• 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. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    You Haven't answered the major problem that On day one we have "evening and morning" and day 4 we have the planets showing up !!! ??

    It's not literal. It has a ancient Jewish prophetic code meaning in it. There's a dual context because the written terms have to moved around.
    Age 1 can be billions of years age 7 the sabbath can be a day. An age is a unspecified period of time in this context.

    So I don't agree that the written terms have to be a uniform period of time.
     
  2. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +523
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    I'm going to fast forward to the end.... Rather than to address your point, or even further my point, below are the questions of the day.

    1. Assuming everything you state is true of this 'ancient Jewish prophetic code', what was the author's original intent when this stuff was written down?


    2. Was this 'code' actually implied during the time it was written down, or, instead maybe added post hoc by translators only after the scientific revolution?

    3. Why does a large population of evangelicals, and members here, instead translate such Genesis verses as literal, as in the English translation?

    4. Why are the 'young earth creationists' incorrect, while you are instead correct?

    Above lies the crux of my case....
     
  3. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Your questions really are beside the point but I will try to answer them.

    Many of the prophets didn't know what they were writing. It was God's divine inspiration. Daniel with the book of Daniel. John with the book of Revelation. David with his psalms just to name a few. they didn't know what they were writing down.

    David’s prophecy in Psalm 34

    20 He guards all his bones; Not one of them is broken.

    Amazingly that was written approximately 500 years before Christ. Do you think David knew Christ's bones wouldn't be broken on the cross when the other 2 crucified with him, legs were broken ?

    Copies of genesis written well before the scientific revolution exist. So this is not possible.
    Why do the major religions interpret the bible differently ? Why do many denominations interpret the bible differently ? there are many answers to that question that I don't have time for. People interpreting the bible differently is not unusual

    because of what Genesis 1 says. Logic. Many Christians think what I am saying is the right interpretation but sadly I didn't come up with that on my own. I got it from other sources.
     
  4. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,416
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    sir all of the same problems carry over if you take night and day to mean a longer period of time, you just have plants living longer without sun, plants however can live a day or two with out sun. But who is to say that God himself was not the light of the universe before? After all God is light, there is no reason to assume he created all of existence in utter darkness, I am sure he turned on the lights somehow, but he may not have. It doesn't say. But the point is this, that phrase is typical of a jewish twenty four hour period. I think the point is to show it was in fact a 24 hour period. I don't think the source of light is even relevant.
     
  5. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,416
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    yes hugh ross, is a theistic evolutionist, just so you know.
     
  6. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    448
    +424
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    He's definitely not an evolutionist. He's an old Earth creationist. He has his own OEC site.
     
  7. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,416
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    you bring up many things here, I can only refer to people I have interviewed from discover institute myself, I cannot say what other ID'ers believe. Some may be creationists, but the two are not the same. Yet other creationists may use ID in their books, like you mention. That does not make ID creationism. That is like saying because a christian quotes hillary clinton on a political topic, that she is therefore christian. It simply doesn't follow, this is a non sequitur fallacy. You mention that the proponents lied in trial, yet you quote talk origins which is distinctively biased against both creationism and ID. I don't trust their conclusions. Say for example I was an ID scientist and I went to court over getting ID into schools purely on a scientific level. And the first thing the attorney said was, "Sir mr. gradyLL do you believe in God?" Me being a christian I would say, "yes." And then they would say, sir, mr. gradyLL do you believe the designer of the universe is best described as a "christian God." And I would say, "yes" . Then they could say, well sir, mr gradyLL how can you prove to us that your personal views of the designer, will not come out in your classroom setting? And I would not be able to answer that. I cannot prove to him that I would not talk about my own opinions. I would for sure purpose to keep it to a scientific only approach, which I have done in these threads. I would not talk about the designer as a God at all, because the curriculum would not have God in it. But to those looking on the outside, I was just looking to spread my religion and use science as a means to do so. And I would not be able to convince them otherwise, because they too have biases they must overcome.
     
