• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Must be pretty convenient to be able to unilaterally decide when ideas you don't understand and haven't been able to defeat warrant further discussion. ^_^
     
  2. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I didn't assume God exists when I explained my argument. I stated that your study the effect, ie the universe, and its characteristics, and then determine the cause based on those characteristics of the effect. This is done everyday in science. The passages are not that ambiguous when you study them in the original Hebrew and greek.

    Maybe not confirmed, but the biblical evidence points in that direction. See above about my assumptions.

    No, see above about the greek and Hebrew. The number of denominations that believe in the infallible authority of the bible are not that many and mostly agree on the essentials.

    We dont know for certain but all you have to do is make a rational assumption one step back from the BB. My point is just that belief in God is rational, not necessarily proven.

    The law of causality and the laws of logic though they didn't know to call them that. But we know that they wrote without violating the laws of logic because what they wrote makes sense and doesn't contradict itself. All humans intuitively know the laws of logic, otherwise they would not be able to communicate verbally.

    The bible teaches that He is not physical but can still interact with physical space. We dont know exactly how He interacts with humans but we know that the non-physical laws of nature interact with physical things and cause them to behave certain ways.

    There are many things we dont know about God, which is evidence that He is not man made, because man made religions have answers for everything. Christianity does not because it is not manmade.

    No, see above, I only assumed that the universe exists and reasoned from that to God.

    No, my answer is not no. I would be happy to deal with any problems you think the Bible has, I just dont want to spend days talking about so-called problems with the bible that were resolved over 100 years ago. If you something a little more recent, I would be glad to talk about it.

    All other major religions can be eliminated using logical reasoning including if they try to make their religious books look like they fit science facts.

    As I stated above, I never said I could prove His existence. It is just one more scientific observation that confirms that the universe is finite and had a beginning which points to a transcendent causal agent.
     
  3. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +340
    Atheist
    Well, when your opponent says she doesn't believe in the physical universe, that's a pretty good clue that they're only good for entertainment value.
     
  4. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I see it's two logical fallacies for the price of one today: a strawman and an ad hominem attack. Congrats for managing all of that in a single sentence. :)
     
  5. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    If you are reducing the [the Bible] to that of any other book, then what makes it's claims any more credible than any other book of asserted supernatural tales?

    Going back to 'Alexander the Great', as a comparison. Would it have mattered if the accounts of his life were written just one decade later? Would that have made the claim of him being he son of Zeus ANY more credible?

    The OT speaks of many claimed 'events'. So does the NT.

    In all honesty, legend, lore, and maybe even complete fiction, can transpire and develop in a rather short amount of time.

    Are you honestly saying, that because the NT claims were written to paper a few decades after the claimed events, than they are then less likely to be the works of possible fiction, lore, fabrication, exaggeration, etc? Oral tradition is the key here. It's safe to say such claims and events were re-told many many many times before anyone thought to write any of it down.

    Thus, I again ask, why is the NT claims any more credible than any other claims, where supernatural assertions are added?


    Thank you reinforcing my assessment, that the Bible likely has no eyewitness attestations to speak of...

    And in the above, I was also speaking about Mark 16:8. And how later passages get added (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20. They completely conflict... It demonstrates a possible agenda of the 'church.'



    Again, read Mark, and then read John. More claims of supernatural events in John, over Mark.

    As also brought forth above, we actually do not know what was later added to practically any of these accounts, as even Marks demonstrates (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20...



    I really hope you understand, that if all antiquity can then be lumped up into the same category, then the [Bible] can then be no more credible, in it's supernatural claims, then any other book of supernatural claims, from antiquity.

    My point about Lincoln, is that there exists a method to determine historical events. The fact that many assertions, from antiquity, cannot satisfy most of these criteria, is not my problem. We are speaking about claims from the Bible. The book you believe carries more weight.


    I was speaking about the Gospels. The Gospels are not initiated from Saul.

    Saul claimed a vision, on his way from point A to point B, and later wrote several documents, which also made it into the canon.


