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
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 you don't need intelligent design or causation concepts to prove God exists, which was the OP. But if you desire to fine tune the argument into an intelligent God who is not a buzzing force field in the universe, then you need more information for that. The same logic of causality can say that because love exists, then due to cause and effect, God must have had love. So we can deduce that there is an intelligent and benevolent being in the universe, or outside of it, for that matter, that created the universe we live in.
 
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
I was just trying to fill in the blanks. If we're going with Aristotle's conception of causality we need all four, right? If we don't have all four then we're imagining some other concept of causality, certainly no "Law of Causality" like you said. But here it seems you're saying there was no material cause.
No, just because there are some things we dont know does not change the fact that a specific Cause is needed for a specific effect. And the Christian God fits the best for the cause of this universe. There are many similar cases in science everyday where they dont know the material cause.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, just because there are some things we dont know does not change the fact that a specific Cause is needed for a specific effect. And the Christian God fits the best for the cause of this universe.
You didn't merely state that we don't know what the material cause was, you proposed that it is possible that Material Causes are unnecessary:

To us it appears the universe was made from nothing. Which is also what the bible teaches in Hebrews 11:3.

Aristotle says that they are necessary, so you're proposing we violate what you called "The Law of Causality". I'm okay with that, but now I need you to go back and explain this to me:
First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it.
Since the "Law of Causality" can be violated, what makes you think any of this is true?
 
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
Thid verse in the Bible says that even though no one believed the gospel, that God was still doing a work.

"Behold, you despisers, Marvel and perish! For I work a work in your days, A work which you will by no means believe, Though one were to declare it to you."
Acts 13:41 NKJV
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Thid verse in the Bible says that even though no one believed the gospel, that God was still doing a work.

"Behold, you despisers, Marvel and perish! For I work a work in your days, A work which you will by no means believe, Though one were to declare it to you."
Acts 13:41 NKJV

I trust you may at least understand that such verses presuppose that such writings are actually inspired by the claimed almighty in question, right?

Example: It would really be no different than (person A) questioning authenticity from the Holy Quran, and then (person B) references a passage from the Holy Quran attesting it's truth.

It becomes viciously circular to use the book to claim truth to the same book, in such a case.

Furthermore, sighting such vague passage(s) does not seem to lend veracity to such doubters, I reckon.

But nice try, I guess...
 
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:
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.

cv: I think you are missing important parts of my prior responses...

'We don't know.' As I've stated prior, the 'conclusion' is divided. My point IS... You can produce articles, and so can I. It is a divided topic, and only theoretical at this juncture.

It is more accurate to say that "we dont know for certain, but we do know what direction most of the evidence points and increases every year that it is NOT eternal." It may be divided but those that believe that it is eternal are a distinct minority. It will always be theoretical since we cannot travel to the past. So you might as well make your decision now.

cv: (Disclaimer - NOT MEANT TO BE A RED HERRING) - We do not see such divided conjecture for your aforementioned 'evolution' topic. Meaning, there does not appear to exist a clear and distinctive divide between 'macroevolution' not being supported (vs) macroevolution being supported. Why? It would appear that the evidence for macroevolution is no longer a debatable topic among biologists apparently. Meaning, it appears a settled topic above biologists... Yes, there may very well exist other disputed claims within still remaining. But the fundamental premise of macroevolution does not - (unless you invite pseudo-science into the mix). However, the universe's beginning/not beginning, not so settled...
You are correct that the overwhelming majority of biologists believe that macroevolution has occurred. But just like many theories in the history of science the majority is not always correct. But the problems with macroevolution do not involve pseudo-science.

cv: Please understand my final driving point...

If the universe is eternal, then it would be silly to invoke a creator, right?.?.?.?..
It would be slight problem for the Christian God because the bible seems to plainly teach that the universe had a definite beginning. But since even an eternal universe is made up of all contingent things then you still need something for upon which all these contingent things to need to exist and a Creator fits that.

the universe is not eternal, then you may begin to present your case :)
That is a huge part of the case for the existence of the Christian God.

Ed1wolf said:
See my response above. I am not saying we can know for certain, but it is plainly good solid abductive reasoning and that is what Christianity is based on contrary to popular opinion. So when someone decides to believe, they are making a step based on the latest scientific evidence and scientific reasoning.

cv: People believe in their god(s) for all sorts of reasons. But I hardly doubt science is one of the more common ones.?.?
True, most people come to believe in God for reasons from the heart. But the head does play a strong role especially as they mature in their faith and as it stregthens. My faith was started partially by science and partially by my heart.

cv: Seems more evident that many invoke a 'god' as the explanation due to the 'god of the gaps' solution, or, argument from ignorance solution (i.e.) - 'asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.'