  8. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Hmm lol
    The same problems do not carry over. You obviously don't understand. Night and day, Evening, morning ,The sun the moon the planets are together in the first age.


    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 : 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.

    Day 1 is talking about Night and day Evening and morning. How can you have that with Gods light when your are getting darkness and light. You need the Sun and the moon on day 4

    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
     
  9. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +4,219
    United States
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'm not sure. Usually if you're just assuming something is true for the sake of argument, you don't actually think it's true. So the question would be whether you actually think the universe has a cause or not.

    One problem is that by taking this path, the atheist commits epistemological suicide. Our understanding of reality is built upon the concept of causality, so you cannot oppose it without destroying the possibility of empirical knowledge altogether. I call this a vorpal sword counterargument, since the type of foundational logical principle being questioned here is required in other areas as well. If an argument against theism destroys empirical science as well, then there is a problem with the argument.

    Of course, an atheist is within their rights to reject both theism and science on the grounds that knowledge is impossible, though I don't think it makes for a very interesting argument. In fact, I find it a deeply problematic one, since if we find ourselves in a position whereby rational approaches lead directly to theism, and one must attack the possibility of knowledge to defend atheism, that is not a terribly good sign for atheism. One should not be required to adopt irrationalism to hold such a view, so atheist apologists ought to do considerably more than argue that we can't know things.

    Another serious issue that seldom comes up is standard of proof. It seems to me that you're claiming that a theistic argument ought to prove all of its axioms beyond any possible doubt, which is a level of certainty that is unattainable in any field. We cannot even be sure that causality is going to remain in effect from one moment to the next, but nobody in their right mind is going to say that the laws of physics provide an insufficient model of physical reality. Why require an impossible degree of certainty here?
     
  10. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +4,219
    United States
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I have a fairly low opinion of the scientific community, but common descent has been all but confirmed: The Proof Is in the Proteins: Test Supports Universal Common Ancestor for All Life
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  11. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    448
    +424
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I think it's most likely that the universe had a cause. I'm willing to express a strong bias, but not a firm belief.

    I disagree. We don't tear down causality by speculating that in some cases (so far confined to the quantum realm) it may not work as we understand it.

    One does not go about proving scientific theories. If the OP claims to have a proof, then he has to expect tight scrutiny.

    Personally, I'm not the type to challenge the OP about the causality thing. I have other problems with the proof.
     
  12. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,416
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Sir if each day is vast lengths of time, how can plants live without sun that long. Let's start here. Secondly, God already used the term year. Why not say He created the universe in a million years, or whatever? Why use the term day? It's not a straight forward way to write a Bible thats for sure. Granted in other places a day can equal a thousand years. But do the math, if you say each day equaled a thousand years thats only 7 thousand years. That not that much time evolutionarily speaking. Most evolutionists want billions of years of time. So the day age theory does not seem to work out too well. The other option for you is the gap theory. Some theistic evolutionists believe that one. But that puts death before the fall of man, which does not make much theological sense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
  13. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +4,219
    United States
    Anglican
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Those are two different claims. Causality as a principle can be a fundamental aspect of reality even if causality doesn't always work in the way we have come to think it does. As long as there are potential explanations for the way that reality functions, then there is no problem.

    Toss out the possibility of an explanation, however, and you're in a lot of trouble. I don't think quantum physics is the best counterexample, because I would say that causality does go out the window if what we experience isn't an emergent property of whatever form of causality is occurring at the quantum level. If there's no causality there, then I don't see why there would be any anywhere else either.

    A proof is just a type of argument that begins with axioms, follows a logical pathway (preferably formalized), and ends with a conclusion. It's a specific format used in mathematics and logic, not necessarily a heightened epistemological claim.

    Granted, I have no idea if the OP meant it like this, but the fact remains. If someone is going to accept a scientific claim, but reject a theistic argument because they suddenly decided that they don't believe in causality, that is a problem. Though yeah, there are usually better issues to focus on, especially with the Kalam, so it always irritates me when people play the irrationalist card instead.
     
