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
Hmm... What does our resident professional logician have to say about this claim?
it's sort of sad that you think spontaneous generation is still legit science. But I would not put it past someone who believes we evolved from an electrofied mud puddle, after evolving from a rock floating in space.

but, in all good sport, here ya go...
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia



I did not oops, I questioned all of science.

can you state one fact that science proves?

I await your reply.

(by the way you are still blocked, so I may or may not reply to your replies to this post)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Moral Orel
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
everything that relays complex information is a language, your cat's muddy paw prints is not specified complexity.
If it's a language, it's an example of a language that didn't need intelligence to be written. It's just there.
 
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
If it's a language, it's an example of a language that didn't need intelligence to be written. It's just there.
so you have an example of a language that was not derived by intelligence? I don't know of any. But maybe you have evidence that I have not seen before. So by all means please prove your assertions.
 
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.

(Disclaimer: CAUTION, 'text wall' alert. Many might not don't fully read these.)


If (we) are going to be consistent, and play this game in which you are now wanting to impose, then I instead ask (you) to first address prior concepts I posed to you, back in post 1410.

Below is a refined refresher, (for your convenience):


1. Mount Rushmore comprises of essentially a) a mountain(s), b) chiseled faces, and c) erosion.

You stated in post 1410: "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."

Now going back to the My Rushmore analogy, we might need to determine
what was 'made'. In this specific case, a), b), and c). We can confidently conclude b) was made by humans. But what about a) and c)?

If we are to adhere to 'cause and effect' alone, both a) and c) would follow, in the sense that some phenomenon occurred (and/or) 'something' made/caused both a) and c), right?

I'm going to be presumptuous here, and assume you might assert that the mountain, and all other mountains for that matter, were 'made' by your asserted 'maker.' Okay, but what about c)? Erosion falls under the same umbrella as 'cause/effect.' Was the erosion then made by the same asserted 'maker'? The reason I ask is because erosion certainly was not created by humans, and I trust we both agree at least there... So we are right back to the beginning.... nature (vs) super-nature.....

My point being, we KNOW what 'maker' produced b) chiseled faces, humans. Just like we know all known painting were ALSO 'made' by humans. - In your painter analogy...

Essentially, you are begging the question. You might also be applying mere assumptions, based upon the argument from ignorance here.

Let me elaborate... What 'metric' might one use to determine a designer, verses natural processes alone?

Again, simply go back to the Mt. Rushmore concept for example...

2. What IF the 'universe' had no absolute beginning? IF the 'universe' never began, then it would stand to reason the concept of creationism might not apply.

And once you have successfully refuted the possibility of the above, ONLY THEN may you begin to grapple with below :)

Even IF the 'universe' had a finite beginning, one might then ask, (but only after invoking an asserted 'maker' to such, like you are doing here).... If God IS the only eternal force, then prior to the point of creation of space, time, matter, energy, etc..., what exactly did God dwell within? Meaning, I would assume God could always move around, and was not limited/restricted from doing so. And If He could move around always, then this might mean whatever 'space' in which God was moving around upon, might also have needed to exist as long as God, which means eternally as well... Which might mean that not only is God eternal, but also some realm for necessary movement. Which might then mean God would not be the only eternal uncaused cause. Interesting mind funk here.... :)
 
Last edited:
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 did not oops, I questioned all of science.

can you state one fact that science proves?

I await your reply.

(by the way you are still blocked, so I may or may not reply to your replies to this post)

Remember in post 1412, when you stated something to the effect of "why else would atheist forum arenas ban me?"

I submit quoted example above, as to one plausible clue.
 
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
it's sort of sad that you think spontaneous generation is still legit science. But I would not put it past someone who believes we evolved from an electrofied mud puddle, after evolving from a rock floating in space.

but, in all good sport, here ya go...
Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia




I did not oops, I questioned all of science.

can you state one fact that science proves?

I await your reply.

(by the way you are still blocked, so I may or may not reply to your replies to this post)
Who... proved... spontaneous generation... wasn’t... legitimate?
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Moral Orel
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
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).

True, that there seems to be a possible 'trichotomy' for the concept of infinite regress...

