• 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.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Argument for God's existence.

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

  1. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am using the most logical example of how life began if God did not do it. Basic proteins can develop under the right circumstances in water, if you apply electricity. But that type of protein is simplistic, and it not the full protein needed by the body to build cells. As far as I know, no scientific labratory experiment under any circumstances can develop the basic units of DNA (nucleotides). If you wish to know more about that experiment, look up miller urey experiment on abiogenesis. So basically what I was saying was not a straw man attack on your view point. It is literally held by millions of skeptics. That life came from an electrocuted mud puddle.

    secondly, there is no false dicotomy that I am presenting.

    Either life came by natural chance

    or it came on purpose by an intelligent being.

    one by natural causes, one by supernatural causes.

    I argue that if you see something made, you know there was a maker that made it. If you see a painting, you know there was a painter that painted it. There is a universe here, so either it was made or it made itself. Those are your two options.

    what is the most logical?

    definitely not that it made itself.

    so the only other option is that of supernatural creation.

    and this is why this solid logic, has not been defeated and still holds as a solid proof of God existence.
     
  2. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    wow, I mean wow. Someone who adheres to the scientific consensus, still believes in spontaneous generation. It is no longer believed by any of the scientists, but you can believe it if you want to. You believe all life came from an electrocuted mud puddle, so I guess spontaneous generation is sort of like that. (and I am being gracious, at least miller urey did have some proteins that were made by applying electricity to water). But you really have provided no opinions on how evolution caused life from non life. You would think this would be a basic premise of your argument that evolution is legit. I assume you adhere to what the scientific world views as the most logical form of abiogenesis, an electrocuted mud puddle.
     
  3. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,677
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I’ll ask again, and this time when you respond please refrain from goading and flaming. It’s against the rules. Just answer the question.

    Who, if not the scientists, proved that spontaneous generation is not a legitimate theory?
     
  4. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    If I flamed and goaded you must prove this. You must provide your opinion as to how life began, and or the universe began. If you cannot, then how can you prove that I flamed or goaded? When I specifically quoted the miller urey experiment, that most skeptic scientists agree with? I will not answer any more of your questions until you give me something to work with. This is a two way conversation. It's not just about my views, but about your views as well. If you say you don't know, and or are unqualified to answer them, then I suggest that this thread is not the right fit for you. As we answer these types of questions every day. They are not hard at all. Unless that is, you believe the universe came from nothing, and or life arose in a mud puddle from nothing. Then I can see why you run from being accountable and questioned on your own viewpoints.
     
  5. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,677
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No, no, I’m not interested in bickering with you. I’m interested in showing you that you hold two contradictory opinions:

    Scientists don’t ever prove anything

    Scientists proved spontaneous generation wrong.
     
  6. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I know you are searching for a gotcha point, so you can straw man every single logical argument that I presented here in this thread. But when you die and God asks "what did you do with the solid proof of my existence that people showed you, and why didn't you accept the free gift of salvation?" Then at that point you will have to pay admission with your own blood. And eternal misery. But that is the bad news, let me share some good news. So far I have kept you at arms length. I don't think that is what you need. You need to see the love of Christ.

    i found a love that won’t let me go. a love that sees past my mistakes and embraces me anyway. a love that has no expiration date. the kind of love that doesn’t make sense because everyday i wonder why it would choose me.

    yet here i am...

    chosen.

    and so are you.

    Jesus looked at the real me and made a choice.

    He saw the ugly.
    He saw the biggest mistakes.
    He saw all of the people I’ve hurt.
    He saw all the things no one else did.

    Then He CHOSE to die for me. He loved me so much He WANTED to trade places.

    That.

    Is.

    Love.

    You can have that love.

    but will you end your fight with God today, and embrace Him?

     
  7. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,677
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    So you won’t acknowledge your self-contradiction and instead launch into an emotional sermon. Sounds about right.
     
  8. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    see, you are not on a christian forum to seek out christianity, you have proved this in the last few posts. So if you are not here to be open to christianity, can you at least be honest with yourself that you are here to make christians lives miserable and to recruit to agnosticism?

    I have been as nice to you as I know how, and I have been very blunt.

    neither works, because you simply don't want God. And you just want to prove christianity false, so I suggest finding a non christian site, and/or making a blog and leaving christians alone, as they never invited you hear to do what you are doing.

    but if you wish to rethink your stance,

    here is the gospel one more time:



    I know that all you want to do is debate, but you realize that you are not angry with me, that you are really angry with God? Don't you?

    He sent me.

    My message is not my own, it's His.

    so take your anger out on Him.

