Argument for God's existence.

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 like there’s more than one of them...
I can't tell whether he's pathologically incapable of admitting error, or if he's just trying to "win" through shifty debate tactics. Either way, let people like that talk long enough and the cognitive dissonance turns into full blown dissociative personality disorder at some point.
 
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
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.
No, everything I have said is based on science, history and philosophy. And all three provide strong evidence for biblical Christianity.
 
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:
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: 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....
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?

Ed1wolf said:
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: 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) ;)
Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.

Ed1wolf said:
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.

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

Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?

the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

cv: 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.
Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.
 
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:
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: 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....
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?

Ed1wolf said:
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: 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) ;)
Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.

Ed1wolf said:
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.

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

Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?

the universe did have a definitive beginning, then the causal force could be of a vast array of unfalsifiable assertions, right? Not just yours.
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

cv: 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.
Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.
 
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
All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?

I don't even know where to begin here, but I'll take a stab at it..?

1. Regardless of 'consensus', you have three sides to adhere to or adopt - (eternal, finite, or we don't have enough information yet and/or maybe ever?). Both 'absolute' sides admit to mere hypothesis/theoretical/speculative conjecture. The fact that 'more' may currently side with 'finite' over and above 'eternal', is really irrelevant at this juncture. Why? Because we are still investigating... Unlike evolutionary theory, where (primarily) the only ones disputing this scientific theory/conclusion are the ones whom find conflict with it, in direct comparison with their own personal beliefs with the Bible/other...

2. Even IF the universe was found to be finite, the 'universe-creating pixies', whom, by the way, create universes, did it. <- Is just as valid as your assertion.

3. Applying 'Pascal's Wager' does not do anything, as God would know if I was 'hedging my bets', and would know I was not genuine.

4. I attempted to 'find your asserted God' in prayer for 30+ years and never felt 'His' presence. So faking it isn't gonna work to a claimed all knowing God, if He should happen to exist ;)

5. The BB theory points to nothing more than a possible beginning to this current state in our known universe. Before 'this point', is merely un-measurable at this point in time. That's really it.


Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.

Please furnish the best example? And whom is rejecting it, and more importantly, why? In today's day and age, I find it hard to believe 'science' has the power to control and manipulate 'truth'. Not that it's really science's job to try and prove/disprove God anyways...

Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator

Okay, then IF the universe is eternal, then we may very well 'rule out Yahweh.'

At this point, you are asserting a theoretical proposition, with not enough data to do anything more than speculate. Thus, you are asserting without concrete evidence.


but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?

Sure, but even IF everything you asserted turned out 'true', you would still have to account for the necessary space/realm/existence for which God needed to occupy during His entire existence. Which would mean not only would God exist eternally, but some dimension of 'space' for Him to dwell would need to also exist eternally. Otherwise, at one point in the past, He dwelled in 'nothingness'? And yes, I use the term 'nothingness' loosely. In conclusion, the existence of some type of space would have to also exist eternally for God to dwell. Thus, again begging the question about 'who' created this eternal space for God to reside in His eternal state? You see, we just keep pushing the problem back one more step... But again, if this realm too was also eternal, then presents yet another reason to demonstrate the lack in necessity for 'creation.'

Invoking special pleading doesn't solve the problem. You know what 'special pleading' means, don't you?


No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

Okay great. Then we are at a stand-still... We don't 'know' of the reality to the universe's beginning / not beginning. Again, the 'fact' that more scientists currently ascribe to the theoretical hypothesis that it 'may be finite' really says nothing more than they have a hunch to favor your hoped for position... But even if this hunch pans out, says nothing about what happened prior to this finite moment in 'time'. This is where you do nothing more than assert.

And if you again use Genesis 1:1 as 'evidence', then maybe we should follow along in Genesis, and play 'accept the hits and ignore the misses.'


Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.

'Time', as we 'know' it, gives out. What happened 'before' this 'moment' is not measurable. At this point, is where you assert without viable evidence.

It's possible, the 'beginning' of this universe is merely the end of another. It's possible our current universe is eternal. It's possible a 'creating force' made this one, in which case there exists room for many asserted God(s), not just yours. Or maybe it was 'created by some finite force which no longer exists. Other.................................
 
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
A mountain is a big pile of dirt and rock. Most people aren't going to look at that and say it's very complex. Consequently, it makes a confusing example. I can see why gradyll is having a hard time following what you're asking.

Post #1558.. Though I do admit my responses run longer than necessary sometimes :)

His entire argument is cause/effect... What was the 'cause' of mountain(s), nature or super-nature? How can you tell? Intelligent design (vs) some natural based process?

