How some creationists pushed me away from christianity

[dad]

You haven't answered the question. Why, logically, does there need to be a God for the world to function as it does today? Without the weak and strong nuclear forces, the universe would never be able to coalesce into more than isolated elementary particles or nucleons. Without gravity, no matter would ever have coalesced into the galaxies we see today, and therefore the universe would never have been able to form life. Without God...what?


Maybe he's into that kind of thing... we shouldn't judge.

Yes, we can judge that. Effeminate is out.

 

[Jazer]

Without the weak and strong nuclear forces.

Because without God you would have no "weak and strong" forces. Without a Creator you would not have a Creation. There would be no universe if it were not for God. Children understand this, perhaps you need to become like a child and you will understand also.

Mat 18 3
Truly I say to you,
Except you be converted,
and become as little children,
you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No weak or strong nuclear forces ..nucleons...gravity...etc! Not like science knows where they came from!

Uh huh. Just a side point, how do you know where they come from?

Back to the main point...yes. We do not know why they are here. But, 1) science is not concerned with the why. Science is concerned with the how. And 2) it's okay not knowing in the interim. Yet all this is irrelevant. I know of no logical argument which entails (or even strongly supports) the need for a God to explain these forces' presence. This is a typical God of the Gaps fallacy.

Because without God you would have no "weak and strong" forces. Without a Creator you would not have a Creation. There would be no universe if it were not for God. Children understand this, perhaps you need to become like a child and you will understand also.

Mat 18 3 Truly I say to you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

As above. And my post above this one.

I particularly take objection to this part: "Children understand this, perhaps you need to become like a child and you will understand also". Do you have any proof for this? Also: it is known that children's brains are not fully matured; that they do not fully comprehend the difference between logical and illogical thinking; younger children cannot even distinguish between reality and fiction. And this is the basis for your argument? You are saying that our mental faculties need to become more degenerate than they already are?

 

[dad]

Uh huh. Just a side point, how do you know where they come from?

If it is UNKNOWN...it ain't science!

Back to the main point...yes. We do not know why they are here. But, 1) science is not concerned with the why. Science is concerned with the how. And 2) it's okay not knowing in the interim. Yet all this is irrelevant. I know of no logical argument which entails (or even strongly supports) the need for a God to explain these forces' presence. This is a typical God of the Gaps fallacy.

Who cares?? You don't know. That is all that matters. Science sure doesn't!

 

[Jazer]

Well, neither you nor I have a dress...right? Neither you nor I are all that holy...right? What we should pretend?

If you want to be Holy then you need to be washed and cleansed in the Blood of Jesus.

Rev 1 5 Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

If it is UNKNOWN...it ain't science!

No, this is incorrect. If it is unknowable it ain't science. If it is unknown...then it is simply unknown.

Who cares?? You don't know. That is all that matters. Science sure doesn't!

Why does the fact that we do not know, matter? I have no idea. It's certainly not relevant as to whether God exists or not.

 

[Jazer]

I particularly take objection to this part: "Children understand this, perhaps you need to become like a child and you will understand also". Do you have any proof for this? Also: it is known that children's brains are not fully matured; that they do not fully comprehend the difference between logical and illogical thinking; younger children cannot even distinguish between reality and fiction. And this is the basis for your argument? You are saying that our mental faculties need to become more degenerate than they already are?

So you admit you do not understand. Why do you take so much liberty with what you do not know?

 

[dad]

If you want to be Holy then you need to be washed and cleansed in the Blood of Jesus.

I am. But holy is hardly the word that I'd use to describe me. Funny, when I meet people that think they are holy, a difference of opinion seems to emerge...

Rev 1 5 Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

"If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

I agree. Jesus washed us from death and sin and gave us eternal life. I just somehow see being cleansed from sin as something other than being some sort of sinless saint.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So you admit you do not understand. Why do you take so much liberty with what you do not know?

This is becoming boring.

You are right, I do not understand. I do not even see how 'understanding' is an improvement. I certainly do not see how having the mental facility of a child is necessary.

As for the second part, I am not, as you describe, 'taking so much liberty'. I am merely inferring logically a conclusion from the premises you give.

 

[Jazer]

Why does the fact that we do not know, matter?

There is some advantage to ignorance. The punishment is not as bad. Ignorant people do not excape the consequences of their actions. For me it would be better to know the truth so you can avoid adversity. If I were to go somewhere I would want a map or directions on how to get there. The Bible gives us directions on how to get through life.

Luke 12 48 parphrase "But the servant who didn't know [what his master wanted] and did things for which he deserved punishment will receive a light beating. A lot will be expected from everyone who has been given a lot. More will be demanded from everyone who has been entrusted with a lot."

