science can prove. But really you should provide ten, seeing that you have said that science can prove things.
I’ve already told you science doesn’t prove things mathematically, but it does provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief. And that’s all that matters. You can insist that someone mathematically prove vinegar and baking soda foam up on contact before you take the claim seriously, but the rest of us will see the demonstration, accept it and move on. The only reason you’d hold out on something so obviously demonstrable is that it’s inconvenient to your worldview.
 
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
so it's ok to have faith in scientists, but not have faith in God?

so you admit, you have a religion?

It's called the religion of scientism.

and I am still waiting for a fact that science can prove.

(I do technically state that 99.99% of science is unprovable (the non math type of science),

but feel free and put your money where your mouth is, and at least provide a cogent argument that science can prove things, and provide examples. I don't care about the colloquial use of the word, that is moving the goal posts), please provide one concrete fact that science can prove. But really you should provide ten, seeing that you have said that science can prove things.

we will wait. (btw I used your word against you).
Also, you’re the one who moved the goalposts from “there seems to be no evidence” to “there’s no mathematical proof.” Stop using logical fallacies.
 
Upvote 0