Argument for God's existence.

HitchSlap · Apr 24, 2019

gradyll said:
faith just means trust.

It's been explained numerous times there are two definitions of faith. Why do you continue with this equivocation? Are you on the spectrum? If so, no shame, but it might help the rest of us understand where you're coming from.

createdtoworship · Apr 24, 2019

HitchSlap said:
It's been explained numerous times there are two definitions of faith. Why do you continue with this equivocation? Are you on the spectrum? If so, no shame, but it might help the rest of us understand where you're coming from.

actually you posted the definition of faith once, and when you did I assured you that trust is in the first and primary definition while religious faith was a secondary definition. That fact that I define faith as trust is according to the same source you posted (as the primary definition).

HitchSlap · Apr 24, 2019

gradyll said:
actually you posted the definition of faith once, and when you did I assured you that trust is in the first and primary definition while religious faith was a secondary definition. That fact that I define faith as trust is according to the same source you posted (as the primary definition).

In that case, neither of us have a religious faith then.

Moral Orel · Apr 24, 2019

gradyll said:
it's wikipedia, you can't get much more biased. But you are correct it's my source. But try to find a perfect source is few and far between. But I do find it amusing that they too found a link between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's just proves to me that there is in fact a link. A link that is so dead on that they have to specifically correct it with no citation to peer review or other scientific work proving that there is no link. So in conclusion logic dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same. Every operative principle of spontaneous generation carries forward into abiogenesis. Creation of the cell from literally nothing. Creation of DNA from no source code, creation of protein from muddy water electrocuted by lightening. It's spontaneous generation right there.

They probably felt the need to specifically mention that they're different because of folks trying to conflate the two things. They aren't the same thing, though. Abiogenesis doesn't involve "creation of the cell from literally nothing" so you're wrong.

cvanwey · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
yes sir it is.

if you are not going to actually reply to what I said, and admit your error than I can't help you. Honesty is first and foremost. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can I do it for you? Thanks for the debate. But I am done with this for now. I will adress other posters but not yourself. I have given you half a dozen or more chances to confess that you use faith and you would not admit that. So I won't answer your questions. I will mark your user for unblocking in two weeks. Thanks again. Thanks for being courteous and in general civilized in your debate. But part of debate is admitting when we make mistakes. And you can't seem to do that, so I feel that is the first step in any civil debate is admitting when we make mistakes. I thank you for your posts and for staying kind.

You already told me you blocked me for 'two weeks'. It appears to be (you), whom is not being honest. In post #325, you stated 'In two weeks I will unblock you again. I hope we can chat in other thread.' This post of yours was only a few days ago.

You have avoided basically everything in which I stated, called me dishonest, and also change the subject. No wonder you are surprised when people remain 'courteous'.

I answered everything you've supplied quite honestly and sufficiently. Your 'shell game' tactics might demonstrate frustrating to others, but I, on the other hand, find it telling.

If you are not going to bother addressing my earnest response, in post #357, then there really is nowhere productive to go with you.

gaara4158 · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
it's wikipedia, you can't get much more biased. But you are correct it's my source. But try to find a perfect source is few and far between. But I do find it amusing that they too found a link between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. It's just proves to me that there is in fact a link. A link that is so dead on that they have to specifically correct it with no citation to peer review or other scientific work proving that there is no link. So in conclusion logic dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same. Every operative principle of spontaneous generation carries forward into abiogenesis. Creation of the cell from literally nothing. Creation of DNA from no source code, creation of protein from muddy water electrocuted by lightening. It's spontaneous generation right there.

You didn’t respond to my last refutation of your argument, and that’s fine, but this response here is one that unequivocally forces me to assume you are a troll. You use Wikipedia as a source, then brush it off as “biased” when it contradicts you then take that contradiction as evidence that you are indeed correct. I know you know better than that. I can’t take your posts seriously anymore.

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

gaara4158 said:
You didn’t respond to my last refutation of your argument, and that’s fine, but this response here is one that unequivocally forces me to assume you are a troll. You use Wikipedia as a source, then brush it off as “biased” when it contradicts you then take that contradiction as evidence that you are indeed correct. I know you know better than that. I can’t take your posts seriously anymore.

wikipedia has many errors, I only use it because it is widely used as a quick source of information. And because it has a high priority with google. So it was my laziness, I apologize. But yes, logic itself dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same, if you were not held up by bias you would clearly see the connection. In fact here is a peer review that link spontaneous generation with biogenesis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519377900443, in conclusion I deal with abiogenesis and successfully refute it's most compelling argument here: Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

If you link to your post, I can reply to it. I went back but for some reason it's giving me troubles.

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

I just ran accross this article: 2009 survey -51 percent of scientists believe in a higher power.

Scientists and Belief

I added it to the OP for further discussion.

