Argument for God's existence.

[cvanwey]

(even while most other facts cannot be proven), this is a big if, then I guess I would have to come to a crisis of faith. I would have to doubt the Bible and what it actually said literally in genesis. The lineologies of genesis are only about 4000 B.C. So if you add up all the dates of the years of everyone's lives it puts the garden of eden about 4004 B.C according to James Usher.

Thank you for the honest answer @gradyll

The reason I asked was simple... If you were going to tell me, 'no', then I guess discussing macroevolution would be nothing more than a mere talking point.

But since this is a debate forum, it's debatable. I will now add it to the list, in debate with you Again, I'm not a biologist, thus, my position does not rest upon whether this theory is true or not.

Moving forward, please address any/all below; which are topics you have mentioned; and I have responded:

1.Eternal vs finite is not concluded. 'Eternal inflation' alone argues for an eternal universal state, which seems to eliminated the 'need' for a creator. Differing models are floating around, but none have become scientific theory, as a conclusion.

2. Cause/effect has no relevancy in your argument. Why? Even IF our 'local universe' had a beginning, we are not able to measure what happened prior to the 'beginning' of our 'local universe' - (time, space, energy, matter). This 'Big Bang' could be the result of 'the end' of the one prior...

3. The Dover trial of 2005 seems to negate your 'eye' argument for 'irreducible complexity'

4. I know you did not ask for videos, but I did not want to type a "text wall". Pardon the 'title.'

5. If the universe continues to expand, what lies 'outside' this space?

 

[cvanwey]

a quick google search said it was a hypothetical model. So how does a hypothetical model refute a basic law of science? I am finding it very difficult to debate with you without getting frustrated over your misuse of logic. I feel you are slightly being dishonest with how you are dealing with me. I won't block you right now. But I may in the future. Simply because I don't feel you are contributing honest replies. Some people I debate here I can feel are willing to learn, but you seem just bent on refuting christianity, and that is all fine. You technically can't do that here, but most likely they won't ban you for refuting christianity. But at least be honest with why you are here. Do yourself a favor. I think if you know your true purpose for being here, you may debate nicer and others will know too. I have much more respect for people who are simply here to refute christianity and use logic. But for someone to do the same thing and have contempt for logic, reveals that they are not truly being honest.

My avatar says it all. I've been nothing but honest here, for the entire time I joined. I'm a skeptic, and have spent two years here stating my case. Which is, I was a believer for over 3 decades, and now have severe doubt, etc....

Nothing you have furnished, thus far in this thread, deals with what I'm bringing up in this thread. Science is a multifaceted arena, with many sub-topics. Your over-simplification of science, appears quite telling....

You don't think such public figures, like Allan Guth, Sean Carroll, and others would not be immediately laughed out of their profession, if they went around speaking about the probability of an eternal universe, if it 'simply' conflicted with another theory? I'm not attempting to appeal to authority, but to demonstrate that many legitimate models are rolling around, and others, in the scientific community, are not telling them their model conflicts with what you have brought up...

Seriously.... And it's quite funny, that it is you, whom is telling (me) of my 'misuse of logic.'

 

[createdtoworship]

Thank you for the honest answer @gradyll

The reason I asked was simple... If you were going to tell me, 'no', then I guess discussing macroevolution would be nothing more than a mere talking point.

But since this is a debate forum, it's debatable. I will now add it to the list, in debate with you Again, I'm not a biologist, thus, my position does not rest upon whether this theory is true or not.

Moving forward, please address any/all below; which are topics you have mentioned; and I have responded:

1.Eternal vs finite is not concluded. 'Eternal inflation' alone argues for an eternal universal state, which seems to eliminated the 'need' for a creator. Differing models are floating around, but none have become scientific theory, as a conclusion.

2. Cause/effect has no relevancy in your argument. Why? Even IF our 'local universe' had a beginning, we are not able to measure what happened prior to the 'beginning' of our 'local universe' - (time, space, energy, matter). This 'Big Bang' could be the result of 'the end' of the one prior...

