Argument for God's existence.

gradyll said:

no thanks, like I said if you wish to post the arguments briefly I can respond, if not then to me it is not important.

Click to expand...

You crack me up. You are taking the time to vigilantly address all responses. But somehow, cannot watch a 4 minute video. Okay, watch it when you 'have time' please.

gradyll said:

no thank you. I don't trust you to post a video that does not mock or belittle. Since you yourself are having a hard time not doing it. What is to make me believe your sources are any better?

Click to expand...

"When science contradicts the Bible, the theist must discard the 'science'."

cvanwey said:

o I again ask... Does each day represent the same (time span)? If not, how do you then rationalize your alternative explanation?

Click to expand...

I already wrote you. There's a dual meaning Day 1 and Age 1 and so on.

gradyll said:

See this comment subtly begs the question. Lets see if you can spot it. It assumes that science contradicts the Bible, even though it offers no examples. So since the comment begs the question and commits fallacy, it is tossed out as illogical.

The Fallacy of Begging the question, more commonly known as "circular
reason," or arbitrary logic:

When I was reading a book on logic sold by Ken Ham ministries it said this:
"In order to determine the truth value of a statement, it is necessary
to go outside the statement." - Introductory Logic- by D. J. Wilson,
and J. B. Nance - 2002 by mars hill textbooks.


Another example of this is: “Evolution is true because it is scientific”

It begs the question as to what legitimate science is. Especially in relation to Evolution. In other words it presupposes evolution is scientific without laying out the argument why it is scientific.

Click to expand...

You missed my point. Should have watched the video... I'm simply pointing out that this is how you conclude things. If you find a scientific discovery, which you feel contradicts scripture, you toss it out and present apologetics.

cvanwey said:

Here's my point.... If you are going to even present the "Yom' argument in the first place, then this must mean the 'day' represents some specific duration in time for your particular application... Otherwise, don't clarify this word 'Yom' at all. So which one do you choose, for this context (Genesis)?

Case and point in Genesis...

'Day 1' - creates light
'Day 2' - creates sky
'Day 3' - land and plants
'Day 4' - planets etc..
'Day 5' - fish/birds
'Day 6' - humans
'Day 7' - rest

Was each day the same duration in time? For evolution/astronomy/cosmology/etc to even have a chance, each 'day' would need to be vastly different time spans. Thus, if 'day' is nothing more than slang, it would make more sense for the Bible to instead state, 'God did this first, this second, this third, etc', and leave out 'Yom' all together. But instead, it would appear the Bible sort of incriminates itself, by forcing apologists to instead use this 'Yom argument', when it is really worthless in this application regardless. Otherwise, you have a whole mess of apologetics to contend with...

So I again ask... Does each day represent the same (time span)? If not, how do you then rationalize your alternative explanation?

Click to expand...

There is a problem with the order of that if I make it clearer. Can you work it out ?
Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning

Day 2 : Water separated from sky

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 6 Animals, Man

Day 7 sabbath.

gradyll said:

again your comment begs the question. Your not doing so good. "You said that if I find a scientific discovery which contradicts scripture, I toss it out and present apolgetics"- but provide no examples specifically where I do this. If I do it at all. Since your comment commits a fallacy of begging the question it is tossed out as illogical.

Click to expand...

I find it interesting, that you post videos yourself, but then won't watch others. You are not consistent. If you had simply watched the video, you would understand more clearly. Hint" "Jason Lisle" in the video, for example. He reminds me of you

I don't need to provide examples anymore, people can read your many posts

dougangel said:

There is a problem with the order of that if I make it clearer. Can you work it out ?
Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning

Day 2 : Water separated from sky

Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.

Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

Day 6 Animals, Man

Day 7 sabbath.

Click to expand...

My point is that regardless of what was actually done on any given 'day', the fact that the Bible makes the effort to use the word 'day' at all, means that the word 'day' has some significance. Otherwise, like I stated prior, the Bible would simply list an order of events, and not use the specific word 'day' to distinguish as such.

Hence, in (this context of the creation account specifically), if each day is not an equal length in time, we may have a problem. Thus, if you want to rationalize this point away, what else can we rationalize? Pretty much everything, from my estimation.... The Bible becomes a free-for-all...

