Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm afraid, @Silmarien and @Redac , that my work has become a little busier over the last few days, and I don't have the time to continue our discussion, so I shall be making this my last post. I think we've gone far enough on this enormous thread anyway. The question "Are there arguments for the existence of God" has been pretty much answered - either "No, there aren't" or "Yes, but not good ones," depending on how you look at it. Redac and Silmarien are skilled debaters, but the simple fact is they are trying to work out things we have no basis for knowing and no way of finding out about. And I think we've passed the point where their ideas need further discussion. I can lead you all to water, but have a limited amount of patience with trying to make you drink.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
What a priori assumptions?
cv: Your a priori assumption that God exists, and also that the ambiguous passages of the Bible, spoke about the future characteristics of what we humans now label 'big bang cosmology.' And to shoe horn in attributes and characteristics in which you can make fit into your a priori beliefs.
Maybe not confirmed, but the biblical evidence points in that direction. See above about my assumptions.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The steady state theory lasted longer than the BB theory has so far. Only recently has the Bible been confirmed by science on this subject. Think of all the Christians that had to believe that the universe was not eternal on pure faith for all those years without any science to provide evidence for it.
cv: The Bible has not been 'confirmed' by science. If this were so, peer reviewed 'science' papers would mention as such. You are merely drawing your own a prior assumptions out of wishful thinking.
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.cv: Again, the Bible is fairly ambiguous, and interpretation can be read into many of it's passages. Yes, some are straight forward. And even those passages get jockeyed around; as evidence by the many many many denominations.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not just that it began to exist but its characteristics strongly point to what type of Cause it was.
cv: Again, the 'BB' is merely a place holder term. Scientists do not know prior to measurable time. (i.e.) 'began to exist' (vs) eternal (vs) a continuation from a prior immeasurable state (vs) other....
You are again trying to play 'god of the gaps'.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, but its writers obviously know of the law. Its description of God fits the definiton of a transcendent being.
cv: Oh, they 'obviously know of the law?' What law is that exactly? And how would (you) know if they did know of this 'law'?
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
God does not inhabit space because He is non-phyiscal.
cv: How would you know? Furthermore, if He does not inhabit 'space', how would He ever intervene and interact with humans? Does He have the ability to inhabit space?
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
We dont know exactly what is "outside" space.
cv: GREAT ANSWER. Now you are starting to finally sound like a skepticNow let science do their thing, and stop trying to 'show horn' God into some of the findings thus far.
No, see above, I only assumed that the universe exists and reasoned from that to God.Ed1wolf said: ↑
You have yet to demonstrate that I have equivocated, made a priori assumptions, and used fallacious reasoning.
cv: I most certainly did. Look above even in this post reply. Furthermore, you demonstrated as such the second you began posting on the side of the one whom presented this post thread
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Sure until I get tired of the same old superficial athestic literalisms.
cv: Nice job in poisoning the wellI'll take this response as a NO
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.cv: And again, as I stated in a prior post. EVEN IF the universe turns out finite, you still have to rule out every other positive claim for competing theistic propositions. You don't think the believers, opposed to the Christian faith based doctrines can also 'shoe horn' interpretation into their ancient writings and make 'science' fit?
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
A cosmological observation just came out this month confirming it. A Star Orbiting in the Extreme Gravity of a Black Hole Validates General Relativity | Science | Smithsonian
cv: Please tell me exactly what this article means, in relation to proving the existence of a 'transcendent causal agent'? Or, that the Bible is even speaking about such scientific propositions?
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.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.
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.
You asked me what the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament was. The answer lies in the fact that the New Testament reports upon things that allegedly happened within living memory of the authors, whereas the Old Testament documents events that it claims occurred centuries earlier. You can't reasonably compare a delay of three decades to one of at least half a millennium and say that the historical reliability is identical.
We don't know whether or not we have eyewitness attestation, since the authorship of John is controversial. The Pauline Epistles give us a pretty early attestation to the types of claims being made, though, so you can't legitimately claim that it was somehow added to the story later.
Stylistic differences aside, what is interesting about John is that there are scholars who think it is in some ways more historically accurate than the Synoptics when it comes to concrete events. I don't see it as a clear sign of a growing legend, given things like the Johannine Thunderbolt in Matthew 11, the possibility that it was written by a disciple (perhaps as some sort of theological interpretation of events), and the fact that it didn't end up on the discard pile with the Gnostic gospels.
I really hope you are not trying to imply that the assassination of Lincoln is somehow ancient history. 1865 is well within the modern period, which means better historical records and surviving evidence. Go back even 300 years earlier and things start to get trickier.
