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
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.

I am using the most logical example of how life began if God did not do it. Basic proteins can develop under the right circumstances in water, if you apply electricity. But that type of protein is simplistic, and it not the full protein needed by the body to build cells. As far as I know, no scientific labratory experiment under any circumstances can develop the basic units of DNA (nucleotides). If you wish to know more about that experiment, look up miller urey experiment on abiogenesis. So basically what I was saying was not a straw man attack on your view point. It is literally held by millions of skeptics. That life came from an electrocuted mud puddle.

secondly, there is no false dicotomy that I am presenting.

Either life came by natural chance

or it came on purpose by an intelligent being.

one by natural causes, one by supernatural causes.

I argue that if you see something made, you know there was a maker that made it. If you see a painting, you know there was a painter that painted it. There is a universe here, so either it was made or it made itself. Those are your two options.

what is the most logical?

definitely not that it made itself.

so the only other option is that of supernatural creation.

and this is why this solid logic, has not been defeated and still holds as a solid proof of God existence.
 
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
Who... proved... spontaneous generation... wasn’t... legitimate?
wow, I mean wow. Someone who adheres to the scientific consensus, still believes in spontaneous generation. It is no longer believed by any of the scientists, but you can believe it if you want to. You believe all life came from an electrocuted mud puddle, so I guess spontaneous generation is sort of like that. (and I am being gracious, at least miller urey did have some proteins that were made by applying electricity to water). But you really have provided no opinions on how evolution caused life from non life. You would think this would be a basic premise of your argument that evolution is legit. I assume you adhere to what the scientific world views as the most logical form of abiogenesis, an electrocuted mud puddle.
 
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
wow, I mean wow. Someone who adheres to the scientific consensus, still believes in spontaneous generation. It is no longer believed by any of the scientists, but you can believe it if you want to. You believe all life came from an electrocuted mud puddle, so I guess spontaneous generation is sort of like that. (and I am being gracious, at least miller urey did have some proteins that were made by applying electricity to water). But you really have provided no opinions on how evolution caused life from non life. You would think this would be a basic premise of your argument that evolution is legit. I assume you adhere to what the scientific world views as the most logical form of abiogenesis, an electrocuted mud puddle.
I’ll ask again, and this time when you respond please refrain from goading and flaming. It’s against the rules. Just answer the question.

Who, if not the scientists, proved that spontaneous generation is not a legitimate theory?
 
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’ll ask again, and this time when you respond please refrain from goading and flaming. It’s against the rules. Just answer the question.

Who, if not the scientists, proved that spontaneous generation is not a legitimate theory?
If I flamed and goaded you must prove this. You must provide your opinion as to how life began, and or the universe began. If you cannot, then how can you prove that I flamed or goaded? When I specifically quoted the miller urey experiment, that most skeptic scientists agree with? I will not answer any more of your questions until you give me something to work with. This is a two way conversation. It's not just about my views, but about your views as well. If you say you don't know, and or are unqualified to answer them, then I suggest that this thread is not the right fit for you. As we answer these types of questions every day. They are not hard at all. Unless that is, you believe the universe came from nothing, and or life arose in a mud puddle from nothing. Then I can see why you run from being accountable and questioned on your own viewpoints.
 
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
If I flamed and goaded you must prove this. You must provide your opinion as to how life began, and or the universe began. If you cannot, then how can you prove that I flamed or goaded? When I specifically quoted the miller urey experiment, that most skeptic scientists agree with? I will not answer any more of your questions until you give me something to work with. This is a two way conversation. It's not just about my views, but about your views as well. If you say you don't know, and or are unqualified to answer them, then I suggest that this thread is not the right fit for you. As we answer these types of questions every day. They are not hard at all. Unless that is, you believe the universe came from nothing, and or life arose in a mud puddle from nothing. Then I can see why you run from being accountable and questioned on your own viewpoints.
No, no, I’m not interested in bickering with you. I’m interested in showing you that you hold two contradictory opinions:

Scientists don’t ever prove anything

Scientists proved spontaneous generation wrong.
 
