• 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. ToddNotTodd

    ToddNotTodd Iconoclast

    +2,404
    Seeker
    Married
    It’s like there’s more than one of them...
     
  2. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,872
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    I can't tell whether he's pathologically incapable of admitting error, or if he's just trying to "win" through shifty debate tactics. Either way, let people like that talk long enough and the cognitive dissonance turns into full blown dissociative personality disorder at some point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  3. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, everything I have said is based on science, history and philosophy. And all three provide strong evidence for biblical Christianity.
     
  4. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?

    Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.

    Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?

    No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

    Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.
     
  5. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    All three of your articles are new outlier theories that most cosmologists do not accept. So at present as Dr. Donald Goldsmith has asserted, the consensus is still that the unverse is not eternal. My point is that if someone decides that this is strong evidence for God, this is a good time to try to communicate with Him, because right now the evidence from the BB theory strongly points to His existence so it is a rational decision to believe in Him. Maybe someday the evidence will change but maybe it wont, meanwhile you come to know God personally, what could be greater than that?

    Scientists already have, but they are either ignored or blackballed as I explained in my last post.

    Again, it might be a problem for the Christian Creator but not a creator in general due to the problem of contingency. You do know what contingency means dont you?

    No, the theory for the Christian creator IS falsifiable as I explained above, if the universe is eternal then that would probably disprove the existence of the Christian God since the bible plainly teaches that it had a definite beginnning.

    Again, while not proven the consensus still says that the universe is not eternal. And just philosophically as I stated earlier it cannot be eternal because of the problem of an infinite regress, ie we would never reach the present and yet we have.
     
  6. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I don't even know where to begin here, but I'll take a stab at it..?

    1. Regardless of 'consensus', you have three sides to adhere to or adopt - (eternal, finite, or we don't have enough information yet and/or maybe ever?). Both 'absolute' sides admit to mere hypothesis/theoretical/speculative conjecture. The fact that 'more' may currently side with 'finite' over and above 'eternal', is really irrelevant at this juncture. Why? Because we are still investigating... Unlike evolutionary theory, where (primarily) the only ones disputing this scientific theory/conclusion are the ones whom find conflict with it, in direct comparison with their own personal beliefs with the Bible/other...

    2. Even IF the universe was found to be finite, the 'universe-creating pixies', whom, by the way, create universes, did it. <- Is just as valid as your assertion.

    3. Applying 'Pascal's Wager' does not do anything, as God would know if I was 'hedging my bets', and would know I was not genuine.

    4. I attempted to 'find your asserted God' in prayer for 30+ years and never felt 'His' presence. So faking it isn't gonna work to a claimed all knowing God, if He should happen to exist ;)

    5. The BB theory points to nothing more than a possible beginning to this current state in our known universe. Before 'this point', is merely un-measurable at this point in time. That's really it.


    Please furnish the best example? And whom is rejecting it, and more importantly, why? In today's day and age, I find it hard to believe 'science' has the power to control and manipulate 'truth'. Not that it's really science's job to try and prove/disprove God anyways...

    Okay, then IF the universe is eternal, then we may very well 'rule out Yahweh.'

    At this point, you are asserting a theoretical proposition, with not enough data to do anything more than speculate. Thus, you are asserting without concrete evidence.



    Sure, but even IF everything you asserted turned out 'true', you would still have to account for the necessary space/realm/existence for which God needed to occupy during His entire existence. Which would mean not only would God exist eternally, but some dimension of 'space' for Him to dwell would need to also exist eternally. Otherwise, at one point in the past, He dwelled in 'nothingness'? And yes, I use the term 'nothingness' loosely. In conclusion, the existence of some type of space would have to also exist eternally for God to dwell. Thus, again begging the question about 'who' created this eternal space for God to reside in His eternal state? You see, we just keep pushing the problem back one more step... But again, if this realm too was also eternal, then presents yet another reason to demonstrate the lack in necessity for 'creation.'

    Invoking special pleading doesn't solve the problem. You know what 'special pleading' means, don't you?


    Okay great. Then we are at a stand-still... We don't 'know' of the reality to the universe's beginning / not beginning. Again, the 'fact' that more scientists currently ascribe to the theoretical hypothesis that it 'may be finite' really says nothing more than they have a hunch to favor your hoped for position... But even if this hunch pans out, says nothing about what happened prior to this finite moment in 'time'. This is where you do nothing more than assert.

    And if you again use Genesis 1:1 as 'evidence', then maybe we should follow along in Genesis, and play 'accept the hits and ignore the misses.'


    'Time', as we 'know' it, gives out. What happened 'before' this 'moment' is not measurable. At this point, is where you assert without viable evidence.