We do have a contemporaneous report from a former non-believer who claimed to have seen Christ after the Resurrection: Paul.
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?
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.
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.
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.The cosmological argument has been refuted many times. The errors in it (basically, special pleading) get pointed out regularly on Christians Forums, and have even been pointed out in this thread. It's not that the argument hasn't been disproved - it's that Christians don't care. Personally, I think this is because "arguments for God" aren't actually there to persuade people that god exists (after all, people are usually Christians because they grew up as such, and non-Christians usually become Christians for emotional reasons). So these "arguments" are just there to reassure the faithful that their faith is actually backed up by reasoning.
I was an agnostic until age 14.ia: It's so much more convincing when you grow up as a Christian.
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.ia: There are almost a hundred pages. Let me know the post numbers if you think you made a strong argument. I will be happy to examine it for you.
Interesting, isn't it? You'd think it would be the most important thing in the world, but most Christians really don't seem to care about their religion one way or the other. "A mile wide and an inch deep" was one way I once heard Christianity described.
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.ia; And why not? If God is magical, then he can do anything.
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.ia: Of course He could create the Earth in six actual days, and flood the earth covering the tops of the highest mountains, and bring a man back from the dead.
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.ia: Of course, the evidence shows very clearly that the first and second of these did not happen, and that is why most Christians will say "Of course we shouldn't read the Bible literally. How silly! And yes, of course Jesus came back from the dead". They have to say that, otherwise they are faced with the conclusion that the Bible is sometimes wrong.
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.ia: And why should we not believe that the Bible really means what it says when it said the world was flooded? Was it also metaphorical to say that Jesus came back from the dead, or walked on water, or multiplied loaves and fishes? All of these seem just as impossible as the other to me.
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.@Ed1wolf , you cannot actually be serious? As I stated prior, kind of a rhetorical question... In using the 'historico-grammatical' method, Christians cannot even simply agree on the meaning of the word 'yom/day', as it pertains to 'creation'. And it's likely so that the field of 'science' tends to severe what was thought of the original 'meaning' for many passages; and now require the filed of 'Christian apologetics' to 're-translate' or 'spin' these ancient texts to reaffirm many's continued convictions.
cv: We don't even need to go there for now.... Christian apologists cannot 're-translate' math. The Bible states such a boat was built to be ~450 long. Physics disallows for this length of boat to be made of wood w/o sinking shortly after it being submerged, due to twisting. It could not stay afloat long enough. Thus, apologists apply further 'apologetics tactics' to 'justify' such an event.
No, there is evidence for the flood as I have presented above.cv: If the 'flood' was not an actual event, what else was not actual? Hence, the asserted claims for (your) asserted god then appear to begin falling apart. It's really that simple...
I am afraid you do, see above about such boats CAN float. And some were even bigger than the ark.cv: Again, I don't even need to address what you have stated above...
No, see above about the word day and the evidence for the flood and boats that size.cv: Regardless of whether you adhere to being an 'old-earther' (vs) a 'young earther', which again lays further weight to my prior point, that Christians cannot even reconcile something as seemingly trivial as the word 'day', while even using the 'historico-grammatical' method; you cannot use apologetics effectively for simple math.
Build a boat out of wood, 450 feet in length. Watch how long it will remain afloat without continuous maintenance.
This again, as stated prior, 'no flood, no Yahweh'.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Almost all the denominations that accept the infallible authority of the bible agree on essentials including the definition of God. And There are relatively few of those denominations.
ia: Are you familiar with the argument "No True Scotsman"? Do you know how it works?
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The evidence of the characteristics of the universe fit the cause being the Christian God.
ia: Purely subjective, and therefore irrelevant.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it is, it is called an ad hoc creation.
cv: No, it's not. You made an argument about how the Christian God was the only being that could possible have created the universe. @cvanwey and I pointed out the logical flaw - if we're allowing for magical or supernatural events, anything is possible. You tried to counter this by saying that nobody has ever heard of universe-creating pixies. But this is irrevelant; an argument from popularity is no argument at all. The point stands: your argument has a hole in it a mile wide - that if we say God could have created the universe, any magical entity could have.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am just making the point that experiential evidence is evidence. Imagine being a marriage counselor, if one husband said he only had one experience of love from his wife this year as compared to a husband who had 52 experiences of love from his wife in the past year, which marriage is more likely to be stronger than the other?
ia: First of all, if we accept your argument that people's "experiences of God" count as evidence, then @cvanwey 's argument beats yours: there are many more people who believed or believed in other gods. It's hypocritical of you to say that experiences with (your version of) the Christian God count, but other people's experiences don't.
