Argument for God's existence.

[Ed1wolf]

All three of them are bad arguments, and piling together a mass of bad arguments is like trying to make a ladder out of rotten pieces of wood; they all collapse, and you're left back where you started.


The response can simply be quoted from the article: Unmoved Mover - Daylight Atheism
Aquinas’ objection to the possibility of an infinite regress is also poorly founded. He claims that an infinite regression of causes could not exist because there would be no first cause, but this shows a failure to understand the notion of an infinite series. In such a series, every individual event would have a perfectly good cause: the event preceding it. Alternatively, if we accept Aquinas’ logic on this point, we can then ask, how many thoughts did God have before creating the universe? Every thought God had must have been caused by another thought preceding it, since Aquinas claims nothing can be its own cause. But since by Aquinas’ argument an infinite beginningless series is impossible, God must have had a single thought preceding all others – i.e., there must have been a point at which God came into existence. We can then ask the cause of this initial thought, and so on ad infinitum.
There is one final attack on the classic cosmological argument. Say for the sake of argument that we ignore the above difficulty and grant this argument everything it asks – then it still does nothing to establish the existence of God. Even if we accept this argument’s logic, all it proves is that there was a first cause. It does not prove that this first cause still exists today; it does not prove that this first cause has any interest in or awareness of human beings; it does not prove that this first cause is omnipotent or omniscient or benevolent. It does not even prove that the first cause is conscious or a person. An atheist could accept this entire chain of logic and then posit that the first cause was a purely natural phenomenon.

No, this is a non-sequitur regarding God's thoughts. Thoughts are non physical and therefore not bound by time and space. But events in a time space universe are bound by space and time, and therefore you cannnot have a inifinite series of space time events, because as i said you would never reach the present. And yet here we are, in the present. Therefore there is no infinite series of space time events and therefore the universe is finite and had a beginning and so is an effect and needs a cause. But then you also have to look at the law of sufficient cause. Only a personal cause can create a universe that has persons in it. Because only persons can produce the personal. Only persons can have personal relationships, personal communication and etc. A personal being that created all would have to have all knowledge, ie omniscience, and a being that created all that exists would have to have all power in order to do so, ie omnipotence. We also know He is personal is the existence of purposes. Purposes exsit in this universe such as eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing. You are right that this argument does not prove that He still exists and that He is benevolent, these things are learned by communicating with Him. Nothing that the atheist claims to have brought about this universe is a sufficient cause to produce this type of universe. An impersonal cause cannot produce the things I mention above that are part of the universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

"The universe contains personal beings, and we know that only persons can produce the personal"? That doesn't make sense at all. Persons are produced as a very, very small part of the process which produced all other living things today: evolution. Which, as gaara pointed out in this post, you obviously don't understand, and really need to do some research on.

It is irrelevant how small part of the universe persons are, they exist and only something personal can produce them, as shown throughout all of human experience. The process that the Creator used to create persons is not as important as the fact that they exist and they can only come from Him. Btw I do know a great deal about evolution, I am a biologist that has studied it for over 30years.

ia: Also, I like you saying "Most likely!" The fact of that matter is, we have absolutely no idea what existed before the Big Bang, or even if saying "existed before the Big Bang" is a meaningful concept. If you want us to think that there was something, and that it was God, you're going to have to provide evidence, which you haven't.

