• 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. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    The simplest answer to what you have said is that you are wrong. Quite simply incorrect. But in slightly more detail...
    There is no "strong evidence for God". If there were, then apologists arguments would be impressive to people other than Christians. As it is, anyone who is not a Christian just shrugs off apologetic arguments as unimpressive.

    A Christian says that his holy book is the most impressive? How impressive.

    I'm not even sure what to say when confronted with such dizzyingly unjustified self-confidence.
    Perhaps it's best just to say, thank you for your contribution.

    There is no strong evidence for the Christian God, which is in contrast to evolution, which has incredibly strong evidence.
    If you think you have a good argument for God, feel free to post it clearly and succinctly. I will be happy to explain to you why it is incorrect.
     
  2. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    A friend of mine went on wikipedia and said that his history teacher won the french indian war, and wikipedia didn't correct it for months.

    so my point stands, if you want to site sources, I would not use wikipedia.

    since you haven't yet sited any valid sources, your point fails.

    thanks for the debate.
     
  3. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    the one site you sourced said everything micro evolution believes.

    do you have evidence of universal common ancestry?

    not just common ancestry,

    as some species can have ring species and can intermate with other species, but I have yet to see one genus interbreed with another genus, posing a natural barrier to evolution.

    thanks for the debate.
     
  4. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I already did, the BB theory and law of causality. In addition, that the Bible is the only religious book that teaches the three main characteristics of the universe. That it has a definite beginning from nothing detectable, that it is expanding, and that the universe is energetically winding down.


    Because all people, not just scientists do not like the Christian God so they rationalize it away.

    People that naturally do not want to believe something are much more easily convinced that that something does not exist.

    No, they ignore Him and try to explain things that can only be explained by a creator with just so stories. Ignoring Him implies that He is either non existent or irrelevant.

    Yes, but the characteristics of the god can determine whether they are the cause of this universe and only the Christian God fits best as the Creator of this universe. Others can be eliminated by looking at their characteristics. For example, Allah is a pure unity but the universe is a diversity within a unity which matches the characteristics of the Triune Christian God. Generally a creators incorporates aspects of themselves into their creation.

    Because all humans have a natural antipathy toward the Christian God, people including scientists some consciously and some unconsciously try to explain Him away. Scientists usually use the excuse that science must use methodological naturalism and therefore cannot even consider anything that is supernatural. But this limits scientific inquiry which is a mistake. Science should be open to any conclusion even if it is potentially unpleasant.
     
  5. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    But I wasn't trying to persuade you, gradyll. I don't need to persuade you. I was just reminding you of something I'm sure you know: that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscientific religious movement, as was amply demonstrated when it came on trial.
    Do you dispute the fact that the trial of 2005 found against the Intelligent Design movement and the Discovery Institute, and that they were shown to be unscientific and to have acted with deceptive intent? Will you tell me that it did not?

    You seem in an awful hurry to get out of here. Can I point out that you haven't answered any of my questions yet?

    One thing at a time, gradyll. First, I must ask you to address the points I asked you about. Here they are - three of them:
    1. Do you accept that the vast, vast majority of scientists accept evolution?
    2. Do you accept that the Discovery Institute has a pro-Christian bias and wishes to attack evolution for religious reasons, as demonstrated in the so-called "Wedge Strategy"?
    3. Do you accept the fact that Intelligent design was found, in the famous Dover trial of 2005, to be pseudoscience?
    Point 1 is simply indisputable. Point 2 has already been shown, by their own words. Point 3 is a matter of public record. I trust you will have the good grace to agree to all of this.

    And once all of that is done, perhaps you can explain the strange reason why you want to ask if I "have evidence of universal common ancestry". Unless you simply want to try to pick holes in evolutionary theory in a vain attempt to call it into doubt with quibbles, I have no idea why you'd be asking a question you could easily find the answer to with five minutes on google.
     
  6. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Oh, look at this, @gradyll - what Judge Jones, who ruled on the Dover case, had to say about Intelligent Design:
    “The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

    So, there we go: ID is creationism, not science.
     
  7. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Oh, and here's something else worth reading, @gradyll : commentary on Michael Behe, leading light of ID (being one of their few actually qualified scientists and author of bestselling books on evolution) and the testimony he gave in the Dover trial. He was very pleased with how well he did at the time, which made it all the more amusing when you saw how completely he sabotaged his case (@cvanwey and others, if you haven't seen this, it makes most entertaining reading!):

    Thank you, Michael Behe

    "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."

    "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."

    By the way, I'm interested, @gradyll - do you think that astrology (telling the future by looking at the stars, to put it crudely) is a science? As you can see above, Behe is on record at saying that for ID to be considered science, astrology would have to be as well.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  8. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    I again reiterate... Do you wish to 'accept the hits and ignore the misses'? Maybe we need to go down Genesis line by line? Furthermore, wasn't it you whom stated the Bible is not a science book? So which one is it? Does it have scientifically provable claims or not?.?.?.?