3. The Dover trial of 2005 seems to negate your 'eye' argument for 'irreducible complexity'

4. I know you did not ask for videos, but I did not want to type a "text wall". Pardon the 'title.'

5. If the universe continues to expand, what lies 'outside' this space?

I know I said that I will reply to one last post. So I will. For one I am not a creationist, I am an intelligent design advocate. Secondly the dover trial was redone in 2005 I believe with norman geisler and another type of court case. If you wanted to be relevant in your court cases, I would at least use the latest one. Norman Geisler has a book on it, if you want to read it it's called "creation in the courts."

so anyway, take care....I hope you find what you are looking for, I am sorry we cannot agree on many subjects, but thanks for the debate and take care in your further ventures. (I may still reply to posts, but I will give priority to those who are not blocked), thanks again.

 

[createdtoworship]

My avatar says it all. I've been nothing but honest here, for the entire time I joined. I'm a skeptic, and have spent two years here stating my case. Which is, I was a believer for over 3 decades, and now have severe doubt, etc....

Nothing you have furnished, thus far in this thread, deals with what I'm bringing up in this thread. Science is a multifaceted arena, with many sub-topics. Your over-simplification of science, appears quite telling....

You don't think such public figures, like Allan Guth, Sean Carroll, and others would not be immediately laughed out of their profession, if they went around speaking about the probability of an eternal universe, if it 'simply' conflicted with another theory?

Seriously.... And it's quite funny, that it is you, whom is telling (me) of my 'misuse of logic.'

sir, take care. It was a pleasure debating with you. I am sorry I am not patient enough to debate you on basic's. Much of your arguments are riddled with fallacy, for instance using dover trial is simply poisoning the well. I tried to ignore most of the fallacy and debate you directly, but the fallacy was overwhelming to be honest. So I wish I could be of more help to you. You can reply to this post and ask for some links on various topics from peer reviews of intelligent design to peer review proving evolution not true, whatever you want. So take care. I have blocked further posts from you, it does not mean I can't see them, it just means priority will be given to unblocked users. Take care.

 

[cvanwey]

I know I said that I will reply to one last post. So I will. For one I am not a creationist, I am an intelligent design advocate. Secondly the dover trial was redone in 2005 I believe with norman geisler and another type of court case. If you wanted to be relevant in your court cases, I would at least use the latest one. Norman Geisler has a book on it, if you want to read it it's called "creation in the courts."

so anyway, take care....I hope you find what you are looking for, I am sorry we cannot agree on many subjects, but thanks for the debate and take care in your further ventures. (I may still reply to posts, but I will give priority to those who are not blocked), thanks again.

I 'hearken' back to one of your original responses... Where you state that 'atheists' in other forums either blocked you, or could not refute your assertions.

Well, looking at the history of this thread, it is quite telling sir. Your tactics seem to merely 'block' people, when they (back you into a corner). And now, others can see what you have not even attempted to address....

No worries, it's your decision. But it is quite telling. When someone feels they are loosing a debate, they will likely resort to three types of actions:

1. ignore
2. insult
3, redirect

You, my friend, have demonstrated the trifecta...

 

[cvanwey]

sir, take care. It was a pleasure debating with you. I am sorry I am not patient enough to debate you on basic's. Much of your arguments are riddled with fallacy, for instance using dover trial is simply poisoning the well. I tried to ignore most of the fallacy and debate you directly, but the fallacy was overwhelming to be honest. So I wish I could be of more help to you. You can reply to this post and ask for some links on various topics from peer reviews of intelligent design to peer review proving evolution not true, whatever you want. So take care. I have blocked further posts from you, it does not mean I can't see them, it just means priority will be given to unblocked users. Take care.

See post 1665, rinse/repeat..

 

[InterestedAtheist]

For one I am not a creationist, I am an intelligent design advocate.

