• 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. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    456
    +439
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Distances are altered, which affects the force due to gravity.
     
  2. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I apologize, I edited that post to adress the topic we were talking about. Maybe you can re read it.
     
  3. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Don't believe him @InterestedAtheist . He told me the very same thing, and then proceeded to respond with two additional replies; in a very short amount of time.

    From The Moral Argument (revamped)

    #788, 795, and 797 for reference :)
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    What strange questions. If you said you were a Christian, or a Communist, or a believer in reincarnation then I would know certain things about you, because I know certain things about them. If you say your are a proponent of Intelligent Design then I know the kinds of things you believe, because the views of Intelligent Design proponents are very well known and documented, as is the fact that went down in hilarious legal flames over a decade ago and have never since recovered. If they had, I would know about it, because it would have been widely reported. It's good to see that there is a huge contrast between Intelligent Design advocates before and after the trial. Before, they were very active - publishing books, writing papers, a huge media presence, getting into debates. Then they got their chance before an independent judge and were exposed as the frauds they are (I am of course speaking of the Intelligent Design movement, not of any individual Christians on CF!) and we've heard very little from them since, which is good news for education and science both.
    I think it's more likely, to be honest, that you don't really understand what Intelligent Design is, including the history of the movement and its dishonest motivations (revealed, in detail, at the trial).

    Really? Please do point out any place where I have been rude to you. It's quite possible that I have, inadvertently, I assure you. I will then be happy to apologise for these.
    I think you may be confusing "telling the truth about how very wrong you are" with being insulting.

    "A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith."
    Challenging the Christian faith is what we were invited here to do. If you don't like that, then go to some Christian-only area of CF.

    It sounds quite insulting, to be honest. Perhaps you could rephrase the quote yourself if you wish to discuss it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  5. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    where did you think I got my argument that facts cannot be proven. It started from reading and modifying the failing views of previous ID'ers. (2005 trial) But currently, they are not tied to creationism in anyway. If you talk to discovery institute, it is not a christian organization. They are scientists from the top schools. If we were to debate evolution in a serious fashion (not just insulting and belittling), you would come of up with serious questions for me to research, and I would be forced to retreat and do study on it. That is a healthy debate. At that point I would normally look up various evidences for evolution on a sub site of discovery institute to find alternative peer reviews into it. Most of my views on ID are from discovery institute. I don't use ken ham and kent hovind and others. Sometimes they have good insights into things. But normally I use the scientific articles from sub sites of discovery institute. They have also pushed a curriculum called "teach the controversy" and it is talking about what I talk about, basically the weaknesses of evolution, not only the strengths. It is important to not be self deceived and to be open to the fact that macro evolution may not be proven. At that point, the teach the controversy curriculum comes in handy. They have passed and employed the curriculum in 8 or 9 states. In conclusion, ID is not creationism. It hasn't been the same since the failed court case in 2005, where ID'ers changed their view on if intelligent design should be taught in school. discovery institute actually does not feel people are qualified to teach intelligent design and do not push for the legalization of intelligent design in public schools. You would basically have to be qualified as a top debater, to teach it. Simply because you are fighting the establishment, and 100 percent of government funded research. Which ultimately fails to produce.
     
  6. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I think you missed this post:

    Argument for God's existence.
     
  7. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    456
    +439
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    The point is that things that were called laws (motion, gravity) were found to be in error, and had to be replaced with something better. The only reason we're still using those old formulae from Newtonian mechanics is because they're good approximations most of the time, and they're much simpler than the full, relativistic versions. And again, the law of gravity isn't just that gravity exists. It's the formula giving the relationship between force, masses and distance.

    Newton's laws held up for a long time before we started discovering errors. We can't be sure that the law of conservation of energy will hold up permanently.
     
  8. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    they were simply modified, they were not entirely replaced. It was still a law of gravity, but a modified law from a new scientist, but it was still the same law of gravity. And in the future it may be modified again. The point is that it's still the same law of gravity , be it a relativistic model or a newtonian model.
     
  9. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    456
    +439
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    No. It's general relativity now, which is not referred to as a law.
     
  10. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    duplicate
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
  11. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
  12. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    I am not at all surprised by that, although I must admit, I am a bit surprised that you would admit it.

    The reason they say that is because they know perfectly well that their only hope of success is to avoid the appearance of being linked to religion.

    Hehe. Of course they aren't.
    Let's use wikipedia - it's a quick way of posting about the obvious:
    The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

    Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science. It's not up to me to debate it with you, it's up to you to explain why you think the whole scientific community is incorrect.

    Of course you would.

    These are not things to be proud of, gradyll. But thank you for making the intellectual poverty of your approach plain for us all.