The majority cosmologists believe that nothing existed before the BB (of course I believe something DID exist before the BB but it is not detectable) and I will go with them rather than a hyperskeptical atheist on a religious website.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Again, from the article:
There are several important problems with this argument. The first one lies with Craig’s claimed proof that an actual infinite cannot exist, a claim which he uses to argue that the universe must have had a finite history and therefore a beginning. Craig’s argument for this point relies on alleged self-contradictions that arise when considering the idea of an actually existing infinity. For example, the set of all numbers is infinite in size, as is the set of even numbers, but if we subtract the latter from the former the resulting set is still infinite. More importantly, Craig claims it is impossible to form an infinite set by successive addition – no matter how many times we add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1…, the sum will always be a finite number, never infinity. Therefore, no matter how many past events have occurred, there can only be a finite number of them and there still must have been a first event, a beginning to the universe. While Craig argues that a potential infinite, defined as a value that increases indefinitely without bound, can exist, he denies that an actual infinite can ever exist in reality.
It is true that an actual infinite, if such a thing existed, would possess some very strange and counterintuitive properties; for one thing, such a set could be the same size as one of its proper subsets, which is the source of most of the “absurdities” Craig claims to have pointed out. But this does not prove that such a thing is impossible, merely that the human mind cannot adequately conceive of it. There is no law that requires reality to conform to our expectations. Most people would also find the idea that light can behave both as a particle and as a wave to be counterintuitive or absurd, but nevertheless, quantum mechanics has taught us that it is so.
Regarding the supposed impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition, Craig’s argument makes a key faulty assumption. Of course an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition if one only has a finite number of steps to do it in. But an actual infinite can be formed by an infinite number of successive additions. In other words, there could have been an infinite number of events before now as long as there was also an infinite amount of time before now, which is exactly as we should expect. One might object that this proves that it is necessary to start with an infinite in order to get an infinite. This is true, and it is not a problem if one postulates a universe that has always existed as a brute fact requiring no further explanation, just as theists postulate a God that has always existed as a brute fact.

None of this refutes the fact that we have arrived at the present and therefore the universe is not infinite. So there is no evidence that has been infinite series of events in this universe. And all the scientific evidence points to the universe not being eternal.

ia: Of course it doesn't. On the contrary, the theory of evolution is one of the most solidly-confirmed theories in the whole of science.

Not as confirmed as the BB theory.

ia: No problem. All we have to do is posit multiple designers, sharing ideas but working against each other. Otherwise, we are led to the ridiculous conclusion that God is continually tinkering with and redesigning living organisms in a gigantic arms race - like a person playing a billion-sided chess game against himself. Which is silly, and unnecessarily over-complicated, because evolution easily and elegantly provides the solution.

No, the evidence points to single designer. A committee of designers would not have little special quirks and superfluous artistic aspects, like the panda's thumb and the male peacocks tail.

ia: But it's not wrong, as the article pointed out, to enslave, kill, commit incest, sacrifice children, etc. etc. etc.

Those are all wrong according to God's moral law but they are not wrong if atheism is true.

ia: No, it's not. All it is is evidence that the Israelites invented a moral code. So what?

No, it is unlikely to be invented by humans because of the strict sexual ethics. If it was invented by humans they would let you have sex with whomever you want and when every you want as long as no one gets hurt. But God's code is much more restrictive.

ia: Not at all. The Euthyphro dilemma is quite sound, and your attempt to resolve it by saying that goodness is based on "God's character" merely moves it back one step, leaving the problem unaddressed. If we say that goodness is defined as "following God's character" then that makes goodness meaningless; good is what God does - and, logically, if God did evil, then it would be good, because He had done it. This, therefore, makes Christian morality completely arbitrary, and so it is no morality at all.

No, you are misunderstanding. Goodness is not defined as following God's character. Goodness is God himself. He IS the GOOD itself, not just what He does.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The set of even numbers has an infinite amount of numbers in it, but it excludes all odd numbers. Saying that God can do an infinite number of things isn't the same as saying God can do any thing.

Ok I stand corrected.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
In the case of the teaching of an expanding universe the bible uses several different verb forms of the Hebrew word "nata" some of them refer to the stretcher out of the heavens, implying the ongoing continual stretching of the universe such as in Job 9:8 and other verses.

ia: Hmmm. Looks like that's not the only stretching going on here!

Evidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
They would never do that, they would be branded a religious fundie and forced out of mainstream academia.

ia: If the evidence did point to the existence of God, then they would be applauded for finding out something new.

IMO, they have found evidence and yet the opposite has happened many times. But this is expected if Christianity is true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know your wife loves you? From experience. Experience IS evidence.

ia: Certainly it is. And yet, with my wife, we have multiple lines of compelling evidence that she exists, and that she loves me. For God, we have no such evidence.
Put it like this: would you be willing to take my word if I said I went to work each morning by a combination of walking and travelling in motorised vehicles?
And would you be willing to take my word if I said that each morning I flapped my arms really hard and flew to work? Perhaps not?
And what if a mutual friend told you that yes, I do regularly fly to work by flapping my arms. Would you then believe it?