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, no, I’m not interested in bickering with you. I’m interested in showing you that you hold two contradictory opinions:

Scientists don’t ever prove anything

Scientists proved spontaneous generation wrong.
I know you are searching for a gotcha point, so you can straw man every single logical argument that I presented here in this thread. But when you die and God asks "what did you do with the solid proof of my existence that people showed you, and why didn't you accept the free gift of salvation?" Then at that point you will have to pay admission with your own blood. And eternal misery. But that is the bad news, let me share some good news. So far I have kept you at arms length. I don't think that is what you need. You need to see the love of Christ.

i found a love that won’t let me go. a love that sees past my mistakes and embraces me anyway. a love that has no expiration date. the kind of love that doesn’t make sense because everyday i wonder why it would choose me.

yet here i am...

chosen.

and so are you.

Jesus looked at the real me and made a choice.

He saw the ugly.
He saw the biggest mistakes.
He saw all of the people I’ve hurt.
He saw all the things no one else did.

Then He CHOSE to die for me. He loved me so much He WANTED to trade places.

That.

Is.

Love.

You can have that love.

but will you end your fight with God today, and embrace Him?

 
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 know you are searching for a gotcha point, so you can straw man every single logical argument that I presented here in this thread. But when you die and God asks "what did you do with the solid proof of my existence that people showed you, and why didn't you accept the free gift of salvation?" Then at that point you will have to pay admission with your own blood. And eternal misery. But that is the bad news, let me share some good news. So far I have kept you at arms length. I don't think that is what you need. You need to see the love of Christ.

i found a love that won’t let me go. a love that sees past my mistakes and embraces me anyway. a love that has no expiration date. the kind of love that doesn’t make sense because everyday i wonder why it would choose me.

yet here i am...

chosen.

and so are you.

Jesus looked at the real me and made a choice.

He saw the ugly.
He saw the biggest mistakes.
He saw all of the people I’ve hurt.
He saw all the things no one else did.

Then He CHOSE to die for me. He loved me so much He WANTED to trade places.

That.

Is.

Love.

You can have that love.

but will you end your fight with God today, and embrace Him?

So you won’t acknowledge your self-contradiction and instead launch into an emotional sermon. Sounds about right.
 
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
So you won’t acknowledge your self-contradiction and instead launch into an emotional sermon. Sounds about right.

see, you are not on a christian forum to seek out christianity, you have proved this in the last few posts. So if you are not here to be open to christianity, can you at least be honest with yourself that you are here to make christians lives miserable and to recruit to agnosticism?

I have been as nice to you as I know how, and I have been very blunt.

neither works, because you simply don't want God. And you just want to prove christianity false, so I suggest finding a non christian site, and/or making a blog and leaving christians alone, as they never invited you hear to do what you are doing.

but if you wish to rethink your stance,

here is the gospel one more time:


I know that all you want to do is debate, but you realize that you are not angry with me, that you are really angry with God? Don't you?

He sent me.

My message is not my own, it's His.

so take your anger out on Him.

But I know that you don't believe He exists.

I just want you to know that you are very very angry at a being that does not exist. And maybe through this anger you will realize that fighting God has got you knowhere.

I mean is it respectable to do what you are doing without invitation?

I believe the invitation is for atheists to come here, not to bash christianity but to politely debate their viewpoints and to hopefully be open to change.

as a witness to them, but not as a venue to recruit to atheism or agnosticism. So this is not according to forum rules.
 
Last edited:
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
see, you are not on a christian forum to seek out christianity, you have proved this in the last few posts. So if you are not here to be open to christianity, can you at least be honest with yourself that you are here to make christians lives miserable and to recruit to agnosticism?

I have been as nice to you as I know how, and I have been very blunt.

neither works, because you simply don't want God. And you just want to prove christianity false, so I suggest finding a non christian site, and/or making a blog and leaving christians alone, as they never invited you hear to do what you are doing.

but if you wish to rethink your stance,

here is the gospel one more time:


I know that all you want to do is debate, but you realize that you are not angry with me, that you are really angry with God? Don't you?

He sent me.

My message is not my own, it's His.

so take your anger out on Him.

But I know that you don't believe He exists.

I just want you to know that you are very very angry at a being that does not exist. And maybe through this anger you will realize that fighting God has got you knowhere.

I mean is it respectable to do what you are doing without invitation?

I believe the invitation is for atheists to come here, not to bash christianity but to politely debate their viewpoints and to hopefully be open to change.

as a witness to them, but not as a venue to recruit to atheism or agnosticism. So this is not according to forum rules.
I’m treating you exactly as you have treated me and others here. A taste of your own medicine, as it were. In any case, you’ve had any number of chances to address the contradiction I’ve pointed out to you and instead of explaining it, you resort to personal attacks and wild speculation into my motives. I think it’s probably because you know I’m right and you’re too proud to admit it. (See what I did there?)
 