Second, however, you're wrong: some experiences can count as evidence, but religious ones don't. And you know that this is true, because you would never accept them from other religions. "I heard (Non-Christian God) speak in my heart; I prayed to NCG and my prayer was answered; I had a dream in which NCG talked to me; I can feel the truth and love when I read the words of NCG." This is all that arguments from personal experience amount to, and because you would never accept them from a NCG, nobody needs to accept them from you.
How?Ed1wolf said: ↑
The other gods and religions can be eliminated through other evidence such as logic, science, historical and philosophical evidence.
ia: Nonsense. And even if this were possible, any such process would also eliminate the Christian God.
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.J
Ed1wolf said: ↑
They would never make a scientific theory regarding causation, because that is considered outside the purview of their definition of "science".
cv: Then stop asserting it...
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Once you come to know God personally then you can know with some degree of certainty that He created it at the BB. Of course, the belief that the creator is the Christian God is not a exactly a scientific claim.
cv: What about all the humans whom are sure to have come to know an opposing god(s)?
You don't think they could just as easily draw connections between their beliefs, and their believed upon god(s)? Again, even believers in Christ disagree about practically any and every passage of the Bible, and their believed Bible's 'true meaning(s)'.
No, I wouldn't say there is no evidence for other gods, but not nearly the amount for the Christian God.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but I am not talking about logic alone, there is also no empirical evidence for a prior universe.
cv: Just like you would claim there is 'no evidence' for the many opposing asserted god claims you reject, whom claim 'evidence' demonstrates existence of their god(s)
No, prior to the BB time did not even exist according to the majority of scientists.cv: My point being, is that 'time', prior to the beginning of it's measurable state, is immeasurable. And this is where you instead demonstrate invoking the god of the gaps argument.
See below.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never said that the classical BB theory has been proven, just that the majority of scientists agree with it and its implications of a finite universe.
cv: The vast majority of biologists have and due accept evolution. And yet, you reject such a conclusion. Why are you bringing forth this point?.?.?.? Even if it actually were the case, that most scientists assert a finite universe?
See my earlier post where I deal with this claim.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I was studying to work as a biologist, but also I was curious about a theory that has had a tremendous effect on the world and history almost as much an effect as Christianity.
Unlike most scientific theories, it has had an effect on how people live day to day and how governments treat their citizens including major political theories such as communism and fascism, and how businesses treat their employees, whether people decide to become Christians, and many other things. But I have had a less intense though similar interest in BB theory. I used to not believe in BB theory but as I studied it I became more convinced it was true and then more recently discovered that the Bible actually taught the basics of it 3000 years before scientists discovered the evidence for it.
cv: The Bible's ambiguity allows for many to draw many differing conclusions. As stated prior, all believers don't even unanimously agree on the meaning of the word 'day'... Let alone the Bible speaking about the "BB".
I did, see my earlier post on the videos.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Most cosmologists would not believe in it if they did not think it had a great deal of evidence as we both stated above.
cv: The universe being finite vs eternal is certainly not a settled topic. Accepting the "BB" really have no relevancy. Until you address the video, and also the links I have provided thus far, this disagreement remains going nowhere....
But it is not outside of my definition of science or any scientist prior to the 20th century.Ed1wolf said: ↑
They would never make a scientific theory regarding causation, because that is considered outside the purview of their definition of "science".
cv: Then stop asserting it...
No, all other gods can be shown to be not the creator of this universe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Once you come to know God personally then you can know with some degree of certainty that He created it at the BB. Of course, the belief that the creator is the Christian God is not a exactly a scientific claim.
cv: What about all the humans whom are sure to have come to know an opposing god(s)?
You don't think they could just as easily draw connections between their beliefs, and their believed upon god(s)? Again, even believers in Christ disagree about practically any and every passage of the Bible, and their believed Bible's 'true meaning(s)'
I disagree. I was a member of a nondenominational church for many years. Some were young earthers, some were old earthers. Some would assert the flood was local, some global. Some were more works based, and some were belief based; for salvation. Some believed in a literal hell, and some did not. And this was all within the one church I attended, reading from the same passages. This was before you might ask these same individuals of the 'definition' of their believed god.
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.cv: Again, asserting your own personal presupposition isn't what makes something 'true'. Let the evidence do the talking. Your above assertion presents nothing more than fallacious reasoning.
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.cv: Negative...
Going back to your argument, millions have claimed to speak to opposing gods. Since you reject them, their asserted god is no more or less 'real' than the assertion of 'universe-creating pixies.'