    In the mean time, let's merely address the three you have stated:

    (You) 'definite beginning' - (Me) Not if eternal inflation has anything to say about it...

    (You) 'it is expanding' - (Me) Great, you may be able to find a vague nonspecific passage or two...


    (You) 'the universe is energetically winding down' - (Me) And the Bible mentions this where? Again, is the Bible a science book or not?


    Wow, just... Wow...

    By default, it might be a great idea to assume that no supernatural claimed agents necessarily exist, until proven otherwise - (ghosts, fairies, god(s), spirits, demons, etc...)

    Don't you agree?


    How do you know? You assume everyone invokes the same seemingly fallacious conclusion as you? (i.e.) 'I can't think of a 'good reason', hence it 'must' be the God I've heard about.

    You will need to first disprove evolution, i.e. that the majorative number of surviving humans passed down their survival traits, to invoke intentional agency - (both good and bad).

    So you feel that it is possibly a global conspiracy to suppress 'God', among both all religious groups and non-religious groups, across the entire globe?

    Furthermore, your response might seem to suggest that you feel I 'know' there is a God, but am in denial?.?.? You must know me better than myself...
     
  9. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    Nonsense. You're just seeing what you want to see. There is no way the Bible actually teaches any of these, and the obvious proof of this is that it was scientists who came up with these things, and no Christians said them until they had become established science.

    Things which are asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And that's particularly true when they're patently ridiculous things. Nobody dislikes the Christian God. Most people are Christians, and so love Him, and everyone else - Jews, Muslims or atheists - think He doesn't exist, and so are indifferent to Him.

    Your response has nothing to do with what cvanwey asked you for - your best piece of evidence.

    Again, nonsense; all you're doing is reimagining God to fit him in with scientific understanding of the universe.

    Most people in the USA are Christians. Even most scientists are Christians - certainly in the USA and perhaps around the whole world.

    Clearly you do not understand the scientific method at all. It's not that scientists don't believe in God, it's that God can have no place in science. Because allowing the supernatural into science would make science meaningless. Why stop with God? Why not allow pixies, demons and ghosts? Imagine what the result would be; nothing could ever be proved or relied upon:

    "Aha! This experiment clearly shows that this solution is acidic!"
    "Not so fast! Maybe the fairies just wanted to turn the solution red because it's their sacred colour!"

    You say that all you want is for scientists to have "an open mind", but what you actually mean is you just wish they would stop proving your Holy Book wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  10. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so according to your own posts, the definition of athiest can and does change but the definition of intelligent design cannot change?
    it is unproven, not unscientific. Because both evolution and intelligent design cannot be proven. Even science cannot be proven in most cases. So this comment is arbitrary.


    I didn't see deceptive intent.


    do you blame me, you are quoting wikipedia for crying out loud. That is not a debate to me. Maybe it may work with someone else.


    one thing at a time, if you make a positive statement on the definition of ID and quote a unscientific source, then we need to ask for more solid proof.
    this is the bandwagon fallacy
    They do not follow a wedge theory currently, that was probably the first document ever printed by that organization. Now they have athiest's etc, working for them. They are not a religious organization, they are a charity yes, but not a christian organization.
    again I answered this above when I said that science does not prove facts. So if something is not science, it's a big deal to me.
    most of the points are easily refuted with a sentence or two.
    yes, nearly all peer reviews on evolution that I have seen provides common ancestry of similiar animals. For example one species of zebra having common ancestry with another type of zebra of a different species. This is called speciation. But evolution actually claims that monkeys and man share common ancestry. So that is two different animals sharing common ancestry, thus universal common ancestry needs to be proven, not common ancestry.
    sir no one, including biology professors, astronomers and other professionals I have debated has given proof of universal ancestry. But give it a shot. Most likely you didn't know what this debate entailed when you got into it with me, and now you are finding yourself over your head. It's ok, you can back out at any time for a loss.
     
  11. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +629
    Atheist
    The definition of Intelligent Design can change as much as it likes. Having said that, I'm not sure how much I'd trust what they say, since the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the Discovery Institute are lying liars who tell lies a lot. You said:
    I'm amazed, since their deceptive intent is not just clearly obvious but has been repeatedly highlighted. They began with the Wedge Document. You say it was made a long time ago. Yes, of course it was. Or, to put it another way, it was one of the first things they published, and they published it privately, for themselves only, setting out a twenty-year plan which was intended to come to fruition about now, with the explicitly stated intention of undermining science - or rather, destroying it by "splitting it open at the weak points with a wedge" in order to create a "science" of their own. The Wedge Document was the foundation of the ID movement, and all evidence points to them still following its spirit, even if the plan has been fortunately derailed.
    So, there we have it: deceptive intent on the part of a Christian organisation. Naturally, part of the deception - again, as clearly stated - is to emphasise the "secular" nature of Intelligent Design, and so the fact that the Discovery Institute employs non-Christians is to be expected.