If it is not an appeal to the masses as user cvanwey argues then I suppose, it isn't for me either? I could not link to his post denying his use of appealing to the majority of scientists believing in basic facts I was asking him for. But if you take exception with my use of it here, please address that post as well, in all fairness. You cannot both disprove fallacy and use it at the same time. It was the second post, where he denies and says "the only fallacy I see here." Please actually reply to his post and correct the error, then I will correct mine here. But only afterward.

gaara4158 · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
wikipedia has many errors, I only use it because it is widely used as a quick source of information. And because it has a high priority with google. So it was my laziness, I apologize. But yes, logic itself dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same, if you were not held up by bias you would clearly see the connection. In fact here is a peer review that link spontaneous generation with biogenesis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519377900443, in conclusion I deal with abiogenesis and successfully refute it's most compelling argument here: Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

If you link to your post, I can reply to it. I went back but for some reason it's giving me troubles.

That’s ok. I’m less concerned about what you think of my counterarguments than I am about how you come to believe the things you believe. Let’s start from there.

When you’re reading a scientific article, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, how do you determine how likely its findings are to be true?

Skreeper · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
wikipedia has many errors, I only use it because it is widely used as a quick source of information. And because it has a high priority with google. So it was my laziness, I apologize. But yes, logic itself dictates that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are one and the same, if you were not held up by bias you would clearly see the connection. In fact here is a peer review that link spontaneous generation with biogenesis: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519377900443, in conclusion I deal with abiogenesis and successfully refute it's most compelling argument here: Spontaneous Life Generation in Lab is Impossible

If you link to your post, I can reply to it. I went back but for some reason it's giving me troubles.

That's not a peer reviewed study. That's an article from 1977 written by Hubert Yockey, who was a physicist.

It really ironic, I told you what the appeal to authority fallacy really is and now you just ignored it.

Why would you cite a physicist when talking about abiogenesis??? That's like me asking my dentist what his recommendation for my stocks are.

Can you find a peer reviewed study refuting abiogenesis by an actual biologist?

Hawkins · Apr 25, 2019

gaara4158 said:
Can you provide evidence for God without flailing and blustering about proof for everyday facts we all accept? Or is obfuscating integral to your apologetics?

If humans can gather evidence of the Christianity God, it simultaneously means no humans can be saved. Christianity is all about a God won't show up to majority due to a final covenant stating that humans need faith (thus no evidence) to be saved.

If on the other hand, God doesn't show up at all, then humans don't even know such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up to His chosen eyewitnesses and for them to write down their testimonies for such a truth to convey. That's no other way round!

That said. The fundamental way for humans in majority to reach a truth (of any kind) is by means of human witnessing, not evidence. That's why 99% humans know for a fact that black holes exist don't actually have the evidence. They have faith that our scientists (direct eyewitnesses) have the evidence, they have faith in the credibility of our scientists (and our media as well). That's what they have.

This is already about a scientific truth, not to mention other kinds of truth such human history happened thousand years ago.

That said. Your line of reasoning is an educated one based off a delusional assumption that everything can be evidenced like a science. This is however far from what is true in reality!

gaara4158 · Apr 25, 2019

Hawkins said:
If humans can gather evidence of the Christianity God, it simultaneously means no humans can be saved. Christianity is all about a God won't show up to majority due to a final covenant stating that humans need faith (thus no evidence) to be saved.

If on the other hand, God doesn't show up at all, then humans don't even know such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up to His chosen eyewitnesses and for them to write down their testimonies for such a truth to convey. That's no other way round!

That said. The fundamental way for humans in majority to reach a truth (of any kind) is by means of human witnessing, not evidence. That's why 99% humans know for a fact that black holes exist don't actually have the evidence. They have faith that our scientists (direct eyewitnesses) have the evidence, they have faith in the credibility of our scientists (and our media as well). That's what they have.

This is already about a scientific truth, not to mention other kinds of truth such human history happened thousand years ago.

That said. Your line of reasoning is an educated one based off a delusional assumption that everything can be evidenced like a science. This is however far from what is true in reality!

I’m well aware of the futility of evidence-based apologetics, having authored a thread on that very topic myself. But this user claimed to have evidence, so I held him to it.

ToddNotTodd · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
When you turned on your computer to log in to christian forums, did you have blind faith that your computer fan is clean of lint and working properly and that it won't over heat, or did you keep a can of dusting air on the side of your computer? I expect you used blind faith in both situations. There is no evidence that a computer fan must work right now, nor evidence that a tire must stay inflated. Thats blind faith, didn't you say you didn't use blind faith?

If that's your definition of blind faith, then you're using a definition I don't agree with. I would define blind faith as non evidence based faith. I don't employ blind faith as I define it.

I have evidence from experience that computer fans in general rarely fail. I have evidence from research that the fans in the type of computer I use rarely fail. I have experiential evidence that I regularly clean out my fan. So I have a high degree of confidence that, due to this evidence, on any given day my computer fan will work as intended.

As for my tires, I have experiential evidence that the tread on my tires is acceptable, because I regularly check them. I have evidence from research that the type of tires I have are not generally defective. I can't say that I won't run over something that blows one of my tires, so I have a lesser degree of confidence in my tires than in my computer fan. But there's no reason to leave the house earlier, since I experiential evidence that running over something that results in a blown tire is exceedingly rare. So risk assessment indicates that I don't see it as likely. I do however have a spare tire and a jack in the very unlikely case it does happen.