    *************

    I'll address the rest later...
     
  6. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    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.

    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.

    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.

    No, my claim is that the New Testament carries more historical weight than the Old Testament, given that it involves records that originated within living memory of the alleged events. None of this has anything to do with supernatural claims, which I don't think are a historical issue. I don't think there's good reason to think that all the parables were invented by the early church, though.

    Wait, what? If there were mention in the Gospels of non-believers who said that the Resurrected Christ appeared to them, you would take that as independent corroboration?
     
  7. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, there is no special pleading, as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. Many former atheists have been convinced by the cosmological argument and the moral argument. Such as CS Lewis, Francis Collins, and Hugh Ross. But it is true that such arguments also help strengthen their faith so that they know that Christianity is the most rational worldview.

    I was an agnostic until age 14.

    Sounds like something another superficial atheist said. There are some individual Christians that could be described that way, but that is far from a good description of Christianity itself. Only Christianity can explain love, laws of physics, rationality, and the existence of persons and in addition, without God science would not be possible.

    No, actually He cannot do absolutely anything, you obviously have not studied the bible very deeply, another superficial atheist interpretation. He cannot go against logic or His character or anything that is literally impossible.

    Actually you dont know that. He definitely could create some type of universe in six days, but He may not be able to create a primarily natural law universe with free will beings in it in six days. There may be some things about this universe that cannot be done in six 24 hr days that is governed by another aspect of reality that we dont know about.

    No, actually there is some evidence for the second, though not a great deal because it probably occurred 2 mya so most of it has eroded away. The methodology to determine what should be interpreted literally is not based on whether something is possible or not, but rather on the type of literature and the grammatical and historical context using the original language.

    We should believe it about the flood because there is some evidence for that. And there is even more evidence for the resurrection of Christ. It is one of the most well attested events of the first century.
     
  8. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, there is no disagreement about the meaning of the word day. It has two literal meanings in Hebrew, a 24 hr period or a indefinite but finite period of time. The question is which literal definition is being used in Genesis 1. And God's other book shows that it is most probably the second. But there is also the connection to the work week and God also wants that connection to remain. So in a way it means both in Genesis 1, for us in our everyday dealings we need to be reminded that God worked for six periods of time and then rested. So we work six 24 hour days and rest one day to remember and honor what He did. It depends on how much you rely on God's other book and YEC tend to downplay His other book even though the bible itself states that we can learn a great deal about Him from Nature.




    Actually there is evidence that such boats can be built and can float. The Japanese apparently built some during the Middle Ages. See Zheng He's Huge Treasure Ships.
    And since we dont know what gopher wood was, it may be some extinct type of wood that is far stronger and flexible than any wood existing today.


    No, there is evidence for the flood as I have presented above.



    I am afraid you do, see above about such boats CAN float. And some were even bigger than the ark.


    No, see above about the word day and the evidence for the flood and boats that size.
     
  9. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes, and it does not apply to Christians, because we have an actual objective written definition of a true Christian (the bible) but we dont for Scotsmen.

    Fraid not, it is a an objective scientific fact that persons exist in this universe, that purposes exist in this universe, and that this universe is a diversity within a unity.

    No, if the Christian God exists, then by definition, many people would have communicated with Him and experienced Him, and they have, millions of them. See my post where I talk about experience being evidence.
     
  10. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, I DO accept their experiences, but I am not saying that experience is the be all and end all of evidence. There has to be other evidence in addition to the experience. And that is where Christianity not only has experiential evidence but also evidence from science, philosophy, and history that is far stronger than any other religion or worldview.

    How?
     
  11. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I am not afraid of the establishment as they are. I wont lose my job, reputation, or etc. like they would. Since although I am a scientist, I work for a non-academic government entity. Generally only in academia they punish you for not accepting the orthodoxy.

    They could, but I believe that the evidence for their gods is much weaker than the Christian God and I believe I can demonstrate it.