  • Agree
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
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.

Sir, I think you need to re-read my prior post. As you have missed my point entirely.

My point is that we can account for both chiseled faces and painted pictures.
In both such instances, were done by humans.

But what about the mountains and the erosion? ---> Not done by humans.

You appealed to the simple conclusion of cause/effect. Both the mountain(s) and erosion follow suit. Since we 'know' humans were not the cause, what was?

Thus, your painter analogy fails. Both painted pictures and chiseled faces were performed by humans. Everything not caused my humans is then in question.

So I again point out... I'm going to presume you might assert that the mountain was 'made' my God. But was the later erosion to the Mt Rushmore faces also 'made' by God?

You see, in conclusion, it drives the question....

What causes were natural, verses supernatural? What 'metric' do you use?

Once you properly address above, we can move forward. I am not trying to direct. I asked you this question before you posed another topic. If you wish to remain consistent, then please follow your own rules, by answering the questions posed in the order they were asked.

In which case, you would still need to address point #2, the universe being eternal vs finite...
 
Last edited:
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 am using the most logical example of how life began if God did not do it. Basic proteins can develop under the right circumstances in water, if you apply electricity. But that type of protein is simplistic, and it not the full protein needed by the body to build cells. As far as I know, no scientific labratory experiment under any circumstances can develop the basic units of DNA (nucleotides). If you wish to know more about that experiment, look up miller urey experiment on abiogenesis. So basically what I was saying was not a straw man attack on your view point. It is literally held by millions of skeptics. That life came from an electrocuted mud puddle.

secondly, there is no false dicotomy that I am presenting.

Either life came by natural chance

or it came on purpose by an intelligent being.

one by natural causes, one by supernatural causes.

I argue that if you see something made, you know there was a maker that made it. If you see a painting, you know there was a painter that painted it. There is a universe here, so either it was made or it made itself. Those are your two options.

what is the most logical?

definitely not that it made itself.

so the only other option is that of supernatural creation.

and this is why this solid logic, has not been defeated and still holds as a solid proof of God existence.
OK, I'm glad your position is a bit more nuanced than "atheists think lightning struck a puddle and frog leaped out." If life arose from non-life, we're probably talking about millions of years of development and it would probably be really hard to pinpoint exactly when it could be rightly called life.

I agree that the universe can't have come into existence out of literally nothing. But we probably can't even imagine what reality was like "before" time began, just like we can't really picture that there's nothing outside the universe (the universe is expanding, but it's not expanding "into" anything). I really don't think the universe can be compared to a work of art.
 
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
I know you are searching for a gotcha point, so you can straw man every single logical argument that I presented here in this thread. But when you die and God asks "what did you do with the solid proof of my existence that people showed you, and why didn't you accept the free gift of salvation?"
This isn't some petty point about a fact you got wrong. It's the crux of your argument. Either scientists never disproved that life can pop into existence from nothing, which makes God unnecessary, or your defense against scientists explaining the origins and evolution of life fails and that makes God unnecessary too. Either way, it makes your argument not a solid proof of His existence.

You want to use science when you think it supports your position, such as when you conflate spontaneous generation with abiogenesis, but then you want to completely discard it when it doesn't, such as with evolution. You can't have it both ways. So take your pick about what you are wrong about. Or continue denying that you've made a mistake because you're too proud, but that will just make anything else you try to argue look disingenuous too.
 
Last edited:
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
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.
Well you need to tell Dr. Goldsmith, because that is what he wrote.
 
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
The difference is that there is strong evidence that God exists but no evidence you can fly without artifical means, so your analogy fails.

I think you are taking my response the wrong way. One of my points is that you cannot control what you believe.

And to address your response prior, there is no 'consensus' between finite vs eternal, via the 'universe'. As I provided prior, links which demonstrate as such. There still exists a handful of hypothesis'. Again, the conclusion is that there currently is no conclusion; not now, maybe not ten years from now, or maybe even ever? With 'macroevolution', scientists across the board seem to state the conclusion is overwhelming. Except for a very small handful. And it seems to suggest that many of the ones whom oppose this conclusion in macroevolution may primarily be doing so because it conflicts with their theistic conclusions/presuppositions....?.?.? Just a hunch, yes :)


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

Again, I provided links which seem to suggest against your assertion(s). If the universe is eternal, then this may suggest no room or necessity for a creator.

