Argument for God's existence.

[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 most scientists view the above as laws of science don't you? They would not call them laws if they changed every year. For the most part, they are steady. That is why they are laws. So I don't really understand your comment here. Secondly, everything that is unprovable is to be taken by faith. If a christian believes in faith that Jesus died for their sins, then so too the evolutionist believes by faith that we evolved out of primordial ooze. In the above cases, neither were there to eye witness what happened and both are unproven to this day. at least in the case of Jesus, most historians actually believe He existed. But in the case of primordial ooze, there really is no laboratory experiment that can replicate creating full proteins and amino acids from any liquid that does not already have them in it. Even if you electrocuted said liquid till you are red in the face. This by the way is the sole experiment which led to many scientists believing in primordial ooze as the origin of organic matter. (the miller urey experiment failure)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Intelligent design advocates strictly use scientific principles and logic as their arguments, not scripture.

Saying that ID proponents "use" scientific principles and logic is quite incorrect. It might be more appropriate to say that they "misuse" or even "abuse" scientific principles and logic. Normally, of course, in the debates between people who accept science and creationists (very much including cdesign proponentists, as they were labelled in their own textbook, Of Pandas and People!) the creationists lose, but then walk away claiming to have won. But in 2005 we had the welcome spectacle of seeing the two sides make their cases in front of a judge, who found that the Intelligent Design proponents were basically either both incompetent and liars.
So when you say that you're a proponent of Intelligent Design, but not a Creationist, and that you use science and logic to prove God, I have to tell you're wrong: you are a Creationist, and one who is fourteen years behind the times at that.

This article may help you understand the difference:

You are, perhaps, unaware that the well-known atheist Anthony Flew was probably going senile at the point when began accepting Intelligent Design ideas.

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.

Quoting this for truth. Well said!

I know, I know. I am wrong at every turn. I have heard it all before.

Well, it is an objective fact that you have been wrong at virtually every turn. It's really quite impressive. Not that we're angry, I'm sure. Indeed, it's quite entertaining, and we have to thank you for some diversion. Not least the fact that anyone who is asking themselves "Is God really real?" and comes to read this thread is likely to be pushed towards atheism.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

That is not contradictory. If you remain skeptical of something that is unproven, then you are not taking it on faith. It is someone who firmly believes in something that is unproven who is taking it on faith.

When in reality you believe in faith everything that is unproven, by the very definition of both faith and "proven."

I don't believe on faith in things that are unproven. I remain skeptical. I firmly believe in my own existence. That's it. I'm flexible on everything else.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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."

I imagine he means that, while we can discover things we should always keep an open mind and be ready to change our views in the light of fresh evidence.
gradyll, is there anything that could change your mind about the existence of God?
If you ask us that question, the answer is "Yes, of course, if there was evidence of God existing I would re-evaluate my views."
Can you say that you would re-evaluate your views about God's existence if you received further information?

 

[Yttrium]

you realize that most scientists view the above as laws of science don't you? They would not call them laws if they changed every year. For the most part, they are steady.

For the most part? Doesn't sound like law to me. Newton thought he had the right thing going, with his "laws" of motion. Then Those "laws" were shown to be approximations of general relativity. And general relativity is still something of a work in progress.

Secondly, everything that is unprovable is to be taken by faith.

Incorrect. Things that are unprovable may be taken on faith, or they may not be. It is quite possible to remain skeptical of that which is unproven.

 

[createdtoworship]

Saying that ID proponents "use" scientific principles and logic is quite incorrect. It might be more appropriate to say that they "misuse" or even "abuse" scientific principles and logic. Normally, of course, in the debates between people who accept science and creationists (very much including cdesign proponentists, as they were labelled in their own textbook, Of Pandas and People!) the creationists lose, but then walk away claiming to have won. But in 2005 we had the welcome spectacle of seeing the two sides make their cases in front of a judge, who found that the Intelligent Design proponents were basically either both incompetent and liars.
So when you say that you're a proponent of Intelligent Design, but not a Creationist, and that you use science and logic to prove God, I have to tell you're wrong: you are a Creationist, and one who is fourteen years behind the times at that.


You are, perhaps, unaware that the well-known atheist Anthony Flew was probably going senile at the point when began accepting Intelligent Design ideas.


Quoting this for truth. Well said!


Well, it is an objective fact that you have been wrong at virtually every turn. It's really quite impressive. Not that we're angry, I'm sure. Indeed, it's quite entertaining, and we have to thank you for some diversion. Not least the fact that anyone who is asking themselves "Is God really real?" and comes to read this thread is likely to be pushed towards atheism.