 

[dad]

No, this is incorrect. If it is unknowable it ain't science. If it is unknown...then it is simply unknown.

So you figure science has nothing to do with knowing? What, guessing may be a better term for what science does?

Why does the fact that we do not know, matter? I have no idea. It's certainly not relevant as to whether God exists or not.

Ha. Well, if you do not know, how would you expect to overrule God and His word?

 

[Jazer]

This is becoming boring.

This is a science board. I come here to talk about science.
But if you ask, then I will answer your questions. It's all pretty standard.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

There is some advantage to ignorance. The punishment is not as bad. Ignorant people do not excape the consequences of their actions. For me it would be better to know the truth so you can avoid adversity. If I were to go somewhere I would want a map or directions on how to get there. The Bible gives us directions on how to get through life.

It's better to know the truth...therefore you commit a series of logical fallacies that make it impossible for you to objectively know the truth, and indeed make it impossible for you to recognize it if it (metaphorically) came up and slapped you round the face with a wet fish?

To clarify, the list of logical fallacies I can find (in no particular order):

Argument from authority: the Bible
Begging the question: the Bible
Argument at populi: the Bible
God of the Gaps: creation
False premises: left, right, and centre
Homunculus fallacy: God
Cherry picking: as above; conditions for life are perfect in our universe, therefore it must have been God's doing.

Luke 12 48 parphrase "But the servant who didn't know [what his master wanted] and did things for which he deserved punishment will receive a light beating. A lot will be expected from everyone who has been given a lot. More will be demanded from everyone who has been entrusted with a lot."

This is begging the question. Why are you assuming the Bible is a legitimate authority, when the argument you are using it as evidence for is related, itself, to the authenticity and validity of the Bible as an authority?

So you figure science has nothing to do with knowing? What, guessing may be a better term for what science does?

I never said anything like this.

Ha. Well, if you do not know, how would you expect to overrule God and His word?

You still haven't answered my question. You cannot make a case for why God should logically exist. Why should I obey something that doesn't exist?

Also, are you honestly saying that because we do not know, we should therefore accept God's (and therefore the Bible's, by proxy) version of events, as interpreted by an arbitrary person sometime between now and ~1000BCE?

Thankfully I can post links now. So I can direct you to read this before you try affirm this again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps

 

[dad]

..

I never said anything like this.

No? So you think science then has to do with knowing? Not like there are all that many choices here!

..Why should I obey something that doesn't exist?

Why question billions of witnesses that say He does for NO reason?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

No? So you think science then has to do with knowing? Not like there are all that many choices here!

I never said that it wasn't.

Why question billions of witnesses that say He does for NO reason?

Why not? They are anecdotes, after all.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's funny how hundreds of years ago you could have found millions of people to swear on the Bible (of all things) that the Earth was the center of the universe. Funny world we live in, isn't it? Imagine that! All those people, with a wrong view?! Would would have thought?

And, I wouldn't exactly say there's no reason. After all, you still haven't convinced me (or anyone who would care to critically analyze this thread, I might imagine) that there is a need for a God to exist.

 

[dad]

I never said that it wasn't.

So then if it is not known....it ain't science.

Why not? They are anecdotes, after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_popularity

No they are test tubes in shoes.

It's funny how hundreds of years ago you could have found millions of people to swear on the Bible (of all things) that the Earth was the center of the universe.

It is. So? What do you think space was stretched out from?

 

[Jazer]

Argument from authority: the Bible

Lets try this again. If you ask a Bible question, then your going to get a Bible answer. It is not open for debate or discussion because this is not the board that we talk about that stuff. We are here to talk about Science and how science relates to the Bible.

I am happy to answer any questions you have about the Bible. But I am not going to argue or debate with you about it. Perhaps you want an apologetics board. If you want to question the answer to your questions.

 

[Juvenal]

If they have studied geology then they are without excuse. The works of God can be "clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made."

"For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse" rom 1 20

That's by no means the only gaffe Paul managed to set down, but it's one of my favorites. My all-time favorite is the one where he insists that even if the hosts of heaven should contradict him, we should believe him anyway.

The most bloated ego in the bible.

As ever, Jesse

 

[AV1611VET]

That's by no means the only gaffe Paul managed to set down, but it's one of my favorites.

Paul wasn't encumbered by what I like to call the philosophy of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ego is what religions are all about.

And the id is what science is all about? or is science the superego?

Or, as I suspect, you're not qualified to differentiate or compare the three?

That's the problem with you "scientists" here: you make harsh statements, not know a thing about what you're saying.

As they say, you know just enough science to be dangerous.

You guys and your [so-called] science, is like a little kid with a real gun.