• 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. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    We need to get this thread into the hall of shame!
     
  2. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Um, last I checked, this is a forum arena, and not an English Comp. class ;) But if you want to start addressing 'spell checks', I can certainly point out yours if you like :)

    In regards to the two individuals, they do both assert 'I.D.'. Stay tuned...



    Even IF everything you stated above is true, has no relevancy. Stay tuned...


    There is really nothing to train for... It results in nothing more than pseudoscience; and not anything related to actual science itself. Save such assertions for church, or classes related to theism specifically; not any science class.


    I did not bring up 'Wikipedia'. I'm sure you are aware that scholarly works do not allow for such, as it can be edited by anonymous sources. This is not to say 'wikipedia' is simply not worthy all together, but the works do need further 'fact checking' for verification...

    In regards to the trial, I.D. proponents (Michael Behe specifically), speak heavily about the 'bacteria flagellum', and irreducible complexity. Which is basically the hallmark of what you are 'driving at.' Except, Michael Behe gets his 'keaster' handed to him on a silver platter, while on the witness stand, when attempting to defend his asserted position regarding 'irreducible complexity.' And now you want to mention the 'eye'???? Do we really need to go there still??? In this day and age, with the acquired conclusions and knowledge drawn from the results of this trial alone, we would just be addressing re-runs...

    It would be a futile attempt, and nothing more than to rinse/repeat....


    You are simply begging the question again. Simply applying special pleading and invoking blank assertions, which are not falsifiable, is an easy way for theists like yourself to feel you are 'winning' the debate.

    Scientists ASSERT 'the universe was 'created'? Really? Oh awesome! I was not aware :) Then why did you feel the need to post this topic thread?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?............?

    I think you might want to study up a bit. Cosmologists seem to state that 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'past.' Beyond this, is immeasurable, and maybe even never measurable.?.?

    Then there exists people in your specific position; whom take what is currently unknown by any forthcoming evidence, and instead (add to) or (implement) not falsifiable assertions. See above for example(s)...


    I don't believe it even states anything like this specifically in the Bible.?.?.? I do believe you are pulling stuff out of your own keaster now.?.?.?

    And I addressed this already. Hint: Dover trial, 'bacteria flagellum', irreducible complexity. Look into it.

    Heck, you can watch the 2 hour Nova video, readily available on 'Youtube'. I would just be regurgitating the many points recorded and issued in 2005 ;)
     
  3. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, your videos are non sequiturs. My argument did not use the argument that DNA is a language. I said it is a linguistic CODE. Which is basically what your video refers to as programming language or programming code. Also, I am not using DNA as my primary argument for the Christian God. It is just one of a multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence. And even your video did not provide an empirical example of non-mind producing programming language. And your second video did not provide an example of natural selection or a natural process producing information, he just assumed it did, because it exists in DNA which he assumes was produced by natural selection, but he is just assuming what we are trying to prove. He needs to provide an empirical example of a natural process producing information.


    The Bible is not a science textbook but when it does touch on aspects of nature and science it is correct.
     
  4. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    For sake in brevity, let's reduce a bit...

    At the end of the day, your assertion is the same, language (vs) code is merely squabbling over semantics.

    *********************

    In regards to your cited passage of Genesis 1:1, I don't claim the Bible is equal to a science book. However, simply follow along down Genesis, which makes many other bold assertions about the nature of the universe... The Bible gets some fairly correct, and some apparently not. My question to you, is when you read Genesis, and see passages which make assertions about 'scientifically' addressed topics, and the Bible does not align with scientific discovery; do you simply ignore them, or maybe instead rationalize them - (using apologetics maybe)? The reason I ask is that there appears assertions from Genesis alone which do not appear to jive with discovery.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  5. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Your "scientific" argument, not scientists'.
    Your "historical" argument, not historians'.
    Your "philosophical" argument, not philosophers'.

