• 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.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Argument for God's existence.

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

  1. Yttrium

    Yttrium Well-Known Member

    659
    +663
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Is it tricky? One can always assume something is true for the sake of argument. Is this so different?

    The argument is an attempted proof of God's existence, which includes an assumption of cause and effect. It's not up to us to provide an alternative, but to evaluate if the proof is successful. A position of "I don't know" on the topic of causality actually opposes the assumption of causality. If we can't be sure that cause and effect applies in all cases, then the assumption may be incorrect, and so the proof is insufficient.
     
  2. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +141
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Without free will you cannot weight evidence and come to a rational conclusion based on that evidence. Your conclusion is already preprogrammed irrespective of the evidence. There goes science out the window. I agree that you cannnot will yourself to believe, most people believe because there is evidence for what they believe in.

    Nevertheless the speculation for what happened prior to the BB is based on logic as I have demonstrated earlier in this thread.

    That may be true of some, but not in my case. I used to believe in it even after I became a Christian, but then I studied it for many years and saw the many flaws in it and came to reject it primarily based on science not my religious beliefs.

    The reason it gives out at the BB is because it came into existence at the BB. Nevertheless most cosmologists believe that it is not eternal. So those of us who do believe it is not eternal are on the side of most of the evidence.

    The basic definition of the Christian God has not changed in 2000 years, and yet He is still the most likely cause of this universe even before we discovered the characteristics in it that point to Him being the cause of it. You just made up your own definition of the pixies to try to win an argument in the last week. In addition, no one has claimed to communicate with your pixies, but millions have claimed to communicate with the Christian God, therefore that in itself is far more evidence for the existence of God than your pixies.
     
  3. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +557
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    As stated, 'free will' has differing definitions. But thank you for agreeing with me, in that you cannot 'will' yourself to change your current inferred conclusion about something, without directly obtaining necessary and/or needed evidence to demonstrate to the contrary. Hence, the process of 'science' seems to work just fine.

    You have not. Logic can equally assert that the end of a prior universe was the start of this one, for instance. Measurable 'time' gives out at the beginning of this BB. If it is immeasurable prior to this point, we don't know. Again, we have differing models floating around. None have been 'proven.'


    Any other scientific theories, in which you have reached this conclusion? Or just evolutionary theory? The reason I ask, is because unless you were studying to work in this field, why was this one specific field so important to you; to study 'for many years'?


    We already agree that 'time' is no longer measurable, prior to the 'Big Bang.' However, as stated above, and also in prior responses, differing models exist, which attempt to explain this.

    You keep saying this, but it appears flawed in reasoning. The number of believers, has no relevancy. It's the evidence, and what can be demonstrated. I would provide a sample video again, but you will see it in another response, in which you have not yet addressed :)

    If there existed a scientific theory, regarding 'causation' of the BB, then you might be 'correct', via peer review. However, scientists have models. Again, await the provided video in another response regarding the notion that the 'universe' may very well be eternal. Otherwise, you are currently appealing to a bandwagon. We don't really 'know' yet. Period.

    If what you asserted were true, we would not have so many differing denominations.

    Asserting your own personal presupposition isn't what makes something 'true'. Let the evidence do the talking. Your above assertion presents nothing more than fallacious reasoning.

    Pointing out we don't know what happened prior to the 'BB' gets us no closer to Yahweh, verses my presented 'universe-creating pixie' assertion :)

    When something was first asserted has no relevancy as to whether or not this attestation is 'true.'

    Furthermore, millions have attested to communicating with other gods, spirits, demons, etc, argualby older than Yahweh. So?



     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    Thank you, Yttrium, for clearly expressing what I wanted to say. @Silmarien , this is no doubt a very good conversation to be having, but I'm just not interested in having it here and now. Right now, we're discussing arguments for God's existence, and I'm interested in pointing out how and why they fail. So, with respect, I'd rather not go off on a tangent at the moment.
     
  5. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    most of what I know about time and space, relativity etc, I learned from a few very smart individuals. A.E wilder smith is the primary source, who was a brilliant christian man. also see, "the physics of immortality" which brings up a host of other material, by tipler. But if you just like science and the Bible, check out chuck missler stuff on youtube. I went through most of his studies on the new testament, and he has a bunch of stuff. I sort of modified his views to make my own views.
     