  14. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +128
    Presbyterian
    Single
    The BB theory is just as much a theory as evolution and in fact is a theory based on much greater evidence than evolution. And the overwhelming majority of cosmologists believe that the universe is not eternal and time had a definite beginning.

    But there are rational speculations and irrational speculations, the conclusion that there is a Personal Cause for the BB is the rational conclusion. The others are irrational.

    The universe is a diversity within a unity, which is exactly the same characteristic of the Christian God, this is similar to the markers that art experts use to determine who created a certain piece of art. Artistic Creators leave "fingerprints" that reflect things about themselves. And its four main characteristics were taught in His word 3000 years before they were discovered by scientists, the only religious book that does so.

    You are oblivious because so many people including Christians dont learn the evidence.


    Yes, but the origin of this characteristic is very unlikely to be the result of evolution as I demonstrated. So your point is actually evidence for a Creator.
     
  15. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,416
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    contradiction.png
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +606
    Atheist
    atheists.jpg
     
  17. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +694
    Atheist
    Private
    How do you know the Universe has not existed eternally?
     
  18. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +606
    Atheist
    Quite a lot we've got to deal with here!

    First of all, you haven't yet made an attempt to show any scientific publications the Discovery Institute has made about evolution in peer-reviewed publications, as I asked you to. I understand you may need more time to look these up, but the truth is, you're not going to find much at all. ID people publish as much as they can, of course, because they very much want people to think ID is a science; but the only papers they write which do get published in respectable peer-reviewed journals are on subjects unrelated to ID. Michael Behe, of course, does happen to be a real and respected biologist; but his university is nevertheless on record as saying that while they respect his freedom of speech, his views on ID do not represent them.

    Second, you said that "evolution fails miserably on a most basic level" because it is unable to explain how the eye evolves. I trust you have now had time to see that this is quite false from the link I posted? Biologists understand the evolution of the eye very well. Are you now willing to admit that?

    Thirdly, you seem to think that you can ignore the quotes from the Dover trial because they come via Talk Origins. You are quite incorrect about this, so please do try to listen as I explain:
    I am not quoting Talk Origins to you. I am using the unedited records of the Dover Trial, which just happen to be on the Talk Origins website for ease of access. What you are reading are the unedited words of Judge Jones, as he points out how the trial has proved that ID is a form of creationism, ID is a pseudoscience and not a real science at all, and that the ID side lied and acted deceitfully in the most blatant ways.

    Finally, to address your ideas above: no, the reason you would not be allowed to teach Intelligent Design as science has nothing at all to do with whether you yourself believe in God or not. It is, quite simply, because Intelligent Design is not science. You would not be allowed to teach ID in a science class for the same reason you would not be allowed to teach astrology (interestingly, when pressed on this in the trial, the ID side was forced to admit that, under their definition of science, astrology would also qualify). As Judge Jones put it:
    "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."
    Now gradyll, I understand that you don't want to do a lot of reading. You've mentioned it several times before, and I sympathise. I even agree with you. But if you're going to call yourself an ID proponent you really will have to do a minimum of research on the Dover Trial, because it's the most important thing which happened to ID in its decades-long history - getting the chance to put its case, being cross-examined on it, and a judgement being made on it. It seems clear that you know nothing about the Dover Trial at all, and so how can anyone take your ideas seriously?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  19. bling

    bling Regular Member Supporter

    +974
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You might read my post 1837,
     
  20. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    448
    +424
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Yes, well, I wasn't quite sure where you were going with that. You were speculating that with an infinite time in history, intelligent life might have popped up before us. As far as we've been able to determine, though, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Any intelligence prior to the big bang probably would be outside the known universe somehow. No telling how that would work.

    If intelligence can develop naturally, then it's likely someone beat us to it, since it's a big universe. We'll probably never meet them, though.

    Intelligence is pretty much processing power plus data storage. Super intelligence is just more of that. So greater intelligence is likely eventually, especially if we start plugging cybernetics into our brains. If we don't kill ourselves off first.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
Loading...