Argument for God's existence.

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Nothing in your response addressed my points. But then, at the end, you stated you still disagree? Why do you disagree?

You Haven't answered the major problem that On day one we have "evening and morning" and day 4 we have the planets showing up !!! ??

It's not literal. It has a ancient Jewish prophetic code meaning in it. There's a dual context because the written terms have to moved around.
Age 1 can be billions of years age 7 the sabbath can be a day. An age is a unspecified period of time in this context.

So I don't agree that the written terms have to be a uniform period of time.
 
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
You Haven't answered the major problem that On day one we have "evening and morning" and day 4 we have the planets showing up !!! ??

It's not literal. It has a ancient Jewish prophetic code meaning in it. There's a dual context because the written terms have to moved around.
Age 1 can be billions of years age 7 the sabbath can be a day. An age is a unspecified period of time in this context.

So I don't agree that the written terms have to be a uniform period of time.

I'm going to fast forward to the end.... Rather than to address your point, or even further my point, below are the questions of the day.

1. Assuming everything you state is true of this 'ancient Jewish prophetic code', what was the author's original intent when this stuff was written down?


2. Was this 'code' actually implied during the time it was written down, or, instead maybe added post hoc by translators only after the scientific revolution?

3. Why does a large population of evangelicals, and members here, instead translate such Genesis verses as literal, as in the English translation?

4. Why are the 'young earth creationists' incorrect, while you are instead correct?

Above lies the crux of my case....
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Your questions really are beside the point but I will try to answer them.

1. Assuming everything you state is true of this 'ancient Jewish prophetic code', what was the author's original intent when this stuff was written down?

Many of the prophets didn't know what they were writing. It was God's divine inspiration. Daniel with the book of Daniel. John with the book of Revelation. David with his psalms just to name a few. they didn't know what they were writing down.

David’s prophecy in Psalm 34

20 He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken.

Amazingly that was written approximately 500 years before Christ. Do you think David knew Christ's bones wouldn't be broken on the cross when the other 2 crucified with him, legs were broken ?

2. Was this 'code' actually implied during the time it was written down, or, instead maybe added post hoc by translators only after the scientific revolution?

Copies of genesis written well before the scientific revolution exist. So this is not possible.
3. Why does a large population of evangelicals, and members here, instead translate such Genesis verses as literal, as in the English translation?

Why do the major religions interpret the bible differently ? Why do many denominations interpret the bible differently ? there are many answers to that question that I don't have time for. People interpreting the bible differently is not unusual

4. Why are the 'young earth creationists' incorrect, while you are instead correct?

because of what Genesis 1 says. Logic. Many Christians think what I am saying is the right interpretation but sadly I didn't come up with that on my own. I got it from other sources.
 
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
Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning

Day 2 : Water separated from sky

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 6 Animals, Man

Day 7 sabbath.


Ok how can you have Night and day on day 1 when the sun the moon show up on day 4 .
How would the earth and vegetation on day 3 survive the planets showing up on day 4 again!!!

Only we employ a Jew prophetic literal technique by jumping verses.

Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning --- Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 2 : Water separated from sky --- Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Day 6 Animals, Man


Yom age Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets.
Yom age Water separated from sky Birds, creatures of the sea.
Yom age Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Animals, Man

Day 1 day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Important for Jewish calendar.

So as you see it has a clever dual meaning and it changes context. I disagree that the ages have to be uniform in time.

sir all of the same problems carry over if you take night and day to mean a longer period of time, you just have plants living longer without sun, plants however can live a day or two with out sun. But who is to say that God himself was not the light of the universe before? After all God is light, there is no reason to assume he created all of existence in utter darkness, I am sure he turned on the lights somehow, but he may not have. It doesn't say. But the point is this, that phrase is typical of a jewish twenty four hour period. I think the point is to show it was in fact a 24 hour period. I don't think the source of light is even relevant.
 
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
Thanks for the info, I'll check them out ... also Hugh Ross has some really interesting videos as well.