    But I know that you don't believe He exists.

    I just want you to know that you are very very angry at a being that does not exist. And maybe through this anger you will realize that fighting God has got you knowhere.

    I mean is it respectable to do what you are doing without invitation?

    I believe the invitation is for atheists to come here, not to bash christianity but to politely debate their viewpoints and to hopefully be open to change.

    as a witness to them, but not as a venue to recruit to atheism or agnosticism. So this is not according to forum rules.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  9. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,677
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I’m treating you exactly as you have treated me and others here. A taste of your own medicine, as it were. In any case, you’ve had any number of chances to address the contradiction I’ve pointed out to you and instead of explaining it, you resort to personal attacks and wild speculation into my motives. I think it’s probably because you know I’m right and you’re too proud to admit it. (See what I did there?)
     
  10. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +532
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Sir, I think you need to re-read my prior post. As you have missed my point entirely.

    My point is that we can account for both chiseled faces and painted pictures.
    In both such instances, were done by humans.

    But what about the mountains and the erosion? ---> Not done by humans.

    You appealed to the simple conclusion of cause/effect. Both the mountain(s) and erosion follow suit. Since we 'know' humans were not the cause, what was?

    Thus, your painter analogy fails. Both painted pictures and chiseled faces were performed by humans. Everything not caused my humans is then in question.

    So I again point out... I'm going to presume you might assert that the mountain was 'made' my God. But was the later erosion to the Mt Rushmore faces also 'made' by God?

    You see, in conclusion, it drives the question....

    What causes were natural, verses supernatural? What 'metric' do you use?

    Once you properly address above, we can move forward. I am not trying to direct. I asked you this question before you posed another topic. If you wish to remain consistent, then please follow your own rules, by answering the questions posed in the order they were asked.

    In which case, you would still need to address point #2, the universe being eternal vs finite...
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
  11. holo

    holo former Christian

    +675
    Norway
    Agnostic
    Private
    OK, I'm glad your position is a bit more nuanced than "atheists think lightning struck a puddle and frog leaped out." If life arose from non-life, we're probably talking about millions of years of development and it would probably be really hard to pinpoint exactly when it could be rightly called life.

    I agree that the universe can't have come into existence out of literally nothing. But we probably can't even imagine what reality was like "before" time began, just like we can't really picture that there's nothing outside the universe (the universe is expanding, but it's not expanding "into" anything). I really don't think the universe can be compared to a work of art.
     
  12. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,877
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    This isn't some petty point about a fact you got wrong. It's the crux of your argument. Either scientists never disproved that life can pop into existence from nothing, which makes God unnecessary, or your defense against scientists explaining the origins and evolution of life fails and that makes God unnecessary too. Either way, it makes your argument not a solid proof of His existence.

    You want to use science when you think it supports your position, such as when you conflate spontaneous generation with abiogenesis, but then you want to completely discard it when it doesn't, such as with evolution. You can't have it both ways. So take your pick about what you are wrong about. Or continue denying that you've made a mistake because you're too proud, but that will just make anything else you try to argue look disingenuous too.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +132
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Well you need to tell Dr. Goldsmith, because that is what he wrote.
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +532
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I think you are taking my response the wrong way. One of my points is that you cannot control what you believe.

    And to address your response prior, there is no 'consensus' between finite vs eternal, via the 'universe'. As I provided prior, links which demonstrate as such. There still exists a handful of hypothesis'. Again, the conclusion is that there currently is no conclusion; not now, maybe not ten years from now, or maybe even ever? With 'macroevolution', scientists across the board seem to state the conclusion is overwhelming. Except for a very small handful. And it seems to suggest that many of the ones whom oppose this conclusion in macroevolution may primarily be doing so because it conflicts with their theistic conclusions/presuppositions....?.?.? Just a hunch, yes :)


    Again, I provided links which seem to suggest against your assertion(s). If the universe is eternal, then this may suggest no room or necessity for a creator.


    Sure, I can no better tangibly demonstrate the existence of my asserted pixies, as you cannot produce tangible evidence for your asserted God. Great.

    Books and assertions are a dime a dozen. That's exactly my point. Evidence needs to point directly to your specific assertion(s). And thus far, nothing you have provided does. Hence, my 'pixies' are still in the running.


    As I demonstrated, with links, I can demonstrate to the contrary. As of now, differing ideas. And...?

    Please see above. You now appear to be ignoring my point. Why is that? It is divided because scientists admit there is still work to be done, and may or may not ever be completely done. It is not deemed 'proven', like many other topics of 'concluded' scientific theory/endeavor.