Or, 'I can't think of a better answer.' Or, other other other....
Yes, that is true in some cases, but some of the strongest arguments are based on what we KNOW, or knowledge not ignorance. Like DNA, we KNOW that DNA is a complex linguistic code and we know that only intelligent minds produce complex linguistic codes. So that is an argument from knowledge not ignorance.

cv: I, on the other hand, freely admit I have no clue how we got here, and leave it at that. However, when I start to follow along with the Bible, and see that it would appear that many claimed events do not appear to jive with later confirmed human discovery, I can then only place doubt as to it's true authenticity
Actually, we have MANY clues how we got here. And many things taught in the bible HAVE been confirmed by science thousands of years later. Like the fact that the universe has a definite beginning and came from something that cannot be detected by humans.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.


No, I am not claiming it is impossible, just unlikely.


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.
Okay. So you're admitting that all of the things you've said are based on nothing more than your own unfounded ideas, with no evidence to back them up. That's very reasonable of you.
 
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 trust you may at least understand that such verses presuppose that such writings are actually inspired by the claimed almighty in question, right?

Example: It would really be no different than (person A) questioning authenticity from the Holy Quran, and then (person B) references a passage from the Holy Quran attesting it's truth.

It becomes viciously circular to use the book to claim truth to the same book, in such a case.

Furthermore, sighting such vague passage(s) does not seem to lend veracity to such doubters, I reckon.

But nice try, I guess...

I don't disagree, I was not using that verse in an apologetic manner. If I wanted to do that I would use other verses. Yes, my post assumes belief in God and belief in the Bible. But it need not do that. Every verse of the Bible is living and breathing, and if you felt that it talked to you, it probably did. I suggest listening to it. (I assume it affected you because you have not replied to a post of mine for weeks, yet you decided to do so now). But if you wish, I did prove the OP in the first few posts of the beginning of this thread, if you wish to get back on topic, and adress the OP, I would love to talk about that again, here let me post it again:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Updated on some misconceptions:
Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
It is more accurate to say that "we dont know for certain, but we do know what direction most of the evidence points and increases every year that it is NOT eternal." It may be divided but those that believe that it is eternal are a distinct minority. It will always be theoretical since we cannot travel to the past. So you might as well make your decision now.

I again beg to differ. There does not exist a strong scientific consensus one way or another. It appears very divided. Most likely because we are still gathering evidence. Maybe at some point, we will have a sufficient amount to draw a sound conclusion, and maybe not.?.? A quick 'google' search for "did the universe begin to exist or was it eternal" pulls up links which steer towards the 'assumption' that the universe could very well have been eternal.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

We simply do not know yet, and/or may never...?

In regards to your statement
"So you might as well make your decision now." No, I can remain undecided; as opposed to blankly asserting an unknown conclusion. Just like I am undecided about intelligent life on other planets, etc....

You are correct that the overwhelming majority of biologists believe that macroevolution has occurred. But just like many theories in the history of science the majority is not always correct. But the problems with macroevolution do not involve pseudo-science.

Again, if you have evidence against the claimed evidence, which appears to support macroevolution, might I suggest you present as such to the powers-that-be for peer review. You could be famous, in pointing out flaws in such a claimed sound scientific consensus - (evolutionary theory) ;)

It would be slight problem for the Christian God because the bible seems to plainly teach that the universe had a definite beginning. But since even an eternal universe is made up of all contingent things then you still need something for upon which all these contingent things to need to exist and a Creator fits that.

Again, IF the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creation' is a superfluous concept entirely. Right?

IF the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.

Thus, as stated prior, we have yet to determine if the universe always was, or finite. Let alone moving forward with your blankly asserted notion of not only A creator, but (your) specific creator.


Yes, that is true in some cases, but some of the strongest arguments are based on what we KNOW, or knowledge not ignorance. Like DNA, we KNOW that DNA is a complex linguistic code and we know that only intelligent minds produce complex linguistic codes. So that is an argument from knowledge not ignorance.

You are correct. Your above argument does not present the argument from ignorance; but instead violates reasoning in another fallacious manor. You are now committing the fallacy of equivocation. I'm honestly surprised, that in this readily available age of instant information, you would not attempt to cross check your assertions? In this case, in reference to 'DNA requiring a mind.'

Please also see, just for rudimentary starters:




Actually, we have MANY clues how we got here. And many things taught in the bible HAVE been confirmed by science thousands of years later. Like the fact that the universe has a definite beginning and came from something that cannot be detected by humans.

Please go back to the top of my response.