1. comes to an end
2. continues infinitely
3. circles back on itself

I invite you to explore with me in post #1424 (specifically):


"Even IF the 'universe' had a finite beginning, one might then ask, (but only after invoking an asserted 'maker' to such, like you are doing here).... If God IS the only eternal force, then prior to the point of creation of space, time, matter, energy, etc..., what exactly did God dwell within? Meaning, I would assume God could always move around, and was not limited/restricted from doing so. And If He could move around always, then this might mean whatever 'space' in which God was moving around upon, might also have needed to exist as long as God, which means eternally as well... Which might mean that not only is God eternal, but also some realm for necessary movement. Which might then mean God would not be the only eternal uncaused cause."
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
"Even IF the 'universe' had a finite beginning, one might then ask, (but only after invoking an asserted 'maker' to such, like you are doing here).... If God IS the only eternal force, then prior to the point of creation of space, time, matter, energy, etc..., what exactly did God dwell within? Meaning, I would assume God could always move around, and was not limited/restricted from doing so. And If He could move around always, then this might mean whatever 'space' in which God was moving around upon, might also have needed to exist as long as God, which means eternally as well... Which might mean that not only is God eternal, but also some realm for necessary movement. Which might then mean God would not be the only eternal uncaused cause."

Well, space is pretty much defined by matter in our universe. Matter expands in the universe, and the size of the universe expands with it. Consequently, I can imagine that God could effectively define His own realm, at least initially. God could then create additional space for His own realm, if He desires.
 
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
it's sort of sad that you think spontaneous generation is still legit science.
I never said that.
But I would not put it past someone who believes we evolved from an electrofied mud puddle, after evolving from a rock floating in space.
I never said that either. If you actually read the posts that people make you might understand what's going on. Is that why you think you're winning? Because you literally just make things up?
 
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
Well, space is pretty much defined by matter in our universe. Matter expands in the universe, and the size of the universe expands with it. Consequently, I can imagine that God could effectively define His own realm, at least initially. God could then create additional space for His own realm, if He desires.

But any 'realm' to dwell would also most likely necessarily need to concurrently exist with God. Otherwise, God might be confined to Himself (with no existing realm to move). Thus, my point being, that it seems that even if God is eternal, other seemingly necessary factor(s) would also seem to require or necessitate eternal '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

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
can you state one fact that science proves?
Did science prove that spontaneous generation is impossible or not? Either you're wrong about spontaneous generation or you're wrong about whether science proves things. Take your pick about which thing you are wrong about.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: gaara4158
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,267
Pacific NW
✟242,386.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
But any 'realm' to dwell would also most likely necessarily need to concurrently exist with God.

Unless the substance of God defines the dimensions of God's realm, like matter defines the space here.
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
so you have an example of a language that was not derived by intelligence? I don't know of any. But maybe you have evidence that I have not seen before. So by all means please prove your assertions.
You claimed that anything that relays complex information is a language. If so, any thing that can be interpreted to mean anything (like a cat's tracks) is a language. And in that case, language doesn't require intelligence.

DNA obviously isn't a language in the same sense as English or Spanish. It's more like a programming language, i.e. a set of rules or instructions, it has nothing to do with communication.
 
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:
Again see above my response. The majority of cosmologists believe the universe is not eternal. Just because you dont want to believe in the Christian God, you should not let it color your understanding of science. Just because the universe is not eternal does not prove that He exists with certainty. It just strongly points in that direction.

cv: It's not that I 'don't want to believe.' I can no more choose to believe than I can choose to believe I can fly without artificial means.
The difference is that there is strong evidence that God exists but no evidence you can fly without artifical means, so your analogy fails.

cv; Demonstrate the existence of your asserted God, and as stated above, everything we are speaking about currently really becomes trivial. But until then, I follow the evidence. And thus far, do not see evidence pointing to your very specific asserted God; let alone any other asserted god(s).

I have demonstrated the scientific evidence that He exists (BB theory and law of causality), but there is also philosophical evidence and historical evidence.

cv; (i.e.) Just like I can assert 'universe-creating pixies'. Meaning, pixies exist! - And their sole purpose is to formulate universe(s).

But there is no evidence for the existence of those pixies.

Ed1wolf said:
No, this is an argument from knowledge. What we know about the universe as an effect and how we can determine the cause of its existence by studying its characteristics.

cv: "Knowledge" has yet to be confirmed and acquired about a beginning (vs) eternal. Thus, again, if we don't know, we really do not have 'knowledge.'
As I demonstrated earlier we have more empircial knowledge that the universe had a beginning than we do about the theory of evolution. We can actually see very early in its formation we cannot see the early formation of living things.

cv: As eluded to above, IF the universe happens to be eternal, then game over for the assertions of creationism, right? And if the universe had a beginning, we still appear no closer to the Christian God as the culprit, verses the aforementioned 'universe-creating pixies.' :)
No, only the Christian bible teaches that the unvierse had a definite beginning out of nothing detectable which is what the BB theory has pretty much confirmed.