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

Sure, I can no better tangibly demonstrate the existence of my asserted pixies, as you cannot produce tangible evidence for your asserted God. Great.

Books and assertions are a dime a dozen. That's exactly my point. Evidence needs to point directly to your specific assertion(s). And thus far, nothing you have provided does. Hence, my 'pixies' are still in the running.


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.

As I demonstrated, with links, I can demonstrate to the contrary. As of now, differing ideas. And...?

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.

Please see above. You now appear to be ignoring my point. Why is that? It is divided because scientists admit there is still work to be done, and may or may not ever be completely done. It is not deemed 'proven', like many other topics of 'concluded' scientific theory/endeavor.

Read Genesis 1:1 for the definite beginning.

Do we really want to go here? As I asked you before... Are you ready to potentially accept the 'hits', and ignore the 'misses' from the Bible?

No, the number of followers do have relevance, just as you argue that the number of scientists that believe in macroevolution has relevance.

I think this may be where we might be speaking past one another. It's not the number, or even the percentage....

My point is that scientists seem to claim that the evidence is overwhelming, in support of macroevolution. (Where-as) the concept of the universe, being finite vs eternal, is theoretical, with differing models and ideas.


There is strong evidence that the Christian God HAS revealed His presence.

Where is this 'strong evidence' that God has revealed His presence? From the OT and the Gospels? Other?

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

My point being, is that it appears possible that humans may apply intentional agency, draw conclusions, and connect dots. Meaning, humans seem to infer that 'someone' is either looking out for them, and/or is against them. The question is... Is this inherited from passed down survival instincts - (evolution/other)? Or, Is God the supplier of such? Many questions, maybe even another topic altogether.

I have presented a small amount but very powerful evidence for Him above.

Beg to differ...
 
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:
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.

ev: First and foremost, you are not providing evidence for God. No more or less so then appealing to evidence for 'universe-creating pixies' anyways.
Yes I am, the fact that the universe operates by laws IS evidence for a lawgiving God, which fits the bible perfectly. There is no evidence for pixies. Only persons can create laws, pixies are not persons, so they cannot be the creator of this universe.

cv: 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....
No, God is not a law so He doesnt need a lawgiver, He is a personal being.

Ed1wolf said:
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.

ev: 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'.
No, the bible plainly teaches that God does try to limit human evil. That is one of the reasons for His command to evangelize and convert. And also the bible says we can learn about Him by studying the universe and Nature and that provides a good explanation about why the universe is so large and difficult for human travel.

cv: 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)?

Yes, He knew that we would rebel aganst Him and reject the good. Given that there are billions of planets, if He had let us spread throughout the universe there could have resulted in at least a thousand Nazi regimes. So the difference in the amount of evil would be huge by keeping us on the earth. That would be magnitudes of difference in evil.

Ed1wolf said:
But from what we do know about the rest of the universe and what is necessary for life, it is highly unlikely.

cv: See above.
See what?

ed: 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.

cv: We have explored a very small area thus far. We have no clue what lurks out there....
No, with the Hubble telescope and other instruments we actually have learned the characteristics of thousands of exoplanets now, and none of them so far are compatible for intelligent life.

cv: I again ask.... What IF there exists intelligent life out there? Intelligent enough to communicate and harbor cognitive thoughts like humans? Then what?
That means that they are also made in the image of God, therefore they also may have rebelled against Him and need to be evangelized. But the scientific evidence is pointing that such intelligent life is unlikely to exist.
 
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

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Yes I am, the fact that the universe operates by laws IS evidence for a lawgiving God, which fits the bible perfectly. There is no evidence for pixies. Only persons can create laws, pixies are not persons, so they cannot be the creator of this universe.

You know no better how we came into existence than I. Your continued blank assertions are not founded. They are simply asserted. Hence, the reason I can equally assert for the proposition of pixies :) Furthermore, how would you know what attributes this asserted pixie has / has not?

No, God is not a law so He doesnt need a lawgiver, He is a personal being.

The 'universe' is not a 'law'. The universe may very well be eternal. Again, if it is, then your asserted 'law-giving creator' ceases from the equation by possible necessity.


No, the bible plainly teaches that God does try to limit human evil. That is one of the reasons for His command to evangelize and convert. And also the bible says we can learn about Him by studying the universe and Nature and that provides a good explanation about why the universe is so large and difficult for human travel.