  6. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    so again, when you decide to apologize for the dishonesty of moving the goal posts, I will address your further posts.

    namely this one:

    if you do it tonight, I have time to fully adress it, if not, it may be awhile.

    Argument for God's existence.
     
  7. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    funny how she brings up initial cause (a proof for God), and you are like....."sorry tangent!"
     
  8. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    you seem like a nice rational person, maybe you have evidence of macro evolution, no one else here does. I have debated evolutionists almost fifteen years, and I have debated biologists, even tracking down scientists emails and having conversations with them. I didn't find any evidence of macro evolution. People assume it true because of one thing, the scientific consensus. But they have never literally studied it for themselves, to see if it was true. If the scientists said there were unicorns on mars, they would believe it.
     
  9. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    First, that's quite wrong. Second, even if it were right, it's irrelevant.
    Baseless claim.
    He did win the argument, and he did it by pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
    Bandwagon fallacy. One of the few times in this thread the term has been used correctly.
    The undeniable fact that millions of people claim to communicate with God means absolutely nothing is their evidence is all of the same low grade. To put it another way, one horse can run at thirty miles an hour, but does that mean you can harness ten of them to a coach and travel at three hundred miles an hour?
     
  10. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
  11. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
  12. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    Alright, gradyll, you win.
    I admit that I misspoke when I said that evolution was proved as much as a scientific theory could be proved. I can see that it is possible for someone who is unfamiliar with what a scientific theory is may have been confused by that. I apologise for the way this sentence made the discussion difficult for you.

    And now, to clarify the position:
    "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.”

    Now, are you now willing to read the decision from the Dover Trial and admit that ID is not science?
    Knowing that you don't like reading much, I've kept it short. You will, I trust, go back and read the full report at your leisure to verify everything it says.Talk Origins has kindly made the whole judicial decision clearly available, so that anyone can follow.
    Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3

    "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."

    Not too lengthy, I hope?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
  13. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    no sir I don't accept an apology with an insult attached to it. Again if you wish me to reply to your posts, you will apologize sincerely, and without insult. That is the honorable thing to do. I have highlighted the insulting parts, in case you missed. it.
     
  14. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    Of course, gradyll. Whatever you say!

    I admit that I misspoke when I said that evolution was proved as much as a scientific theory could be proved. I apologise for the way this sentence made the discussion difficult for you.

    And now, to clarify the position:
    "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.”

    Now, are you now willing to read the decision from the Dover Trial and admit that ID is not science?
    Knowing that you don't like reading much, I've kept it short. You will, I trust, go back and read the full report at your leisure to verify everything it says.Talk Origins has kindly made the whole judicial decision clearly available, so that anyone can follow.
    Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 3

    "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."

    Not too lengthy, I hope?
     
  15. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,693
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    again, you are making your apology based on my interpretation. That's not what I asked, I just said "say your sorry and you will try better." I didn't ask for an apology for my sake "that I didn't understand it" I want an apology for your sake, to make you a better debater, and a more logical person, both for yourself and for those who read your posts. But anyway, I accept this apology. I know how hard it is for males to say, "I was wrong." My wife tells me every day that I need to do it more often. I reject both the dover trial conclusions and the scopes trials. Granted the ID proponents were trying to prove something and as thus make it scientific, that was the old version of ID. ID proponents don't attempt to make stuff scientific through proof. They now use peer review, and a host of sources that are entirely scientific in nature. As an example of this I ask that you briefly read this site, and browse it's homepage and a few links, and see if you can see anything christian in it. It's not religious at all. ID is not biblical creationism. There is a big difference. ID proponets claim that a certain amount of bits of information of shannon information make something very hard to evolve by itself. They call this specified complexity. They have studied it more than myself, but the eye for example has several systems in it that would not evolve one by one, a little by little, the eye without it's many systems would be a useless piece of flesh, and be tossed out of the body in the form of human waste. So evolution fails miserably on a most basic level. anyway, here is the site for you to check out:

    https://evolutionnews.org/

    thanks for being genuine.

    note I believe intelligent design is scientific (if done properly without theological concepts), see discovery institute's stuff like the site I posted. I do not believe intelligent design is provable. I believe God's existence is provable, but not via intelligent design.
     
  16. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +218
    Christian
    Single

    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.


    Ok how can you have Night and day on day 1 when the sun the moon show up on day 4 .
    How would the earth and vegetation on day 3 survive the planets showing up on day 4 again!!!