It is going to start branching off now... "Complexity" etc.....

Weee
 
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
A scientific consensus is good evidence that whatever they’re agreeing on is likely the best available model of reality, whether it’s metaphysically true or not.
I have already won the battle of logic over the premise that you cannot prove a single known fact (other than mathmatically speaking), you try and try to post all the technical information you can via google and other sources and yet you still post external eye witnesses to alleged proof.

now you admit this, and then confess that I don't know "why?" or that this is incoherent?

Is that really the issue I raised? Why?

Or is the issue I raised simply the premise that your alleged proof of mirages was wrong?

But really I wish to reopen the above statement you made, that "a scientific consensus is good evidence."

so basically this is saying, because someone who is smarter than I believes something, I should believe it.

So as a Los Angeles Angels fan, and Mike Trout tells you as a fan, how to throw a baseball. That means the right off the bat, that that method is the best and most valuable method? Well what if he is left handed? Is that the same exact method a right handed person uses? What if a 5 year old does not have the motor skills to throw a ball like a full grown man, does that mean that that method is the best method for kids? Even if every major league baseball player had a consensus on how to throw a ball, that does not mean it's right. For all the above reasons. So again this is why this type of reasoning is faulty. Just because someone should know something, or they are a professional, does not mean that they have complete knowledge or have done the proper tests for every possible scenario of whatever they are testing. So yes, this is still a bandwagon fallacy. Now at this point you typically say it's not because of the fact that you believe in other evidences that corroborate the consensus, but I never actually seen any of those evidences, in fact I am 99% sure you never posted them, in the next 20-30 posts after you said the above statement. Because if you did post them, they could be examined for flaws, and you didn't want that. So yes, as it sits, you did actually commit a fallacy, in fact dozens upon dozens of times. Because even if you had corroboration of the consensus, you still are required to post that information.
 
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 agree that "Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins with facts and generalizes on them". It is another way of saying that the structure of Buddhism is built upon from observable, universal principles & that the structure of Christianity is built upon supposed allegations that must be believed on faith.

never heard before that buddhism was observable, but yet christianity was based on faith. You have any examples at all of observable data that buddhism believes? I doubt it. What I find is universal faith. Everyone has faith, nothing is proven. You can't even prove for example basic laws of science without having faith that scientists did everything correctly in their science. So yes, sorry to break it to you, you live in faith, when you became a buddhist.
 
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
Oh, I'm all too 'ready for it' sir :)

It is no secret that people like Stephen Meyer - (head of the 'Discovery Institute'), and Michael Behe - (author of 'Darwin Devolved'), are on the forefront of their assertions. (I.E.) they assert 'intelligent design'.

The Discovery Institute is nothing more than 'pseudoscience', and wants to 'teach the controversy'. Well, the only ones which think there exists a controversy, are the ones whom wish to instead interject their own beliefs in a specific path of 'creationism'.

I trust you've seen the results of the Dover trial? If not, here you go: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial

A matter of fact, this trial stars two of the people you mentioned - (Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe).

Spoiler alert, your given proponents loose miserably.
when saying (via various character assassinations and ad hominem attack that my sources lose, you should probably spell "lose" correctly. It makes your argument go a little further. But those sources are scientists who have journalled many peer reviews and are very good at what they do. But your google search never said that did it? That is because you don't know that the "teach the controversy" curriculum has passed in 8 states, and is currently being taught in thousands of high schools. That is not intelligent design, in fact if you ask stephen meyer if he believes intelligent design should be taught, he says no. Because teachers are not trained to teach it. And they would do more damage than help. No doubt this was the problem of the scopes trial. People that didn't know that creationism and intelligent design were different.
To recap, your assertions appear to be based upon individuals whom simply assert that complexity must come from their chosen believed God. They use fallacious reasoning to assert this. Again, simply look at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
yes, sir I have read the trial. And numerous recent trials into this. So by all means please quote what you don't agree with. In fact none of what was said, was actually said in the Dover trial, but you can equivocate us with them all you want. After all that is what they do in public school curriculum, not to mention the internet scholar's number one site, wikipedia.


You stated it's simple. That all we need is cause/effect, and painters. Well, mountains fall under cause/effect. Painters paint. So was this 'cause' for mountains natural or supernatural?
natual and supernatural causes are not mutually exclusive. God for example can use natural laws to do miracles. Simply a being that is in a higher plane of existence can do miracles in a totally logical fashion for a being of higher dimensionality (please see Dr. quantum flat lander on you tube).