Furthermore, is there an 'ignore the misses and accept the hits' metric one might follow, when using the Bible as an instruction guide to the universe?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I don't disagree, I was not using that verse in an apologetic manner. If I wanted to do that I would use other verses. Yes, my post assumes belief in God and belief in the Bible. But it need not do that. Every verse of the Bible is living and breathing, and if you felt that it talked to you, it probably did. I suggest listening to it. (I assume it affected you because you have not replied to a post of mine for weeks, yet you decided to do so now).

No, actually, with you, I tread lightly. You have a nack for placing people on a scheduled 'mandatory ignore list' quite easily. Others can attest to this as well...

You must already presuppose the Bible was 'God inspired' for such quoted verses to 'register' as truth. I simply wanted to point out exactly what I stated. And I did. :)


But if you wish, I did prove the OP in the first few posts of the beginning of this thread, if you wish to get back on topic, and adress the OP, I would love to talk about that again, here let me post it again:

Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period. The maker on the other hand would be supernatural, and prexisted time and space. So there was no beginning to the maker. Time is a physical property that requires mass to operate according to Einsteins theory of relativity. If a maker was supernatural (beyond the physical universe), then it would naturally follow that He was beyond time as well. Because of the fact He superseded the physical universe.

Mount Rushmore...

Three main ingredients....

- a mountain
- Chiseled faces
- erosion

Let that marinate :)


When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation.

(here is an article showing a survey done in 2009 that 51% of scientists believe in a higher power: Scientists and Belief)

update:

(disclaimer: I don't believe we can prove most things. Most facts cannot be proven, most science cannot be proven etc. However I believe that some things can be proven. The universe had a maker. We all accept this, or the alternative is that the universe made itself, spontaneous generation was disproven 100 years ago, thus there is only one option. The universe was created. Now the thing that created the universe, must according to cause and affect have intelligence, and be rational. It must also contain any positive character traits, self sacrificial love etc. Things that are not explained by herd instinct. Herd instinct accounts for some morality, but not self sacrificial love. A wolf may gather food for the rest of the pack, but not at it's own demise, it will most likely eat first, then get it. Humans on the other hand have been known to sacrifice for others. This type of love has no natural origins. Thus the one who created the universe must have that type of love, in order to create it in it's creation. The only thing that resembles a loving creator that is intelligent and rational. Is the Christian God. This to me is proof.

Updated on some misconceptions:
Right now I wish to dispelled the most popular viewpoint among athiests, a multiverse created the universe:
How could a collection of rocks floating in a multiverse gain the ability to create an entire universe from absolutely nothing? I await your reply. Secondly, say a miracle happened and a multiverse allowed asteroids floating in a multiverse ability to wave a magic wand and create an entirely separate universe from nothing (ex nihilo). Why would a multiverse create another completely separate universe that it had no working relationship with? Just to be nice? So we not only have miraculous meteors, but we have benevolent meteors. Not only that but these meteors are timeless and have no beginning, even though they have mass, and are susceptible to time via general relitivity. This is sounding more and more like mythology. It takes more faith to believe that. Than It Does to believe, God who n is self existent and self defining (per the definition of God), creating the universe in order to ultimately save, love, and glorify his creation, and to spend eternity, exploring how he in fact created, and to spend time with His creation, in loving fellowship.

As I'm discussing with another... If the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creationism' is superfluous. If it happens to turn out that the universe had a pure beginning, why then automatically invoke a special pleading circumstance for the 'causal force' of the universe?.?.?.?.?..?.....? Meaning, why assume this causal force is singular, loving, intentional, etc...? Too many 'dots' to connect.

And on a final note, as I've stated prior... Seems CURIOUS that the asserted all powerful and all mighty God is not known to exist as common knowledge. Whether you like to think so or not, there does exist a population of people whom genuinely doubt the existence of such an asserted agent. We are not instead 'in denial.'

It would appear I have to go over long debunked arguments from apologists on the internet to get my information about the 'evidence for God's existence.'
 
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 again beg to differ. There does not exist a strong scientific consensus one way or another. It appears very divided. Most likely because we are still gathering evidence. Maybe at some point, we will have a sufficient amount to draw a sound conclusion, and maybe not.?.? A quick 'google' search for "did the universe begin to exist or was it eternal" pulls up links which steer towards the 'assumption' that the universe could very well have been eternal.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe

What If the Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? New Study Proposes Alternative

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

We simply do not know yet, and/or may never...?

In regards to your statement
"So you might as well make your decision now." No, I can remain undecided; as opposed to blankly asserting an unknown conclusion. Just like I am undecided about intelligent life on other planets, etc....