I guess that's why the Christian faith alone has so many denominations. But even IF Christianity is true, then only one specifically could be right. All the others are wrong. God appears satisfied with confusion, especially among topics which should be crystal clear, like the association of the word 'day.'

So again, on 'day 7', did God rest for millions of years? The reason I ask is because between 'day 4' and 'day 6' alone, for instance, there would have to of transpired millions and millions of years. But then all of a sudden, on 'day 7', was maybe a 24 hour day? You see how you have to rationalize this concept to make your belief fit? It doesn't really work logically. Following the path of consistency, after creating 'Adam', there would be millions of years in gap before Noah came onto the scene, since 'day 7' was the same length in time as the other days. And since you already reconciled that Adam was the first homo sapien, and homo sapiens have only been around for ~200K years, we have a problem.

Thus, the 'Yom' argument seems nonsensical. 'Day' has no meaning. So why make meaning out of it?

cvanwey said:

My point is that regardless of what was actually done on any given 'day', the fact that the Bible makes the effort to use the word 'day' at all, means that the word 'day' has some significance. Otherwise, like I stated prior, the Bible would simply list an order of events, and not use the specific word 'day' to distinguish as such.

Hence, in (this context of the creation account specifically), if each day is not an equal length in time, we may have a problem. Thus, if you want to rationalize this point away, what else can we rationalize? Pretty much everything, from my estimation.... The Bible becomes a free-for-all...

I guess that's why the Christian faith alone has so many denominations. But even IF Christianity is true, then only one specifically could be right. All the others are wrong. God appears satisfied with confusion, especially among topics which should be crystal clear, like the association of the word 'day.'

So again, on 'day 7', did God rest for millions of years? The reason I ask is because between 'day 4' and 'day 6' alone, for instance, there would have to of transpired millions and millions of years. But then all of a sudden, on 'day 7', was maybe a 24 hour day? You see how you have to rationalize this concept to make your belief fit? It doesn't really work logically. Following the path of consistency, after creating 'Adam', there would be millions of years in gap before Noah came onto the scene, since 'day 7' was the same length in time as the other days. And since you already reconciled that Adam was the first homo sapien, and homo sapiens have only been around for ~200K years, we have a problem.

Thus, the 'Yom' argument seems nonsensical. 'Day' has no meaning. So why make meaning out of it?

Click to expand...

You need to read this carefully to understand about yom. You said you did but you obviously don't.
by the questions your asking
Word Study Yom

Hebrew Dictionaries


Let’s start with the possible meanings of Yom;



The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)

"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)."

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (symbols omitted)

from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

As you can see, Hebrew dictionaries attest to the fact that the word Yom is used for anywhere from 12 hours up to a year, and even a vague "time period" of unspecified length.


Other Uses of Yom


Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.



Time



It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.

In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?



Year



Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.



Age



Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."



Ago



One time Yom is translated "ago." 1 Samuel 9:20 says "As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, ..."



Always



Four times yom is translated as "always," in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and in 2 Chronicles 18:7. Always here can be interpreted as a lifetime...for instance, we are to keep the commandments of the Lord always (Deut. 5:29).



Season



Three times yom is translated "season." In Genesis 40:4, "...and they continued a season in ward." Again, in Joshua 24:7, "dwelt in the wilderness a long season," and in 2 Chronicles 15:3, "...a long season Israel hath been...". In each case yom represents a multi-month period.



Chronicles



When used in conjunction with the word dâbâr, yom is translated "chronicles" (27 times).



Continually



When used in conjunction with kôwl, yom is translated as "continually" (11 times). Once, in Psalm 139:16, it is translated continuance (without the kôwl).



Ever



Ever is used to represent a long period of time, such as in Deuteronomy 19:9, "to walk ever in his ways." Nineteen times Yom is translated "ever." The old testament uses "for ever" instead of the word forever. In sixteen cases of use of the word ever, for is placed before it, indicating a infinite period of time. I will not list them all (consult Strong's Concordance for a full listing) but here is an example. In Psalm 23:6, it says "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." Here Yom is translated as the final word of this verse, ever. Thus, Yom in this verse, and 16 others, represents eternity.