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.cv; Again, when something was first asserted, has no relevancy as to whether or not this attestation is actually 'true.' Evidence does....
cv: Statistics suggest the possibility that the number of believers in Islam may some day surpass believers in Christianity. This must make Islam more 'true' and 'correct.'?.?.?.
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.Adherent estimates in 2012
Religion Adherents Percentage
Christianity 2.4 billion 33%
Islam 1.8 billion 24.1%
It sounds like your worldview supports your worldview.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.
You obviously dont know what guided means from dictionary,com:Full, new, complex structures don't magically appear in biology. New complex structures, including eyes, form over millions of generations in tiny increments. Of course this process isn't unguided, it's completely determined by natural selective pressures.
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 Bookshelfga: Each increment is advantageous over its predecessor. After enough time, the new structure can become very complex, as is seen in the human eye. What part of the eye are you referring to when you say that it must be "fully formed" lest the whole eye become useless, and how did you determine that it could not have evolved via small increments?
See above.ga: This is remarkably close to where we started, so I'm going to again refer you to a simple Google search and a trip to your local library if you're going to continue failing to understand basic concepts of biology. I have no interest in going around in circles about evolution these days.
You obviously don’t know how to use a dictionary. From the same source:You obviously dont know what guided means from dictionary,com:
guided
[ˈɡīdəd]
ADJECTIVE
Natural selection is neither a person or programmed equipment. In fact it is the opposite. So no, it IS an unguided process.
- conducted by a guide.
"a guided tour of the castle"
- directed by remote control or by internal equipment.
"a guided missile"
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.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
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
What special pleading?
ia: The basic flaw of the cosmological argument, as we have seen displayed many times throughout this thread, is special pleading. Basically, you say that it is impossible for the Universe to have come into existence, except by an entity which - what good luck! - matches the God of your religion. But, as cvanwey and I have both pointed out, if we allow for the existence of the supernatural, there are an endless amount of possible universe-creators, including wizards, virtually every other god or goddess ever imagined, universe-creating pixies, theFlying Spaghetti Monster...If you allow for magic, anything goes. And any argument you could use against any of these either falls apart (for example, the Bandwagon Fallacy you were guilty of earlier) or also invalidates the God of the Bible.
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.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Given that entire societies being generally good and moving in the direction of good are very rare, so if such societies exist that would show that there may be a force outside of the natural forces working in such societies. The few societies where this is occurring were all founded on Christian principles thereby providing some evidence that the Christian God exists, though not proving it.
ia: Nonsense. This isn't even an argument to be rebutted. All it is is your simplistic views of history. The existence of "good" societies proves nothing at all, I'm afraid.
I have plenty as shown in this thread, the biggest piece both literally and figuratively is the origin and characteristics of this universe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Since humans are emotional beings and not robots, of course, emotion is involved, it is also involved in people who become atheists. But generally most humans also believe that they change their view based on evidence and reasoning. So in most cases it is a combination of both. Two somewhat famous former atheists are Hugh Ross and C.S. Lewis who converted because of the evidence and logical arguments and there are many others who I dont remember their names right now. And some no one would know. There is no real evidence Anthony Flew was senile, atheists only said that after he became a theist. But he did not become a Christian. There is nothing about atheists being any more about the evidence than Christians, there are emotions and other factors for them also. Such as not wanting to be held accountable for their time or being faced with peer pressure. This often happens with scientists, they dont want their colleagues to think are some backward fundie and possibly lose their job.
ia: Basically, Ed, what you need is evidence that God exists. When you have some, we'll be able to talk. But you don't
So you admit that macroevolution has never been empirically observed?As I said: these are just your own simplistic ideas about history. Christianity can teach whatever it likes, but without evidence for it being true it is of no relevance here. And you've just proved, again, that you don't actually know what the theory of evolution is about.
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.All the Bible 'proves' is that the author of the Bible asserted 'objective/absolute moral standards.' The fact that many, or even all, agree with some of these assertions is/are irrelevant quite frankly. You actually have to demonstrate that such dictates were issued by a God, and not only merely by the human author whom writes as such. Sure most, if not all, are going to agree that killing, stealing, and even trespassing, are not favorable traits... Why? Because morals deal with the interaction of two or more individuals really.... If what you do may possibly affect another, it is then deemed a moral action - ('good' or 'bad').
The moral argument for God's existence appears viciously circular. Again, all we know, is that the Bible was written by humans. You would need to prove that such dictates were actually issued by something other than mere human beings. Until you can actually do that, you are begging your own question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?