'Complexity' seems to derived from the 'eye of the beholder.' My point being it seems we can tell if a mountain has been made/altered, verses when no human or natural process has 'intervened' - (i.e.) Mt. Rushmore, the Grand Canyon, or even a human formed pile of dirt. My question to you is.... Are all un-tampered-with mountains instead God's creation???? I would assume your answer is yes, as I would assume you assert God created the earth - which includes the formation of mountains.
I think I adressed this above.


Above is where fallacious reasoning is demonstrated. What you state is not only unfounded, but it would not even matter. Why? There still exists much unknown discovery.

1). We are not sure if the 'universe' is finite or eternal?

2.) Even IF everything you stated were true, you would be appealing to scientific hypothesis alone.

most of the scientists I know realize the universe is expanding and that there was an explosion of some sort in the past (big bang), and that this was the cause of the universe. Again, so when you say "we are not sure the universe is finite or eternal." you are meaning you, and if that is the case. I would try to google search evidence for the big bang. Because most of science is geered on the fact the universe was created. Secondly, a universe, the biggest cause. Not having a cause at all (is eternal), violates basic scientific laws of cause and effect. At that point, all cause and effect can ultimately be compromised. If the biggest effect can be uncaused, then why does anything have to be caused at all?



Again, I would assume you assert God created the earth. Which would mean God created the mountains? Because we surely know humans did not do it..?
again I am not sure where you are going with this. God created the laws of physics, so if they are available to use, why would He not use them in creating the universe? To me, it would be wasteful to just miraculously create everything while making separate operating laws of the universe. I don't know how the mountains were created, if they were done through God provoked natural earthquakes, or God inspired upheavals of tecktonic plates. I am unsure, it would depend on where the mountain is for one.


If it turns out the universe is eternal, then this again points to post #1410, in which you have yet to address of my second original question... Which is, if the universe has eternally existed, then what be the 'need for a creator?'
I already adressed this above, so stop saying I am not adressing this.

And even IF everything you stated were true, you would still need to account for what 'space/area/etc' God dwelled upon prior to 'creating anything at all? Otherwise, at some point in the 'past', God was the only 'thing' in existence. God would have needed to create a realm to 'move around.' Unless you now want to modify your assertion in that God encompasses some sort of eternal space for God to move around.?.?.?
God who is massless, does not need to take up space. Mass takes up space.

I have completely and sufficiently replied to all of your accusations above, now please answer my quotations of specified complexity.

the eye for example has several systems that would have to evolve one by one, but they are all codependant and would not function as a whole without all the systems. How does that evolve? This is what is meant by specified complexity
 
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
I have already won the battle of logic over the premise that you cannot prove a single known fact (other than mathmatically speaking), you try and try to post all the technical information you can via google and other sources and yet you still post external eye witnesses to alleged proof.

now you admit this, and then confess that I don't know "why?" or that this is incoherent?

Is that really the issue I raised? Why?

Or is the issue I raised simply the premise that your alleged proof of mirages was wrong?

But really I wish to reopen the above statement you made, that "a scientific consensus is good evidence."

so basically this is saying, because someone who is smarter than I believes something, I should believe it.

So as a Los Angeles Angels fan, and Mike Trout tells you as a fan, how to throw a baseball. That means the right off the bat, that that method is the best and most valuable method? Well what if he is left handed? Is that the same exact method a right handed person uses? What if a 5 year old does not have the motor skills to throw a ball like a full grown man, does that mean that that method is the best method for kids? Even if every major league baseball player had a consensus on how to throw a ball, that does not mean it's right. For all the above reasons. So again this is why this type of reasoning is faulty. Just because someone should know something, or they are a professional, does not mean that they have complete knowledge or have done the proper tests for every possible scenario of whatever they are testing. So yes, this is still a bandwagon fallacy. Now at this point you typically say it's not because of the fact that you believe in other evidences that corroborate the consensus, but I never actually seen any of those evidences, in fact I am 99% sure you never posted them, in the next 20-30 posts after you said the above statement. Because if you did post them, they could be examined for flaws, and you didn't want that. So yes, as it sits, you did actually commit a fallacy, in fact dozens upon dozens of times. Because even if you had corroboration of the consensus, you still are required to post that information.
You haven’t addressed a single thing I said, so as far as I’m concerned this conversation about your bizarre hangups about proof in science is over but if you really do want a lesson in logic you can just ask me.

As for the scientific consensus, I’m going to break it down Teletubbies style for you.

Let’s say your car breaks down. You take it to five hundred mechanics and they all tell you it’s your timing belt. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

Let’s say you have a cough. You go to five hundred doctors and they all say you have bronchitis. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

Let’s say you want to lose weight. You go to five hundred personal trainers and they all tell you to eat less and move more. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

Please meditate on each of these examples and give honest answers. I promise this isn’t a trap, I’m really trying to help you understand something here.
 