Evermore



In one instance, when yom is used in conjunction with kôwl, Yom is translated "evermore." Deuteronomy 28:29, "...and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore;" thus representing either a lifetime or eternity.



Word Usage in the Old Testament



As you can see, Yom is used in a wide variety of situations related to the concept of time. Yom is not just for days...it is for time in general. How it is translated depends on the context of its use with other words.

InterestedAtheist said:

Your "scientific" argument, not scientists'.
Your "historical" argument, not historians'.
Your "philosophical" argument, not philosophers'.

Without having your arguments published in the appropriate forums - and that's not Christian Forums - your "multi-pronged argument for the Christian God using scientific evidence, historical evidence and philosophical evidence" means nothing at all.

Click to expand...

No, this is a good place to publish my arguments since this is the non-Christian section of Christian Forums. For example, you are not a Christian and may not have ever heard some of the strong evidences for Christianity and I am especially posting for open minded non-Christian lurkers because they are more likely to listen rather than hardened hyperskeptical atheists like yourself.

cvanwey said:

My point is that regardless of what was actually done on any given 'day', the fact that the Bible makes the effort to use the word 'day' at all, means that the word 'day' has some significance. Otherwise, like I stated prior, the Bible would simply list an order of events, and not use the specific word 'day' to distinguish as such.

Click to expand...

This is what you can't get your head around it doesn't use the word day in Hebrew. It uses the word yom
Yom 1 Yom 2 …..

gradyll said:

so again like I said if not even scientists attempt to prove something, yet you offer their views as proof...how does that work?

Click to expand...

Easy enough. You got mixed up. I'm not offering scientist's views as "proof" that evolution is true because, as was already clearly explained to you, we don't "prove" scientific theories. Evidence, however, from all parties in the Dover trial, both pro-evolution and pro-ID, clearly showed that ID is creationism, ID is pseudoscience, and the Discovery Institute was lying.

Since you obviously either didn't read the proof the first time, or perhaps didn't understand it, please go back to post #1757 and read it carefully. Once you've done that, perhaps you will have the good grace to admit that you were ID is pseudoscience and a form of creationism, and that the Discovery Institute we found to be engaged in deceptive behaviour at the trial?

Ed1wolf said:

For example, you are not a Christian and may not have ever heard some of the strong evidences for Christianity and I am especially posting for open minded non-Christian lurkers because they are more likely to listen rather than hardened hyperskeptical atheists like yourself.

Click to expand...

This is a little funny. Ed, there are only a few arguments for God's existence, none of them are convincing in the least, all being riddled with errors in logic, and we know all about them. We've all heard the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the argument from morality, and Pascal's Wager.

Ironically, most atheists tend to know more about Christianity than most Christians. On the debating forums of a website like CF, of course, you tend to run into the more knowledgeable Christians. But most Christians don't really know their own religion at all.

But please, if you think you do have a "strong evidence for Christianity", do feel free to post it. Just don't be surprised if it turns out to be a lot less impressive than it felt when your pastor told it to you.

dougangel said:

Ok well I'm trying to be logical in a scientific way. Every where in the universe and our galaxy and earth there is cause and affect in action. well yes there must be cause to the universe.

Click to expand...

Must there? Why?

dougangel said:

Genesis 1
7 Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground.
this is a simple explanation.
evolution
water
dust, moss, plants, trees, animals, man
Genesis 1
dust- man.
the process doesn't actually disagree.

Click to expand...

That sounds like the Bible is just being vaguely close to the truth by accident. If you use enough metaphors, you can make many things sound like scientific truth. But do you think the people who wrote the Bible - whoever they were - said to themselves, "Well, God set in motion a process whereby unliving particle among the rocks became tiny living creatures which, over thousands of thousands of years gradually grew larger until some of them turned into men" - is that what you think they meant?
Or, do you think that they thought God actually took some mud, breathed on it, and Adam came to life?
If you're going to go down that road, then perhaps we should look to Japanese creation myths instead. They tell of how, in the beginning, before there was heaven and earth, there was darkness. And in the midst of this darkness, there was an egg, containing all things. Sounds pretty much like how the universe started, right?
Or maybe the Viking myths. At first, there was nothing but an empty, lifeless void, with ice at one end and fire at the other; over time, sparks from the fire melted the ice, and life emerged. Goodness me! Did the stories of Odin and Thor already tell us, thousands of years ago, about abiogenesis?
Or is it that the Japanese, and the Viking, and the Hebrew origin myths are nothing but...well, forum rules forbid me from going further, but it could it be that any connection between these myths and current scientific theories is nothing but coincidence?

