Argument for God's existence.

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok to make it clearer I should of written : The ancient Israelites with their culture and language, wrote the old testament.
I agree it was inspired by God.

In their language yom is many types of period of time. Not just a day. Logic does demand that we don't interpret the Genesis one piece of prose as a literal piece of writing. But I've done this to death. lol
this is just playing with words and time wasting for me now.

So God bless
 
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 have showed you this before, but this is for silmarien to see too, because your posts are inaccurate.

http://www.discovery.org/a/3191

What post is inaccurate? The one you quoted was just a correction on terminology, whereas the one you never responded to was about the genetic evidence for common descent. Neither is inaccurate.

I have made no mention of Intelligent Design at all in this thread--the criticism that you jumped on was directed specifically at Creationists. I know that they're not the same thing, and it's only Creationism that actively pretends that science doesn't exist.

I really don't care about ID. I don't have much use for it, since I don't trust people who don't distinguish between metaphysics and science, but knock yourself out, if that's what you're into.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang, that the entire Universe is spreading apart, with distant galaxies speeding away from us in all directions. Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today. But to call this concept merely a theory is to misjudge the overwhelming amount of evidence.

There are separate lines of evidence, each of which independently points towards this as the origin story for our Universe. The first came with the amazing discovery that almost all galaxies are moving away from us.


In 1912, Vesto Slipher calculated the speed and direction of “spiral nebulae” by measuring the change in the wavelengths of light coming from them. He realized that most of them were moving away from us. We now know these objects are galaxies, but a century ago astronomers thought these vast collections of stars might actually be within the Milky Way.

In 1924, Edwin Hubble figured out that these galaxies are actually outside the Milky Way. He observed a special type of variable star that has a direct relationship between its energy output and the time it takes to pulse in brightness. By finding these variable stars in other galaxies, he was able to calculate how far away they were. Hubble discovered that all these galaxies are outside our own Milky Way, millions of light-years away.

So, if these galaxies are far, far away, and moving quickly away from us, this suggests that the entire Universe must have been located in a single point billions of years ago. The second line of evidence came from the abundance of elements we see around us.

In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, there was nothing more than hydrogen compressed into a tiny volume, with crazy high heat and pressure. The entire Universe was acting like the core of a star, fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements.

This is known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. As astronomers look out into the Universe and measure the ratios of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements, they exactly match what you would expect to find if the entire Universe was once a really big star.

Line of evidence number 3: cosmic microwave background radiation. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a 6-meter radio telescope, and discovered a background radio emission that was coming from every direction in the sky – day or night. From what they could tell, the entire sky measured a few degrees above absolute zero.

WMAP data of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Credit: NASA

Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today.

The final line of evidence is the formation of galaxies and the large scale structure of the cosmos. About 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to the point that the gravitational attraction of matter was the dominant form of energy density in the Universe. This mass was able to collect together into the first stars, galaxies and eventually the large scale structures we see across the Universe today.

These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology. But there are more lines of evidence. There are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we don’t see any stars older than 13.8 billion years, the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, along with how the light curves from distant supernovae.

So, even though it’s a theory, we should regard it the same way that we regard gravity, evolution and general relativity. We have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, and we’ve come up with a good way to understand and explain it. As time progresses we’ll come up with more inventive experiments to throw at. We’ll refine our understanding and the theory that goes along with it.

Most importantly, we can have confidence when talking about what we know about the early stages of our magnificent Universe and why we understand it to be true.
So... What's your point?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
the burden of proof lies on the skeptic to prove that the universe has no mass, because if it has mass it's not eternal, and is under time, according to general relativity.
Of course it has mass, everything with an actual existence has mass. If general relativity says anything with mass cannot be eternal, how does general relativity account for the current existence of Mass?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
the universe has a beginning. There must be something out of time space matter continuum. The time space matter continuum is not eternal.
The Big Bang theory begins with the existence of the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Universe. Prior to the expansion of the singularity; nobody knows.
 
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
Ok to make it clearer I should of written : The ancient Israelites with their culture and language, wrote the old testament.
I agree it was inspired by God.

In their language yom is many types of period of time. Not just a day. Logic does demand that we don't interpret the Genesis one piece of prose as a literal piece of writing. But I've done this to death. lol
this is just playing with words and time wasting for me now.

So God bless
But you didn't reply to the fact that plants cannot live without light for vast ages of time, and you didn't reply to the fact that the number two definition of yom, as per your source was a 24 hour period. The third and fourth were less likely and included vast periods of time.
 
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:
No, the problem is not that there are randomly assorted gaps which is what would be expected if there was just a lack of fossils, it is that they are systematically at the places where the biggest morphological changes would be taking place, such as genera and phyla.

efm: There are many transitional forms in the fossil record. Anyone who knows how to use a search engine, or go to a library or a museum, can figure that out pretty easily.
Maybe between species but not between genera and phyla.

efm: And again, if there were no fossils at all, the evidence from genetics alone would be more than enough.
Not really, in 2005 evolutionary biologists A. Rokas, D. Kruger, and S.B. Carroll analyzed 50 genes from 17 animal groups and concluded that different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradicting inferences with seemingly absolute support.
 
