• 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. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    sir I already explained this, elephant dung was originated by something else that was created by a first cause. The ability to rationalize has no evidence of a natural causation, therefore it must have originated in the first cause. I know it's hard for you, I am sorry.
     
  2. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No, it doesn’t, because there is no conclusion. It’s a naked assertion.
     
  3. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No, you already ignored the point that was being made, following your own line of reasoning.

    So here, you abandon the line of reasoning from earlier and simply resort to blatant naked assertion.

    You will have to substantiate this claim if you wish to be taken seriously in the slightest.

    There is nothing remotely hard about this.
     
  4. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Sir you quoted my old post, you need to adress my new post.
    I know that you know for a fact that nature did cause our ability to rationalize, but us logical thinkers out here simply don't see the evidence. I know for a fact that you cannot provide evidence for it, or any one here, or any scientist, or any logical reasoner. But you can try. That doesn't mean it can't be done, I admit, but I am 99.99 percent sure that you cannot find the evidence needed. Therefore, it has an origin in the first cause. Take your time responding.
     
  5. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Once again, you are the claimant. You asserted that intelligence has no natural cause. The burden of proof is yours. Not mine. Not anyone elses. YOURS. In lieu of your meeting it, all you're doing is making an argument from ignorance.

    This is an extremely basic concept that someone claiming to be a 'logical thinker' should understand automatically, yet you keep needing to have it pointed out to you, over and over again.
     
  6. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    when did I say that? Read my posts again. I said "evidentially" and apparently there is no "evidence" etc. So please provide some. I assume you can't so we are done. Unless you suprise me.
     
  7. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Your argument is predicated on it. You are right to abandon it, though, if you can't substantiate in any meaningful fashion.

    You're confused.

    You are up against the entire field of neuroscience with your assertion that cognitive functions require the invocation of some magical 'supernatural' cause. The onus is yours to demonstrate why that is a necessary assumption.
     
  8. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    so again if you can't find where I said it, then stop putting words in my mouth.

    Post refuted.

    Next.
     
  9. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No one is putting words in your mouth. I'm trying my best to be as generous as possible to a very clumsy argument you made - that the existence of intelligence requires an intelligent 'first cause'.

    You can say you were only making an evidential claim, and that's ok - in that case, the very best case scenario for you is that you are stuck having to substantiate the assertion that cognitive functions necessarily require some magical 'supernatural' element.

    It's you versus the entire field of neuroscience. You have a lot of work ahead of you. So, get busy.
     
  10. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    sir you said something that was clearly wrong, and I proved it.

    moving on,

    next.
     
  11. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Why are you still here, wasting time talking to me?

    Everyone in the field of neuroscience is waiting to hear your ingenious and profound insight on the subject of cognitive processes. Clearly, you have figured out some 'truth' that has eluded them for the past seventy years or so, and are ready to explain it to them.

    Go now! They need to hear your brilliant insight.
     
  12. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,812
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Right here:
    Bolding added by me for emphasis.
    Once again, an Argument from Ignorance combined with Shifting the Burden of Proof is the only trick you know. Next.
     
  13. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    d
    Fraid not, read Nachman and Crowell "Estimate of the Mutation Rate Per Nucleotide for Humans" Genetics, 156, (Sept. 2000): pp. 297-304. Also read "Genetic Entropy" by John C. Sandford, 2008.

    The fossil record says otherwise, why are there systematic gaps between genera and phyla? Why Gould and Eldridge come up with punctuated equilibrium?

    Fraid so, the probability that all the extreme fine tuning of the universe could happen by chance is basically zero.
     
  14. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,509
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I agree that you wouldn't need to wait for a page to exist, but even on a B theory of time, one needs to account for why time appears to be passing. Time itself may not be ontologically real, but it certainly still seems like there's a sequence of interconnected events, where actions provoke reactions. If our sense of causality is off, and the effects bring the causes into being, then you can get a backwards infinite regression (but I would have to question whether you can get a forwards one), but otherwise I think there are still problems. Unless of course we want to toss out causality altogether and say that things only seem to be connected.

