• 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. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    The "BB" gets us no closer to 'God'. Nor, is there any peer review suggesting as such. You do understand that the "BB" makes no attempt to account for what happened before this first measurable moment in 'time', right?

    If not, please again address the many links I've provided, of the models in which scientists are weighing and considering...

    And again, if you wish to go down Genesis, to the claims the Bible makes, which would involve 'science', and play 'accept the hits and ignore the misses', we could certainly do that.



    Again, please address the several links which suggest otherwise.


    These verses appear vague, and appear no more or less written by authors whom simply looked out at the night sky and wrote stuff. (i.e.) 'Mentioning 'stretched out'... The reason your assertions here are not falsifiable, is because you can no longer go back and ask the authors of these vague texts what was meant by these statements.

    Another vague passage, left up to the 'interpretation' of it's intended context...

    How about when the author seems to suggest he thinks the earth is flat?:


    '8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.'

    Why would going to a higher mountain reveal more 'kingdoms'? Why even mention going to a 'very high mountain' unless the author was under the impression all villages were viewable from a single point?

    Again, I have provided links which demonstrate the plausibility of an eternal state. And as you've already agreed, if the universe is eternal, the concept of creation would likely be false. Are you going to address them?

    So far, you have done little else but assert that the "BB" is finite, and that 'evolution is false'. Both of which contradicts much of science.

    You completely avoided my point. That survival of the fitter has only left the majoritive population whom invoke intentional agency, both 'good' and 'bad.'

    Your assertion appears to be wishful thinking to support your own agenda....

    No. Please actually address what I stated above, about survival of the fitter; as it applies to intentional agency.
     
  2. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Not necessarily, you dont need all the four causes to reason to the Efficient Cause. Sometimes we dont know what the other causes are and that is what the case is for the Material cause. The formal cause is the design or idea in the mind of God. The final cause is the destruction of evil forever.

    That is true of some but not all, some actually mean nothing, I have talked to them.

    Aristotle: Selections. Edited by W. D. Ross, Modern Students Library, Philosophy Series.
     
  3. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    Perhaps I'm just not reading this right. But your answers don't seem very impressive - or indeed, to mean much about anything at all.
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    ...
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  5. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,869
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Maybe there are things we don't know the final cause for, but I'd like to see an example of something that we don't know the material cause for.

    Besides that, if the material cause is nothing, then you don't have a material cause, and using Aristotle to explain causality fails. So if Aristotle is right, then the Bible isn't claiming creation ex nihilo.

    If the material cause is something and we don't know the properties of that something, how do you reason that God is necessary, and that the unknown properties of this unknown something aren't sufficient?

    Ugh. A book I can't read online. Would you mind transcribing a small section where Aristotle explains "sufficient causes" before I have to bother tracking it down in the real world?
     
  6. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Nevertheless, the singularity had no dimensions. Look it up. Quantum fluctuations could not have created the universe, because they require intervals of time to occur, but at t=0, there is no time.
     
  7. Yttrium

    Yttrium Active Member

    391
    +340
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Okay.

    Initial singularity - Wikipedia

    "General Relativity is used to predict that at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point somewhere between the size of a human head and a skyscraper-filled city block, according to today's best models on inflation."

    I've seen other articles speculating that it could have been less than a centimeter across, but that's still not dimensionless.

    You make two declarations there with no basis that I'm aware of. We don't know enough about the initial conditions to draw such a conclusion.
     
  8. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    Really, this summarizes most of what's on this thread. Declarations with no basis, and we don't know enough to say one way or the other - so apologists don't get to say their answer is the one we MUST believe. If you say there is evidence for God, you'd better provide it. You don't get to say "nobody knows the answer to this question so it must be the answer our religion favours", which is what every claim gradyll and ed have made boils down to.
    We are, perhaps, in debt to @gradyll and ed for spinning this out for so long. The thread's title is "arguments for God's existence..." and we now have almost a hundred pages showing us the sentence concludes: "...all fail."
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
  9. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Occam's Razor teaches that most of the time the simplest explanation is the correct one.

