• 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
    Ok to make it clearer I should of written : The ancient Israelites with their culture and language, wrote the old testament.
    I agree it was inspired by God.

    In their language yom is many types of period of time. Not just a day. Logic does demand that we don't interpret the Genesis one piece of prose as a literal piece of writing. But I've done this to death. lol
    this is just playing with words and time wasting for me now.

    So God bless
     
  2. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,692
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    What post is inaccurate? The one you quoted was just a correction on terminology, whereas the one you never responded to was about the genetic evidence for common descent. Neither is inaccurate.

    I have made no mention of Intelligent Design at all in this thread--the criticism that you jumped on was directed specifically at Creationists. I know that they're not the same thing, and it's only Creationism that actively pretends that science doesn't exist.

    I really don't care about ID. I don't have much use for it, since I don't trust people who don't distinguish between metaphysics and science, but knock yourself out, if that's what you're into.
     
  3. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +595
    Atheist
    Private
    So... What's your point?
     
  4. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +595
    Atheist
    Private
    Of course it has mass, everything with an actual existence has mass. If general relativity says anything with mass cannot be eternal, how does general relativity account for the current existence of Mass?
     
  5. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    the universe has a beginning. There must be something out of time space matter continuum. The time space matter continuum is not eternal.
     
  6. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +595
    Atheist
    Private
    The Big Bang theory begins with the existence of the singularity that expanded to become what is known as the Universe. Prior to the expansion of the singularity; nobody knows.
     
  7. createdtoworship

    createdtoworship In the grip of grace

    +1,132
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    But you didn't reply to the fact that plants cannot live without light for vast ages of time, and you didn't reply to the fact that the number two definition of yom, as per your source was a 24 hour period. The third and fourth were less likely and included vast periods of time.
     
  8. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Maybe between species but not between genera and phyla.

    Not really, in 2005 evolutionary biologists A. Rokas, D. Kruger, and S.B. Carroll analyzed 50 genes from 17 animal groups and concluded that different phylogenetic analyses can reach contradicting inferences with seemingly absolute support.
     
  9. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    boy oh boy.

    Yom 1 Night and day, Evening morning--------------------------Yom4 The sun the moon the planets.
    Yom 2 Water separated from sky --------------------------------Yom5 Birds, creatures of the sea.
    Yom 3 Ground and Sea. The land produced vegetation----------Yom6 Animals, Man

    Night and day, Evening morning The sun the moon the planets. All go together in one age.
    the 24 hours days (time) start happening with the sun the moon the planets ( the universe developed )

    the sun the moon are in the same age making Night and day which is working over and over.

    I don't know how to make that clearer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  10. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    Its not eternal right ? It had a beginning right ?
     
  11. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +595
    Atheist
    Private
    There is no scientific theory that claims the singularity that lead to the Big Bang actually had a beginning. IOW nobody knows. Science only reports on what they know, so they cannot claim the Singularity was eternally existing, and they cannot claim it had a beginning because they do not know.
     
  12. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +442
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
  13. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    In in a lecture on the no-boundary proposal, Hawking wrote: "Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang."
    I did read this you posted to someone else. Very dissatisfied with what Hawkins said.
    basically Stephen Hawkins is saying We don't know so we will not deal with it.
    I'll go into it with more ken-1122. I can't reply today. No "time".
     
  14. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +442
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    My point was not to appeal to Hawking, or any other specific model/theory/idea, but to demonstrate that many models are rolling around out there. Hence, the three links, just for starters. The debate is not settled, not by a long shot; as to whether or not the universe is finite or eternal. Not enough evidence....

    This was the only point I wanted to address with you, since you and other theists here seem to assume the universe IS finite, without a seemingly warranted conclusion. "Time', as we know it, simply gives out at some point in the measurable 'past.' Everything prior to this, is simply 'God' assertions from theists.

    I find it quite interesting, however, that theists will adhere to 'science', when it agrees with them. But what about when science seems to not exactly favor a theistic assertion? (i.e.) What if a few years from now, 'we find out the 'universe is eternal'?

    Kinda hard to assert a 'creator', when the 'universe' always was....
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  15. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    They came up with it though because the fossil record did not reflect gradualistic predictions. And the mechanisms are inadequate for both.

    Who said anything about laughing at anyone? The Epicycle theory was a serious theory held by almost all scientists at the time. And Copernicus was not laughed either, they just thought his theory was all wrong because he had little to no evidence. Then Galileo came along and provided the strong evidence.