    Only we employ a Jew prophetic literal technique by jumping verses.

    Day 1 : Night and day, Evening morning --- Day 4: The sun the moon the planets.

    Day 2 : Water separated from sky --- Day 5: Birds, creatures of the sea.

    Day 3: Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Day 6 Animals, Man


    Yom age Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets.
    Yom age Water separated from sky Birds, creatures of the sea.
    Yom age Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed --- Animals, Man

    Day 1 day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Important for Jewish calendar.

    So as you see it has a clever dual meaning and it changes context. I disagree that the ages have to be uniform in time.
     
  17. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +1,052
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I can “argue for the existence of God”, but that does not mean I can proof God’s existence. Can we agree to look for the most likely alternative since proofing God does not exist is not possible either?

    A tree can be proof for God’s existence if the person wants to accept a tree as evidence (the most likely way for a tree to come into existence would be God.), but there concludes with “we do not know”.

    Hopefully we can agree: “Something does not come from nothing.” Unless you redefine nothing as being something, but that still has something coming from something.

    So, something has always existed, it could be just energy (matter coming from energy) or energy and intelligence. If we say energy alone has been around forever then energy alone produced intelligence (since we have intelligence). How much intelligence could just energy produced since intelligent man is increasing his intelligence through computers, so is super intelligence possible/likely?

    Has, can or will intelligence produce intelligence? (all dependence on your definition of intelligence.)

    Would it be much more likely for energy and intelligence to produce other intelligence, than just energy doing it alone?

    Since we are talking about an infinite amount of time prior to our existence, what are the chances of us being the first intelligent beings? (are you that lucky)

    If super intelligence existed prior to us existing would it and energy be the most likely cause of our existence and how long ago would the super intelligence have come into existence (half way back is an infinite amount of time)?
     
  18. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +557
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Nothing in your response addressed my points. But then, at the end, you stated you still disagree? Why do you disagree?

    Brief recap:

    - 'Day 5' would have had to of taken millions of years to complete. 'Day 6' would also have to take a 'long' time. However, how long was 'day 7', 24 hours, other? Day 7 would have to be 'short'. Otherwise, You would never get to week #2.

    - My point is the Bible mentions 'days'. If the Bible is the Word, why confuse the authors whom translate? Don't use 'day' at all. Simple fix here... Just address the order of events, without expressing an apparent unit of time to do it.

    - English translators use 'day'. Many denominations adhere to the 'fact' that Genesis speaks of literal days. Evangelicals ignore much of later human discovery/science, to instead favor the Bible translation. This means God is 'a okay' with confusion for many of His believers.

    - The beauty in ambiguity, is that 'young earthers', 'old earthers', and others, can 'translate' such passages just about anyway they see fit. There exists no true metric or standard for 'right/wrong'. Not only is this Book not falsifiable, it is just vague enough to allow for many differing beliefs, on many differing topics. Hence, the multiple denominations.
     
  19. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +2,556
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Thanks for the info, I'll check them out ... also Hugh Ross has some really interesting videos as well.

    God Bless.
     
  20. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +679
    Atheist
    I'm sorry, your personal opinion on the Dover Trial carries no weight whatsoever.
    Prove it. Show me these works of the Discovery Institute which are now accepted by the scientific world as successfully disproving the theory of evolution. And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain how the "new" version of ID is different to the "old" version.
    At the Dover trial all of the people on the pro-ID side claimed to have no religious motives at all. It was shown that they were lying.
    Also, I found it interesting looking at the "Writers" page on this site. Quite a gallery of rogues! There is Michael Behe, who was shown to be a liar at the Dover Trial, and Jonathan Wells, who is on record as saying that he took a degree in biology specifically for the purpose of better being able to destroy Darwinism. It may interest you to know that both of these people were interviewed for the book "Case for the Creator" by Christian pastor
    That's exactly what the pro-ID side argued at Dover as well. Never the less, ID was still ruled to be a form of creationism. And did you know that they looked at the book, Pandas and People, and found that it had originally been a Creationist "textbook" and that they had simple replaced each instance of the word "creationist" with "intelligent design proponent". In one case, they created a sort of transitional fossil by writing "cdesign proponentstist".
    It's nothing but the same tired old watchmaker argument.
    The evolution of the eye has been very well studied, so your argument fails.
    Eye Evolution
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
Loading...