Now let's contrast these very ordinary, non blind faith based, situations with an extraordinary one. If someone said they were abducted by aliens, and those aliens granted that person the power of flight, would you blindly believe that person, or would you ask for evidence the claim is true?

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

Skreeper said:
That's not a peer reviewed study. That's an article from 1977 written by Hubert Yockey, who was a physicist.

It really ironic, I told you what the appeal to authority fallacy really is and now you just ignored it.

Why would you cite a physicist when talking about abiogenesis??? That's like me asking my dentist what his recommendation for my stocks are.

Can you find a peer reviewed study refuting abiogenesis by an actual biologist?

At least I quote some resources, I am the only one here doing so. But fundamentally it fails the logical test, if every aspect of spontaneous generation, also works for abiogenesis, well....then....there you have it.

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

Hawkins said:
If humans can gather evidence of the Christianity God, it simultaneously means no humans can be saved. Christianity is all about a God won't show up to majority due to a final covenant stating that humans need faith (thus no evidence) to be saved.

If on the other hand, God doesn't show up at all, then humans don't even know such a covenant exists. The only way which works is for God to show up to His chosen eyewitnesses and for them to write down their testimonies for such a truth to convey. That's no other way round!

That said. The fundamental way for humans in majority to reach a truth (of any kind) is by means of human witnessing, not evidence. That's why 99% humans know for a fact that black holes exist don't actually have the evidence. They have faith that our scientists (direct eyewitnesses) have the evidence, they have faith in the credibility of our scientists (and our media as well). That's what they have.

This is already about a scientific truth, not to mention other kinds of truth such human history happened thousand years ago.

That said. Your line of reasoning is an educated one based off a delusional assumption that everything can be evidenced like a science. This is however far from what is true in reality!

I assume you were not talking to me, I agree with most of what you said. The parts that I could understand. I agree that all facts in the known universe are held by faith in those who study them. And when you relay your studies in the form of peer review (which is the recommended source for scientific journals), someone must have faith that you relayed your information accurately. Science is more about faith that it is about evidence. Because of the fact there are more assumptions, than proof. Atheists like to mock Christianity because it is a faith based system not a science based system. However we see that that does not work out for them.

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

gaara4158 said:
I’m well aware of the futility of evidence-based apologetics, having authored a thread on that very topic myself. But this user claimed to have evidence, so I held him to it.

there is evidence, just not proof. So in order to have a universe that contains intelligence, and love, whatever created the universe has to contain it. Can you prove a multiverse has love? or intelligence? I can prove God does. I can say that the reason He created us was in order to have something to love. A multiverse creating something by love with intelligence is irrational. What universe or parallel universe is intelligent, and has emotion? That is the characteristics of a person. So if you believe the multiverse was intelligent and loving, then at that point I say that your view is the same as theism. In other words you at that point are a theist, because you are describing God.

createdtoworship · Apr 25, 2019

ToddNotTodd said:
If that's your definition of blind faith, then you're using a definition I don't agree with. I would define blind faith as non evidence based faith. I don't employ blind faith as I define it.

I have evidence from experience that computer fans in general rarely fail. I have evidence from research that the fans in the type of computer I use rarely fail. I have experiential evidence that I regularly clean out my fan. So I have a high degree of confidence that, due to this evidence, on any given day my computer fan will work as intended.

As for my tires, I have experiential evidence that the tread on my tires is acceptable, because I regularly check them. I have evidence from research that the type of tires I have are not generally defective. I can't say that I won't run over something that blows one of my tires, so I have a lesser degree of confidence in my tires than in my computer fan. But there's no reason to leave the house earlier, since I experiential evidence that running over something that results in a blown tire is exceedingly rare. So risk assessment indicates that I don't see it as likely. I do however have a spare tire and a jack in the very unlikely case it does happen.

Now let's contrast these very ordinary, non blind faith based, situations with an extraordinary one. If someone said they were abducted by aliens, and those aliens granted that person the power of flight, would you blindly believe that person, or would you ask for evidence the claim is true?

So you admit you have faith that this fan is not going to fail? Your faith is based on evidence, so it's not a blind faith, but it is genuine faith. As you don't have proof that your fan will fail.

Moral Orel · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
So in order to have a universe that contains intelligence, and love, whatever created the universe has to contain it.

Why?

ToddNotTodd · Apr 25, 2019

gradyll said:
So you admit you have faith that this fan is not going to fail? Your faith is based on evidence, so it's not a blind faith, but it is genuine faith. As you don't have proof that your fan will fail.

With the number of times that I’ve said to you that proof is only for math and alcohol, you seem to be either not listening to me, or purposely trying to antagonize me.

And as I’ve already said, I have varying degrees of confidence. I personally don’t use the word faith, but if you want to equate the two words for some reason, knock yourself out.

So... do you ask for evidence from the person who says they were abducted or not?

ToddNotTodd · Apr 25, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
Why?

Reasons, of course...

Argument for God's existence.

PROUDLY PRIMATE

In the grip of grace

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Gen Alpha Dad

Well-Known Member

Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Iconoclast

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Iconoclast

Iconoclast

Similar threads