• 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.

Argument for God's existence.

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by gradyll, Apr 4, 2019.

  1. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton

    +1,711
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    So, if something is "uncaused" it is "out of nothing"? If something doesn't "have a beginning" then it "has no causation" yet it is still an "effect"? Gotcha. That's how you describe God.

    I've never seen a scientific theory that posits that nothing became something. There's always some basic fundamental thing that becomes something else even if they like to call that basic thing "nothing" to sell books or magazine subscriptions.
     
  2. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    313
    +243
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Some physicists like to call quantum fluctuations something form nothing, but it's not really nothing.
     
  3. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton

    +1,711
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Yep, I mentioned that sort of thing.
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +316
    Atheist
    I see your point, and I agree with it. In my defence, I did say that evolution has been proven "as much as any scientific theory can be."

    It is certainly true that most Christians do understand and accept the theory of evolution, so good for them. But we also have "traditional" and "intelligent design" creationists, who neither accept it nor it.

    Exactly!

    I don't know where the universe came from, and not having an answer does not give you a licence to make up an answer and insist that everyone else believe in it. If you have evidence that God exists and created the universe, please present it. If your "evidence" is "There must be a God, otherwise how else could the universe exist?" then I'm afraid it doesn't count.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
  5. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +316
    Atheist
    I'm sorry if you had difficulty reading it, gradyll, but if you are going to say things which are manifestly incorrect, such as telling us that an organisation which was found in court to be lying liars is in fact acting in good faith, you must expect to be called on this. I don't blame an Intelligent Design proponent for not wanting to hear that ID has been demonstrated to be nonsense, but it has, and you can read all about it here if you want.

    In the meantime, if you want to back up your statements about Intelligent Design not being Creationism, and the Discovery Institute not being Creationists, you'll have to go back here and do your reading. You'll see that, as you requested, I have highlighted all the most important bits. It turned out that most of what I had to say was either facts or relevant commentary on facts. If you don't like the facts about ID being told, feel free to concede.
     
  6. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Yes we do . I put them in the same category as Flat earth Christians on here and people who say the universe just popped up. What is your theory Interested ?
     
  7. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +120
    Presbyterian
    Single
    It is not irrelevant, especially when it is not just consensus science supports it but also philosophy strongly supports it. If the universe was eternal then we would never reach the present but here we are in the present. So plainly almost all the evidence says the universe is not eternal.


    No, pixies are physical beings therefore cannot be the cause of the universe according to the laws of logic and causality.

    Well of course, you would have be sincere and genuine.

    You have to come to Him with an open mind and not any preconceived ideas about how He will answer you.

    No if you run the BB backwards, you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.
     
  8. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    313
    +243
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    It runs back to a singularity. We don't know the details. It might have had dimensions, and it probably had some non-nothing properties. There has been speculation about a quantum fluctuation, but that's just speculation so far, and it's not part of big bang theory.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  9. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +340
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    We are going in circles. 'We would never reach the present' appears an over simplistic assumption, versus the many models in study. Many smart people are truly making an effort to figure this stuff out. And most gladly admit there simply is not enough evidence to derive a conclusion, and/or may never...

    https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

    Stephen Hawking’s (almost) last paper: putting an end to the beginning of the universe

    Endless Universe - Ask the Authors


    Again, 'universe-creating pixies' can. As there exists many definitions for 'God', I posit my own definition for pixies, 'universe-creating pixies' specifically. It's that simple.

    Furthermore, if the 'universe' is eternal, as it may possibly be, then 'creation' becomes superfluous.



    Did that for decades. Nothing. Now what? Since I now have severe doubt, and if Yahweh does happen to be real, I guess He will send me 'away' for eternity. It would seem that lack in credulity would be my reason for eternal separation :(


    You do understand that the 'Big Bang' and 'nothing' are used differently, in the world of science, verses how you are using them here, right? The 'Big Bang' is a place-holder term. I'll instead let a well known Cosmologist explain the situation:

     
  10. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Not focusing on God at the moment. If the universe exits there must be something outside the space time continuum. There must be a cause. And there is design in the original elements that made up the universe. So interested what is your plausible answer to this ?
     
  11. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +120
    Presbyterian
    Single
    True.

    I would call the universe pretty concrete.