    Ironically enough, I prefer eternal temporal regress on an A-theory than on a B-theory. If time is ontologically real, I don't see any more of a problem with infinite time than I do with the idea of an eternal God in general. If we have an eternal God eternally creating, then infinite time is the obvious conclusion, as mindboggling as it may be. B-theory seems to imply a more self-contained take on time, though, and I don't see that as compatible with infinity in the same way.

    If you really want to get into infinite regressions, here's an article defending the Kalam on the B-theory that I found a while back. Haven't read through all of it, since the Kalam isn't something I'm particularly interested in, but it might be what you're looking for if you want to see a real defense.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  15. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,812
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    I'm still thinking about the rest of your post. But I thought the same thing that you wrote here while I was reading some of the link you posted. He and Craig both claim that actual infinites are impossible, but God has to be an actual infinite, doesn't He? Or at least some of his attributes must be.
     
  16. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +841
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You have an extremely poor track record of representing primary scientific literature in your favor. Last time you tried this, you tried to cite a 'study' from Cornell that didn't even exist.

    I'll still read those sources when I get the chance, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.

    Because fossils are extremely rare. Why would you expect to find a complete fossil record of every living thing that hasn't ever existed?

    Of course, if there were no fossils AT ALL, the evidence from genetics would still be more than enough on its own.

    Punctuated equilibrium is not 'large changes', individual to individual. It's relatively brief periods of rapid changes - still small, and still cumulative - that result in relatively 'fast' speciation, followed by stasis.

    It's also not mutually exclusive to the concept of gradualism. They have exactly the same mechanisms, just different circumstances. They can both happen. Some scientists put more emphasis on one or the other, and as in all fields, there is ongoing debate.

    There is no debate about whether evolution happens. There is only the overwhelming consensus, and a minuscule fringe of dissenters.

    You don't know that, of course. You have an extemely narrow experience of what constitutes 'life'. Given an infinite set of possible conditions, there is no telling how many of them could have resulted in a universe where intelligent life could exist, in forms that are unimagined by you or anyone else. It's a gussied-up argument from ignorance.

    Which is all to say nothing of the theological implications. You are proposing a god whose intended purpose was to create life, who couldn't find a better way than to make a universe that is 99.99999999999999999999% deadly to us. This is gargantuanly wasteful. If hydrogen molecules could think, they would have a much better case than humans do, in thinking the universe was created with them in mind.

    All of that is really beside the point, though. Your implication earlier was that the idea of the anthropic principle as evidence for Yahweh was 'well supported'. Which is false.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2019
  17. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    sir this is a bandwagon fallacy. Popular opinion is not what makes a logical statement true or not. Look up the history of bad science, to confirm this.
     
  18. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Nope, I’ve already explained to you that appeal to scientific consensus is not a bandwagon fallacy, twice now. You ignored it both times, of course, but you’re not getting away with it.
     
  19. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,000
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    The only bad science is creationism. That’s why it’s called pseudoscience. Real science is self correcting, provisional, and is the best explanation for what we see.
     
  20. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,509
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Technically speaking, no. God is seldom conceived of as being temporal at all, so there is no infinite temporal regression. There's just eternity. If God is thought to be a being like others, something that "possesses" actuality like everything else, there are serious issues, but step beyond that into the ontotheological and most of them resolve. (Granted, it's still almost impossible to conceptualize.)

    There are interesting problems here, though. Is God capable of change? I would think not, because a change of state implies temporality, and then we have to worry about divine temporal regression, amongst other things. I suspect Craig would disagree there, but I think this leads to him having to resort to a ton of special pleading as a result. (Of course, there are issues with the alternative view as well: does God undergo a change by creating a temporal world? Is his knowledge of reality now different than it was before?)

    This is one of the deeper issues with theism, and the sort of thing I wish came up more outside of rarified theological circles.
     
Loading...