    Wrong. The Dover trial showed (not that it needed showing, but it's now official and a matter of record) that ID is not science. Your comments about "proving" are merely red herrings. ID is pseudoscience. Deal with it.

    As I said before, I'm not using Wikipedia to prove anything. The proof is in the many sources publicly available, many of them from the Dover trial in which ID and the Discover Institute were exposed as the frauds that they are. If you want to ignore that, feel free, but don't expect to convince anyone that ID is science (because it isn't) or not creationism (because it is) or that it doesn't have a deceptive agenda (because it does).

    It would be, except that it was you who said: "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."
    So, thank you for your admission that I was correct.


    So they say. But since the Discovery Institute has been demonstrated to be liars in service of a Creationist agenda, there's no reason to trust their word, and every reason to just think they're simply lying again.

    First, no, you didn't answer it. Second, yes, ID has been proven beyond doubt not to be science, but to be merely pseudoscience. And third, this should be a big deal to you, but apparently isn't.

    Nonsense. Denied, perhaps, but certainly not refuted. Indeed, I don't think it's possible to refute these points as they are clearly and self-evidently true, and supported by multiple independent areas - just like evolution.

    gradyll, I'm not a scientist. I'm just a layman. But I don't need to be a scientist to know that evolution has been proven, as much as any scientific theory can be, and that it's a rock-solid part of science, just as ID is a pretentious and deceptive rhetorical trick invented for mendacious purposes. If you want to get into a discussion about the details of evolution, go ask a scientist, not some random person on the internet. Then, when you've published a peer-reviewed article which makes scientists change their minds about evolution, feel free to declare victory. I imagine that's what you're going to do after reading this, as if the debating section of a Christian website is the place to investigate scientific methodology.

    I'm especially interested that you haven't yet responded to what Judge Jones, who ruled on the Dover case, had to say about Intelligent Design:
    “The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  12. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    456
    +439
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I really wish people wouldn't say that the theory of evolution is proven, because it plays into creationists' hands. If you make the claim, you really need to be prepared to offer the proof, and you're really not going to be able to. We don't go around proving scientific theories. It's an extremely sound scientific theory.
     
  13. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Many Christians believe. It doesn't need to be in contrast. God driven evolution is possible. Certainly scientists are saying there is a beginning. the laws of cause and effect. If there is a beginning there must be a cause. Jesus said "man does live on bread alone" man has a spiritual nature as well. This is what the bible deals with. there is no scientific process in the bible If God put science in to effect he must be the one who used the principles of science.
     
  14. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    if you have any facts in your comment that you wish for me to adress, just highlight it. And provide documentation. Otherwise the rest of this text wall is opinion. And we all know about opinions because we all have them. So if you wish to continue, just highlight the facts, and nothing else. Then I will adress those.
     
  15. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private

    And when one is furnished, you don't respond. Case and point, when Kenneth Miller demonstrated chromosome #2 in the provided 4 minute video. You ignored it/'blocked' it/'whatevered' it.

    Thanks
     
  16. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +131
    Presbyterian
    Single
    An omnipotent being is not nothing. Many atheists claim that the universe actually DOES come from nothing.

    Actually Aristotle had four causes and two derivative causes, the sufficient cause and the instrumental cause.
     
  17. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,872
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Right, God would be the Efficient Cause. If you want to use Aristotle, you need four causes. Spell them out for me. God is the Efficient Cause, what is the Material Cause, the Formal Cause and the Final Cause? You're the one who wanted to use Aristotle, you need to explain what all four causes are.
    Not really. It sounds flashier when you phrase it that way, but they don't define "nothing" as "not any thing at all" so they don't mean the same thing as you do when you talk about nothing. You can call that dishonest if you want, but the fact is that they aren't talking about nothing becoming something in the same way you are.
    Again, you're going to have to cite something for me. Have a look at this:

    Aristotle on Causality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

    Neither "sufficient cause" nor "instrumental cause" is mentioned in that article that purports to explain what Aristotle had to say about causality. Where are you getting your information from?
     
  18. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    athiesm came from nothing.png
     
  19. Skreeper

    Skreeper Member of the 'sexual deviancy club'

    +2,043
    Germany
    Atheist
    Private
    I think that leprechaun is made out of straw because that is one big ol strawman.
     
  20. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,442
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    if scientists believe the universe was created (big bang), then another universe created it, which was in essence uncaused, or out of nothing. And if they believe our universe didn't have a beginning, it has no causation. So if the largest effect in the universe can have no cause and get away with it, then why should any of us use cause and effect as a scientific principle? I mean why can't unicorns pop into and out of existence randomly, or as you put it leprechans? So I think the picture is very accurate.
     
Loading...