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
But you didn't reply to the fact that plants cannot live without light for vast ages of time, and you didn't reply to the fact that the number two definition of yom, as per your source was a 24 hour period. The third and fourth were less likely and included vast periods of time.

boy oh boy.

Yom 1 Night and day, Evening morning--------------------------Yom4 The sun the moon the planets.
Yom 2 Water separated from sky --------------------------------Yom5 Birds, creatures of the sea.
Yom 3 Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation----------Yom6 Animals, Man

Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets. All go together in one age.
the 24 hours days (time) start happening with the sun the moon the planets ( the universe developed )

the sun the moon are in the same age making Night and day which is working over and over.

I don't know how to make that clearer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Big Bang theory begins with the existence of the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Universe. Prior to the expansion of the singularity; nobody knows.
Its not eternal right ? It had a beginning right ?
 
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
Its not eternal right ? It had a beginning right ?
There is no scientific theory that claims the singularity that lead to the Big Bang actually had a beginning. IOW nobody knows. Science only reports on what they know, so they cannot claim the Singularity was eternally existing, and they cannot claim it had a beginning because they do not know.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Yttrium
Upvote 0

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

In in a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."
I did read this you posted to someone else. Very dissatisfied with what Hawkins said.
basically Stephen Hawkins is saying We don't know so we will not deal with it.
I'll go into it with more ken-1122. I can't reply today. No "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
In in a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."
I did read this you posted to someone else. Very dissatisfied with what Hawkins said.
basically Stephen Hawkins is saying We don't know so we will not deal with it.
I'll go into it with more ken-1122. I can't reply today. No "time".

My point was not to appeal to Hawking, or any other specific model/theory/idea, but to demonstrate that many models are rolling around out there. Hence, the three links, just for starters. The debate is not settled, not by a long shot; as to whether or not the universe is finite or eternal. Not enough evidence....

This was the only point I wanted to address with you, since you and other theists here seem to assume the universe IS finite, without a seemingly warranted conclusion. "Time', as we know it, simply gives out at some point in the measurable 'past.' Everything prior to this, is simply 'God' assertions from theists.

I find it quite interesting, however, that theists will adhere to 'science', when it agrees with them. But what about when science seems to not exactly favor a theistic assertion? (i.e.) What if a few years from now, 'we find out the 'universe is eternal'?

Kinda hard to assert a 'creator', when the 'universe' always was....
 
Last edited:
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:
That is how they explain it, but nevertheless it confirms that those systematic gaps exist and they are attempting to hold to the paradigm by coming up with basically an ad hoc explanation.

efm: Evolution is still a fact, so their is nothing to 'ad hoc' here. Punctuated equilibrium, assuming one holds to it as the prevailing model, has exactly the same mechanisms as gradualism, and they're not mutually exclusive.
They came up with it though because the fossil record did not reflect gradualistic predictions. And the mechanisms are inadequate for both.

Ed1wolf said:
That was true with the epicycle theory too, until Galileo confirmed the fringe dissenter Copernicus.

efm: The 'they laughed at X' argument is not an argument. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown, and we laugh at Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort etc., for the same reasons. The lone difference being, Bozo knew he was a clown.
Who said anything about laughing at anyone? The Epicycle theory was a serious theory held by almost all scientists at the time. And Copernicus was not laughed either, they just thought his theory was all wrong because he had little to no evidence. Then Galileo came along and provided the strong evidence.

Ed1wolf said:
No, it is based on knowledge not ignorance

efm: You don't know, and have no possible means of knowing, what lifeforms could have evolved under conditions you are not even capable of imagining, let alone gleaning. All you have is an extremely narrow understanding of what constitutes 'life' - carbon based, water subsistent, etc. - based on your infinitesimally limited experience. Which you've arbitrarily selected out of trillions of features within the universe, because it happens to be important to your religious views. It is absolutely based on ignorance. And arbitrariness. And a complete lack of imagination.

Professionals in astronomy and astrophysics roll their eyes at the line of reasoning you are using, when they're not tearing their hair out in frustration at hearing the same crappy arguments over and over again. I'm married to one, so I know.

Nevertheless when exoplanet experts try to determine whether a planet has life on it, they only consider carbon based, water subsistent life. Ever wonder why that is? And so your wife laughs at them too?
 
