Argument for God's existence.

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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.

Um, last I checked, this is a forum arena, and not an English Comp. class ;) But if you want to start addressing 'spell checks', I can certainly point out yours if you like :)

In regards to the two individuals, they do both assert 'I.D.'. Stay tuned...


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.

Even IF everything you stated above is true, has no relevancy. Stay tuned...


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.

There is really nothing to train for... It results in nothing more than pseudoscience; and not anything related to actual science itself. Save such assertions for church, or classes related to theism specifically; not any science class.

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.

I did not bring up 'Wikipedia'. I'm sure you are aware that scholarly works do not allow for such, as it can be edited by anonymous sources. This is not to say 'wikipedia' is simply not worthy all together, but the works do need further 'fact checking' for verification...

In regards to the trial, I.D. proponents (Michael Behe specifically), speak heavily about the 'bacteria flagellum', and irreducible complexity. Which is basically the hallmark of what you are 'driving at.' Except, Michael Behe gets his 'keaster' handed to him on a silver platter, while on the witness stand, when attempting to defend his asserted position regarding 'irreducible complexity.' And now you want to mention the 'eye'???? Do we really need to go there still??? In this day and age, with the acquired conclusions and knowledge drawn from the results of this trial alone, we would just be addressing re-runs...

It would be a futile attempt, and nothing more than to rinse/repeat....


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).

You are simply begging the question again. Simply applying special pleading and invoking blank assertions, which are not falsifiable, is an easy way for theists like yourself to feel you are 'winning' the debate.

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?

Scientists ASSERT 'the universe was 'created'? Really? Oh awesome! I was not aware :) Then why did you feel the need to post this topic thread?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?............?

I think you might want to study up a bit. Cosmologists seem to state that 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'past.' Beyond this, is immeasurable, and maybe even never measurable.?.?

Then there exists people in your specific position; whom take what is currently unknown by any forthcoming evidence, and instead (add to) or (implement) not falsifiable assertions. See above for example(s)...


God who is massless, does not need to take up space. Mass takes up space.

I don't believe it even states anything like this specifically in the Bible.?.?.? I do believe you are pulling stuff out of your own keaster now.?.?.?

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

And I addressed this already. Hint: Dover trial, 'bacteria flagellum', irreducible complexity. Look into it.

Heck, you can watch the 2 hour Nova video, readily available on 'Youtube'. I would just be regurgitating the many points recorded and issued in 2005 ;)
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You are correct. Your above argument does not present the argument from ignorance; but instead violates reasoning in another fallacious manor. You are now committing the fallacy of equivocation. I'm honestly surprised, that in this readily available age of instant information, you would not attempt to cross check your assertions? In this case, in reference to 'DNA requiring a mind.'

Please also see, just for rudimentary starters:




No, your videos are non sequiturs. My argument did not use the argument that DNA is a language. I said it is a linguistic CODE. Which is basically what your video refers to as programming language or programming code. Also, I am not using DNA as my primary argument for the Christian God. It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence. And even your video did not provide an empirical example of non-mind producing programming language. And your second video did not provide an example of natural selection or a natural process producing information, he just assumed it did, because it exists in DNA which he assumes was produced by natural selection, but he is just assuming what we are trying to prove. He needs to provide an empirical example of a natural process producing information.


cv: Please go back to the top of my response.

Furthermore, is there an 'ignore the misses and accept the hits' metric one might follow, when using the Bible as an instruction guide to the universe?
The Bible is not a science textbook but when it does touch on aspects of nature and science it is correct.
 
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
No, your videos are non sequiturs. My argument did not use the argument that DNA is a language. I said it is a linguistic CODE. Which is basically what your video refers to as programming language or programming code. Also, I am not using DNA as my primary argument for the Christian God. It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence. And even your video did not provide an empirical example of non-mind producing programming language. And your second video did not provide an example of natural selection or a natural process producing information, he just assumed it did, because it exists in DNA which he assumes was produced by natural selection, but he is just assuming what we are trying to prove. He needs to provide an empirical example of a natural process producing information.

The Bible is not a science textbook but when it does touch on aspects of nature and science it is correct.

For sake in brevity, let's reduce a bit...

At the end of the day, your assertion is the same, language (vs) code is merely squabbling over semantics.

*********************

In regards to your cited passage of Genesis 1:1, I don't claim the Bible is equal to a science book. However, simply follow along down Genesis, which makes many other bold assertions about the nature of the universe... The Bible gets some fairly correct, and some apparently not. My question to you, is when you read Genesis, and see passages which make assertions about 'scientifically' addressed topics, and the Bible does not align with scientific discovery; do you simply ignore them, or maybe instead rationalize them - (using apologetics maybe)? The reason I ask is that there appears assertions from Genesis alone which do not appear to jive with discovery.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence.
Your "scientific" argument, not scientists'.
Your "historical" argument, not historians'.
Your "philosophical" argument, not philosophers'.