    Without having your arguments published in the appropriate forums - and that's not Christian Forums - your "multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence" means nothing at all.
     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    So you are saying you dont believe in free will? If so, then you just destroyed the very possibility of science.

    See my previous post.

    See above.

    No, according to Wikipedia pixies are small physical beings that are believed to live in Irish and Scottish moorlands. Since according the law of causality the cause cannot be part of the effect, and since the effect is all of physical reality, pixies are part of that. Therefore, since God is not a physical entity, He is more likely to be the Cause of this universe since He is not part of it. Therefore, pixies can be eliminated as the cause of this universe.

    Evidence that we can empirically see the origin of living things in real time, like we can the BB?

    I never claimed it was proven. Only that it is the consensus opinion of scientists today.

    There are no misses.

    No, that is why there is consensus because the evidence for the universe being finite is pretty close to overwhelming.

    The universe and its characteristics plus the fact that most of the best things about Western Civilization are due to Christians and Christianity.

    Most likely God since some of the most widespread and "evolutionarily successful" organisms on the planet have no such instincts so natural selection would have no reason to select for it.

    Of course, you are free to do so.
     
  7. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    "free will" has many varying definitions. Completely new topic. My point in this thread, is you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe something other than the current belief, without provided reason/evidence. So I'm not sure how this would violate science...


    I'm afraid I'm not going to sift through the countless posts already issued to locate what I 'think' you are stating, and possibly still miss the 'mark' on what you are actually intending :)


    My point is that all presented models/ideas for what happened prior to the 'Big Bang' is nothing more than speculative. Cosmologists have their hypothesis', and really not too much more. Unlike the scientists in evolutionary theory, whom assert the evidence is overwhelming for their conclusions.

    And as stated prior, my 'hunch' is that the ones whom study the topic of evolution effectively, and continue to reject evolutionary theory, may be doing so as they cannot reconcile this theory, when attempting to also fit with their theistic beliefs.


    Again, 'time' as we know it is immeasurable, and gives out, prior or even at the 'Big Bang.' That's it. Presented models for eternal universe(s) is still a viable conclusion. But again, we may never 'know.' To instead assert is fallacious. We don't know.... Just like, as I stated well prior, if aliens exist or not.

    You think there is more than one definition for both pixies and God(s)? What is the 'wikipedia' definition for 'God'?

    But you are still mistaken anyways. I stated 'universe-creating pixies'. You see, the title implies the cause :)

    Again, 'time' simply gives out at some point in the 'viewable' past. That's it. Eternity is still possible. As stated in this thread or another, this 'big bang' may merely be a continuation from the ending of a previous universe(s), other....?..?.?

    We can only measure what is happening in this 'universe'. Not 'before' it, or 'outside' of it, if applicable.



    And as stated prior, 'consensus' in this particular case is irrelevant. Why? Both sides are speculative between 'time' prior to the 'Big Bang', as they adhere to nothing more than models at this point. Where-as, in scientific theory, scientists hold to a firm position, based upon peer review and concluded evidence.


    I wouldn't expect anything less from an apologetics forum :) Thank you for answering my question, in more ways than one :)

    I trust you do understand scientists overwhelming agree there was a 'Big Bang', as do I. However, I trust you also acknowledge that 'time', as we know it, simply gives out at some point. So again, my position stands, that scientists can only speculate if the 'universe' is eternal or finite. Furthermore, what 'was' prior to this labelled 'Big Bang.'

    What specific 'characteristics' of this universe lend itself exclusively to Yahweh?

    'Things' being 'good' or 'bad' lend no credence to the validity of an asserted claim. Evidence does. So I again ask... What/where is this evidence? And more importantly, why am I so oblivious to this asserted evidence for your specific assert God?



    Your response above seems to demonstrate my point (i.e.):


    '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.'
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  8. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Well, obviously, the pixies created the universe, and then afterwards moved to live in Ireland and Scotland.