That is only part of the evidence for Christianity. If someone that hates you and wants to ruin your life
said he saw you flying by flapping your arms I may start believing that you did. Plus I heard that there was scientific theory put out by scientists that never even met you that said that there was strong evidence that one human in a billion has the ability to fly. I would have even stronger belief that you did fly.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it does not apply, we have a written objective definition and description of a Christian, ie the Bible, we dont have that for a Scotsman.

ia: Perhaps you don't know what the No True Scotsman fallacy is?
And yes, we do have a good, simple definition of a Christian - a person who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God, for example. But there are many, many people who call themselves Christians, and most of them disagree with each other about the details of their Christianity, and some say that others are in very serious errors, and some would definitely disagree with you about many of the things you believe.
And why should I take your word over theirs that you are a true and correct Christian, and they are not

No, as the bible says even Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There are certain essential teachings about morals and salvation that the majority of Christians that believe in the infallible authority of the bible have agreed on for 2000 years that provide a much more accurate definition of a Christian. There is no such thing for Scotsmen.

 

[cvanwey]

The idea that Alexander the Great claimed to be the son of Zeus is completely credible. If a Greek historian were to accept such a claim as true and speak of Alexander the Great as semidivine, that would not surprise me. He is basically the real life version of the various legendary Greek demigod heroes, so it would make sense that people might believe claims to divine heritage.

If a pagan apologist wished to make the claim that Alexander the Great actually was the semidivine son of Zeus, they would be welcome to do so. I don't mind taking a hard supernaturalist angle and treating all such stories equally, but in the end it makes no difference. Even if we opened up the floodgates, we'd still have to deal with the twilight of the gods and the silencing of the oracles after the onset of Christianity, as reported by Plutarch. There is no interpretation of that which is good for Greco-Roman paganism.

Interesting take...

Would it be fair to say that evolutionary biology has done the same, in reference to Christianity? Delivering a heavy blow which may be slowly dwindling the faith of many? Forcing many, including myself, to no longer take the claims of the 'fall of man' seriously; which seems the entire premise of Christianity - (with Jesus atoning for the sins of "Adam and Eve", whom may never have existed)?

Would it also be safe to say that many, whom remain Christian, may either be willfully ignorant to the concept of evolution by natural selection, or maybe instead exclusively adhere to apologists whom continually set out to 'dismantle' such discovery?

Again, please read what I highlighted from your response above Seems as though Monotheism won over polytheism for many 'reasons'; and now, evoltionary theory may ultimately do the same for the Abrahamic religion.' ---- But it may take more education, discovery, and a few more generations...?

Yes, I would think it self-evident that stories that were circulating for 20-30 years before being written down are more likely to have historical value than stories that circulated for at least half a millennium.

That said, I don't think you understand how oral tradition works. It isn't a matter of people just repeating stories to each other telephone style until the whole message is different. Oral traditions tend to take a somewhat poetic form, with memory devices, so that they can be memorized and passed down accurately. They don't actually change radically over time. There are certainly complications concerning the reliability of the original eyewitness reports, but I don't see how being transmitted in oral form exacerbates that problem.

Please note the highlighted text above. They are in conflict. Furthermore, my point is that stories retold, over and over again, accrue embellishment. Again, this is evidence when reading Mark, then reading John. The stories become more 'magical' as the decades roll on... The question remains, what actually happened - (when and if it happened)?

Quite the opposite. Mark 16:9-20 actually demonstrates that we can with some degree of reliability distinguish between what might and might not have been a later addition. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be able to point to those verses at all.

Seems more 'evident' that such additions, (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20, were made to make the later claims 'fit'. --- Like more of a connector, or editing tool... Bridging the gap... And it's rather simple to see this... Read up to Mark 16:8; then read 9-20...

 

[Silmarien]

Interesting take...

Would it be fair to say that evolutionary biology has done the same, in reference to Christianity? Delivering a heavy blow which may be slowly dwindling the faith of many? Forcing many, including myself, to no longer take the claims of the 'fall of man' seriously; which seems the entire premise of Christianity - (with Jesus atoning for the sins of "Adam and Eve", whom may never have existed)?

Would it also be safe to say that many, whom remain Christian, may either be willfully ignorant to the concept of evolution by natural selection, or maybe instead exclusively adhere to apologists whom continually set out to 'dismantle' such discovery?

Again, please read what I highlighted from your response above Seems as though Monotheism won over polytheism for many 'reasons'; and now, evoltionary theory may ultimately do the same for the Abrahamic religion.' ---- But it may take more education, discovery, and a few more generations...?