    Nevertheless when exoplanet experts try to determine whether a planet has life on it, they only consider carbon based, water subsistent life. Ever wonder why that is? And so your wife laughs at them too?
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +437
    Atheist
    Goodness me. Congratulations, gradyll, that almost sounds like you're starting to grasp the truth. But to make sure, I'd like to ask you to clarify your meaning: are you willing to concede that the 2005 trial found that:
    - ID was a form of creationism
    - ID was emphatically not science
    - The ID side acted deceitfully, deliberately lying in order to make their case?
    All of these things, you see, were found to be so, and I want to check that you are aware of this before we go any further.
    Why on earth are you showing us this? It dates from 2004, and was published in a newspaper, not a scientific journal. It is, however, valuable evidence that the ID side were lying; here, you can see Meyer claiming that ID is not creationism, a few months before the court finds indisputable evidence that it is.
    They tried that line in court. It didn't work there either.
    I agree, it does sound ridiculous, but it was Michael Behe who said it. Not that he wanted to, but he was forced to admit it under cross-examination.
    You have a tedious habit, gradyll, of forgetting anything that disagrees with you. See Kitzmiller v. Dover: Decision of the Court, Part 2
    "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. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe))"
    Messaging people who have been found guilty of lying in court in order to ask them if they're telling the truth sounds like a serious waste of time. I certainly shan't be doing that, and I'm surprised that you did.
    What will settle this, gradyll, is this:
    1. You read the records of the Dover Trial, something you obviously haven't yet done. At the very least, take a little time to read the judge's decision.
    2. Clarify for us if you accept the findings of the Dover Trial. I'm not asking you to agree with them, just to agree that they happened, that the court did actually find that ID is creationism, is not science, and the ID side acted deceptively. This is, of course, exactly what the judge said.
    3. Now what you have to do is find us some evidence, if you are able to, that ID has become science in the intervening years. So far all we have is your blithe assurances that the fine fellows at the Discovery Institute have told you it has. Forgive me if I don't trust the word of a pack of known liars! What you'll need to find is papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, showing that ID is not accepted in science. Also, I'd be very interested to see some articles from the Discovery Institute saying that they were wrong before, and that they have now made major changes to ID, and how these changes now make it into science.

    Or, gradyll, you could do the honourable thing, and admit that you are wrong, that ID is not science and never was, just another underhanded tactic in the creationist wars on science.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  17. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +437
    Atheist
    You seem to think, @gradyll , that ID has changed a lot, since the Dover Trial, "a long time ago". There are three reasons why this is not believable:
    First, fifteen years is not a long time at all in the history of the creationist movement.
    Second, I certainly haven't heard about any new changes to ID (and I would have, as ID always got plenty of press, before the trial pricked its bubble. Any news about ID would have got plenty of coverage).
    And third, in reading this thread we can see you using the same old warmed-over creationist arguments that Creationists and IDers have been using all along. "The eye can't have evolved" indeed! Very funny.

    So take a look at these things that Judge Jones wrote and try to understand: this was ID on trial, and it was found to be completely in the wrong.
    "Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's "official position" does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter "Pandas") is a "master intellect," strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich))."

    "Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity."

    "Although contrary to Fuller, defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism, their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion and it failed to directly rebut the creationist history of Pandas or other evidence presented by Plaintiffs showing the commonality between creationism and ID. The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism, including the chart that was distributed to the Board Curriculum Committee, as will be described below. (P-149 at 2; 10:129-32 (Forrest); P-555 at 22-24)."

    The big difference is this: in a forum thread like this people can be evasive and get away with it; but in court you get cross-examined in front of an independent judge, and when that happened ID got pinned down and exposed for the con it is.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  18. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, there is more to it than that, according to Dr. Goldsmith, the scientific consensus is that the BB is the ORIGIN of the universe, as well as time.

    I didnt say there was a consensus that there was an actual ex nihilo creation event, only that it appears that way. And if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions which implies nothingness. Which is exactly what the bible teaches.
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    The reason why more accept the BB is because most of it can be empirically observed in real time due to the ability to see into the deep past because of the speed of light. With evolution such a thing is not possible. Macroevolution has never been empirically observed. Also, the BB is based on well known relatively simple laws of physics, there are no laws of evolution.
     
  20. dougangel

    dougangel Regular Supporter

    +216
    Christian
    Single
    The Argument from Design


    The universe could have been different from the way that it is in many ways. It could have had different laws of physics; it could have had a different arrangement of planets and stars; it could have begun with a more powerful or a weaker big bang.


    The vast majority of these possible universes would not have allowed for the existence of life, so we are very fortunate indeed to have a universe that does. On an atheistic world-view, there is no way to explain this good fortune; the atheist must put this down to chance. On the view that God exists, though, we can explain why the universe is the way that it is; it is because God created the universe with beings like us in mind. This argument, strongly suggests the existence of a Creator(all knowing designer) that takes an interest in humanity.


    The Moral Argument


    Moral laws have the form of commands; they tell us what to do. Commands can’t exist without a commander though, so who is it that commands us to behave morally?


    Why is there good and evil as these are abstract terms? Relative, subjective morality cannot be lived out.


    Spiritual Nature.


    Why does man have a worship nature ?
     
Loading...