You continue to grasp at straws. The Bible mentions many things in which you can interpret in a multitude of ways. In your case, apparently far fetched.

Again, I doubt God made the vast majority of the universe inhabitable to humans to prevent the spread of 'evil.' Nor, does it state this in the Bible. Your own personal rendition of hermeneutics is rather unorthodox, to say the least :)


Yes, He knew that we would rebel aganst Him and reject the good. Given that there are billions of planets, if He had let us spread throughout the universe there could have resulted in at least a thousand Nazi regimes. So the difference in the amount of evil would be huge by keeping us on the earth. That would be magnitudes of difference in evil.

My point is: Continued 'evil' among billions, for thousands/millions of years, across earth, is fine; but anything more (across other planets), is not fine??? What's the difference really?

No, with the Hubble telescope and other instruments we actually have learned the characteristics of thousands of exoplanets now, and none of them so far are compatible for intelligent life.

Seriously, the very first link found presents the following:

Life Signs | The Search for Life – Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System

My point is: As we have yet enough data to determine if the universe is eternal/finite, the same holds true with intelligent life elsewhere.


That means that they are also made in the image of God, therefore they also may have rebelled against Him and need to be evangelized. But the scientific evidence is pointing that such intelligent life is unlikely to exist.

So are you saying that if there is a possibility that intelligent cognitive life exists elsewhere, they would know of Yahweh as well?
 
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’m treating you exactly as you have treated me and others here. A taste of your own medicine, as it were. In any case, you’ve had any number of chances to address the contradiction I’ve pointed out to you and instead of explaining it, you resort to personal attacks and wild speculation into my motives. I think it’s probably because you know I’m right and you’re too proud to admit it. (See what I did there?)

the only thing you have against what I said was that I said two statements, one: that scientific facts cannot be proven, and secondly that : spontanous generation was disproven. But something being disproven is much easier than being proven so I am not exactly sure why your so proud of yourself. But yes, you didn't adress my motive for you being here, and you used a red herring back onto my statements. But I am sure it made you feel uncomfortable that everyone here now knows your motive for being here. and that is sufficient for now.
 
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
Sir, I think you need to re-read my prior post. As you have missed my point entirely.

My point is that we can account for both chiseled faces and painted pictures.
In both such instances, were done by humans.

But what about the mountains and the erosion? ---> Not done by humans.

You appealed to the simple conclusion of cause/effect. Both the mountain(s) and erosion follow suit. Since we 'know' humans were not the cause, what was?

Thus, your painter analogy fails. Both painted pictures and chiseled faces were performed by humans. Everything not caused my humans is then in question.

So I again point out... I'm going to presume you might assert that the mountain was 'made' my God. But was the later erosion to the Mt Rushmore faces also 'made' by God?

You see, in conclusion, it drives the question....

What causes were natural, verses supernatural? What 'metric' do you use?

Once you properly address above, we can move forward. I am not trying to direct. I asked you this question before you posed another topic. If you wish to remain consistent, then please follow your own rules, by answering the questions posed in the order they were asked.

In which case, you would still need to address point #2, the universe being eternal vs finite...

can erosion cause mount rushmore? If so, then you have a miracle. If not then your point is moot. So I guess I really don't think you have a coherent argument here.
 
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
But something being disproven is much easier than being proven so I am not exactly sure why your so proud of yourself.
LOL Weak semantic spin. Here's the definition of the word disprove:

disprove
verb
dis·prove | \ (ˌ)dis-ˈprüv \
disproved; disproving; disproves
Definition of disprove


transitive verb

: to prove to be false or wrong : REFUTEdisprove a theory
You're still claiming that scientists proved something. You're claiming that scientists proved spontaneous generation is false. Now, did they prove that spontaneous generation is false, or are scientists incapable of proving anything? Take you pick about what mistake you made, your entire argument fails either way.
 
  • Agree
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

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
the only thing you have against what I said was that I said two statements, one: that scientific facts cannot be proven, and secondly that : spontanous generation was disproven. But something being disproven is much easier than being proven so I am not exactly sure why your so proud of yourself. But yes, you didn't adress my motive for you being here, and you used a red herring back onto my statements. But I am sure it made you feel uncomfortable that everyone here now knows your motive for being here. and that is sufficient for now.
How is disproving any easier than proving? Either one requires facts. And you don’t believe in science having facts.
 
Upvote 0