    Of course they are. Creationism has no model of its own, except for "God did it" and so the only thing they can do is attempt to point out problems with evolution. Intelligent Design is nothing but the latest attempt to do this, no different to Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, except that they pretend to be scientists.

    That is 100% true.

    The courts, the scientific community and everybody in the world who has heard of ID and is not a proponent of it, say otherwise.
    Intelligent Design is Creationism in a lab coat.

    That's good to hear, but doesn't mean their ideas are any less transparently ridiculous.

    This is basically an admission that they have nothing on their side. If they could actually produce any new ideas, the science community would welcome and reward them. But of course, all they have is a warmed-over repetition of the teleological argument.
     
  13. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I said discovery institute has researchers from top schools and you reply with a publically edited Wikipedia page where anyone can edit it without a degree. If that is your standard, then it is no wonder you believe "Evolution is one of the most solidly accepted and studied facts and theories in the whole of science." Even though you can provide not a single evidence of it. I feel that I have sufficiently refuted much of what was posted, feel free to question it.
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    At least you are consistent in one respect. 'Consistent' in the fact that you avoid/ignore practically all valid responses, and seem to cherry pick only what you feel you can 'attack'.

    By (your) standard, if you wish to remain 'consistent' on this front in which you decided to select, then you must then also reconcile that 'many many many researchers from top schools' conclude evolution is well justified.

    And then ask yourself, what's more likely? 1. That there exists a global conspiracy among researchers across all disciplines with differing religious view points (and/or) no religious viewpoints particularly? 2. Or, that maybe, just maybe, the ones fighting evolution, whom are attempting to poke holes in it, are doing so to suit their own personal preexisting beliefs/agendas?

    Think about it, or not... :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  15. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Oh, don't worry. I wouldn't use Wikipedia for anything that is actually under debate. But it's useful when informing people of basic things they may have missed - the date of the French revolution, for example, or conversions between currencies, or capitals of countries...or the fact that Intelligent Design is a religious and political pseudoscience.

    Indeed! Poor me. All I have on my side is every reputable scientist and every school of science, and all you have on your side is Michael Behe and the Disco Institute.

    Actually, the evidence for evolution is so enormous it's kind of funny to run into people asking about it. Basically, it's just about every scientist in the world, and every school of science.
    Still, perhaps you'll consider this Christian source:
    What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
    From the introduction:
    Evolution is a scientific theory supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence. Some Christians fear that accepting the theory means rejecting God as creator. But that just doesn’t follow. Christians accept scientific theories about the weather, the formation of mountains, and even the conception and development of individual human beings while still acknowledging that God is the creator and sustainer of these things.
    And from the conclusion:
    No matter what position a person takes on evolution, it is important to understand why almost all professional biologists affirm the evolution of all life on Earth.

    Tell me, have you every seen Monty Python's Black Knight sketch?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    And while you're considering cvanwey's excellent point, @gradyll , why not also ask yourself if the Discovery Institute was telling the truth when it published, privately, a document saying that its long-term aim was to destroy science as it presently stood, "to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".
    Their twenty-year plan should have come to fruition by about now. Fortunately, scientists and advocates of truth stood strong against this, and ID was resoundingly defeated in 2005.
    As I said, you are fourteen years out of date.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  17. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    They rarely saw the best theistic arguments. Also, prior the 1950's the evidence for God was not as strong. But after the 1950's the discovery of DNA and all the confirmation for the BB theory plus the anthropic principle were strong evidence for the existence of God.

    I am primarily referring to His existence. This was the next step after you realize He exists, then you want to find out whether He is good, and since the bible is backed up by scientific and historical evidence it is more likely to be of divine origin than any other religious book.

    The Koran is not backed up by science and history like the bible is. Much of it was borrowed from the bible except for the moral teaching is vastly inferior to the bible as it allows for beating your wife and killing infidels.

    I am not saying they are brainwashed, just that the educators dont present the strongest evidence for the theistic position and denigrate students that are theists. See all my previous posts for strong evidence for the christian God.
     
  18. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No they are assuming what we are trying to prove, if the evolution of the eye was thru many tiny steps, it would be impossible for all the steps to be functional. That is why they can't provide the steps they just assume them with just so stories.
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, the number of vestigial organs is heading toward zero. This is a scientific fact, just like so-called junk DNA. See my post to R. Miller about the problem with eye evolution.
     
  20. gaara4158

    gaara4158 Yeah, good. Ok.

    +1,594
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    No, you’re just assuming the steps couldn’t be functional. Evolution requires every step to be functional, so if the eye indeed evolved, as all evidence suggests, then it evolved from a long line of functional precursors. And you’re just factually incorrect about vestigial organs, I’m afraid your sources have failed you.
     
Loading...