• 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. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, this is a non-sequitur regarding God's thoughts. Thoughts are non physical and therefore not bound by time and space. But events in a time space universe are bound by space and time, and therefore you cannnot have a inifinite series of space time events, because as i said you would never reach the present. And yet here we are, in the present. Therefore there is no infinite series of space time events and therefore the universe is finite and had a beginning and so is an effect and needs a cause. But then you also have to look at the law of sufficient cause. Only a personal cause can create a universe that has persons in it. Because only persons can produce the personal. Only persons can have personal relationships, personal communication and etc. A personal being that created all would have to have all knowledge, ie omniscience, and a being that created all that exists would have to have all power in order to do so, ie omnipotence. We also know He is personal is the existence of purposes. Purposes exsit in this universe such as eyes are for seeing and ears are for hearing. You are right that this argument does not prove that He still exists and that He is benevolent, these things are learned by communicating with Him. Nothing that the atheist claims to have brought about this universe is a sufficient cause to produce this type of universe. An impersonal cause cannot produce the things I mention above that are part of the universe.
     
  2. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    It is irrelevant how small part of the universe persons are, they exist and only something personal can produce them, as shown throughout all of human experience. The process that the Creator used to create persons is not as important as the fact that they exist and they can only come from Him. Btw I do know a great deal about evolution, I am a biologist that has studied it for over 30years.

    The majority cosmologists believe that nothing existed before the BB (of course I believe something DID exist before the BB but it is not detectable) and I will go with them rather than a hyperskeptical atheist on a religious website.
     
  3. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    None of this refutes the fact that we have arrived at the present and therefore the universe is not infinite. So there is no evidence that has been infinite series of events in this universe. And all the scientific evidence points to the universe not being eternal.


    Not as confirmed as the BB theory.


    No, the evidence points to single designer. A committee of designers would not have little special quirks and superfluous artistic aspects, like the panda's thumb and the male peacocks tail.


    Those are all wrong according to God's moral law but they are not wrong if atheism is true.


    No, it is unlikely to be invented by humans because of the strict sexual ethics. If it was invented by humans they would let you have sex with whomever you want and when every you want as long as no one gets hurt. But God's code is much more restrictive.


    No, you are misunderstanding. Goodness is not defined as following God's character. Goodness is God himself. He IS the GOOD itself, not just what He does.
     
  4. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Ok I stand corrected.
     
  5. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Evidence?

    IMO, they have found evidence and yet the opposite has happened many times. But this is expected if Christianity is true.

    That is only part of the evidence for Christianity. If someone that hates you and wants to ruin your life
    said he saw you flying by flapping your arms I may start believing that you did. Plus I heard that there was scientific theory put out by scientists that never even met you that said that there was strong evidence that one human in a billion has the ability to fly. I would have even stronger belief that you did fly.

    No, as the bible says even Satan believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There are certain essential teachings about morals and salvation that the majority of Christians that believe in the infallible authority of the bible have agreed on for 2000 years that provide a much more accurate definition of a Christian. There is no such thing for Scotsmen.
     
  6. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Interesting take...

    Would it be fair to say that evolutionary biology has done the same, in reference to Christianity? Delivering a heavy blow which may be slowly dwindling the faith of many? Forcing many, including myself, to no longer take the claims of the 'fall of man' seriously; which seems the entire premise of Christianity - (with Jesus atoning for the sins of "Adam and Eve", whom may never have existed)?

    Would it also be safe to say that many, whom remain Christian, may either be willfully ignorant to the concept of evolution by natural selection, or maybe instead exclusively adhere to apologists whom continually set out to 'dismantle' such discovery?

    Again, please read what I highlighted from your response above :) Seems as though Monotheism won over polytheism for many 'reasons'; and now, evoltionary theory may ultimately do the same for the Abrahamic religion.' ---- But it may take more education, discovery, and a few more generations...?


    Please note the highlighted text above. They are in conflict. Furthermore, my point is that stories retold, over and over again, accrue embellishment. Again, this is evidence when reading Mark, then reading John. The stories become more 'magical' as the decades roll on... The question remains, what actually happened - (when and if it happened)?

    Seems more 'evident' that such additions, (i.e.) Mark 16:9-20, were made to make the later claims 'fit'. --- Like more of a connector, or editing tool... Bridging the gap... And it's rather simple to see this... Read up to Mark 16:8; then read 9-20...
     