Again, if you have evidence against the claimed evidence, which appears to support macroevolution, might I suggest you present as such to the powers-that-be for peer review. You could be famous, in pointing out flaws in such a claimed sound scientific consensus - (evolutionary theory) ;)



Again, IF the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creation' is a superfluous concept entirely. Right?

IF the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.

Thus, as stated prior, we have yet to determine if the universe always was, or finite. Let alone moving forward with your blankly asserted notion of not only A creator, but (your) specific creator.




You are correct. Your above argument does not present the argument from ignorance; but instead violates reasoning in another fallacious manor. You are now committing the fallacy of equivocation. I'm honestly surprised, that in this readily available age of instant information, you would not attempt to cross check your assertions? In this case, in reference to 'DNA requiring a mind.'

Please also see, just for rudimentary starters:






Please go back to the top of my response.

Furthermore, is there an 'ignore the misses and accept the hits' metric one might follow, when using the Bible as an instruction guide to the universe?
DNA is a program language. An error correcting one. The fact that you have to post video's means you cannot verbalize this in your own argument and need to rely on external sources. By all means verbalize your argument (from the video's or any argument at all and prove that DNA is not relaying information, and thus a language).

Because everything that relays information is a language.
 
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
No, actually, with you, I tread lightly. You have a nack for placing people on a scheduled 'mandatory ignore list' quite easily. Others can attest to this as well...

You must already presuppose the Bible was 'God inspired' for such quoted verses to 'register' as truth. I simply wanted to point out exactly what I stated. And I did. :)




Mount Rushmore...

Three main ingredients....

- a mountain
- Chiseled faces
- erosion

Let that marinate :)




As I'm discussing with another... If the universe is eternal, then the concept of 'creationism' is superfluous. If it happens to turn out that the universe had a pure beginning, why then automatically invoke a special pleading circumstance for the 'causal force' of the universe?.?.?.?.?..?.....? Meaning, why assume this causal force is singular, loving, intentional, etc...? Too many 'dots' to connect.

And on a final note, as I've stated prior... Seems CURIOUS that the asserted all powerful and all mighty God is not known to exist as common knowledge. Whether you like to think so or not, there does exist a population of people whom genuinely doubt the existence of such an asserted agent. We are not instead 'in denial.'

It would appear I have to go over long debunked arguments from apologists on the internet to get my information about the 'evidence for God's existence.'

yes sir I will adress only the parts of the post that are on topic for this thread, if you don't mind, for brevity reasons among other things.

Do you have an example of something that had a beginning, but was causless? That is an unobserved phenomenon. So basically this is an argument from silence.

And I don't block people unless they use flaming as their logic.

I don't block people unnecessarily.

besides, why would you care?

If I block you, it just means you are blocked from one user.

look at it this way, I did what I do here on an atheist site, and they banned me permanently.

Not just one, but all the major ashiest sites.

atheist are scared.

why else would they ban me.

I am not rude with them.

I am very blunt, but that is way different from being rude.

I simply say that what they believe is unprovable.

I mean how can you prove no God exists?

you would have to examine every asteroid in the universe for a potential God hitchhiker.

it's impossible.

Many negative statements are impossible to prove, for example can you prove leprechans don't exist?

if there is an infinity of parallel universes, that caused this universe as some say....

that means that every logical thing in the universe occurs in at least one or more other parallel universes.

so leprachans are logically possible, so they exist in those parallel universes, as well as pink unicorns etc.

so that view is illogical.

there is no infinite domain of parallel universes.

and the multiverse is not eternal, because it would have to cross an infinite amount of time moments to reach the current moment where it created the universe.

which is also impossible.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
DNA is a program language. An error correcting one. The fact that you have to post video's means you cannot verbalize this in your own argument and need to rely on external sources. By all means verbalize your argument (from the video's or any argument at all and prove that DNA is not relaying information, and thus a language).

Because everything that relays information is a language.

Um, I verbalize plenty on my own sir. But I find that people tune out 'text walls.'

Regardless, if the information is sound, it does not matter whether it came from a video, my text, or word of mouth. Sound is sound. Hence, the reason I posted such links.

I'm gathering, from your response, that you too seem to 'think' DNA represents 'God.' Then please, by all means, do present (your) case.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
yes sir I will adress only the parts of the post that are on topic for this thread, if you don't mind, for brevity reasons among other things.

Fine.

Do you have an example of something that had a beginning, but was causless? That is an unobserved phenomenon. So basically this is an argument from silence.

I'm not the one attempting to blankly assert one, YOU ARE :)

And I don't block people unless they use flaming as their logic.