    All three of these links base their eternal universe model on string theory which most cosmologists are starting to say is flawed, maybe fatally.

    No, there is only one definition of the orthodox Christian God. So if your pixies are defined exactly as the same as the Christian God, that is fine they may be the Creator of this universe. What you call Him in science is fine, but not fine in theology.

    Yes, but as I have demonstrated that is the weak minority view.

    Only you and God know if what you are saying is true, but I seriously doubt it is a lack in credulity, but most likely a hyper skepticism which is very common among atheists that post regularly on the internet.

    The BB is not nothing but the evidence points to the singularity being nothing. Even your "well-known" cosmologist' whom I have never heard of after reading many books on cosmology over the years, admits a beginning is the majority opinion, and that is all I am arguing. Also, he is wrong about the special theory of relativity, it is one of the most well supported theories in science.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
  10. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    No, its characteristics point to the Christian God as its creator. As I have shown earlier.


    Ok, show me where my reasoning went wrong.


    Subscribe to a cosmological journal and you will see more evidence for the BB almost every month.
     
  11. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Your application appears misplaced. The "BB" speaks about the first measurable moment. The "BB" does not attempt to explain what happened (prior) to the "BB". Again, the 'BB" is the starting point to when 'time', as we 'know' it, is measurable.

    Again, prior to this, could have been the end of a prior universe which spawned the beginning of this one. Again, 'before' this measurable state, 'time' was simply not measurable in (this) 'universe'.

    Occam's Razor is not applicable here; as there exists no simple solution to such a question. But to instead invoke 'God' as the 'simplest answer', would be to instead demonstrate the 'God of the gaps' argument, or the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.


    'Hand waving' these links away, while only asserting to the contrary, is not gonna cut it this time. You actually need to demonstrate that such models are actually proven false. Not just assert that they are... I'm not asserting they are indeed correct, but instead demonstrating that such an endeavor, (the universe being finite vs. eternal), is certainly not a 'settled' topic. Not by a long shot apparently...

    And here's the gist of it all... If the 'universe' turns out eternal, then you may have no choice but to reconcile 'creationism' as a non sequitur, as you have already admitted. However, if the 'universe' is finite, then you still have all your work ahead of you, to demonstrate your asserted God, and to rule out all other asserted conclusions - (to which there is many) :)

    Even if this were true, you still have to demonstrate His existence. Blank assertions aren't gonna cut it :)

    No you have not. All you have done is state it is weak. I have provided links, demonstrating 'models' and 'theories' of scientists, whom are actively working on the topic, whom admit the topic is not settled. Your counter argument thus far is, 'nuh-hu'


    Um, my doubt originates from actually studying the asserted evidence FOR Christianity, after 30+ years of invoking blind faith, and appealing to the authority around me; by not questioning their assertions. Thus far, you have really provided nothing usable to support your asserted position. Care to actually provide something?


    Again, it is not a settled topic. You are responding, as if I'm this specious and extremely outlying individual, whom is in the extreme 'minority', for simply stating that cosmologists are undecided. When in fact, when you 'google, 'did the universe have a beginning', you get all sorts of links which do not point to a clear answer (i.e.):

    Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning | Quanta Magazine

    On the contrary, when I type in, 'is the theory of evolution well supported', this does appear a settled topic in biology. And yet, THIS topic is the one topic you somehow don't agree with..? Interesting....

    Evolution Resources from the National Academies
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  12. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    It's just your own wishful thinking, Ed.
    Everywhere.
    You said:
    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.
    You talk about the "law of causality", but all of our experience of it is within this universe. Do you have any experience of how it works, or if it works, outside of this universe?
    You say this cause must be non-physical. Do you have any experience with non-physical things? Or consciousnesses that do not require a brain? Or immaterial beings? Or is it just that you already believe in God, and so you "know" that there must have been a cause to the universe and it must have been God?
    As for "exactly what the Bible says about Yahweh" - the Bible says that Yahweh made the Earth in six days, some six thousand years ago. Which is, of course, completely untrue. Perhaps you'd like to subscribe to a cosmological journal yourself to check that out?
    I'm sure I will. And where, in this cosmological magazine, or scientific textbook, or peer-reviewed paper, will I see scientists talking about how Yahweh created the universe? I'll tell you: nowhere.