    It's possible, the 'beginning' of this universe is merely the end of another. It's possible our current universe is eternal. It's possible a 'creating force' made this one, in which case there exists room for many asserted God(s), not just yours. Or maybe it was 'created by some finite force which no longer exists. Other.................................
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
  7. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Post #1558.. Though I do admit my responses run longer than necessary sometimes :)

    His entire argument is cause/effect... What was the 'cause' of mountain(s), nature or super-nature? How can you tell? Intelligent design (vs) some natural based process?

    It is going to start branching off now... "Complexity" etc.....

    Weee
     
  8. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I have already won the battle of logic over the premise that you cannot prove a single known fact (other than mathmatically speaking), you try and try to post all the technical information you can via google and other sources and yet you still post external eye witnesses to alleged proof.

    now you admit this, and then confess that I don't know "why?" or that this is incoherent?

    Is that really the issue I raised? Why?

    Or is the issue I raised simply the premise that your alleged proof of mirages was wrong?

    But really I wish to reopen the above statement you made, that "a scientific consensus is good evidence."

    so basically this is saying, because someone who is smarter than I believes something, I should believe it.

    So as a Los Angeles Angels fan, and Mike Trout tells you as a fan, how to throw a baseball. That means the right off the bat, that that method is the best and most valuable method? Well what if he is left handed? Is that the same exact method a right handed person uses? What if a 5 year old does not have the motor skills to throw a ball like a full grown man, does that mean that that method is the best method for kids? Even if every major league baseball player had a consensus on how to throw a ball, that does not mean it's right. For all the above reasons. So again this is why this type of reasoning is faulty. Just because someone should know something, or they are a professional, does not mean that they have complete knowledge or have done the proper tests for every possible scenario of whatever they are testing. So yes, this is still a bandwagon fallacy. Now at this point you typically say it's not because of the fact that you believe in other evidences that corroborate the consensus, but I never actually seen any of those evidences, in fact I am 99% sure you never posted them, in the next 20-30 posts after you said the above statement. Because if you did post them, they could be examined for flaws, and you didn't want that. So yes, as it sits, you did actually commit a fallacy, in fact dozens upon dozens of times. Because even if you had corroboration of the consensus, you still are required to post that information.
     
  9. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    never heard before that buddhism was observable, but yet christianity was based on faith. You have any examples at all of observable data that buddhism believes? I doubt it. What I find is universal faith. Everyone has faith, nothing is proven. You can't even prove for example basic laws of science without having faith that scientists did everything correctly in their science. So yes, sorry to break it to you, you live in faith, when you became a buddhist.
     
  10. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    when saying (via various character assassinations and ad hominem attack that my sources lose, you should probably spell "lose" correctly. It makes your argument go a little further. But those sources are scientists who have journalled many peer reviews and are very good at what they do. But your google search never said that did it? That is because you don't know that the "teach the controversy" curriculum has passed in 8 states, and is currently being taught in thousands of high schools. That is not intelligent design, in fact if you ask stephen meyer if he believes intelligent design should be taught, he says no. Because teachers are not trained to teach it. And they would do more damage than help. No doubt this was the problem of the scopes trial. People that didn't know that creationism and intelligent design were different.
    yes, sir I have read the trial. And numerous recent trials into this. So by all means please quote what you don't agree with. In fact none of what was said, was actually said in the Dover trial, but you can equivocate us with them all you want. After all that is what they do in public school curriculum, not to mention the internet scholar's number one site, wikipedia.


    natual and supernatural causes are not mutually exclusive. God for example can use natural laws to do miracles. Simply a being that is in a higher plane of existence can do miracles in a totally logical fashion for a being of higher dimensionality (please see Dr. quantum flat lander on you tube).


    I think I adressed this above.


    most of the scientists I know realize the universe is expanding and that there was an explosion of some sort in the past (big bang), and that this was the cause of the universe. Again, so when you say "we are not sure the universe is finite or eternal." you are meaning you, and if that is the case. I would try to google search evidence for the big bang. Because most of science is geered on the fact the universe was created. Secondly, a universe, the biggest cause. Not having a cause at all (is eternal), violates basic scientific laws of cause and effect. At that point, all cause and effect can ultimately be compromised. If the biggest effect can be uncaused, then why does anything have to be caused at all?



    again I am not sure where you are going with this. God created the laws of physics, so if they are available to use, why would He not use them in creating the universe? To me, it would be wasteful to just miraculously create everything while making separate operating laws of the universe. I don't know how the mountains were created, if they were done through God provoked natural earthquakes, or God inspired upheavals of tecktonic plates. I am unsure, it would depend on where the mountain is for one.


    I already adressed this above, so stop saying I am not adressing this.

    God who is massless, does not need to take up space. Mass takes up space.