Ed1wolf said:
The characteristics of the universe and reality do not fit any other god as well. Plus only the Christian bible actually teaches the three main characteristics of the universe, no other religious book teaches these things. The fact that it had a definite beginning, that it is expanding, and that it is energetically winding down.
cv: Many assertions here. Care to elaborate?
Read Genesis 1:1 for the definite beginning.

cv: Thus far, it would appear this set of books was written by humans, whom made assumptions and conclusions by inferring their own human discovery at the time. Anything beyond this would require evidence of the 'beyond.'
There is see above, those facts were not discovered by scientists until 3000 years after the Bible already taught them.

Ed1wolf said:
Name a god and I will give you the reasons why it is unlikely to have been the creator of this universe. A god that has at least 1000 followers at one time in history. You cant just make up something like the pixies.

cv: The number of followers has no relevancy. As stated above... Scientists do not appear to dispute truth for macroevolution due to the evidence. Hence, why we do not see a divide among the scientific community. It does not continue to remain theoretical or speculative, like the many models for the universe being finite or eternal. My point being that the ones opposing macroevotion may more-so be doing so to instead favor a religious belief system.?.?
No, the number of followers do have relevance, just as you argue that the number of scientists that believe in macroevolution has relevance.

cv: Maybe the true God has yet to reveal His/Her/It's presence. Or maybe, they never will. Or maybe, this God(s) no longer exists. Or maybe, only two people know about this true God. Or maybe, just maybe, we don't know....
There is strong evidence that the Christian God HAS revealed His presence.

cv: I have a side question for you.... A scenario if you will...

A comet collides with earth. All literature, prior memory, and artifacts are destroyed. All in which remains are ~100 people stranded on a remote island with amnesia. How long do you think it will take before this small group invokes some sort of supreme deity(s) again? Meaning, is it in our nature to 'create' a creator? Is it in our nature to think we are more important than we really are? Is it in our nature to assume that something is watching over us, directing us, guiding us, etc?

It would not take long, because we are all created in His image and so are created to desire a relationship with Him.

cv: All descent questions I think... But as stated prior, until you demonstrate evidence for your specific God, we are merely asserting 'truth' while demonstrating fallacious reasoning.
I have presented a small amount but very powerful evidence for Him above.
 
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
(Disclaimer: CAUTION, 'text wall' alert. Many might not don't fully read these.)

If (we) are going to be consistent, and play this game in which you are now wanting to impose, then I instead ask (you) to first address prior concepts I posed to you, back in post 1410.

Below is a refined refresher, (for your convenience):


1. Mount Rushmore comprises of essentially a) a mountain(s), b) chiseled faces, and c) erosion.

You stated in post 1410: "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."

Now going back to the My Rushmore analogy, we might need to determine
what was 'made'. In this specific case, a), b), and c). We can confidently conclude b) was made by humans. But what about a) and c)?

If we are to adhere to 'cause and effect' alone, both a) and c) would follow, in the sense that some phenomenon occurred (and/or) 'something' made/caused both a) and c), right?

I'm going to be presumptuous here, and assume you might assert that the mountain, and all other mountains for that matter, were 'made' by your asserted 'maker.' Okay, but what about c)? Erosion falls under the same umbrella as 'cause/effect.' Was the erosion then made by the same asserted 'maker'? The reason I ask is because erosion certainly was not created by humans, and I trust we both agree at least there... So we are right back to the beginning.... nature (vs) super-nature.....

My point being, we KNOW what 'maker' produced b) chiseled faces, humans. Just like we know all known painting were ALSO 'made' by humans. - In your painter analogy...

Essentially, you are begging the question. You might also be applying mere assumptions, based upon the argument from ignorance here.

Let me elaborate... What 'metric' might one use to determine a designer, verses natural processes alone?

Again, simply go back to the Mt. Rushmore concept for example...

2. What IF the 'universe' had no absolute beginning? IF the 'universe' never began, then it would stand to reason the concept of creationism might not apply.