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
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
yes sir, that was a long time ago. Sorry for the pun, but ID has "evolved" and separated from creationism, so that is no longer the case. Back when Behe was testifying, they were very similar.
Goodness me. Congratulations, gradyll, that almost sounds like you're starting to grasp the truth. But to make sure, I'd like to ask you to clarify your meaning: are you willing to concede that the 2005 trial found that:
- ID was a form of creationism
- ID was emphatically not science
- The ID side acted deceitfully, deliberately lying in order to make their case?
All of these things, you see, were found to be so, and I want to check that you are aware of this before we go any further.
I have showed you this before, but this is for silmarien to see too, because your posts are inaccurate.
http://www.discovery.org/a/3191
Why on earth are you showing us this? It dates from 2004, and was published in a newspaper, not a scientific journal. It is, however, valuable evidence that the ID side were lying; here, you can see Meyer claiming that ID is not creationism, a few months before the court finds indisputable evidence that it is.
For example you will see various citations of ID within christianity and creationism to support their creationism, but ID does not cite anything other than science and logic to support their views.
They tried that line in court. It didn't work there either.
See evolutionists can't refute the principles of ID but they can make them sound ridiculous when use ad hominem attack to make them similar to astrology for example.
I agree, it does sound ridiculous, but it was Michael Behe who said it. Not that he wanted to, but he was forced to admit it under cross-examination.
You have a tedious habit, gradyll, of forgetting anything that disagrees with you. See Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe))"
To settle this I can give you emails of people who work for discovery institute and you can email them and ask them, that is how I found out. But you will have to message me for that information.
Messaging people who have been found guilty of lying in court in order to ask them if they're telling the truth sounds like a serious waste of time. I certainly shan't be doing that, and I'm surprised that you did.
What will settle this, gradyll, is this:
1. You read the records of the Dover Trial, something you obviously haven't yet done. At the very least, take a little time to read the judge's decision.
2. Clarify for us if you accept the findings of the Dover Trial. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just to agree that they happened, that the court did actually find that ID is creationism, is not science, and the ID side acted deceptively. This is, of course, exactly what the judge said.
3. Now what you have to do is find us some evidence, if you are able to, that ID has become science in the intervening years. So far all we have is your blithe assurances that the fine fellows at the Discovery Institute have told you it has. Forgive me if I don't trust the word of a pack of known liars! What you'll need to find is papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that ID is not accepted in science. Also, I'd be very interested to see some articles from the Discovery Institute saying that they were wrong before, and that they have now made major changes to ID, and how these changes now make it into science.

Or, gradyll, you could do the honourable thing, and admit that you are wrong, that ID is not science and never was, just another underhanded tactic in the creationist wars on science.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You seem to think, @gradyll , that ID has changed a lot, since the Dover Trial, "a long time ago". There are three reasons why this is not believable:
First, fifteen years is not a long time at all in the history of the creationist movement.
Second, I certainly haven't heard about any new changes to ID (and I would have, as ID always got plenty of press, before the trial pricked its bubble. Any news about ID would have got plenty of coverage).
And third, in reading this thread we can see you using the same old warmed-over creationist arguments that Creationists and IDers have been using all along. "The eye can't have evolved" indeed! Very funny.

So take a look at these things that Judge Jones wrote and try to understand: this was ID on trial, and it was found to be completely in the wrong.
"Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich))."

"Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."

"Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24)."

The big difference is this: in a forum thread like this people can be evasive and get away with it; but in court you get cross-examined in front of an independent judge, and when that happened ID got pinned down and exposed for the con it is.
 
Last edited:
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:
Well you need to tell Dr. Goldsmith, because that is what he wrote.

efm: Nope.
You are putting the point forward, so you defend it. You are playing bait-and-switch, whether you realize it or not.

Once again, the Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, expansion, and early evolution of the universe. That is the only consensus, and that is all scientists mean when they speak of a 'beginning' to the universe.
No, there is more to it than that, according to Dr. Goldsmith, the scientific consensus is that the BB is the ORIGIN of the universe, as well as time.

efm: What it does not mean is that the universe constitutes the totality of existence, and that it began with an ex nihilo creation event. That is what you are tasked with demonstrating. And I don't care how many scientists you can find being uncareful with their words in popular publications, you will never find a 'consensus' on that, because it doesn't exist. No one knows either of those things, because there is as yet nothing to know about them, and there is no such thing as a consensus or non-existent information.

I shouldn't have to explain this to someone who claims to be a professional scientist, but here we are.
I didnt say there was a consensus that there was an actual ex nihilo creation event, only that it appears that way. And if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions which implies nothingness. Which is exactly what the bible teaches.
 
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
I could be wrong, but I feel like not long ago at all, most creationists denied both biology and astronomy. That was the 'old guard' - Duane Gish, Kent Hovind, and other assorted blithering morons. I have a hard time wrapping my head around this class of creationists who accept the Big Bang, but still deny evolution.

I blame William Lane Craig. By resurrecting Kalam, he showed that you can misconstrue Big Bang cosmology to apologetic ends.

What does it feel like to have to pick and choose which cornerstone scientific theories you're going to accept? I'm glad I don't know.
The reason why more accept the BB is because most of it can be empirically observed in real time due to the ability to see into the deep past because of the speed of light. With evolution such a thing is not possible. Macroevolution has never been empirically observed. Also, the BB is based on well known relatively simple laws of physics, there are no laws of evolution.
 
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

dougangel

Regular
Supporter
May 7, 2012
1,423
238
New Zealand
✟85,556.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
- ID was a form of creationism
-
ID was emphatically not science

The Argument from Design


The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.


The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator(all knowing designer) that takes an interest in humanity.


The Moral Argument


Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?


Why is there good and evil as these are abstract terms? Relative, subjective morality cannot be lived out.


Spiritual Nature.


Why does man have a worship nature ?
 
Upvote 0