Hard to say. All of the major churches consider evolutionary theory to be compatible with Christianity, so I don't see why it would automatically be problematic in coming generations. The worst is hopefully behind us in terms of the alleged conflict between faith and science.

I don't see why it would matter even if the majority of people abandon Christianity because of evolution, though. You can't get from that to a supernaturalistic argument in which modern science prophetized that it was going to destroy Christianity, and then followed through and did so. There would only be a problem if the Church disappeared entirely (Matthew 16:18), but that is unlikely to happen.

Please note the highlighted text above. They are in conflict. Furthermore, my point is that stories retold, over and over again, accrue embellishment. Again, this is evidence when reading Mark, then reading John. The stories become more 'magical' as the decades roll on... The question remains, what actually happened - (when and if it happened)?

I don't see any conflict. Oral tradition doesn't change radically over time, and the Gospels don't either. I really don't see the sort of obvious embellishment from one Gospel to the next that you're insisting upon. (Especially if you want to add in something like Q Source theory.)

Seems more 'evident' that such additions, (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20, were made to make the later claims 'fit'. --- Like more of a connector, or editing tool... Bridging the gap... And it's rather simple to see this... Read up to Mark 16:8; then read 9-20...

I don't really think so. I don't see the Great Commission as being overly controversial--it's not like the disciples didn't go out and spread the Gospel as widely as they could. I don't have any problem with the idea that the longer ending of Mark is later poetic license, but I don't see what gap needed to be bridged. People would have known whether there were evangelistic missions or not.

 

[cvanwey]

Hard to say. All of the major churches consider evolutionary theory to be compatible with Christianity, so I don't see why it would automatically be problematic in coming generations. The worst is hopefully behind us in terms of the alleged conflict between faith and science.

I disagree. I attended many churches. Most of which were non-denoms - which housed thousands each. Most rejected evolution, and instead called it 'evil-ution.' I do agree that the 'Catholic sect' seems to accept it more-so. But, on a side note, the non-denoms did not have favorable things to say about Catholics anyways... Meaning, I would hear testimonials about how they 'saved' their former Catholic family, etc...

But regardless, moving forward... I find it quite bazaar how one might try to 'shoe-horn' the fundamental concept of Christianity <with> evolutionary theory? Because again, the main premise is that humans 'inherited' "Adam and Eve's" sinful nature. And if 'Adam and Eve' did not exist, then 'Houstin, we have a problem.' Since Jesus' claim was to 'fix' the problem from the 'fall.'

And when you say the 'worst is behind us,' I don't follow? Seems as though one needs to practice a large amount of mental gymnastics/acrobats to retain 'faith' in this belief system.?.? Which is why I often encounter others on here, like @Ed1wolf for example, whom instead just flat out 'reject' evolution, or state there's some sort of conspiracy. I see this a lot actually.... I have a hunch such denial stems from a protective mechanism to preserve a belief...? As it seems pretty telling, at least from the many I've spoken with, that if such a human discovery is correct, (i.e.) evolution, then faith is truly in jeopardy.

I see (you) as the minority, not the majority Meaning, you can somehow reconcile the two, where I, and most others, cannot. The concept of evolution and 'creation' seem in extreme conflict with one another.

I don't see any conflict. Oral tradition doesn't change radically over time, and the Gospels don't either. I really don't see the sort of obvious embellishment from one Gospel to the next that you're insisting upon. (Especially if you want to add in something like Q Source theory.)

Read Mark, and then read John. It's safe to say Mark was written/published first. Then read John. More magic, more supernatural tales... That's my point. You only have a few decades between Mark and John. You also roughly have the same amount of time between the alleged events themselves, and the writings of Mark. The question is... What actually happened? Legend, lore, elaboration, exaggeration, etc, can happen quite swiftly; espacially when spread orally exclusively. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Decades of unfettered oral-passings, lead to embellishment; especially during a time where most were already highly superstitious.

Later comes people, whom believe the stories, with the actual literacy and the power to drive such belief into a formalized canon.

I don't really think so. I don't see the Great Commission as being overly controversial--it's not like the disciples didn't go out and spread the Gospel as widely as they could. I don't have any problem with the idea that the longer ending of Mark is later poetic license, but I don't see what gap needed to be bridged. People would have known whether there were evangelistic missions or not.