You may not be aware of this...But this does, actually, mean that you are a Creationist. The whole "Intelligent Design" movement was deliberately and cynically constructed in order to exploit a legal loophole.
I'm not accusing you of deception, mind. You may have been received yourself. But it is a fact that ID was deliberately made to be a form of Creationism that could pretend to be science.
See this article for further information.
What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?

 

[createdtoworship]

You may not be aware of this...But this does, actually, mean that you are a Creationist. The whole "Intelligent Design" movement was deliberately and cynically constructed in order to exploit a legal loophole.
I'm not accusing you of deception, mind. You may have been received yourself. But it is a fact that ID was deliberately made to be a form of Creationism that could pretend to be science.
See this article for further information.
What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism?

yes sir that would be a third group, that somehow uses intelligent design arguments within creationism. I look at it this way, to avoid it being over complicated. Creationism uses the Bible as evidence in it's arguments, Intelligent Design advocates can actually be atheist, and not even believe in God. Intelligent design advocates strictly use scientific principles and logic as their arguments, not scripture. This article may help you understand the difference:

http://www.discovery.org/a/3191/

 

[Yttrium]

I have lots of websites I can give you to help you understand your own theory if you want, let me know. I don't mind sharing and am not intimidated by appeals to ignorance that I see in the scientific arena.

It's not my theory. I don't even like biology. I'm a math/physics guy. I'd be perfectly happy with a Hugh Ross type of scenario, and I have no interest in defending macroevolution. There are plenty of scientific theories in physics that wouldn't exist if they had to observe and test every aspect of the theories, so it tends to bother me when people misrepresent the scientific method.

You make a good argument for a first cause. I do think that the universe was created, although I don't know if it as created by an intelligent being or a sequence of natural events. You think of things as they are, and infer that there must have been a creator for them. I think of things in an early state, vast clouds of hydrogen and helium, and I don't see as much of a need for a creator of that. On the other hand, those clouds go on to produce humans someday, with our hideously complex DNA, and it seems quite reasonable to me that a creator could have designed the simplest forms of matter to inevitably produce intelligent life. I remain skeptical either way.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's not my theory. I don't even like biology. I'm a math/physics guy. I'd be perfectly happy with a Hugh Ross type of scenario, and I have no interest in defending macroevolution. There are plenty of scientific theories in physics that wouldn't exist if they had to observe and test every aspect of the theories, so it tends to bother me when people misrepresent the scientific method.

You make a good argument for a first cause. I do think that the universe was created, although I don't know if it as created by an intelligent being or a sequence of natural events. You think of things as they are, and infer that there must have been a creator for them. I think of things in an early state, vast clouds of hydrogen and helium, and I don't see as much of a need for a creator of that. On the other hand, those clouds go on to produce humans someday, with our hideously complex DNA, and it seems quite reasonable to me that a creator could have designed the simplest forms of matter to inevitably produce intelligent life. I remain skeptical either way.

it never came across to you that people are misusing the scientific method? If science is not to prove things, what is it good for? It fails at the very basic motive for it's own existence. So it is good to be skeptic, at least when it applies to everything. One may not be an honest skeptic when he only doubt God, and does not doubt evolution for example, when faith is required for both. I may venture to say, I can prove God's existence with facts, but evolution cannot be proven. So God's existence is one of the few scientific theories that are provable. However it's not a full science because you cannot test God existence. At least objectively. But you can observe it by avenue of what is made.

 

[gaara4158]

I think people here know what a bandwagon fallacy is. And the fact they tried to use it on me, reveals they know. But you can make whatever rule you wish, but you must also apply it to yourself. I am sorry if you don't like being honest about your viewpoints. That is disappointing. So again, if you have further questions regarding God's evidence I would love to answer any and all honest questions, however I feel you are not open to obvious logic, and get slightly emotional over someone refuting much of what you say. I understand. But this is how learning takes place. You must destroy a faulty foundation before you can build a home.

Well, your read of the situation is, like your read of everything else, wrong at every turn, but I’m happy to let you walk away. Your habit of accusing others of getting emotional when you’ve run out of ways to defend your thesis was shocking the first time, but now it’s gotten old. There are far better discussions to be had here.