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
No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

Well, yes. A hypothesis of a Christian God predicts that we should be able to determine that the universe had an origin at some point, and big bang theory does point to an origin event, even if we can't scientifically determine what that event was yet. If steady state theory had held up, it would have been a real problem for a Christian God, since it would have implied an eternal universe. Developing the big bang theory was quite a success for the Catholic Church.

Of course, certain literal interpretations of the Bible can be ruled out by modern science, but that doesn't rule out less literal versions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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
most of the scientists I know realize the universe is expanding and that there was an explosion of some sort in the past (big bang), and that this was the cause of the universe. Again, so when you say "we are not sure the universe is finite or eternal." you are meaning you, and if that is the case. I would try to google search evidence for the big bang. Because most of science is geered on the fact the universe was created.
Hey @gaara4158 check out this quote, LOL
 
  • 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

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
never heard before that buddhism was observable, but yet christianity was based on faith. You have any examples at all of observable data that buddhism believes? I doubt it. What I find is universal faith. Everyone has faith, nothing is proven. You can't even prove for example basic laws of science without having faith that scientists did everything correctly in their science. So yes, sorry to break it to you, you live in faith, when you became a buddhist.
Early Buddhism is built upon these observable, foundational principles, none of which I need to take on faith:
  • Causes produces their relevant effects = Kamma-Vipaka aka "Karma"
  • Illness is inevitable
  • Old age is inevitable
  • Death is inevitable
  • Change in life is inevitable
  • One way or another, I am heir to my actions
  • All volitional actions in life are done to alleviate perceived discontentment
  • Etc.
Unobservable (mainstream) Christian allegations which Christians must take on faith:
  • There is an omniscient, omnipotent God named Jehovah (or Yahweh, etc.)
  • Jesus is his son
  • Jesus died on the cross
  • His death and sacrifice effected salvation for those who have faith
  • Rejection of his sacrifice effects eternal damnation/separation from God to others
  • Eternal life
  • Etc.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
thats a huge statement, an unverified one. So I guess you are correct, I don't care about things that are unverified.
It is a fairly huge statement, to say that you have been wrong about virtually everything in this thread. But not particularly difficult to verify. All you have to do is read the seventy-plus pages of this thread, and see your arguments being refuted, again and again.
Now you, I'm sure, would say that every single thing you said was correct. But would you at least agree that people have disagreed with more or less everything you said on this thread? And that you have rarely, or perhaps not at all, admitted you were wrong about anything?
So it seems pretty clear that either you're wrong about everything on this thread, or we are.
Of course, anyone who takes the trouble to read a few pages of this thread can see that you would be well advised to spend time reviewing your knowledge of science, reasoning and logical fallacies, rather than trying to correct others on them. Because (and I hope you don't take this the wrong way) it's clearly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

IF I did care about things that are unverified, I might, like you guys believe the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing, or that an electrocuted mud puddle spawned first life, or that we evolved in other ways from floating rock debris in space. All of that is very very unverified. So if I was in the habit of believing unverified claims, I would start there.
Uh-huh. Who told you that's what we believe?
What scientists believe, as I understand it, is that the universe began, about fourteen billion years ago, as a speck that exploded, for causes presently unknown; and that life most likely began due to chemical reactions that led to self-replicating organisms evolving. They don't state these as facts, because in science you follow where the evidence leads, always being ready to revise your views if it is warranted.
So saying "scientists believe that the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing" is false; they do not know why the Big Bang happened, or what cause it, if anything (can "causes" exist without the presence of time?") The intellectually honest thing to do, then, is to say you don't know, and that you are awaiting further evidence. Which is, of course, exactly what scientists do.

Pick an apologetic thread (or evolution thread) of your choosing, one that I am not involved, and I can scan the last ten pages, and find probably a dozen cases of mocking of christianity, or making fun of faith, or belittling christianity, done by atheists and agnostics. I challenge you.
Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.
How about this thread? There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

No, everything I have said is based on science, history and philosophy. And all three provide strong evidence for biblical Christianity.
This will come as news to scientists, historians and philosophers. In point of fact, Ed, you're quite incorrect. Not even most Christians would agree with you, even on the claim about philosophy.
 
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

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
Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.
How about this thread? There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM
No need. I gave him a thread to look at and he couldn't find what he claimed would be there. I'm trying to get him to understand that even though folk are mean to him, since they ain't mean to other Christians, that Christianity isn't the problem, he is.
 
Upvote 0