And once you have successfully refuted the possibility of the above, ONLY THEN may you begin to grapple with below :)

Even IF the 'universe' had a finite beginning, one might then ask, (but only after invoking an asserted 'maker' to such, like you are doing here).... If God IS the only eternal force, then prior to the point of creation of space, time, matter, energy, etc..., what exactly did God dwell within? Meaning, I would assume God could always move around, and was not limited/restricted from doing so. And If He could move around always, then this might mean whatever 'space' in which God was moving around upon, might also have needed to exist as long as God, which means eternally as well... Which might mean that not only is God eternal, but also some realm for necessary movement. Which might then mean God would not be the only eternal uncaused cause. Interesting mind funk here.... :)

sir can you please provide one scientist that is willing to put it in writing in a scientific journal that He specifically believes the faces on mount rushmore are created by erosion and not chiselling? I know for a fact you cannot. So your entire argument fails, from lack of observational data. It is possible that erosion caused it, but that statistical chances of that is sort of like the statistical chances of DNA evolving. As ray comfort puts it: can a full page, color book, with a hundred pages of coherent scientific language, fall from the sky? No. Obviously chance cannot create such a wonderful piece of work (a simple book). Now DNA has been called by many scientists as the "book of life", so how can the book of life, in essence been created in a chemical soup in a primordial age? From essentially none life. That is summing up the entire structure of a nucleotide to natural causes? And the statistical chances of this happening are similiar to erosion causing mount rushmore, or chance causing a full color book, with coherent textual language falling from the sky by chance.

And I am being very gracious comparing DNA to mount rushmore or a simple book. It is actually way more complicated than both, and has error correcting mechanisms, and several veins of specified complexity, which I am willing to get into if need be.

Now I am no longer going to adress mount rushmore with you, I assume you are going to say I didn't answer it fully and that is ok, now if you don't mind please answer the previous post I made. I am not into letting athiests run the conversation on a thread that i have made. I will run the conversation. If I dont' we will be talking about any and everything, unrelated to the OP. So it is a thing that I must do to maintain order. So by all means please prove your original comments in your own words, without the use of video.
 
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

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
As ray comfort puts it: can a full page, color book, with a hundred pages of coherent scientific language, fall from the sky? No. Obviously chance cannot create such a wonderful piece of work (a simple book). Now DNA has been called by many scientists as the "book of life", so how can the book of life, in essence been created in a chemical soup in a primordial age?
This analogy doesn't work. It's like asking, "how can you possibly turn dirt and water into bacon?" Well, that's obviously impossible, unless you have sun, microorganisms, grass, millions of years of evolution, pigs, humans, knives, knowledge, etc etc. So depending on your perspective, it is true that dirt and water turns into bacon, but it obviously sounds like nonsense because you tell only a fraction of the story. But I guess that's the point when you say matter sprang to life from an electrocuted mud puddle or that fish swam until they ran out of water.
 
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
This analogy doesn't work. It's like asking, "how can you possibly turn dirt and water into bacon?" Well, that's obviously impossible, unless you have sun, microorganisms, grass, millions of years of evolution, pigs, humans, knives, knowledge, etc etc. So depending on your perspective, it is true that dirt and water turns into bacon, but it obviously sounds like nonsense because you tell only a fraction of the story. But I guess that's the point when you say matter sprang to life from an electrocuted mud puddle or that fish swam until they ran out of water.
so life can come from an electocuted mud puddle, if you add millions of years into the formula? I await your response.
 
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. It seems like you didn't really read the post you quoted.
I did read it, but it was incoherent. You are saying in abiogenesis. Where life began, micro organisms already existed. Where did they come from? You can't in your electrocuted puddle, say that in your puddle life already existed. Then you must find another puddle in which the micro organisms were sprouted into existence from dirt, and rock. And I already said, you can have a much time as you want. The chance of life springing from dirt and rock, simply is not very high. I would say it border lines on the absurd.
 
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

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I did read it, but it was incoherent. You are saying in abiogenesis. Where life began, micro organisms already existed. Where did they come from? You can't in your electrocuted puddle, say that in your puddle life already existed. Then you must find another puddle in which the micro organisms were sprouted into existence from dirt, and rock. And I already said, you can have a much time as you want. The chance of life springing from dirt and rock, simply is not very high. I would say it border lines on the absurd.
I haven't made any claims about how life began. I really have no idea how it happened. My point is that it's not like the two options are:
a) God did it, or
b) lightning struck a mud puddle.
 
Upvote 0