    And now let's focus on the real point: all of your arguments avoid what you actually need to be saying, which is positive evidence for your claim. But in fact, you have zero evidence that an entity matching the description of the Christian God actually exists. All you have, as I said before, is that you can't imagine how things came to be, so you shoehorn God in there. But that's not good enough. If you want us to believe that God exists, give some evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  13. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,725
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    This is a very dangerous argument, since someone could very easily respond that yes, in fact, we do have experience with non-physical things, and it's the physical (if it even exists) that is in the realm of the unknown. All we have direct contact with are our sensory impressions of the world, and those are mental representations rather than physical entities.

    Similarly, we don't have experience of any consciousness aside from our own, so we cannot actually know from experience whether either (1) other brains truly produce consciousness, or 2) consciousness can occur without a brain. The whole underlying thesis of theism is that reality is in some sense ultimately subjective in nature (i.e., that it is personal), so if we're basing knowledge strictly on what we have experience with, then it's one of the better options out there.

    You need to drop the focus on experiential knowledge, particularly over something like consciousness, where the reality of experience is in direct conflict with the notion of a purely physical reality.
     
  14. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    What a priori assumptions? The steady state theory lasted longer than the BB theory has so far. Only recently has the Bible been confirmed by science on this subject. Think of all the Christians that had to believe that the universe was not eternal on pure faith for all those years without any science to provide evidence for it.

    Of course not, I know YOU have a priori assumptions.

    Not just that it began to exist but its characteristics strongly point to what type of Cause it was.

    No, but its writers obviously know of the law. Its description of God fits the definiton of a transcendent being.

    God does not inhabit space because He is non-phyiscal. We dont know exactly what is "outside" space.

    You have yet to demonstrate that I have equivocated, made a priori assumptions, and used fallacious reasoning. As I stated earlier most cosmologists have made the same conclusion I have about the universe not being eternal, but of course, they are not going conclude that God exists because they would be accused of being a crazy fundie.

    Sure until I get tired of the same old superficial athestic literalisms.

    I have already stated examples of teachings about science that if the scientific theory is disproven it would falsify the biblical model.

    A cosmological observation just came out this month confirming it. A Star Orbiting in the Extreme Gravity of a Black Hole Validates General Relativity | Science | Smithsonian[/quote]
     
  15. cvanwey

    cvanwey Well-Known Member

    +445
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    Your a priori assumption that God exists, and also that the ambiguous passages of the Bible, spoke about the future characteristics of what we humans now label 'big bang cosmology.' And to shoe horn in attributes and characteristics in which you can make fit into your a priori beliefs.

    The Bible has not been 'confirmed' by science. If this were so, peer reviewed 'science' papers would mention as such. You are merely drawing your own a prior assumptions out of wishful thinking.

    Again, the Bible is fairly ambiguous, and interpretation can be read into many of it's passages. Yes, some are straight forward. And even those passages get jockeyed around; as evidence by the many many many denominations.


    Again, the 'BB' is merely a place holder term. Scientists do not know prior to measurable time. (i.e.) 'began to exist' (vs) eternal (vs) a continuation from a prior immeasurable state (vs) other....

    You are again trying to play 'god of the gaps'.


    Oh, they 'obviously know of the law?' What law is that exactly? And how would (you) know if they did know of this 'law'?

    How would you know? Furthermore, if He does not inhabit 'space', how would He ever intervene and interact with humans? Does He have the ability to inhabit space?

    GREAT ANSWER. Now you are starting to finally sound like a skeptic :) Now let science do their thing, and stop trying to 'show horn' God into some of the findings thus far.


    I most certainly did. Look above even in this post reply. Furthermore, you demonstrated as such the second you began posting on the side of the one whom presented this post thread :)


    Nice job in poisoning the well :) I'll take this response as a NO :)

    Yes you have, but then you keep asserting that 'science' has finally concluded the universe is not eternal. In which I have highlighted that 'science' most certainly is not settled. I provided many competing 'models', in which you have not addressed (unless you consider a 'hand wave' a response).