My point is that Mark 16:9-20 looks ad hoc. If Mark stopped at 16:8, it would not jive with later writings. My point is that it seems likely that some author might have felt they (had) to add these verses in there (i.e.) 9-20. Otherwise, Mark does not seem to flow with the other three later chosen canonized Gospels. Since Mark was essential, it (has) to 'fit'.

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree. I attended many churches. Most of which were non-denoms - which housed thousands each. Most rejected evolution, and instead called it 'evil-ution.' I do agree that the 'Catholic sect' seems to accept it more-so. But, on a side note, the non-denoms did not have favorable things to say about Catholics anyways... Meaning, I would hear testimonials about how they 'saved' their former Catholic family, etc...

Non-denomination churches are not major churches. The major branches would include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and older established Protestant churches such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Possibly the Reformed and the rest of Mainline Protestantism as well. You're not going to get chased out of these places with pitchforks for accepting evolution.

If you view the Catholic Church as just another sect with no greater influence than whatever non-denominational megachurch is down the street, I don't think you have a very realistic image of what the Christian world really is.

But regardless, moving forward... I find it quite bazaar how one might try to 'shoe-horn' the fundamental concept of Christianity <with> evolutionary theory? Because again, the main premise is that humans 'inherited' "Adam and Eve's" sinful nature. And if 'Adam and Eve' did not exist, then 'Houstin, we have a problem.' Since Jesus' claim was to 'fix' the problem from the 'fall.'

Where is the problem? It's not at all difficult to view the Garden of Eden as an allegorical rather than historical rendition of the Fall.

I see (you) as the minority, not the majority Meaning, you can somehow reconcile the two, where I, and most others, cannot. The concept of evolution and 'creation' seem in extreme conflict with one another.

Why would they be in conflict at all?

Read Mark, and then read John. It's safe to say Mark was written/published first. Then read John. More magic, more supernatural tales... That's my point. You only have a few decades between Mark and John. You also roughly have the same amount of time between the alleged events themselves, and the writings of Mark. The question is... What actually happened? Legend, lore, elaboration, exaggeration, etc, can happen quite swiftly; espacially when spread orally exclusively. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Decades of unfettered oral-passings, lead to embellishment; especially during a time where most were already highly superstitious.

Oral tradition isn't transmitted in an unfettered fashion, so I don't think there's any evidence for what you're saying.

My point is that Mark 16:9-20 looks ad hoc. If Mark stopped at 16:8, it would not jive with later writings. My point is that it seems likely that some author might have felt they (had) to add these verses in there (i.e.) 9-20. Otherwise, Mark does not seem to flow with the other three later chosen canonized Gospels. Since Mark was essential, it (has) to 'fit'.

I don't see how this is relevant to anything.

 

[cvanwey]

Non-denomination churches are not major churches. The major branches would include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and older established Protestant churches such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Possibly the Reformed and the rest of Mainline Protestantism as well. You're not going to get chased out of these places with pitchforks for accepting evolution.

If you view the Catholic Church as just another sect with no greater influence than whatever non-denominational megachurch is down the street, I don't think you have a very realistic image of what the Christian world really is.

Rubber-stamping some official label means little these days. Go to any 'major church', and pole each of their individual beliefs - (millions of them). My point is that we have evolution, and we have creationism. They appear diametrically opposed.... Furthermore, it's safe to say that many reject evolution BECAUSE they also see this conflict presented, just as I do. Hence, @Ed1wolf for example, claiming 'biologists must claim truth in macroevolution to continue funding'.....

Regardless of your 'sect', again, the premise to Christianity is that Jesus atoned for the sins of Adam and Eve. Any basic understanding of evolution then presents a large problem to this story... I.E. When was the first official 'human' among this continuing evolutionary process? Again, I see much jockeying, acrobats, etc. from many/most.

Furthermore, it's also safe to say that many whom reconcile both may not fully give it much of a second thought, or, fully understand, in relation to their Christian beliefs. Meaning, it might be safe to say that most may not know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, and how such discovery seems to drive a wedge.... Most don;t care because such topics don;t affect their daily lives. They just believe and go about their lives believing...