    I have completely and sufficiently replied to all of your accusations above, now please answer my quotations of specified complexity.

    the eye for example has several systems that would have to evolve one by one, but they are all codependant and would not function as a whole without all the systems. How does that evolve? This is what is meant by specified complexity
     
  11. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You haven’t addressed a single thing I said, so as far as I’m concerned this conversation about your bizarre hangups about proof in science is over but if you really do want a lesson in logic you can just ask me.

    As for the scientific consensus, I’m going to break it down Teletubbies style for you.

    Let’s say your car breaks down. You take it to five hundred mechanics and they all tell you it’s your timing belt. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

    Let’s say you have a cough. You go to five hundred doctors and they all say you have bronchitis. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

    Let’s say you want to lose weight. You go to five hundred personal trainers and they all tell you to eat less and move more. Do you believe them, or would believing them be the bandwagon fallacy?

    Please meditate on each of these examples and give honest answers. I promise this isn’t a trap, I’m really trying to help you understand something here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  12. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +2,184
    Atheist
    Per the Grady Debate Rule (TM): You lose
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  13. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Fire for the Earth! (Luke 12:49) Supporter

    +5,762
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok. We're almost to 80 pages, folks. 100 is only 20 more away ... ^_^ If anyone can do it, you all can!
     
  14. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    456
    +439
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Well, yes. A hypothesis of a Christian God predicts that we should be able to determine that the universe had an origin at some point, and big bang theory does point to an origin event, even if we can't scientifically determine what that event was yet. If steady state theory had held up, it would have been a real problem for a Christian God, since it would have implied an eternal universe. Developing the big bang theory was quite a success for the Catholic Church.

    Of course, certain literal interpretations of the Bible can be ruled out by modern science, but that doesn't rule out less literal versions.
     
  15. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,872
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Hey @gaara4158 check out this quote, LOL
     
  16. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    His different arguments for God’s existence literally contradict one another ^_^
     
  17. ananda

    ananda Early Buddhist

    +1,876
    Private
    Early Buddhism is built upon these observable, foundational principles, none of which I need to take on faith:
    • Causes produces their relevant effects = Kamma-Vipaka aka "Karma"
    • Illness is inevitable
    • Old age is inevitable
    • Death is inevitable
    • Change in life is inevitable
    • One way or another, I am heir to my actions
    • All volitional actions in life are done to alleviate perceived discontentment
    • Etc.
    Unobservable (mainstream) Christian allegations which Christians must take on faith:
    • There is an omniscient, omnipotent God named Jehovah (or Yahweh, etc.)
    • Jesus is his son
    • Jesus died on the cross
    • His death and sacrifice effected salvation for those who have faith
    • Rejection of his sacrifice effects eternal damnation/separation from God to others
    • Eternal life
    • Etc.
     
  18. ToddNotTodd

    ToddNotTodd Iconoclast

    +2,404
    Seeker
    Married
    So you’re encouraging this?

    For shame...
     
  19. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    It is a fairly huge statement, to say that you have been wrong about virtually everything in this thread. But not particularly difficult to verify. All you have to do is read the seventy-plus pages of this thread, and see your arguments being refuted, again and again.
    Now you, I'm sure, would say that every single thing you said was correct. But would you at least agree that people have disagreed with more or less everything you said on this thread? And that you have rarely, or perhaps not at all, admitted you were wrong about anything?
    So it seems pretty clear that either you're wrong about everything on this thread, or we are.
    Of course, anyone who takes the trouble to read a few pages of this thread can see that you would be well advised to spend time reviewing your knowledge of science, reasoning and logical fallacies, rather than trying to correct others on them. Because (and I hope you don't take this the wrong way) it's clearly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Uh-huh. Who told you that's what we believe?
    What scientists believe, as I understand it, is that the universe began, about fourteen billion years ago, as a speck that exploded, for causes presently unknown; and that life most likely began due to chemical reactions that led to self-replicating organisms evolving. They don't state these as facts, because in science you follow where the evidence leads, always being ready to revise your views if it is warranted.
    So saying "scientists believe that the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing" is false; they do not know why the Big Bang happened, or what cause it, if anything (can "causes" exist without the presence of time?") The intellectually honest thing to do, then, is to say you don't know, and that you are awaiting further evidence. Which is, of course, exactly what scientists do.

    Hmmm. Okay. But let's tweak those rules a bit. Let's say that you have to find a dozen examples of non-Christians mocking Christianity, Christians or faith that were not in response to mockery from Christians.
    How about this thread? There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

    This will come as news to scientists, historians and philosophers. In point of fact, Ed, you're quite incorrect. Not even most Christians would agree with you, even on the claim about philosophy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
  20. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,872
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    No need. I gave him a thread to look at and he couldn't find what he claimed would be there. I'm trying to get him to understand that even though folk are mean to him, since they ain't mean to other Christians, that Christianity isn't the problem, he is.
     
Loading...