    If you asked any Christian prior to, the eighteenth century how old Creation is, they would have said something like six thousand years. That seems like quite a miss, wouldn't you say?

    The Cosmological Argument is invalid, and "most of the best things about Western Civilisation" wouldn't mean anything even if it were true (which is highly debatable).

    "Most likely" God? But of course it was God! What else could it possibly be?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  9. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord ; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished.
    Proverbs 16:4‭-‬5 NKJV

    I don't need to defend myself. God explains himself fairly clearly.

    I missed my windows to respond to your posts, if you desire a logical refutation to what was said I can do it tonight, just let me know the post number. I was at the lake with my family.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  10. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +2,184
    Atheist
    When all reason fails, threaten. (I use the word reason advisedly.)
     
  11. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    when all reason fails mock.

    see, I can do it too.

    don't forget, I have evidence that there is at least on agnostic here that thinks mocking is ok
    gaara mocking

    what is to say that others don't disagree?

    In fact I haven't seen anyone correct him that is athiest or agnostic, so I assume they agree with it.

    when reason fails, mock.

    But to answer your allegation of threatening when reason fails.

    I would ask for you to point to a post number where my logic has failed, and if you cannot, then I assume that you are just mocking like gaara.

    which proves my point.
     
  12. HitchSlap

    HitchSlap Burn the torch!

    +5,037
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Well then, good job!

    You’ve done what no other philosopher in the history of humankind has been able to do.

    Now see what you can do about whirled peas.
     
  13. Tinker Grey

    Tinker Grey Wanderer Supporter

    +2,184
    Atheist
    Calling a threat a threat is not mocking.

    Identifying hollow claims of victory as hollow is not mocking.
     
  14. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I stand by my defense of mockery’s place in general discourse. That doesn’t mean we’re all just a bunch of mockers, nor that the response you quoted was itself mockery, nor that the presence of mockery indicates a failure of reason. Crying about mockery is a convenient way for you to claim victimhood, but it doesn’t get you to high ground. Stick to the subject matter.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  15. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    @gradyll

    Aside from post #1582, which you have yet to address, I wanted to also reiterate your points:

    1. You mention the 'eye'.

    2. You also mention that scientific consensus concludes a 'Big Bang'.

    Well, then you must also reconcile that scientific consensus adopts evolutionary theory; just like the Big Bang. In a nutshell, this theory states changes in allele frequencies; along with 'simple' to 'more complex' organisms. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but I just wanted to point out some of the basics of the assertions made by this field....

    Thus, evolutionary theory, which again we would need to also adhere to, if you wish to remain consistent above, seems to have an answer to the evolutionary path of the eye.


    Your move :)
     
  16. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Again I don't see a refutation here. Scientists only accept stellar evolution becausee federal grants require them to. Many scientists belive in God. I believe the current estimate is 51%.
     
  17. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Questioning your mocking is a start. Keep it up. I could prove that it was mocking but that is not the point.
     
  18. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Here is the OP again revised:

    Proving a Christian God is fairly straight forward. I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God. Firstly if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. God does nit need causation because general relitivity shows that time accelerates mass ( if you have no mass you dont have time). God us massless and outside the time domain.
    Now for the christian part:
    Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't 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. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or a not doing of something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. this is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.
     
  19. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    You’re right, that’s not the point. The point is it doesn’t matter if we’re mocking you or not, you’re still wrong.
     
  20. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Prove that scientists, whom are evolutionary biologists, do not actually accept what they study?

    This is not relevant, in the least. First of all, the term "god" is a very open ended term. Furthermore, many believe in God, while still accepting evolution by natural selection.

    I'll give you one public example, for instance. Let's go back to the Dover trial again... You know, the trial which dismantles the notion of 'irreducible complexity'... Pretty much the same argument you are using for the 'eye.' Have you heard of Kenneth R. Miller? He was also involved in this trial.
     
Loading...