And there's also people like you, whom just instead claim all the stuff which does not fit as instead a possible myth or borrowed stories... (i.e.) Genesis

But somehow, the resurrection is real. Why? Because a claim of a post mortem dead person, from a couple of thousand years ago, is not falsifiable. Where-as, evolutionary theory kind of is... Hence, why it becomes easy to dismiss certain parts and retain others.

Where is the problem? It's not at all difficult to view the Garden of Eden as an allegorical rather than historical rendition of the Fall.

How is it allegorical, when you have verses like Luke 3:38 and 1 Timothy 2:13? Original sin is from these two Characters (Adam and Eve specifically). This is Christianity 101 - the basics of the claim (regardless of any sect you mention)... The story states Jesus atoned for their specific failure.

Why would they be in conflict at all?

Please see above...

Oral tradition isn't transmitted in an unfettered fashion, so I don't think there's any evidence for what you're saying.

Google:

What are the types of oral tradition?

Oral narratives and folklore include cosmogonies, folktales and fairy tales, legends, epics, Hawaiian wahi pana, ghost stories, jokes, ballads, chants, proverbs or wise sayings, and mythologies. And yet, “oral traditions” and “folklore” are not coterminous.

I don't see how this is relevant to anything.

Is it relevant to the OP? Not really, that chicken flew the coupe pages ago My point is that the people whom canonized/decided which written documents to be presented in the NT, that it also seemed necessary to make Mark better fit with what later authors wrote. Hence, ala Mark 16:9-20

 

[Ed1wolf]

But the “many people” you speak of – and let’s take you at your word on that – represent a very tiny proportion of Christians. Almost all Christians in the world are Christians because they were born that way. Almost nobody changes religions; it’s a fact of human nature. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to make maps or religions, by the way.

If that is their reason for being a Christian, ie that they were born Christians, then that is evidence that they may not actually be Christians or at the very least have a very immature view of Christianity. Nowhere in the bible does it say you can be born a Christian thru physical birth. Remember Christ said you must experience a second "birth".

ia: Mere coincidence.Let's not waste time here with silly, tenuous associations. Do you actually have proof, a sound argument, or evidence for the existence of God?

No not coincidence. The universe is a diversity within a unity. There is one universe yet billions of galaxies in this one unified universe. This fact is evidence that the cause of the universe is the triune Christian God.

ia: As I said before: you’re all over the place. Pixies, demons and ghosts can not be eliminated as a cause of the universe, as I have been explaining to Silmarien and Redac.
Are you familiar, Ed, with the Flying Spaghetti Monster? He’s a giant plate of living, magical pasta, who created the universe.
Now, can you prove that He didn’t?

Unlike the Christian God your made up causes are designed after the fact and no one claims to believe FSM actually exists or claims to have communicated with it. The Christian God had these characteristics 3000 years before the matching characteristics of the universe were discovered by science. And millions believe that they have communicated with Him and have had experience with Him. No one claims experience with the FSM. As far the others if they stick with the real definitions of pixies, demons and ghosts, and not try to retrofit them, they can be eliminated as causes of this universe. And every major god believed by people can also be eliminated as the cause of this universe.

ia; We’ve already established that you do not understand the theory of evolution. I see no more need to encourage you in your errors. I suggest you go and do some research - go to a school, go to a library, read a website (not a creationist one) and learn better.

No, you have not established that. I am a biologist that has studied evolution for over 30 years. I know a great deal about evolution, probably far more than you do and in fact used to believe it was true.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm only replying here, because the rest of your response carries practically no merit or basis... It basically just states, 'nuh-uh'.

It seems that one of your main epistemological conclusions hinges upon the 'fact' that if the "BB" is demonstrated finite, and, the evolutionary theory/macroevolution is falsified, we now (begin) to have a case for Yahweh...

Well, I can sum up many of your prior threads as such...

What is (your) basis to conclude that string theory is in trouble? And on that very same line of reasoning, if (you) wish to be consistent, what is then also (your) basis to conclude macroevolution is false?

In the end, here's where I'm at... The "universe" could be finite, and macroevolution could be false... And yet, we are absolutely NO closer to demonstrating the likes of Yahweh.

However, on the flip-side, as you have even admitted, if even macroevolution were demonstrated correct, then Genesis is not looking very valid. In which case, you may have no choice but to reconcile that the Bible is not the 'big book of truth' you crack it up to be...