  7. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Hard to say. All of the major churches consider evolutionary theory to be compatible with Christianity, so I don't see why it would automatically be problematic in coming generations. The worst is hopefully behind us in terms of the alleged conflict between faith and science.

    I don't see why it would matter even if the majority of people abandon Christianity because of evolution, though. You can't get from that to a supernaturalistic argument in which modern science prophetized that it was going to destroy Christianity, and then followed through and did so. There would only be a problem if the Church disappeared entirely (Matthew 16:18), but that is unlikely to happen.

    I don't see any conflict. Oral tradition doesn't change radically over time, and the Gospels don't either. I really don't see the sort of obvious embellishment from one Gospel to the next that you're insisting upon. (Especially if you want to add in something like Q Source theory.)

    I don't really think so. I don't see the Great Commission as being overly controversial--it's not like the disciples didn't go out and spread the Gospel as widely as they could. I don't have any problem with the idea that the longer ending of Mark is later poetic license, but I don't see what gap needed to be bridged. People would have known whether there were evangelistic missions or not.
     
  8. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I disagree. I attended many churches. Most of which were non-denoms - which housed thousands each. Most rejected evolution, and instead called it 'evil-ution.' I do agree that the 'Catholic sect' seems to accept it more-so. But, on a side note, the non-denoms did not have favorable things to say about Catholics anyways... Meaning, I would hear testimonials about how they 'saved' their former Catholic family, etc...

    But regardless, moving forward... I find it quite bazaar how one might try to 'shoe-horn' the fundamental concept of Christianity <with> evolutionary theory? Because again, the main premise is that humans 'inherited' "Adam and Eve's" sinful nature. And if 'Adam and Eve' did not exist, then 'Houstin, we have a problem.' Since Jesus' claim was to 'fix' the problem from the 'fall.'

    And when you say the 'worst is behind us,' I don't follow? Seems as though one needs to practice a large amount of mental gymnastics/acrobats to retain 'faith' in this belief system.?.? Which is why I often encounter others on here, like @Ed1wolf for example, whom instead just flat out 'reject' evolution, or state there's some sort of conspiracy. I see this a lot actually.... I have a hunch such denial stems from a protective mechanism to preserve a belief...? As it seems pretty telling, at least from the many I've spoken with, that if such a human discovery is correct, (i.e.) evolution, then faith is truly in jeopardy.


    I see (you) as the minority, not the majority :) Meaning, you can somehow reconcile the two, where I, and most others, cannot. The concept of evolution and 'creation' seem in extreme conflict with one another.


    Read Mark, and then read John. It's safe to say Mark was written/published first. Then read John. More magic, more supernatural tales... That's my point. You only have a few decades between Mark and John. You also roughly have the same amount of time between the alleged events themselves, and the writings of Mark. The question is... What actually happened? Legend, lore, elaboration, exaggeration, etc, can happen quite swiftly; espacially when spread orally exclusively. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Decades of unfettered oral-passings, lead to embellishment; especially during a time where most were already highly superstitious.

    Later comes people, whom believe the stories, with the actual literacy and the power to drive such belief into a formalized canon.

    My point is that Mark 16:9-20 looks ad hoc. If Mark stopped at 16:8, it would not jive with later writings. My point is that it seems likely that some author might have felt they (had) to add these verses in there (i.e.) 9-20. Otherwise, Mark does not seem to flow with the other three later chosen canonized Gospels. Since Mark was essential, it (has) to 'fit'.
     
  9. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,498
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Non-denomination churches are not major churches. The major branches would include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and older established Protestant churches such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism. Possibly the Reformed and the rest of Mainline Protestantism as well. You're not going to get chased out of these places with pitchforks for accepting evolution.

    If you view the Catholic Church as just another sect with no greater influence than whatever non-denominational megachurch is down the street, I don't think you have a very realistic image of what the Christian world really is.




    Where is the problem? It's not at all difficult to view the Garden of Eden as an allegorical rather than historical rendition of the Fall.


    Why would they be in conflict at all?



    Oral tradition isn't transmitted in an unfettered fashion, so I don't think there's any evidence for what you're saying.

    I don't see how this is relevant to anything.
     