    Do we really want to go here? As I asked you before... Are you ready to potentially accept the 'hits', and ignore the 'misses' from the Bible?

    I think this may be where we might be speaking past one another. It's not the number, or even the percentage....

    My point is that scientists seem to claim that the evidence is overwhelming, in support of macroevolution. (Where-as) the concept of the universe, being finite vs eternal, is theoretical, with differing models and ideas.


    Where is this 'strong evidence' that God has revealed His presence? From the OT and the Gospels? Other?

    My point being, is that it appears possible that humans may apply intentional agency, draw conclusions, and connect dots. Meaning, humans seem to infer that 'someone' is either looking out for them, and/or is against them. The question is... Is this inherited from passed down survival instincts - (evolution/other)? Or, Is God the supplier of such? Many questions, maybe even another topic altogether.

    Beg to differ...
     
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +132
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes I am, the fact that the universe operates by laws IS evidence for a lawgiving God, which fits the bible perfectly. There is no evidence for pixies. Only persons can create laws, pixies are not persons, so they cannot be the creator of this universe.

    No, God is not a law so He doesnt need a lawgiver, He is a personal being.

    No, the bible plainly teaches that God does try to limit human evil. That is one of the reasons for His command to evangelize and convert. And also the bible says we can learn about Him by studying the universe and Nature and that provides a good explanation about why the universe is so large and difficult for human travel.

    Yes, He knew that we would rebel aganst Him and reject the good. Given that there are billions of planets, if He had let us spread throughout the universe there could have resulted in at least a thousand Nazi regimes. So the difference in the amount of evil would be huge by keeping us on the earth. That would be magnitudes of difference in evil.

    See what?

    No, with the Hubble telescope and other instruments we actually have learned the characteristics of thousands of exoplanets now, and none of them so far are compatible for intelligent life.

    That means that they are also made in the image of God, therefore they also may have rebelled against Him and need to be evangelized. But the scientific evidence is pointing that such intelligent life is unlikely to exist.
     
  16. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +532
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    You know no better how we came into existence than I. Your continued blank assertions are not founded. They are simply asserted. Hence, the reason I can equally assert for the proposition of pixies :) Furthermore, how would you know what attributes this asserted pixie has / has not?


    The 'universe' is not a 'law'. The universe may very well be eternal. Again, if it is, then your asserted 'law-giving creator' ceases from the equation by possible necessity.


    You continue to grasp at straws. The Bible mentions many things in which you can interpret in a multitude of ways. In your case, apparently far fetched.

    Again, I doubt God made the vast majority of the universe inhabitable to humans to prevent the spread of 'evil.' Nor, does it state this in the Bible. Your own personal rendition of hermeneutics is rather unorthodox, to say the least :)


    My point is: Continued 'evil' among billions, for thousands/millions of years, across earth, is fine; but anything more (across other planets), is not fine??? What's the difference really?

    Seriously, the very first link found presents the following:

    Life Signs | The Search for Life – Exoplanet Exploration: Planets Beyond our Solar System

    My point is: As we have yet enough data to determine if the universe is eternal/finite, the same holds true with intelligent life elsewhere.


    So are you saying that if there is a possibility that intelligent cognitive life exists elsewhere, they would know of Yahweh as well?
     
  17. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    the only thing you have against what I said was that I said two statements, one: that scientific facts cannot be proven, and secondly that : spontanous generation was disproven. But something being disproven is much easier than being proven so I am not exactly sure why your so proud of yourself. But yes, you didn't adress my motive for you being here, and you used a red herring back onto my statements. But I am sure it made you feel uncomfortable that everyone here now knows your motive for being here. and that is sufficient for now.
     
  18. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,556
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    can erosion cause mount rushmore? If so, then you have a miracle. If not then your point is moot. So I guess I really don't think you have a coherent argument here.
     
  19. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,877
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    LOL Weak semantic spin. Here's the definition of the word disprove:

    disprove
    verb
    dis·prove | \ (ˌ)dis-ˈprüv \
    disproved; disproving; disproves
    Definition of disprove


    transitive verb

    : to prove to be false or wrong : REFUTEdisprove a theory
    You're still claiming that scientists proved something. You're claiming that scientists proved spontaneous generation is false. Now, did they prove that spontaneous generation is false, or are scientists incapable of proving anything? Take you pick about what mistake you made, your entire argument fails either way.
     
  20. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,677
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    How is disproving any easier than proving? Either one requires facts. And you don’t believe in science having facts.
     
Loading...