I believe I provided a reference study in an earlier post that showed that there are problems with string theory. Macroevolution does not falsify Christianity, God could very well have created humans using that method. I never admitted that if macroevolution was true, it falsifies Christianity. I said if the majority view of the BB theory is false, then THAT may falsify Christianity.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I think you missed one of my main points. The reason most infer a 'god(s)' or the 'devil', is because of our ability to apply intentional agency. More-so have survived in humans and animals, versus the ones that do not so much. Hence, the reason the vast majority of humans think there exists some higher power. We then wrestle with the 'evidence' to determine if our conclusions for this 'hidden god(s)' and/or 'evil' is/are real or not...

Examples in humans: You hear a noise in your house late at night, after watching a scary movie. You hear a noise in the dark forest. You are in a car wreck, and all passengers die immediately, and you are unharmed. What do you 'infer' first???? I think we know the answers, for the majority

Example in animals: A cat hears a noise and runs, but it was just a glass falling to the ground.

My point being species with the cognitive ability to infer danger, or even intention, seem to do so. And it helps many survive. And the ones that do so, flourish, while the ones which don't, have a high tendency to die off.

And of course intentional agency is not the ONLY reason species can/will survive. However, the ones that invoke agency thrive, while the ones that don't, not-so-much...

So again, this is one of the reasons why the vast majority of humans infer a god and the devil in some capacity....

I looks like you missed MY main point. Organisms that DONT invoke intentional agency thrive FAR MORE than those that DO. Insects and bacteria thrive far beyond humans, so your argument fails. And there is no reason for natural selection to select organisms that invoke intentional agency, so if evolution were true, NO organism would invoke such an agency.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe I provided a reference study in an earlier post that showed that there are problems with string theory. Macroevolution does not falsify Christianity, God could very well have created humans using that method. I never admitted that if macroevolution was true, it falsifies Christianity. I said if the majority view of the BB theory is false, then THAT may falsify Christianity.

I'm not going to sift through literally 100's of posts to squabble over details. Moving forward, I want to take a differing approach...

1. If macroevolution was demonstrated 'true', to your satisfaction, would you feel you have no choice but to then denounce Christianity?

For me, this is not the only reason I now harbor doubt. There exists other reasons; but it sure was a crushing blow for starters.... And as you just stated, demonstration in macroevolution may not sway your faith anyways. And if this is so, then there may exist no reason to address macroevolution any further; as this is a debate arena. And to debate topics, which carry no possible swaying merit, if successfully disputed, appears/seems fruitless moving forward.

If such is the case, then please disregard question/point number 2...

2. You stated 'God could very well have created humans using that method'. Thus, I ask...

Under evolutionary theory, 'Adam' would still have parents, and would not be 'created'. Furthermore, The Bible states Adam was 'created' first, then Eve. The Bible states God used 'parts' from Adam to 'make' Eve. Furthermore, this seems to present a claim, in direct opposition to the later discovery of 'mtEve'? Since you claim to know quite a bit about evolutionary theory, and since this thread is to demonstrate the existence for a God, maybe you could enlighten all of us as to how God would have made (this) process work (evolution)? But I will tell you, seems as though you are going to need to jump through a great many hoops to make this 'claim' fit such a profile....

 

[cvanwey]

I looks like you missed MY main point. Organisms that DONT invoke intentional agency thrive FAR MORE than those that DO. Insects and bacteria thrive far beyond humans, so your argument fails. And there is no reason for natural selection to select organisms that invoke intentional agency, so if evolution were true, NO organism would invoke such an agency.

Again, if you are of the notion that evolutionary theory does not lend credence to your argument for God, one way or another, then disregard all below...

You might want to re-read my related response again:

"Example in animals: A cat hears a noise and runs, but it was just a glass falling to the ground.

My point being species with the cognitive ability to infer danger, or even intention, seem to do so. And it helps many survive. And the ones that do so, flourish, while the ones which don't, have a high tendency to die off.

And of course intentional agency is not the ONLY reason species can/will survive. However, the ones that invoke agency thrive, while the ones that don't, not-so-much..."

This can even be said for the common 'house fly.' Avoiding perceived on-coming danger preserves life. The ones that don't, more likely die off.

It demonstrates evolution by natural selection....

Google:

"The mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution is natural selection. Because resources are limited in nature, organisms with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing the traits to increase in frequency over generations."