InterestedAtheist said:

Must there? Why?

Click to expand...

I told you why. Are not reading my posts properly ?
If your not going to intellectually honest there's no use having a discussion with you.

InterestedAtheist said:

That sounds like the Bible is just being vaguely close to the truth by accident. If you use enough metaphors, you can make many things sound like scientific truth. But do you think the people who wrote the Bible - whoever they were - said to themselves, "Well, God set in motion a process whereby unliving particle among the rocks became tiny living creatures which, over thousands of thousands of years gradually grew larger until some of them turned into men" - is that what you think they meant?
Or, do you think that they thought God actually took some mud, breathed on it, and Adam came to life?

Click to expand...

It's doesn't matter what the writer thought. It matters what God was inspiring.

dougangel said:

I told you why. Are not reading my posts properly ?
If your not going to intellectually honest there's no use having a discussion with you.

Click to expand...

No, I'm reading your posts fine, thanks. The reason I asked you "Why?" was to prompt you to think things through a little more carefully.
You say that there is cause and reaction "everywhere in the universe". Well, considering we only know about a tiny portion of the universe that's a rather bold statement, but let's go with it. Okay. Cause an effect rules everywhere in the universe. Fine.
And then you say that, because of this, the universe itself must have had a cause.
And I am asking you why you think that. Just because everything in the universe has a cause, why must it follow that the universe itself has a cause?
I imagine that you have plenty of experience of cause and effect in the universe, and so when you find an effect of some kind you rationally assume that it had a cause. Good.

But how many universes do you have experience of? How much experience do you have outside of the universe? I imagine that the answers are, respectively, "one" and "none at all".

Now you may think I'm being ridiculous. What, do I imagine the universe poofed itself into existence out of nothing at all, for no reason? And my answer is, simply:
I don't know.
I have no idea at all what, if anything, existed before this universe, or why, if there is a why, the Big Bang happened.
And, since I don't know, I'm not going to take a position on it. I'm not happy saying I don't know, but nor am I going to make up an explanation. And nor am I going to agree when a theist says "God must exist, otherwise who created the universe" because there is no evidence that God does exist or that the universe was created by anybody.

See?

dougangel said:

It doesn't matter what the writer thought. It matters what God was inspiring.

Click to expand...

But that's begging the question. You can't assume that God exists in order to answer a question about whether He exists.

InterestedAtheist said:

Now you may think I'm being ridiculous. What, do I imagine the universe poofed itself into existence out of nothing at all, for no reason? And my answer is, simply:
I don't know.
I have no idea at all what, if anything, existed before this universe, or why, if there is a why, the Big Bang happened.
And, since I don't know, I'm not going to take a position on it. I'm not happy saying I don't know, but nor am I going to make up an explanation. And nor am I going to agree when a theist says "God must exist, otherwise who created the universe" because there is no evidence that God does exist or that the universe was created by anybody.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I find this sort of dogmatic agnosticism strangely anti-intellectual. If people had historically been content to say "I don't know," and then use that as an excuse to not consider a question more deeply, we wouldn't have science, or philosophy, or really any form of knowledge at all. There is no moral victory in using the words "I don't know" to cut off inquiry--that's just another form of dogmatism.

Really, you are allowed to contemplate questions like whether the universe could have popped into existence uncaused. The fact that it's a question that moves past science into philosophy doesn't make it off-limits; it just means that the answers you come to are going to be of a different sort. It's entirely possible to come down on one side or the other while still admitting that you cannot truly know.

Never mind that if one truly goes down the path of genuine philosophical skepticism, the list of things that we cannot know basically becomes all-encompassing. No intelligible reality, no other minds, no self, no material universe, practically nothing at all. I've been all the way down that rabbit hole before, and I really don't recommend it, even if it is at least consistent.