    No, according to the law of Causality, the cause of this universe would have to be transcendent to space and matter, IOW non-physical. Which is exactly what the Bible says about Yahweh.

    It does if you use logic as I demonstrated above.

    When understood in the grammatico-historical context there are no misses.

    Actually there is evdience for more than one dimension of time, and that may be from where God operated to create this dimension of space-time and matter.

    It is possible but so far the majority of the evidence says otherwise and it is growing every month.
     
  12. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +120
    Presbyterian
    Single
    True.

    I would call the universe pretty concrete.

    No, according to the law of Causality, the cause of this universe would have to be transcendent to space and matter, IOW non-physical. Which is exactly what the Bible says about Yahweh.

    It does if you use logic as I demonstrated above.

    When understood in the grammatico-historical context there are no misses.

    Actually there is evdience for more than one dimension of time, and that may be from where God operated to create this dimension of space-time and matter.

    It is possible but so far the majority of the evidence says otherwise and it is growing every month.
     
  13. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +316
    Atheist
    Hello dougangel. Sorry, my theory about what? About where the universe "came from"?
    And when you say "people who say the universe just popped up" - what does that mean?

    Must there? Is there? And why do I have to have any kind of answer, plausible or otherwise?
    If I can't explain how the universe came into existence, am I therefore obliged to become a Christian?
     
  14. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +316
    Atheist
    Excellent evidence that the universe exists, but not of anything else.

    A wonderful illustration of how apologists just stitch together things they half understand to justify the conclusions they've already arrived at. None of what you've said is warranted whatsoever.

    Only in your own mind.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 4:28 AM
  15. gradyll

    gradyll logical debater- for better or for worse

    +958
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    but if science is not really aiming at proving anything, where does that leave your theory. Most scientists I know don't even try to prove anything.
     
  16. gradyll

    gradyll logical debater- for better or for worse

    +958
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    like I said if you have any facts on the court case I can adress those. You quote a biased site that is probably one of the most well known evolutionist sites out there. If you can quote talk origins, I might as well quote ken ham, and kent hovind. So again you have no facts. If you wish to highlight portions of that article and submit it as your own evidence, I am not against that. But to prove someone is lying is very hard to do. Well, lets just say it's very very difficult. Any thing you use as evidence can be tampered relating to it. So I will find this amusing seeing you prove they were lying, as opposed to simply mistaken. I have been called a liar for years. I alway ask them, how do you know? I mean did you crawl up in my ear and plug in your recorder to my brain lobe and record my thoughts? If you did not do that, how do you know I was lying versus just being mistaken? I don't agree with nearly anything you say here, mainly because you have a hard time citing official sources. But anyway, I don't think you are a liar. Deceived? Maybe. Mistaken, almost certainly. But not a liar. So anyway, like I said if you have any facts to post, let me know. And I will address only the facts.
     
  17. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +316
    Atheist
    It leaves it rock-solid. No theory can ever be proved; that's not how science works. But theories do reach a point where, after they have been confirmed for long enough by multiple lines of evidence, we think of them as trustworthy. I like the way it is put in this essay (and have highlighted a few sentences):
    Has Evolution Been Proven? - Daylight Atheism
    "The more evidence that accumulates to support a theory, the more our confidence in it grows. Eventually, a point may be reached where the quantity of evidence supporting the theory is so vast, so overwhelming, that further attempts to deny or question it would be futile and unfounded. This is the case with the theory of evolution, as it is the case with the other theories, such as the atomic theory of matter or the theory of plate tectonics, that form the pillars of modern science. But this is not absolute proof. Not even the best-supported, most thoroughly verified theories of science are put on a pedestal and considered infallible
    ...
    This is not to imply that the theory of evolution is in any way tentative or uncertain. On the contrary, it is extremely robust, backed by over a hundred years of research, experiment and observation. In all that time, not a single piece of evidence that seriously contradicts any part of it has ever turned up. Within the scientific community, evolution is not at all controversial and is no longer questioned; it is considered to be a fact, as simple and indisputable as gravity. While it can never be absolutely proven, it has come as close to attaining this status as it is possible for any scientific theory to be. To attack evolution by labeling it an “unproven theory” misses the point entirely. There is a saying in some scientific circles: “Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.”


