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
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.
You realize, of course, that you're trying to disprove creation ex nihilo here, right?

You're calling "intelligence" and "love" ingredients of the universe, what about space, time, matter, and energy? The universe contains all of these things, so they must all exist eternally for God to make a universe out of them, otherwise you're baking a cake without ingredients.
 
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
Prove that scientists, whom are evolutionary biologists, do not actually accept what they study?

so your saying if you actually believed in creationism, but didn't believe in the God of the Bible, that you wouldn't lie at your work to get federal grant money? You wouldn't twist the figures to prove macro evolution true? But we all know they can't prove macro evolution true (at least not yet, apparently). But what worries me is even with all that grant money they still don't have one macro evolutionary transition. One piece of evidence that a different animal can evolve into a different animal. All they have is micro evolutionary evidence (and this is what evolutionary biologists get grant money for), that is speciation, and natural selection etc. All the stuff that happens withing types of animals. At least there is no evidence these things happen outside of different animal groups. And that is the point.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
so your saying if you actually believed in creationism, but didn't believe in the God of the Bible, that you wouldn't lie at your work to get federal grant money? You wouldn't twist the figures to prove macro evolution true? But we all know they can't prove macro evolution true (at least not yet, apparently). But what worries me is even with all that grant money they still don't have one macro evolutionary transition. One piece of evidence that a different animal can evolve into a different animal. All they have is micro evolutionary evidence (and this is what evolutionary biologists get grant money for), that is speciation, and natural selection etc. All the stuff that happens withing types of animals. At least there is no evidence these things happen outside of different animal groups. And that is the point.
You owe it to yourself to educate yourself.

All we see is ignorance and arrogance on your part.
 
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 your saying if you actually believed in creationism, but didn't believe in the God of the Bible, that you wouldn't lie at your work to get federal grant money? You wouldn't twist the figures to prove macro evolution true? But we all know they can't prove macro evolution true (at least not yet, apparently). But what worries me is even with all that grant money they still don't have one macro evolutionary transition. One piece of evidence that a different animal can evolve into a different animal. All they have is micro evolutionary evidence (and this is what evolutionary biologists get grant money for), that is speciation, and natural selection etc. All the stuff that happens withing types of animals. At least there is no evidence these things happen outside of different animal groups. And that is the point.

Before I even address this apparent nonsense, I have one point and one question to clarify/address...

1. I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Thus, I could not directly attest to 'some' of the things you are continuing to blankly asserting, w/o justification.

2. If macroevolution was demonstrated true, to your satisfaction, would it matter? Meaning, would you denounce Christianity? Or, would you instead 'adjust' your belief to retrofit 'Genesis'?

Please address the second point/question.

Thank you
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,853
4,266
Pacific NW
✟242,376.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
But what worries me is even with all that grant money they still don't have one macro evolutionary transition. One piece of evidence that a different animal can evolve into a different animal.

Why does this worry you? If you define "macroevolution" to be a change large enough that it would take too long for us to observe it, then obviously we won't observe it.
 
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
Before I even address this apparent nonsense, I have one point and one question to clarify/address...

1. I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Thus, I could not directly attest to 'some' of the things you are continuing to blankly asserting, w/o justification.

2. If macroevolution was demonstrated true, to your satisfaction, would it matter? Meaning, would you denounce Christianity? Or, would you instead 'adjust' your belief to retrofit 'Genesis'?

Please address the second point/question.

Thank you
I understand asking a question to answer a question. So I will answer your questions fully when you answer mine fully.
 
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
You owe it to yourself to educate yourself.

All we see is ignorance and arrogance on your part.

Why does this worry you? If you define "macroevolution" to be a change large enough that it would take too long for us to observe it, then obviously we won't observe it.

so you admit that macro evolution is not observable. If this is the case then it absolutely cannot be science because the scientific method requires observation of a hypothesis for testing purposes. So have a hypothesis and not test it begs the question as to it's validity, and that is why science needs observation. So you prove my point thank you.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
so you admit that macro evolution is not observable. If this is the case then it absolutely cannot be science because the scientific method requires observation of a hypothesis for testing purposes. So have a hypothesis and not test it begs the question as to it's validity, and that is why science needs observation. So you prove my point thank you.
Macro evolution is observable. You believe in conspiracies and I’m not responsible for your education. Believe what you need too, but we know better.
 