Without having your arguments published in the appropriate forums - and that's not Christian Forums - your "multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence" means nothing at all.
 
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:
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: I think you are taking my response the wrong way. One of my points is that you cannot control what you believe.
So you are saying you dont believe in free will? If so, then you just destroyed the very possibility of science.

cv: 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 :)
See my previous post.

Ed1wolf said:
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: 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.
See above.

Ed1wolf said:
But there is no evidence for the existence of those pixies.

cv: 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.
No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.

Ed1wolf said:
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 I demonstrated, with links, I can demonstrate to the contrary. As of now, differing ideas. And...?
Evidence that we can empirically see the origin of living things in real time, like we can the BB?

Ed1wolf said:
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.

cv: 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.
I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.

Ed1wolf said:
Read Genesis 1:1 for the definite beginning.

cv: 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?
There are no misses.

Ed1wolf said:
No, the number of followers do have relevance, just as you argue that the number of scientists that believe in macroevolution has relevance.

cv: 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.
No, that is why there is consensus because the evidence for the universe being finite is pretty close to overwhelming.

Ed1wolf said:
There is strong evidence that the Christian God HAS revealed His presence.

cv: Where is this 'strong evidence' that God has revealed His presence? From the OT and the Gospels? Other?
The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.

Ed1wolf said:
It would not take long, because we are all created in His image and so are created to desire a relationship with Him.

cv: 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.
Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.

Ed1wolf said:
I have presented a small amount but very powerful evidence for Him above.

cv: Beg to differ.
Of course, you are free to do so.
 
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
So you are saying you dont believe in free will? If so, then you just destroyed the very possibility of science.

"free will" has many varying definitions. Completely new topic. My point in this thread, is you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe something other than the current belief, without provided reason/evidence. So I'm not sure how this would violate science...

See my previous post.

I'm afraid I'm not going to sift through the countless posts already issued to locate what I 'think' you are stating, and possibly still miss the 'mark' on what you are actually intending :)


My point is that all presented models/ideas for what happened prior to the 'Big Bang' is nothing more than speculative. Cosmologists have their hypothesis', and really not too much more. Unlike the scientists in evolutionary theory, whom assert the evidence is overwhelming for their conclusions.

And as stated prior, my 'hunch' is that the ones whom study the topic of evolution effectively, and continue to reject evolutionary theory, may be doing so as they cannot reconcile this theory, when attempting to also fit with their theistic beliefs.


See above.

Again, 'time' as we know it is immeasurable, and gives out, prior or even at the 'Big Bang.' That's it. Presented models for eternal universe(s) is still a viable conclusion. But again, we may never 'know.' To instead assert is fallacious. We don't know.... Just like, as I stated well prior, if aliens exist or not.

No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.

You think there is more than one definition for both pixies and God(s)? What is the 'wikipedia' definition for 'God'?

But you are still mistaken anyways. I stated 'universe-creating pixies'. You see, the title implies the cause :)

Evidence that we can empirically see the origin of living things in real time, like we can the BB?

Again, 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'viewable' past. That's it. Eternity is still possible. As stated in this thread or another, this 'big bang' may merely be a continuation from the ending of a previous universe(s), other....?..?.?

We can only measure what is happening in this 'universe'. Not 'before' it, or 'outside' of it, if applicable.


I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.

And as stated prior, 'consensus' in this particular case is irrelevant. Why? Both sides are speculative between 'time' prior to the 'Big Bang', as they adhere to nothing more than models at this point. Where-as, in scientific theory, scientists hold to a firm position, based upon peer review and concluded evidence.


There are no misses.

I wouldn't expect anything less from an apologetics forum :) Thank you for answering my question, in more ways than one :)

No, that is why there is consensus because the evidence for the universe being finite is pretty close to overwhelming.

I trust you do understand scientists overwhelming agree there was a 'Big Bang', as do I. However, I trust you also acknowledge that 'time', as we know it, simply gives out at some point. So again, my position stands, that scientists can only speculate if the 'universe' is eternal or finite. Furthermore, what 'was' prior to this labelled 'Big Bang.'

The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.

What specific 'characteristics' of this universe lend itself exclusively to Yahweh?

'Things' being 'good' or 'bad' lend no credence to the validity of an asserted claim. Evidence does. So I again ask... What/where is this evidence? And more importantly, why am I so oblivious to this asserted evidence for your specific assert God?


Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.

Your response above seems to demonstrate my point (i.e.):


'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.'
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.
Well, obviously, the pixies created the universe, and then afterwards moved to live in Ireland and Scotland.

There are no misses.
If you asked any Christian prior to, the eighteenth century how old Creation is, they would have said something like six thousand years. That seems like quite a miss, wouldn't you say?

The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.
The Cosmological Argument is invalid, and "most of the best things about Western Civilisation" wouldn't mean anything even if it were true (which is highly debatable).

Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.
"Most likely" God? But of course it was God! What else could it possibly be?
 
Last edited:
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
Per the Grady Debate Rule (TM): You lose

His different arguments for God’s existence literally contradict one another ^_^

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.

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.


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.


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


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.
The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.
Proverbs 16:4‭-‬5 NKJV

I don't need to defend myself. God explains himself fairly clearly.

I missed my windows to respond to your posts, if you desire a logical refutation to what was said I can do it tonight, just let me know the post number. I was at the lake with my family.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,214
5,606
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,468.00
Faith
Atheist
The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.
Proverbs 16:4‭-‬5 NKJV
When all reason fails, threaten. (I use the word reason advisedly.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When all reason fails, threaten. (I use the word reason advisedly.)

when all reason fails mock.

see, I can do it too.

don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
gaara mocking

what is to say that others don't disagree?

In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.

when reason fails, mock.

But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.

I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.

which proves my point.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
when all reason fails mock.

see, I can do it too.

don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
gaara mocking

what is to say that others don't disagree?

In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.

when reason fails, mock.

But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.

I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.

which proves my point.
Well then, good job!

You’ve done what no other philosopher in the history of humankind has been able to do.

Now see what you can do about whirled peas.
 
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
when all reason fails mock.

see, I can do it too.

don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
gaara mocking

what is to say that others don't disagree?

In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.

when reason fails, mock.

But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.

I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.

which proves my point.
I stand by my defense of mockery’s place in general discourse. That doesn’t mean we’re all just a bunch of mockers, nor that the response you quoted was itself mockery, nor that the presence of mockery indicates a failure of reason. Crying about mockery is a convenient way for you to claim victimhood, but it doesn’t get you to high ground. Stick to the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: cvanwey
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
@gradyll

Aside from post #1582, which you have yet to address, I wanted to also reiterate your points:

1. You mention the 'eye'.

2. You also mention that scientific consensus concludes a 'Big Bang'.

Well, then you must also reconcile that scientific consensus adopts evolutionary theory; just like the Big Bang. In a nutshell, this theory states changes in allele frequencies; along with 'simple' to 'more complex' organisms. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I just wanted to point out some of the basics of the assertions made by this field....

Thus, evolutionary theory, which again we would need to also adhere to, if you wish to remain consistent above, seems to have an answer to the evolutionary path of the eye.


Your move :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@gradyll

Aside from post #1582, which you have yet to address, I wanted to also reiterate your points:

1. You mention the 'eye'.

2. You also mention that scientific consensus concludes a 'Big Bang'.

Well, then you must also reconcile that scientific consensus adopts evolutionary theory; just like the Big Bang. In a nutshell, this theory states changes in allele frequencies; along with 'simple' to 'more complex' organisms. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I just wanted to point out some of the basics of the assertions made by this field....

Thus, evolutionary theory, which again we would need to also adhere to, if you wish to remain consistent above, seems to have an answer to the evolutionary path of the eye.


Your move :)
Again I don't see a refutation here. Scientists only accept stellar evolution becausee federal grants require them to. Many scientists belive in God. I believe the current estimate is 51%.
 
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
Calling a threat a threat is not mocking.

Identifying hollow claims of victory as hollow is not mocking.

I stand by my defense of mockery’s place in general discourse. That doesn’t mean we’re all just a bunch of mockers, nor that the response you quoted was itself mockery, nor that the presence of mockery indicates a failure of reason. Crying about mockery is a convenient way for you to claim victimhood, but it doesn’t get you to high ground. Stick to the subject matter.

Questioning your mocking is a start. Keep it up. I could prove that it was mocking but that is not the point.
 
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
Here is the OP again revised:

Proving a Christian God is fairly straight forward. I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God. Firstly if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. God does nit need causation because general relitivity shows that time accelerates mass ( if you have no mass you dont have time). God us massless and outside the time domain.
Now for the christian part:
Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or a not doing of something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. this is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.
 
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
Questioning your mocking is a start. Keep it up. I could prove that it was mocking but that is not the point.
You’re right, that’s not the point. The point is it doesn’t matter if we’re mocking you or not, you’re still wrong.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Moral Orel
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
Again I don't see a refutation here. Scientists only accept stellar evolution becausee federal grants require them to.

Prove that scientists, whom are evolutionary biologists, do not actually accept what they study?

Many scientists belive in God. I believe the current estimate is 51%.

This is not relevant, in the least. First of all, the term "god" is a very open ended term. Furthermore, many believe in God, while still accepting evolution by natural selection.

I'll give you one public example, for instance. Let's go back to the Dover trial again... You know, the trial which dismantles the notion of 'irreducible complexity'... Pretty much the same argument you are using for the 'eye.' Have you heard of Kenneth R. Miller? He was also involved in this trial.
 
Upvote 0