    An interesting point, but an irrelevant one. I take it you opened the link and saw that it was not of Talk Origins' writing, but a complete and unedited record of the trial. In other words, I didn't quote a "biased" site, I pointed to a document hosted on it, giving the facts that you have been asking for. The fact that this record is quoted on a website whose views you disagree with does not matter at all.
    Do you acknowledge this?

    You know, you're right. It is hard to prove that people are lying, deceitful and dishonest in their representations. It would probably take weeks of careful cross-examination and careful reviewing of all available evidence.
    Lucky for us this has been done, then. The Dover trial was decisive, the evidence is all there, and the conclusion admits no dispute. Here are some examples:
    On whether ID is science: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2
    "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."
    And also this part, which seems particularly pertinent to you, gradyll:
    "To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."

    And with regards to ID being represented by liars:
    Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
    "We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are "normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) . Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.

    Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake."


    And also: Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3
    "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

    Now, you might object that although this may show the board of the Dover school to have been shameless liars (which it certainly does) that does not necessarily mean that the Discovery Institute and its representatives lied. But that would be incorrect. They supported the lying school board, they cooperated with them, and they shared in their deceit. And there is, of course, much more. One good example is from the textbook, of Pandas and People. It's a very funny story, which you can read here, about how their clumsiness in lying tripped them up; but to put it briefly, the textbook began life as a Creationist book, was altered in a deceitful attempt to evade the laws against teaching religion, and became an "Intelligent Design" textbook:
    "The earlier drafts, as you might expect from the titles, made repeated references to creationism. But in the wake of the Edwards decision, the book underwent a revision: the term “creationism” was replaced – literally replaced, as in the find-and-replace function of a word processor – with the term “intelligent design”. And in one draft, a transitional fossil was preserved:


    [​IMG]
    Image credit, NCSE.

    Clearly, intelligent design is just a retitled form of creationism. What more compelling evidence of this fact could you ask for than the term “cdesign proponentsists”?"


    gradyll, you can deny this as much as you like, but the truth is plain to see: Intelligent Design is not science, and the Discovery Institute lied in an attempt to trick people into thinking it was.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019 at 11:57 AM
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +340
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Great, we agree here.

    Now lets figure out if the universe is actually eternal or not, and not instead assert that it is in fact not eternal to begin fitting with our apriori assumptions :)

    Me, on the other hand, do not conclude that if the universe is finite, it must start to point to Yahweh.... for an example.


    'Pretty concrete' of what? That the universe exists? Yes. We already agree about that... But not 'if' it ever 'began to exist' (vs) eternal (vs) a continuation from a prior immeasurable state (vs) other..... Please don't equivocate.


    Two can play at your game... The Bible mentions the 'law of causality' or 'transcendence'???

    Here's a follow-up question though....

    If the universe is currently expanding, what is currently outside of this space in which the universe expands into? Is this God's 'transcendent' space, until the current known 'universe' takes it over?


    Logic is not synonymous with the presented equivocation, a priori, and fallacious reasoning. Logic would be to say, 'I don't know', when the provided evidence does not warrant a conclusion. But to instead invoke ambiguous writings, which are also not falsifiable, hardly sounds like logic.

    Oh, do tell. Care to actually go down Genesis and test this? Again, are you actually prepared to possibly accept both the hits and reconcile the possible misses in this forum thread openly? I have asked you several times, but you have not yet provided and answer.

    But again, in many prior discussions with others, I am also fully aware that 'hermeneutics' and 'apologetics' is on the side of the asserter, when in comes to positive not falsifiable claims.


    Same question as above:

    If the universe is currently expanding, what is currently outside of this space in which the universe expands into? Is this God's 'transcendent' space, until the current known 'universe' takes it over?


    Band wagons mean nothing. It's the evidence. And thus far, many models are floating around.
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +120
    Presbyterian
    Single
    The Catholic Church did not develop the BB theory.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +120
    Presbyterian
    Single

    No, even your videos claimed that there was a significant difference. And I agree up to a point, but of course there is some overlap.


    When you study the passages in the bible with the proper context and in the original languages and with the biblical understanding that there are two books of revelation that complement each other, the bible and Nature, then many verses become amazingly clear when it comes to the few scientific issues that the Bible does touch on.
     
Loading...