God Bless.
yes hugh ross, is a theistic evolutionist, just so you know.
 
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'm sorry, your personal opinion on the Dover Trial carries no weight whatsoever.

Prove it. Show me these works of the Discovery Institute which are now accepted by the scientific world as successfully disproving the theory of evolution. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain how the "new" version of ID is different to the "old" version.

At the Dover trial all of the people on the pro-ID side claimed to have no religious motives at all. It was shown that they were lying.
Also, I found it interesting looking at the "Writers" page on this site. Quite a gallery of rogues! There is Michael Behe, who was shown to be a liar at the Dover Trial, and Jonathan Wells, who is on record as saying that he took a degree in biology specifically for the purpose of better being able to destroy Darwinism. It may interest you to know that both of these people were interviewed for the book "Case for the Creator" by Christian pastor

That's exactly what the pro-ID side argued at Dover as well. Never the less, ID was still ruled to be a form of creationism. And did you know that they looked at the book, Pandas and People, and found that it had originally been a Creationist "textbook" and that they had simple replaced each instance of the word "creationist" with "intelligent design proponent". In one case, they created a sort of transitional fossil by writing "cdesign proponentstist".

It's nothing but the same tired old watchmaker argument.

The evolution of the eye has been very well studied, so your argument fails.
Eye Evolution
you bring up many things here, I can only refer to people I have interviewed from discover institute myself, I cannot say what other ID'ers believe. Some may be creationists, but the two are not the same. Yet other creationists may use ID in their books, like you mention. That does not make ID creationism. That is like saying because a christian quotes hillary clinton on a political topic, that she is therefore christian. It simply doesn't follow, this is a non sequitur fallacy. You mention that the proponents lied in trial, yet you quote talk origins which is distinctively biased against both creationism and ID. I don't trust their conclusions. Say for example I was an ID scientist and I went to court over getting ID into schools purely on a scientific level. And the first thing the attorney said was, "Sir mr. gradyLL do you believe in God?" Me being a christian I would say, "yes." And then they would say, sir, mr. gradyLL do you believe the designer of the universe is best described as a "christian God." And I would say, "yes" . Then they could say, well sir, mr gradyLL how can you prove to us that your personal views of the designer, will not come out in your classroom setting? And I would not be able to answer that. I cannot prove to him that I would not talk about my own opinions. I would for sure purpose to keep it to a scientific only approach, which I have done in these threads. I would not talk about the designer as a God at all, because the curriculum would not have God in it. But to those looking on the outside, I was just looking to spread my religion and use science as a means to do so. And I would not be able to convince them otherwise, because they too have biases they must overcome.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
sir all of the same problems carry over if you take night and day to mean a longer period of time, you just have plants living longer without sun, plants however can live a day or two with out sun. But who is to say that God himself was not the light of the universe before? After all God is light, there is no reason to assume he created all of existence in utter darkness, I am sure he turned on the lights somehow, but he may not have. It doesn't say. But the point is this, that phrase is typical of a jewish twenty four hour period. I think the point is to show it was in fact a 24 hour period. I don't think the source of light is even relevant.

Hmm lol
The same problems do not carry over. You obviously don't understand. Night and day, Evening, morning ,The sun the moon the planets are together in the first age.


Yom age Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets.
Yom age Water separated from sky Birds, creatures of the sea.

Yom age Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Animals, Man

Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning

Day 2 : Water separated from sky

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 6 Animals, Man

Day 7 sabbath.

Day 1 is talking about Night and day Evening and morning. How can you have that with Gods light when your are getting darkness and light. You need the Sun and the moon on day 4

Only we employ a Jew prophetic literal technique by jumping verses.

Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning --- Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 2 : Water separated from sky --- Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Day 6 Animals, Man
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it tricky? One can always assume something is true for the sake of argument. Is this so different?

I'm not sure. Usually if you're just assuming something is true for the sake of argument, you don't actually think it's true. So the question would be whether you actually think the universe has a cause or not.