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
so you admit that macro evolution is not observable. If this is the case then it absolutely cannot be science because the scientific method requires observation of a hypothesis for testing purposes. So have a hypothesis and not test it begs the question as to it's validity, and that is why science needs observation. So you prove my point thank you.
The Big Bang isn't observable, it's inferred from the evidence we have at hand today. Yet you accept the scientific consensus (aka "Bandwagon Fallacy") on the Big Bang so that you can claim the universe isn't eternal (which isn't part of Big Bang Theory, just in case you cared). I swear, you refute your own points in just about every post you make.
 
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
Macro evolution is observable. You believe in conspiracies and I’m not responsible for your education. Believe what you need too, but we know better.
I never said that it was not possible to be observed, I said that it's not observed in science. This is what I mean by not observable. But if I am wrong, you can easily disprove by showing some observation of macro evolution. For example lucy is a perfect example that I have disproved in the past. That is a link that allegedly is between to types of animals, proving macro evolution. But it fails because lucy is ape like, due to having a shovel face and a forward sloping ilium proving she did not walk on two legs, and was a knuckle dragger like an ape. So provide evidence like above, I am trying to help you out so your position does not look ridiculous.
 
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
The Big Bang isn't observable, it's inferred from the evidence we have at hand today. Yet you accept the scientific consensus (aka "Bandwagon Fallacy") on the Big Bang so that you can claim the universe isn't eternal (which isn't part of Big Bang Theory, just in case you cared). I swear, you refute your own points in just about every post you make.
in making this argument you know that you refute evolution right? So go ahead and make it. I used the standard that was presented, the consensus of science. But I don't need them technically speaking because the fact that the universe has mass, proves it had a beginning due to general relativity. So there is that too.
 
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
sorry sir I am not addressing your posts. Please cease from all contact.
Put me on your ignore list if you don't like reading my corrections. I'm going to keep making corrections, though.
 
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
Put me on your ignore list if you don't like reading my corrections. I'm going to keep making corrections, though.
I changed my mind and replied to your post. But that may not always be the case as most of the time they are just mocking and not addressing facts of the matter.
 
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
in making this argument you know that you refute evolution right? So go ahead and make it. I used the standard that was presented, the consensus of science.
I'll work with whatever evidence you want, as long as you're consistent. We can throw out evolution and BBT, or we can keep evolution and BBT. Not one or the other.
But I don't need them technically speaking because the fact that the universe has mass, proves it had a beginning due to general relativity. So there is that too.
Oh? How so? Does general relativity not allow for matter to be eternal?
 
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
But I don't need them technically speaking because the fact that the universe has mass, proves it had a beginning due to general relativity. So there is that too.
So, science proves things after all, then?
 
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
So, science proves things after all, then?
I think general rules of science are more proof than macro evolution, which is the context of this discussion.

your literally saying that because scientists believe it, it's science. And that is not how it works.
 
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 work with whatever evidence you want, as long as you're consistent. We can throw out evolution and BBT, or we can keep evolution and BBT. Not one or the other.

Oh? How so? Does general relativity not allow for matter to be eternal?
the difference is that science rejects macro evolution because it is unobserved. And general relativity says that mass is accelerated by time, if you have no mass then time still exists, but it does not apply. Because there is nothing to apply the time to.
 
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
the difference is that science rejects macro evolution because it is unobserved.
Who observed the Big Bang?
And general relativity says that mass is accelerated by time, if you have no mass then time still exists, but it does not apply. Because there is nothing to apply the time to.
How do we know that time and matter and space aren't eternal? Can you prove that? Did anyone observe these things coming into existence?
 
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
I think general rules of science are more proof than macro evolution, which is the context of this discussion.

your literally saying that because scientists believe it, it's science. And that is not how it works.
I only asked a question. I’m confused as to what “rules of science” you’re talking about, since you referenced general relativity as some sort of proof of the universe having a beginning, and yet presumably you don’t accept the rules that prove evolution to be true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I only asked a question. I’m confused as to what “rules of science” you’re talking about, since you referenced general relativity as some sort of proof of the universe having a beginning, and yet presumably you don’t accept the rules that prove evolution to be true.

what rules prove macro evolution? I have never heard of any. Natural selection, speciation etc all involves micro evolution.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0