Sir, you know what I am more than myself? You know what IDer's are more than themselves? You rely on 10 year old textbooks? Because certainly IDer's don't ever change? I appreciate you willing to look and debate this, but it is the insults that I don't jive with. So if you don't stop you will be blocked permanently like the other user was today. I don't appreciate your comments simply because they are typically rude.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sir, you know what I am more than myself? You know what IDer's are more than themselves? You rely on 10 year old textbooks? Because certainly IDer's don't ever change? I appreciate you willing to look and debate this, but it is the insults that I don't jive with. So if you don't stop you will be blocked permanently like the other user was today. I don't appreciate your comments simply because they are typically rude. So I am thinking of blocking you anyway. So I will let you know.

I've got a suggestion. Just leave.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've got a suggestion. Just leave.

I am not the one recruiting on someone else's website.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
-Francis Thomson

Let's talk about this quote. Does it fall on deaf ears, or does it resonate?

 

[createdtoworship]

For the most part? Doesn't sound like law to me. Newton thought he had the right thing going, with his "laws" of motion. Then Those "laws" were shown to be approximations of general relativity. And general relativity is still something of a work in progress.



Incorrect. Things that are unprovable may be taken on faith, or they may not be. It is quite possible to remain skeptical of that which is unproven.

You realize than when experiments have near universal results over and over again, repatedly that the scientific consensus can start referring to it as a law right? I know you don't believe in laws and that is ok. I am just saying that the same people who told you evolution was true are also saying there are scientific laws.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.
-Francis Thomson

Let's talk about this quote. Does it fall on deaf ears, or does it resonate?

Atheists can't find god for the same reason they can't find leprechauns.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheists can't find god for the same reason they can't find leprechauns.

Sir I find this comment very interesting. What are the chances that an uncaused universe existed from eternity? If the greatest effect does not need a cause why does any effect need a cause? Why can't lephrachans arbitrarily pop in and out of existence for no reason? After all, if the greatest mass can violate basic laws of cause and effect, then why can't leprechauns?

 

[Yttrium]

You realize than when experiments have near universal results over and over again, repatedly that the scientific consensus can start referring to it as a law right? I know you don't believe in laws and that is ok. I am just saying that the same people who told you evolution was true are also saying there are scientific laws.

What same people? Most of the laws I know of are in physics, not biology. And the physicists are telling me that the laws are not necessarily all that dependable, and can be subject to change (such as with the laws of motion). You're arguing semantics when you bring up laws, unless you believe that those laws are hard truths of nature, in which case you have far more faith in scientific theories than I or most physicists do.

 

[createdtoworship]

What same people? Most of the laws I know of are in physics, not biology. And the physicists are telling me that the laws are not necessarily all that dependable, and can be subject to change (such as with the laws of motion). You're arguing semantics when you bring up laws, unless you believe that those laws are hard truths of nature, in which case you have far more faith in scientific theories than I or most physicists do.

You think the law of gravity is unreliable? Whenever I toss a baseball in the air the fact that it doesn't keep going up is evident it is a reliable law.

 

[Yttrium]

You think the law of gravity is unreliable? Whenever I toss a baseball in the air the fact that it doesn't keep going up is evident it is a reliable law.

Yes, I think it's unreliable. The law of gravity isn't the fact that things fall down. It's a formula for finding the force on an object due to gravity. It's been found to be a good approximation for everyday life, but it's been replaced by general relativity.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I think it's unreliable. The law of gravity isn't the fact that things fall down. It's a formula for finding the force on an object due to gravity. It's been found to be a good approximation for everyday life, but it's been replaced by general relativity.

You are correct, but the law still exists it's just that they didn't know why it existed. Now with relitivity they do. But it still existed before, the same as it does now. The actual law does not change with general relitivity.

 

[Yttrium]

You are correct, but the law still exists it's just that they didn't know why it existed. Now with relitivity they do. But it still existed before, the same as it does now. The actual law does not change with general relitivity.

Newton's law of gravity: the force on an object is equal to the gravitational constant multiplied by the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the distance between the two center of masses. This is an approximation for the more accurate general relativity version. The law has an error which increases as things move faster relative to each other. General relativity fixes the error (as far as we can tell at this time).

 

[createdtoworship]

Newton's law of gravity: the force on an object is equal to the gravitational constant multiplied by the masses of the two objects divided by the square of the distance between the two center of masses. This is an approximation for the more accurate general relativity version. The law has an error which increases as things move faster relative to each other. General relativity fixes the error (as far as we can tell at this time).

Anyway, all this is arbitrary because most laws are still intact even though we don't understand the details. Did the law of gravity go away becuase we did not understand general relitivity? It did not. so the law still existed (although by another name), and we understand them more and more as science progresses. But the point that we all are not floating in space right now, shows that the law is still in effect. Also, what about the law of conservation of energy?