• 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.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Argument for God's existence.

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

  1. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so you honestly believe that if they realized they had no evidence that they would still adhere to evolution? You are probably correct. But that makes my point even more important. That people should be honest with themselves when they see that there is no evidence.
     
  2. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    If in some bizarre turn of events it turned out that evolution was wrong, it would be scientists who found out and told the press. It happens all the time with widely-held beliefs. But you have no evidence that evolution isn’t true, so this point is moot.
     
  3. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    and you have no evidence God isn't real. So I guess we are even.
     
  4. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Well, none of my arguments hinge on the premise that God isn’t real, whereas all of yours hinge on evolution not being real, so actually it just looks like you’ve failed.
     
  5. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    sir I have never once said that evolution is impossible. This is a red herring. To distract from what I have said. When you get cornered you tend to use fallacy. Normally it's insults, in this case its misrepresenting what was said for the purpose of making your point.
     
  6. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    By all means, highlight what you’ve said that I’m trying to distract from. You just tried to declare us even after I pinned you on scientific consensus because I couldn’t prove something that I never claimed. That’s not even, in my opinion, but if it helps you retain the information I’ve provided you over this exchange I don’t mind if you tell yourself that.
     
  7. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am unsure what you are saying here, it's not very clear.
     
  8. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You tried to say our positions are equally valid because you can’t demonstrate that evolution isn’t true and I can’t demonstrate that God doesn’t exist, right? Because if that’s what you meant, it is false because my position is not a denial of God’s existence whereas yours is a denial of evolution (specifically macro evolution). So where failure to demonstrate the falsity of evolution really is a problem for your position, failure to demonstrate the non existence of God is not a problem for mine.

    But we were discussing scientific consensus in this thread, and if you’ve learned that you can’t dismiss scientific consensus as a bandwagon fallacy then I don’t care what else you think, this has been a success.
     
  9. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I never tried to demonstrate evolution isn't true, that is impossible. Like proving God does not exist. All one need to do is say that it appears that there is no evidence for evolution. But you cannot do that with God due to proving His existence in the OP.
     
  10. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Well, it doesn’t appear that way because the scientific community is in near-unanimous agreement that there is evidence, and we have established that that counts, so what you’re saying is false.
     
  11. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    first of all are you sure that it's unanimous? there is a list of a thousand scientists that reject evolution here: https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

    secondly science cannot prove a single fact, so who really cares what scientists think. What ever it is they are trying to do, is failing.

    thirdly this is a bandwagon fallacy (and yes I still believe it is), it is also called appeal to the populus. Basically it is saying, because the majority believe something, that it is therefore true, and we don't need to examine the facts.

    fourthly, this faith you have in the consensus, do you look down on theists that have a similar faith? It appears so.
     
  12. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I said near-unanimous, you need to read carefully. It’s enough of a consensus to go ahead and accept as a non-expert.

    Secondly science proves facts all the time, just not mathematically. You will hear that there is no proof in science, and that’s accurate in the strict philosophical use of the word proof, but in the colloquial sense yes, science does prove things. It’s the only thing that proves things in that sense. So it’s time to retire that point as well.

    Thirdly I still have my handy dandy knock-down argument for that point of yours, I never get tired of using it. Now, before you skip reading it again, see if you can spot which word I've changed this time: So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

    The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

    The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.


    Fourthly, as explained above, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the consensus of scientists on matters of science, but your faith has no such reasonable foundation.
     
  13. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so it's ok to have faith in scientists, but not have faith in God?

    so you admit, you have a religion?

    It's called the religion of scientism.

    and I am still waiting for a fact that science can prove.

    (I do technically state that 99.99% of science is unprovable (the non math type of science),

    but feel free and put your money where your mouth is, and at least provide a cogent argument that science can prove things, and provide examples. I don't care about the colloquial use of the word, that is moving the goal posts), please provide one concrete fact that science can prove. But really you should provide ten, seeing that you have said that science can prove things.

    we will wait. (btw I used your word against you).
     
  14. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    433
    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Forgive me for addressing this so late in the thread. If it was dealt with somewhere in the past 70 pages, I apologize. It just started bugging me.

    Why do you think that it must have intelligence and be rational according to cause and effect?

    In fact, earlier in the post, when talking about cause and effect, you said "We don't even need to go into intelligence or creationism." Your conclusion that cause and effect implies intelligence and rationality seems to be a leap in logic.
     
  15. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,392
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Yes sir, imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can do that, then a creator can create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause.
     
  16. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    433
    +391
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Thanks, I see what you had in mind now.
     
  17. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I admit it is unproven but it is not based on my opinion, it is based on truths that God has revealed to us. Though I know you dont believe that.

    No, I am not claiming it is impossible, just unlikely.

    No, it is not unfounded, it is based on what God has told us in His word and what we have learned from His creation.
     
  18. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, the problem is not that there are randomly assorted gaps which is what would be expected if there was just a lack of fossils, it is that they are systematically at the places where the biggest morphological changes would be taking place, such as genera and phyla.

    That is how they explain it, but nevertheless it confirms that those systematic gaps exist and they are attempting to hold to the paradigm by coming up with basically an ad hoc explanation.

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

    No, it is based on knowledge not ignorance, the life we have on earth is the only life we know about, so it is rational to assume that is the only life possible and so we look for those conditions in exoplanets and other areas of the universe. Scientists that study exoplanets make this rational assumption everyday. You have no way of knowing that there is an infinite set of possible conditions, in fact all the empirical scientific evidence says otherwise. You can theorize anything but that tells us next to nothing about reality.

    Not if He wanted a universe that operates primarily on natural law and keeps the evil of humans in check from spreading throughout the universe. Which according to His word that is partially one of His goals.

    Fraid not, see above about the rational assumption of what type of life could live in our universe.[/QUOTE]
     
  19. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No, it’s not faith, it’s reasonable confidence, and it’s the furthest thing from a religion that you can get.

    I’ve already told you science doesn’t prove things mathematically, but it does provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief. And that’s all that matters. You can insist that someone mathematically prove vinegar and baking soda foam up on contact before you take the claim seriously, but the rest of us will see the demonstration, accept it and move on. The only reason you’d hold out on something so obviously demonstrable is that it’s inconvenient to your worldview.
     
  20. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Keep on keeping on

    +1,554
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Also, you’re the one who moved the goalposts from “there seems to be no evidence” to “there’s no mathematical proof.” Stop using logical fallacies.
     
Loading...