  10. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private


    Rubber-stamping some official label means little these days. Go to any 'major church', and pole each of their individual beliefs - (millions of them). My point is that we have evolution, and we have creationism. They appear diametrically opposed.... Furthermore, it's safe to say that many reject evolution BECAUSE they also see this conflict presented, just as I do. Hence, @Ed1wolf for example, claiming 'biologists must claim truth in macroevolution to continue funding'.....

    Regardless of your 'sect', again, the premise to Christianity is that Jesus atoned for the sins of Adam and Eve. Any basic understanding of evolution then presents a large problem to this story... I.E. When was the first official 'human' among this continuing evolutionary process? Again, I see much jockeying, acrobats, etc. from many/most.

    Furthermore, it's also safe to say that many whom reconcile both may not fully give it much of a second thought, or, fully understand, in relation to their Christian beliefs. Meaning, it might be safe to say that most may not know the ins and outs of evolutionary theory, and how such discovery seems to drive a wedge.... Most don;t care because such topics don;t affect their daily lives. They just believe and go about their lives believing...

    And there's also people like you, whom just instead claim all the stuff which does not fit as instead a possible myth or borrowed stories... :) (i.e.) Genesis

    But somehow, the resurrection is real. Why? Because a claim of a post mortem dead person, from a couple of thousand years ago, is not falsifiable. Where-as, evolutionary theory kind of is... Hence, why it becomes easy to dismiss certain parts and retain others.


    How is it allegorical, when you have verses like Luke 3:38 and 1 Timothy 2:13? Original sin is from these two Characters (Adam and Eve specifically). This is Christianity 101 - the basics of the claim (regardless of any sect you mention)... The story states Jesus atoned for their specific failure.


    Please see above...

    Google:

    What are the types of oral tradition?

    Oral narratives and folklore include cosmogonies, folktales and fairy tales, legends, epics, Hawaiian wahi pana, ghost stories, jokes, ballads, chants, proverbs or wise sayings, and mythologies. And yet, “oral traditions” and “folklore” are not coterminous.


    Is it relevant to the OP? Not really, that chicken flew the coupe pages ago :) My point is that the people whom canonized/decided which written documents to be presented in the NT, that it also seemed necessary to make Mark better fit with what later authors wrote. Hence, ala Mark 16:9-20 :)
     
  11. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    If that is their reason for being a Christian, ie that they were born Christians, then that is evidence that they may not actually be Christians or at the very least have a very immature view of Christianity. Nowhere in the bible does it say you can be born a Christian thru physical birth. Remember Christ said you must experience a second "birth".


    No not coincidence. The universe is a diversity within a unity. There is one universe yet billions of galaxies in this one unified universe. This fact is evidence that the cause of the universe is the triune Christian God.

    Unlike the Christian God your made up causes are designed after the fact and no one claims to believe FSM actually exists or claims to have communicated with it. The Christian God had these characteristics 3000 years before the matching characteristics of the universe were discovered by science. And millions believe that they have communicated with Him and have had experience with Him. No one claims experience with the FSM. As far the others if they stick with the real definitions of pixies, demons and ghosts, and not try to retrofit them, they can be eliminated as causes of this universe. And every major god believed by people can also be eliminated as the cause of this universe.

    No, you have not established that. I am a biologist that has studied evolution for over 30 years. I know a great deal about evolution, probably far more than you do and in fact used to believe it was true.
     
  12. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I believe I provided a reference study in an earlier post that showed that there are problems with string theory. Macroevolution does not falsify Christianity, God could very well have created humans using that method. I never admitted that if macroevolution was true, it falsifies Christianity. I said if the majority view of the BB theory is false, then THAT may falsify Christianity.
     
  13. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I looks like you missed MY main point. Organisms that DONT invoke intentional agency thrive FAR MORE than those that DO. Insects and bacteria thrive far beyond humans, so your argument fails. And there is no reason for natural selection to select organisms that invoke intentional agency, so if evolution were true, NO organism would invoke such an agency.
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm not going to sift through literally 100's of posts to squabble over details. Moving forward, I want to take a differing approach...

    1. If macroevolution was demonstrated 'true', to your satisfaction, would you feel you have no choice but to then denounce Christianity?

    For me, this is not the only reason I now harbor doubt. There exists other reasons; but it sure was a crushing blow for starters.... And as you just stated, demonstration in macroevolution may not sway your faith anyways. And if this is so, then there may exist no reason to address macroevolution any further; as this is a debate arena. And to debate topics, which carry no possible swaying merit, if successfully disputed, appears/seems fruitless moving forward.