The argument is an attempted proof of God's existence, which includes an assumption of cause and effect. It's not up to us to provide an alternative, but to evaluate if the proof is successful. A position of "I don't know" on the topic of causality actually opposes the assumption of causality. If we can't be sure that cause and effect applies in all cases, then the assumption may be incorrect, and so the proof is insufficient.

One problem is that by taking this path, the atheist commits epistemological suicide. Our understanding of reality is built upon the concept of causality, so you cannot oppose it without destroying the possibility of empirical knowledge altogether. I call this a vorpal sword counterargument, since the type of foundational logical principle being questioned here is required in other areas as well. If an argument against theism destroys empirical science as well, then there is a problem with the argument.

Of course, an atheist is within their rights to reject both theism and science on the grounds that knowledge is impossible, though I don't think it makes for a very interesting argument. In fact, I find it a deeply problematic one, since if we find ourselves in a position whereby rational approaches lead directly to theism, and one must attack the possibility of knowledge to defend atheism, that is not a terribly good sign for atheism. One should not be required to adopt irrationalism to hold such a view, so atheist apologists ought to do considerably more than argue that we can't know things.

Another serious issue that seldom comes up is standard of proof. It seems to me that you're claiming that a theistic argument ought to prove all of its axioms beyond any possible doubt, which is a level of certainty that is unattainable in any field. We cannot even be sure that causality is going to remain in effect from one moment to the next, but nobody in their right mind is going to say that the laws of physics provide an insufficient model of physical reality. Why require an impossible degree of certainty here?
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
you seem like a nice rational person, maybe you have evidence of macro evolution, no one else here does. I have debated evolutionists almost fifteen years, and I have debated biologists, even tracking down scientists emails and having conversations with them. I didn't find any evidence of macro evolution. People assume it true because of one thing, the scientific consensus. But they have never literally studied it for themselves, to see if it was true. If the scientists said there were unicorns on mars, they would believe it.

I have a fairly low opinion of the scientific community, but common descent has been all but confirmed: The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
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

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure. Usually if you're just assuming something is true for the sake of argument, you don't actually think it's true. So the question would be whether you actually think the universe has a cause or not.

I think it's most likely that the universe had a cause. I'm willing to express a strong bias, but not a firm belief.

Our understanding of reality is built upon the concept of causality, so you cannot oppose it without destroying the possibility of empirical knowledge altogether.

I disagree. We don't tear down causality by speculating that in some cases (so far confined to the quantum realm) it may not work as we understand it.

Another serious issue that seldom comes up is standard of proof. It seems to me that you're claiming that a theistic argument ought to prove all of its axioms beyond any possible doubt, which is a level of certainty that is unattainable in any field. We cannot even be sure that causality is going to remain in effect from one moment to the next, but nobody in their right mind is going to say that the laws of physics provide an insufficient model of physical reality. Why require an impossible degree of certainty here?

One does not go about proving scientific theories. If the OP claims to have a proof, then he has to expect tight scrutiny.

Personally, I'm not the type to challenge the OP about the causality thing. I have other problems with the proof.
 
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
Hmm lol
The same problems do not carry over. You obviously don't understand. Night and day, Evening, morning ,The sun the moon the planets are together in the first age.


Yom age Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets.
Yom age Water separated from sky Birds, creatures of the sea.

Yom age Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Animals, Man

Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning

Day 2 : Water separated from sky

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 6 Animals, Man

Day 7 sabbath.

Day 1 is talking about Night and day Evening and morning. How can you have that with Gods light when your are getting darkness and light. You need the Sun and the moon on day 4

Only we employ a Jew prophetic literal technique by jumping verses.

Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning --- Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 2 : Water separated from sky --- Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Day 6 Animals, Man
Sir if each day is vast lengths of time, how can plants live without sun that long. Let's start here. Secondly, God already used the term year. Why not say He created the universe in a million years, or whatever? Why use the term day? It's not a straight forward way to write a Bible thats for sure. Granted in other places a day can equal a thousand years. But do the math, if you say each day equaled a thousand years thats only 7 thousand years. That not that much time evolutionarily speaking. Most evolutionists want billions of years of time. So the day age theory does not seem to work out too well. The other option for you is the gap theory. Some theistic evolutionists believe that one. But that puts death before the fall of man, which does not make much theological sense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I disagree. We don't tear down causality by speculating that in some cases (so far confined to the quantum realm) it may not work as we understand it.

Those are two different claims. Causality as a principle can be a fundamental aspect of reality even if causality doesn't always work in the way we have come to think it does. As long as there are potential explanations for the way that reality functions, then there is no problem.

Toss out the possibility of an explanation, however, and you're in a lot of trouble. I don't think quantum physics is the best counterexample, because I would say that causality does go out the window if what we experience isn't an emergent property of whatever form of causality is occurring at the quantum level. If there's no causality there, then I don't see why there would be any anywhere else either.

One does not go about proving scientific theories. If the OP claims to have a proof, then he has to expect tight scrutiny.

Personally, I'm not the type to challenge the OP about the causality thing. I have other problems with the proof.

A proof is just a type of argument that begins with axioms, follows a logical pathway (preferably formalized), and ends with a conclusion. It's a specific format used in mathematics and logic, not necessarily a heightened epistemological claim.

Granted, I have no idea if the OP meant it like this, but the fact remains. If someone is going to accept a scientific claim, but reject a theistic argument because they suddenly decided that they don't believe in causality, that is a problem. Though yeah, there are usually better issues to focus on, especially with the Kalam, so it always irritates me when people play the irrationalist card instead.
 
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:
I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.

cv: 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.
The BB theory is just as much a theory as evolution and in fact is a theory based on much greater evidence than evolution. And the overwhelming majority of cosmologists believe that the universe is not eternal and time had a definite beginning.

Ed1wolf said:
There are no misses.

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

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

cv: 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.'
But there are rational speculations and irrational speculations, the conclusion that there is a Personal Cause for the BB is the rational conclusion. The others are irrational.

Ed1wolf said:
The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.

cv: What specific 'characteristics' of this universe lend itself exclusively to Yahweh?
The universe is a diversity within a unity, which is exactly the same characteristic of the Christian God, this is similar to the markers that art experts use to determine who created a certain piece of art. Artistic Creators leave "fingerprints" that reflect things about themselves. And its four main characteristics were taught in His word 3000 years before they were discovered by scientists, the only religious book that does so.

cv: '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?
You are oblivious because so many people including Christians dont learn the evidence.

Ed1wolf said:
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.

cv: 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.'

Yes, but the origin of this characteristic is very unlikely to be the result of evolution as I demonstrated. So your point is actually evidence for a Creator.
 
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
contradiction.png
 
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

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Many people try to prove God's existence with irreducible complexity. But you don't even need to do that. All that is needed is this.... If you have a painting how do you prove there was a painter? It's inherent. If you see something made how do you prove there was a maker that made it? It's inherent. We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism. I am simply talking about cause and effect. If you see something made, it had a maker, if you see something painted it had a painter. The universe is here. So it boils down to the fact that it made itself from nothing, or something made it. Period.
How do you know the Universe has not existed eternally?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
you bring up many things here, I can only refer to people I have interviewed from discover institute myself, I cannot say what other ID'ers believe. Some may be creationists, but the two are not the same. Yet other creationists may use ID in their books, like you mention. That does not make ID creationism. That is like saying because a christian quotes hillary clinton on a political topic, that she is therefore christian. It simply doesn't follow, this is a non sequitur fallacy. You mention that the proponents lied in trial, yet you quote talk origins which is distinctively biased against both creationism and ID. I don't trust their conclusions. Say for example I was an ID scientist and I went to court over getting ID into schools purely on a scientific level. And the first thing the attorney said was, "Sir mr. gradyLL do you believe in God?" Me being a christian I would say, "yes." And then they would say, sir, mr. gradyLL do you believe the designer of the universe is best described as a "christian God." And I would say, "yes" . Then they could say, well sir, mr gradyLL how can you prove to us that your personal views of the designer, will not come out in your classroom setting? And I would not be able to answer that. I cannot prove to him that I would not talk about my own opinions. I would for sure purpose to keep it to a scientific only approach, which I have done in these threads. I would not talk about the designer as a God at all, because the curriculum would not have God in it. But to those looking on the outside, I was just looking to spread my religion and use science as a means to do so. And I would not be able to convince them otherwise, because they too have biases they must overcome.
Quite a lot we've got to deal with here!