Furthermore, The Bible leaves no mention of bacteria. So I will not address 'bacteria.'

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hello, Ed. I'm sorry, but you clearly don't grasp what you're posting about at all. I can't, at the hundred and sixth page on this thread, be bothered to set you straight, especially with the previous hundred and five pages offering little hope of a positive outcome. Thank you for the discussion, though.

What about what I have posted shows that I dont understand it? Both statements I made about the BB theory and QM are scientific facts, go ahead and google the info. It sounds like you have decided to give up trying to refute the arguments for the existence of the Christian God. I will take that as an unable to refute. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Science - Nope

Fraid so. See all my posts about the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.

cv: History - Not outside the the bias-filled book of claims itself...

There are many extrabiblical sources that refer to many things in the bible including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important event in human history.

cv: Philosophy - After 1,000's of years, we are still arguing the same 'ol topics, with no end in cite.Please try again sir

I think you mean, "sight". There will be no end until Christ returns to earth, because most humans do not want the Christian God to exist. So there will always being those trying to rationalize Him away and also He does not provide overwhelming evidence for Himself because He wants people to exercise faith and trust and utilize their free will.

 

[cvanwey]

Fraid so. See all my posts about the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.

I did, and that's why I stand by my conclusion about your 'argument.'

There are many extrabiblical sources that refer to many things in the bible including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important event in human history.

Please provide such claimed 'extra-Biblical' sources for Christ's 'resurrection'?

There will be no end until Christ returns to earth, because most humans do not want the Christian God to exist. So there will always being those trying to rationalize Him away

I'm not one of them... I tried to believe in Him for decades. But after reading the Bible's claims, verses human discovery, I later had no choice but to have much doubt, to say the least.

I now honestly think He doesn't exist postmortem? Hence, why humans will never truly see any such 'second coming.' Do you have any evidence of His continued existence; which might actually convince me of His mere continued presence beyond any natural human death?

He does not provide overwhelming evidence for Himself because He wants people to exercise faith and trust and utilize their free will.

This response appears bogus. The Bible presents many 'events' where He clearly demonstrated His existence. I just now doubt such events of the supernatural were indeed 'factual.'

However, even if God presented to me perfect knowledge of His mere existence, there might be just as much of a chance that I would decide to reject His presented offering, verses accept it.... Knowledge of His existence does not appear to ruin freewill.

 

[Ed1wolf]

In other words, the answer to my question " Do you have any experience of how it works, or if it works, outside of this universe?” is no, you don’t. This really sums up much of the thread: Christians talking with unwarranted confidence about things they know very little about.

You failed to demonstrate that it is not rational to assume the laws of logic operate 'outside' the universe.

ia: Wrong on all counts.
Minds are just an effect of physical brains thinking.

Even if that is true, though there is evidence it is not, it still doesn't mean that the effect, ie the mind, is physical.

ia: Numbers are just a description we give to physical things. The laws of logic and physics are nothing more than descriptions of the ways that physical things work; and the “evidence” that NDEs are real comes down to nothing more than anecdotes.

No, there were two rocks under a tree 65 mya, long before humans existed. And the laws of logic existed 65 mya, for example two T. Rexes could not be in the same place at the same time. Ie the law of non-contradiction. While the laws of physics are a description of the actions of matter, the laws also cause the behavior. There are NDEs validated by neurologists where the person gained knowledge that would have been impossible for them to know otherwise.

ia; Hehe. Hilarious!

Nevertheless true.

ia: In other words, you have no evidence and no reasonable people on your side.

Genetic fallacy.

ia: “A universe like ours”? Had a lot of experience with universes, have you?
And that's really it in a nutshell. To think that we can have any idea what is happening before or outside the universe is unwarranted, and to conclude that there is some immaterial (ie, impossible) consciousness is just silly. Remembering that the burden of proof is on theists who assert that a God exists, we can see that it remains, as usual, unmet.

Scientists can determine what multiple universes would look like by tweaking the laws of physics. So yes, theoretically we can experience many types of universes. Using logic we can get a good idea of what caused the universe to come into existence. See above where I demonstrated that it is rational to assume the laws of logic are valid "outside" the universe. Otherwise we would never learn anything.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It sounds like your worldview supports your worldview.

No, it LOOKS like reality supports the Christian Worldview.