I don't block people unnecessarily.

besides, why would you care?

To know if I'm wasting my time replying to someone whom might instead decide to 'block/ignore' me.

If I block you, it just means you are blocked from one user.

If my response is directed at (you), and (you) don't respond, then my post was basically performed in vain ;)


look at it this way, I did what I do here on an atheist site, and they banned me permanently.

Not just one, but all the major ashiest sites.

Okay, and...?

atheist are scared.

They are? How do you know?

why else would they ban me.

Maybe for some of the reasons your opponents have politely pointed out to you during the course of this thread.

I mean how can you prove no God exists?

You can't. Just like you can't prove the 'universe-creating pixies' don't exist ;)

You see, they are BOTH not falsifiable. This is one of the main reasons you can come on a forum arena, assert things, and feel you are 'winning'; even after more than 70 pages deep :)

Case and point, I created a topic several months ago, as an experiment. I have to say, it is rather fun to assert a not falsifiable claim, and then have people attempt to 'prove me wrong.'

Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

BUT YOU SEEM to have skipped right over a plausibility I made prior. Which is, what IF the universe is eternal? 'Creationism' then becomes a silly assertion, doesn't it now?
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,266
Pacific NW
✟242,376.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Which is, what IF the universe is eternal? 'Creationism' then becomes a silly assertion, doesn't it now?

Not exactly. There could still be a creator of humanity, possibly including life on Earth, and possibly including Earth itself. It would be difficult for an eternal universe to sustain itself, thanks to overall increasing entropy. A supreme being adjusting things here and there would help out.

Plus, I think a creator could manage to create some kind of eternal universe. Say, a temporal loop universe. Endless but repeating. In that case, the actual number of events would be finite (even if ridiculously large).
 
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
Um, I verbalize plenty on my own sir. But I find that people tune out 'text walls.'

Regardless, if the information is sound, it does not matter whether it came from a video, my text, or word of mouth. Sound is sound. Hence, the reason I posted such links.

I'm gathering, from your response, that you too seem to 'think' DNA represents 'God.' Then please, by all means, do present (your) case.

I will answer your questions when you answer the question I gave you. What makes you think DNA is not a language? If it relays information it's a language, as per the very definition of what a language is.
 
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
Fine.



I'm not the one attempting to blankly assert one, YOU ARE :)



To know if I'm wasting my time replying to someone whom might instead decide to 'block/ignore' me.



If my response is directed at (you), and (you) don't respond, then my post was basically performed in vain ;)




Okay, and...?



They are? How do you know?



Maybe for some of the reasons your opponents have politely pointed out to you during the course of this thread.



You can't. Just like you can't prove the 'universe-creating pixies' don't exist ;)

You see, they are BOTH not falsifiable. This is one of the main reasons you can come on a forum arena, assert things, and feel you are 'winning'; even after more than 70 pages deep :)

Case and point, I created a topic several months ago, as an experiment. I have to say, it is rather fun to assert a not falsifiable claim, and then have people attempt to 'prove me wrong.'

Does Lucifer Have Free Will?

BUT YOU SEEM to have skipped right over a plausibility I made prior. Which is, what IF the universe is eternal? 'Creationism' then becomes a silly assertion, doesn't it now?
sir you seem to think falsifiability is a thing of logical soundness.

but even facts cannot be falsified


okay, so facts are not falsifiable.

lets break it down.

  1. facts are true (y/n?).....the answer is yes, facts are true.

  2. falsifiable means that something can be proven false if the environment was "relevantly different" (source for definition below) (y/n?)....the answer is yes, this is the current definition proven my numerous dictionaries, and scientific articles, I quoted the person who made falsification popular, for context)

  3. facts are falsifiable

  4. facts are not falsifiable
so if 1 and 2 are true, the 3 cannot be true.

because 1 and 2 invalidate 3.

summary....if facts are true, and falsifiability requires something at least hypothetically to be false, then stating facts are falsifiable is an argument from silence. and thus negated by the fact that an argument from silence is a not a supported argument but a fallacy.

in conclusion:
facts cannot be falsified, because there is no observable reason to indicate them as false (even if they can be potentially falsified), stating so is an argument from silence.


sources:

for a definition of falsifiablility see this source:
Falsifiability - Popper's Emphasis On Falsifiability, Complications Of The Simple Model, Bibliography
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
  • Haha
Reactions: gaara4158
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
Languages relay information, but that doesn't mean that anything that relays information is a language. My cat's muddy footprints across the table relay a lot of information to me, but it wouldn't make sense to categorize them as language.
everything that relays complex information is a language, your cat's muddy paw prints is not specified complexity.
 
Upvote 0