    If such is the case, then please disregard question/point number 2...


    2. You stated 'God could very well have created humans using that method'. Thus, I ask...


    Under evolutionary theory, 'Adam' would still have parents, and would not be 'created'. Furthermore, The Bible states Adam was 'created' first, then Eve. The Bible states God used 'parts' from Adam to 'make' Eve. Furthermore, this seems to present a claim, in direct opposition to the later discovery of 'mtEve'? Since you claim to know quite a bit about evolutionary theory, and since this thread is to demonstrate the existence for a God, maybe you could enlighten all of us as to how God would have made (this) process work (evolution)? But I will tell you, seems as though you are going to need to jump through a great many hoops to make this 'claim' fit such a profile....
     
  15. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    Again, if you are of the notion that evolutionary theory does not lend credence to your argument for God, one way or another, then disregard all below...

    You might want to re-read my related response again:


    "Example in animals: A cat hears a noise and runs, but it was just a glass falling to the ground.

    My point being species with the cognitive ability to infer danger, or even intention, seem to do so. And it helps many survive. And the ones that do so, flourish, while the ones which don't, have a high tendency to die off.

    And of course intentional agency
    is not the ONLY reason species can/will survive. However, the ones that invoke agency thrive, while the ones that don't, not-so-much..."

    This can even be said for the common 'house fly.' Avoiding perceived on-coming danger preserves life. The ones that don't, more likely die off.

    It demonstrates evolution by natural selection....

    Google:


    "The mechanism that Darwin proposed for evolution is natural selection. Because resources are limited in nature, organisms with heritable traits that favor survival and reproduction will tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing the traits to increase in frequency over generations."

    Furthermore, The Bible leaves no mention of bacteria. So I will not address 'bacteria.'
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2019
  16. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    What about what I have posted shows that I dont understand it? Both statements I made about the BB theory and QM are scientific facts, go ahead and google the info. It sounds like you have decided to give up trying to refute the arguments for the existence of the Christian God. I will take that as an unable to refute. Thanks for the discussion.
     
  17. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single

    Fraid so. See all my posts about the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.

    There are many extrabiblical sources that refer to many things in the bible including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important event in human history.

    I think you mean, "sight". There will be no end until Christ returns to earth, because most humans do not want the Christian God to exist. So there will always being those trying to rationalize Him away and also He does not provide overwhelming evidence for Himself because He wants people to exercise faith and trust and utilize their free will.
     
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    I did, and that's why I stand by my conclusion about your 'argument.'



    Please provide such claimed 'extra-Biblical' sources for Christ's 'resurrection'?


    I'm not one of them... I tried to believe in Him for decades. But after reading the Bible's claims, verses human discovery, I later had no choice but to have much doubt, to say the least.

    I now honestly think He doesn't exist postmortem? Hence, why humans will never truly see any such 'second coming.' Do you have any evidence of His continued existence; which might actually convince me of His mere continued presence beyond any natural human death?



    This response appears bogus. The Bible presents many 'events' where He clearly demonstrated His existence. I just now doubt such events of the supernatural were indeed 'factual.'

    However, even if God presented to me perfect knowledge of His mere existence, there might be just as much of a chance that I would decide to reject His presented offering, verses accept it.... Knowledge of His existence does not appear to ruin freewill.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    You failed to demonstrate that it is not rational to assume the laws of logic operate 'outside' the universe.


    Even if that is true, though there is evidence it is not, it still doesn't mean that the effect, ie the mind, is physical.


    No, there were two rocks under a tree 65 mya, long before humans existed. And the laws of logic existed 65 mya, for example two T. Rexes could not be in the same place at the same time. Ie the law of non-contradiction. While the laws of physics are a description of the actions of matter, the laws also cause the behavior. There are NDEs validated by neurologists where the person gained knowledge that would have been impossible for them to know otherwise.

    Nevertheless true.


    Genetic fallacy.

    Scientists can determine what multiple universes would look like by tweaking the laws of physics. So yes, theoretically we can experience many types of universes. Using logic we can get a good idea of what caused the universe to come into existence. See above where I demonstrated that it is rational to assume the laws of logic are valid "outside" the universe. Otherwise we would never learn anything.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, it LOOKS like reality supports the Christian Worldview.
     
Loading...