First of all, you haven't yet made an attempt to show any scientific publications the Discovery Institute has made about evolution in peer-reviewed publications, as I asked you to. I understand you may need more time to look these up, but the truth is, you're not going to find much at all. ID people publish as much as they can, of course, because they very much want people to think ID is a science; but the only papers they write which do get published in respectable peer-reviewed journals are on subjects unrelated to ID. Michael Behe, of course, does happen to be a real and respected biologist; but his university is nevertheless on record as saying that while they respect his freedom of speech, his views on ID do not represent them.

Second, you said that "evolution fails miserably on a most basic level" because it is unable to explain how the eye evolves. I trust you have now had time to see that this is quite false from the link I posted? Biologists understand the evolution of the eye very well. Are you now willing to admit that?

Thirdly, you seem to think that you can ignore the quotes from the Dover trial because they come via Talk Origins. You are quite incorrect about this, so please do try to listen as I explain:
I am not quoting Talk Origins to you. I am using the unedited records of the Dover Trial, which just happen to be on the Talk Origins website for ease of access. What you are reading are the unedited words of Judge Jones, as he points out how the trial has proved that ID is a form of creationism, ID is a pseudoscience and not a real science at all, and that the ID side lied and acted deceitfully in the most blatant ways.

Finally, to address your ideas above: no, the reason you would not be allowed to teach Intelligent Design as science has nothing at all to do with whether you yourself believe in God or not. It is, quite simply, because Intelligent Design is not science. You would not be allowed to teach ID in a science class for the same reason you would not be allowed to teach astrology (interestingly, when pressed on this in the trial, the ID side was forced to admit that, under their definition of science, astrology would also qualify). As Judge Jones put it:
"To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
Now gradyll, I understand that you don't want to do a lot of reading. You've mentioned it several times before, and I sympathise. I even agree with you. But if you're going to call yourself an ID proponent you really will have to do a minimum of research on the Dover Trial, because it's the most important thing which happened to ID in its decades-long history - getting the chance to put its case, being cross-examined on it, and a judgement being made on it. It seems clear that you know nothing about the Dover Trial at all, and so how can anyone take your ideas seriously?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think it's most likely that the universe had a cause. I'm willing to express a strong bias, but not a firm belief.



I disagree. We don't tear down causality by speculating that in some cases (so far confined to the quantum realm) it may not work as we understand it.



One does not go about proving scientific theories. If the OP claims to have a proof, then he has to expect tight scrutiny.

Personally, I'm not the type to challenge the OP about the causality thing. I have other problems with the proof.
You might read my post 1837,
 
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

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
You might read my post 1837,

Yes, well, I wasn't quite sure where you were going with that. You were speculating that with an infinite time in history, intelligent life might have popped up before us. As far as we've been able to determine, though, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Any intelligence prior to the big bang probably would be outside the known universe somehow. No telling how that would work.

If intelligence can develop naturally, then it's likely someone beat us to it, since it's a big universe. We'll probably never meet them, though.

Intelligence is pretty much processing power plus data storage. Super intelligence is just more of that. So greater intelligence is likely eventually, especially if we start plugging cybernetics into our brains. If we don't kill ourselves off first.
 
Upvote 0