 

[Yttrium]

If science is not to prove things, what is it good for?

The purpose of science is to attempt to come up with natural explanations for what we see in nature. We don't need to prove the explanations, just provide the best explanations that we can come up with. If we prove a theory, it isn't a theory any more, so obviously any scientific theory is unproven by definition. We never expect to prove a scientific theory, but we create testable predictions and rigorously test them.

it never came across to you that people are misusing the scientific method?

There will always be people who misuse the scientific method. That's why peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, your read of the situation is, like your read of everything else, wrong at every turn, but I’m happy to let you walk away. Your habit of accusing others of getting emotional when you’ve run out of ways to defend your thesis was shocking the first time, but now it’s gotten old. There are far better discussions to be had here.

I know, I know. I am wrong at every turn. I have heard it all before. But proving our statements is where we are at. So without evidence your insults don't mean much.

 

[createdtoworship]

The purpose of science is to attempt to come up with natural explanations for what we see in nature. We don't need to prove the explanations, just provide the best explanations that we can come up with. If we prove a theory, it isn't a theory any more, so obviously any scientific theory is unproven by definition. We never expect to prove a scientific theory, but we create testable predictions and rigorously test them.



There will always be people who misuse the scientific method. That's why peer review is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

so you by faith, accept all modern laws of science? Then you and me are not that different.

 

[gaara4158]

I know, I know. I am wrong at every turn. I have heard it all before. But proving our statements is where we are at. So without evidence your insults don't mean much.

Indeed, I could insult you until the cows come home, but your lack of evidence is what really condemns your arguments. Hopefully you’ll do better in the future.

 

[Yttrium]

so you by faith, accept all modern laws of science?

What? Of course not. As far as I'm concerned, there are no "laws" of science. Everything is subject to change, nothing in science should be taken on faith.

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed, I could insult you until the cows come home, but your lack of evidence is what really condemns your arguments. Hopefully you’ll do better in the future.

again insults without facts, are shallow indeed.

 

[createdtoworship]

What? Of course not. As far as I'm concerned, there are no "laws" of science. Everything is subject to change, nothing in science should be taken on faith.

so you don't believe in the law of gravity?

law of conservation of energy?

there are lots of laws of science.

that don't change.

so that is in error.

secondly, you accept all laws of science on faith. Have you personally tested and tried any and all scientific facts? even the law of gravity, you can prove something keeps you held to the ground and keeps you from flying into outer space, but who is to say it's gravity and not something else? Do we fully understand gravitational pull? No. We don't. We know alot more than we used to. So science in that way is good. But science cannot even prove a law of gravity. And that is considered a law of science. hopefully you are starting to see that most skeptics have as much or more faith than religious people.

 

[Yttrium]

so you don't believe in the law of gravity?

law of conservation of energy?

there are lots of laws of science.

that don't change.

so that is in error.

I don't consider them to be "laws". Everything is subject to change. Nothing in science should be taken on faith.

secondly, you accept all laws of science on faith.

I've repeatedly said that I don't. This seems to be a difficult concept for you.

Have you personally tested and tried any and all scientific facts? even the law of gravity, you can prove something keeps you held to the ground and keeps you from flying into outer space, but who is to say it's gravity and not something else? Do we fully understand gravitational pull? No. We don't. We know alot more than we used to. So science in that way is good. But science cannot even prove a law of gravity.

Now you're making my point. See? We agree on that.

And that is considered a law of science. hopefully you are starting to see that most skeptics have as much or more faith than religious people.

You're saying that being skeptical of scientific laws is having faith in scientific laws. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't consider them to be "laws". Everything is subject to change. Nothing in science should be taken on faith.

you realize that your statements contradict right? You are saying on the one hand that everything changes and nothing is provable, yet on the other hand you are saying that nothing is to be taken on faith. When in reality you believe in faith everything that is unproven, by the very definition of both faith and "proven."