    And again, as I stated in a prior post. EVEN IF the universe turns out finite, you still have to rule out every other positive claim for competing theistic propositions. You don't think the believers, opposed to the Christian faith based doctrines can also 'shoe horn' interpretation into their ancient writings and make 'science' fit?


    Please tell me exactly what this article means, in relation to proving the existence of a 'transcendent causal agent'? Or, that the Bible is even speaking about such scientific propositions?
     
  16. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    They could if they wanted to, but since your post simply amounts to solipsism their response can be dismissed as being without merit.

    True, but so what? All the evidence we have at our disposal is that we live in the same shared and identical physical world. Feel free to disagree with this if you like; there are special buildings where we keep people who disagree with the consensus of physical reality, for their own safety, where they can believe that they are surrounded by aliens, or are reincarnations of Jesus, or able to fly.

    Well, I know that I'm the only person in existence, then, if you say that we can't prove that others exist. Goodness me, how clever I am - I invented Mozart's concertoes, the theory of relativity, wrote James Joyce's books...what a genius I am! Still, isn't it strange that this world I created around me can't be changed. You'd think if I was creating the whole of my existence I would have fewer people dying of cancer, and the hoverboard would have been invented by now.

    Not it's not. You just made that up. The whole underlying thesis of theism is that gods or a God exists. That's all.

    Since your whole argument merely amounts to solipsism, my response may as well be:
    "Bah! I don't have to listen to you; you just told me you don't even exist!"

    Let's stick with the topic of this thread. Do you have any arguments for God that you think any reasonable person should agree with?
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2019
  17. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +448
    Atheist
    Well, exactly. Creationists and apologists are so desperate for some kind of official approval. Sadly, scientists keep doing science, and have no time for their quasi-philosophical justifications of their religion.

    Just so. How does something immaterial do anything? Is there a difference between "immaterial" and "nonexistent"? Can something exist without being made of anything?
     
  18. Silmarien

    Silmarien Existentialist

    +3,725
    United States
    Christian Seeker
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Much of what I'm describing is subjective idealism, not solipsism, which means that your long, hysterical counter-argument from incredulity is aimed at the wrong position. My objective was also explicitly to show problems with an approach based so strongly on empirical experience, so aside from engaging in an alarming amount of fallacious reasoning, you ultimately seem to have missed the point entirely.

    I'm out of town at the moment, but if you'd like an explanation of all of the logical fallacies you've committed here, I would be happy to comply once I get home. For the purposes of this thread, however, the most important problem is the way you are attempting to monopolize definitions. If I give you a definition of theism, you do not get to tell me that I am making things up and insist on your own definition. You can ask for clarification on what precisely I mean, but if a theist is using language in a way you are unfamiliar with, it is up to you to adjust to it. You do not get to define my position.
     
  19. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Agreed.
     
  20. Ed1wolf

    Ed1wolf Well-Known Member

    +127
    Presbyterian
    Single


    The historico-grammatical context of the entire bible, with the help of God's other book, ie Nature.

    Well some scholars interpret the "world" as only the inhabited world, and therefore think the flood was local but not entire worldwide flood but I disagree.

    I agree that the flood is one of the major events in the bible that has the least amount of evidence for it. But nevertheless I believe there is some evidence for a worldwide flood. One of the reasons there is not much evidence for it, is that I believe it occurred 2 mya. So in such a long time most of the evidence has eroded away. Also, most of the events in the flood were supernatural such as the removal of the water. But there are some evidences that still exist, such as huge hydraulically caused fossil graveyards such as at caves in Gibraltar and other areas and most of them date to about 2 mya. Also, the last major Ice Age began around that time probably because of perturbations to the earths rotational axis. Many scientists agree that perturbations to the earths axis can cause ice ages, though of course, they dont agree that the weight of the water of the flood caused those perturbations 2 mya, but I believe they did. So while not a great deal of evidence for the flood there is some evidence.
     
Loading...