     
  12. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, I wouldn't say there is no evidence for other gods, but not nearly the amount for the Christian God.

    No, prior to the BB time did not even exist according to the majority of scientists.

    See below.

    See my earlier post where I deal with this claim.

    I did, see my earlier post on the videos.

    But it is not outside of my definition of science or any scientist prior to the 20th century.

    No, all other gods can be shown to be not the creator of this universe.
     
  13. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single

    First off, I was referring to the essentials. The age of the earth and the size of the flood are not essentials. The biblical view is faith based with works as essential to confirm your faith. So there might be some slight disagreements on that. But if your church itself as a whole believes in the infallible authority of the bible the majority of the people that attend regularly will agree on the essentials. There are always some individual outliers.


    I am letting the evidence do the talking. Look at all the characteristics of the universe, it has personal beings in it, therefore its cause must be a person. It has purposes in it, ie eyes are for seeing, therefore its cause must be intelligent. It is a diversity within a unity, therefore its cause must have some connection to that characteristic. And only the Christian God has that characteristic. And I could go on.

    No, "real" gods can be determined to be unlikely to have been the creator of this universe because of their lack of evidence as compared to the Christian God.

    Fraid so, you just reverse engineered your pixies to fit the characteristics of the universe. The biblical evidence was discovered 3000 years before science discovered those characteristics.




    I never said that numbers were THE deciding evidence but it is evidence. Allah can be eliminated as the creator of this universe because he is not fully personal and is a pure unity while the universe is a diversity within a unity. That is the fingerprint of the creator/artist of universe. Allah doesn't have that fingerprint.
     
  14. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It sounds like your worldview supports your worldview.
     
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    You obviously dont know what guided means from dictionary,com:
    guided
    [ˈɡīdəd]
    ADJECTIVE
    1. conducted by a guide.
      "a guided tour of the castle"
      • directed by remote control or by internal equipment.
        "a guided missile"
    Natural selection is neither a person or programmed equipment. In fact it is the opposite. So no, it IS an unguided process.

    The chemical reactions involved in sight called the "phototransduction cascade" is a single system of several well matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Phototransduction - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf

    See above.
     
  16. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,367
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You obviously don’t know how to use a dictionary. From the same source:
      • direct the motion or positioning of (something).
        "the groove in the needle guides the thread"
    1. 2.
      direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something).
    Natural selection obviously has a direct influence on the changes that occur within a population over time. So it is in fact perfectly reasonable to describe selective pressures as the guide for evolution. You can’t just ignore specific uses of a word because they’re inconvenient for your argument.

    Great. Now demonstrate how this system couldn’t have evolved from a slightly simpler system, which itself evolved from a simpler system, which itself evolved from an even simpler system, which... etc. You’d be the first to do so.

    I’ll reiterate: you don’t understand evolution. At least read up on what it actually is before you go around arguing that it’s impossible. There’s no shortage of books and online resources to help you with this. You’re completely without excuse.
     
  17. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, all the gods that come from all the major religions that have ever existed can be eliminated as the cause of this universe using logic, science, and their own religious books.


    Fraid so, Western society which is the best society was founded primarily on Christian principles has produced almost everything good in the world. So since the Christian God claims to be the most moral God, the it makes sense that if He actually exists, then using His principles will produce the most moral societies in the world.

    I have plenty as shown in this thread, the biggest piece both literally and figuratively is the origin and characteristics of this universe.
     
  18. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    So you admit that macroevolution has never been empirically observed?
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, it is not irrelevant. If morals were the product of atheistic evolution they would be all over the map with no consistency between human groups because they would be result of random processes. There is strong evidence that the bible has a divine origin though written by humans. As I stated earlier, it teaches that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and is winding down energetically among other things that science did not discover until 3000 years later. Only a book inspired by a supernatural being could have come up with those ideas. Then there is also all the historical persons and events in the bible that have been confirmed by archaeology.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Because if He didn't exist then neither would you and the universe.
     
Loading...