In The Beginning.

[FoeHammer]

That would be the entire problem. And as such, if you cannot show something that would NOT be evidence for God, then it is not possible to determine that something is actual evidence for God.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. everything in heaven and earth is therefore evidence of the existence of God.

Your whole idea rest on your a priori assumption that god exists. It is a circular argument.

And yours rest on your a priori assumption that He doesn't.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

I do not know. Do you know, and, more importantly, do you have any evidence? (That has not already been refuted)

If you don't know then you can't have refuted any evidence I may have given, nor can you refute any I may yet give.

FoeHammer.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. everything in heaven and earth is therefore evidence of the existence of God.

You missed the point completely. If God supposedly created everything, there is no objective means to determine if he really did. You'd need something "uncreated" to show the difference.

And yours rest on your a priori assumption that He doesn't.

That's the default stance. Otherwise we'd have to assume the existence of fairies, pixies, the IPU and Russell's teapot.

 

[FoeHammer]

By... not... creating... life? Are you saying god had no choice whether to create life or not? That's... inventive.

Your original post said:

God could just as well have created no life

It should perhaps have read God could just as well have not created life.
There is a difference, do you now see why I questioned it?

First of all, there need not be. The fact that there is no evidence for fairies does not mean there are no fairies. In the absence of any evidence against fairies - i.e. - one way or the other, we must adopt that wonderful position, "I don't know." So, even if there were no conceivable way in which life could have come about naturally, you would have to have positive evidence that life was created by god to say that. By which point, you've proven god anyway.
But I suggest you look up modern abiogenesis hypotheses. I believe the RNA world is quite plausible, although modern scientists believe it unlikely. From what I gather, current belief is that the first bits of life were amino acids (shown to be produced naturally in conditions like those of the early earth) which then assembled into a protein that could obtain energy from other organic molecules that would be lying around (methane, for example) and went on to replicate (by the same process of random polymerisation)
All this is entirely plausible. And so you have even less justification in leaping in, frothing, with "GODDIDIT." Even if there were no evidence for this view, it doesn't matter - since we have an alternative, no evidence for either means "I don't know."

I believe in God and accept the (KJV) Bible as His revealed word to mankind, I believe that it is true, all of it, I cannot therefore say that I don't know how life came about because I do, Goddidit.

Because almost everyone adopts the religion of their parents. Children are evolved to be information absorbers - they're quite willing to believe pretty much anything told to them early enough. Religion preys (geddit? "prays?" )on this "feature."

Nonsense, are you telling me that all religions are ethnically exclusive?
And, for the record, neither of my parents were/are Christian and I was never preyed upon by Christianity.

FoeHammer.

 

[RedAndy]

I believe in God and accept the (KJV) Bible as His revealed word to mankind, I believe that it is true, all of it, I cannot therefore say that I don't know how life came about because I do, Goddidit.

"Goddidit" is not an answer to a how. It is a who.

It is as if you asked me "when I drop a brick from a window, why does it fall?" and my answer was "Isaac Newton." It's a total non sequitor.

 

[FoeHammer]

Abiogenesis, as discussed by modern scientists (i.e. post Darwin & Pasteur) is the theory that life evolved from non-living molecules.
Spontaneous Generation, as refuted by Pasteur, is the theory that whole creatures such as maggots, flies and mice, spontaneously grew out of putrifying meat, for example.

I learnt what spontaneous generation was when I was 15 in History lessons.

How life came about from non-living molecues is unknown regardless of how many modern scientists are discussing it. The fact is there is no definite scientific answer and I predict that there never be.

Let's see, we have two opposing theories. One states "Life arose due to natural forces." The other states, "Life arose due to natural forces + God." Ockham's razor says we shouldn't multiply entities unnecessarily. God is an unnecessary entity, here, because we don't need the concept to explain life.

I believe that God created life as Genesis tells us, life arose due to God not natural forces + God.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Regardless of who developed the rules of logic, you reject them when it comes to your God. When you do this, your argument becomes illogical.

You might feel justified in doing this within your own mind, but rest assured the rest of us are neither fooled nor impressed.

Are the rules of logic set by man/men?
If so who? If not then where did they come from?

FoeHammer.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are the rules of logic set by man/men?
If so who? If not then where did they come from?

FoeHammer.

This is a good question. A very good question. It is akin to the Euthyphro dilemma. Does God do good because he HAS to do good or does what God does automatically mean it is good? In the first God is "controlled" by the necessity of goodness, in the second goodness is contingent only upon what God decrees.

So God could make mass murder of innocent women and children "good".

Either way it spells disaster for a theistic morality.

Logic, on the other hand can be either necessary or contingent as another poster suggested. Which is it? Is God ruled by Logic, or is logic merely a "fancy" that God put in place and tomorrow he could decree that all p = all q, all q = all m therfore p is not m.

Or he could decree that a thing is not what it is.

Either way it's a toughy.

 

[Circus]

Good is good, God does not choose if something is good but rather recognizes if it is good or not. You have evidence of this in Genesis where god creates something and then sees that it is good. I have yet to read through the entire bible, so I might be a bit premature in making the statement.

I haven't read through the entire thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating some already stated or refuted arguements. Have you consindered the possibility that time and space are infinite, and did not start with the 'Big Bang'? Here are 2 links to a new (within the last 5 years) scientific theory on the beginnings of our universe as we know it. "As we know it" being the key words in that sentence, since the theory states that that there is in fact no beginning to time. Rather that it and space are infinite.

**Seems I don't have enough posts to post links, I'll come back and edit later if I can, just take out the spaces I put in.

Look for "cyclic_model" on Wikipedia, and check the following 'link':
discover (dot) com (slash) issues (slash) feb-04 (slash) cover (slash)

The 2nd link gives a more in-depth explaination of the theory in such a way that even someone outside of the scientific community should be able to grasp its meaning.


@FoeHammer;

There are indeed several theories on how life started on earth from non-living things. None are conclusive as of yet, but saying that they never will be is very premature. Each theory is very possible and they are being refined with any new information we discover. Maybe we'll come to the conclusion that some other-being did create life on Earth. I very much doubt it would be God as described in any of the Abrahamic religions though.

*Edit: Spelling

 

[FishFace]

If you don't know then you can't have refuted any evidence I may have given, nor can you refute any I may yet give.

Incorrect.

I can refute evidence and still not know. It's not usual for someone to exemplify this fallacy quite so well. If you refuted evolution, somehow, right now, you would not be justified in concluding your god. You can still only conclude "I don't know," until you get some evidence for your position.

Your original post said:
It should perhaps have read God could just as well have not created life.

They mean the same thing. "I eat nothing" does not mean, "I eat a thing that is nothing," it means "I do not eat anything." Perhaps you should stop quibbling over insignificant grammatical nuances.

I believe in God and accept the (KJV) Bible as His revealed word to mankind

Hold it there, then. If that is your evidence for your beliefs, you have to provide evidence that that is a reliable source of information. Why should I take the word of some guys who lived a few thousand years ago over modern science - why should I take their flawed philosophy over our more enlightened systems? More practically, why should I take their word over the word of any of the other religions'?

Nonsense, are you telling me that all religions are ethnically exclusive?

Of course not, that would be stupid. But it is a well known and demonstrable fact that most people of religion X were either brought up by people of religion X, or lived where there are lots of people of religion X. Surely you don't deny this?

And, for the record, neither of my parents were/are Christian

Both of mine are, but anecdotes are not evidence.

and I was never preyed upon by Christianity.

Of course you say that. But the fact that you have fallen for the "truths" of fundamentalism (not those of Christianity, necessarily) speaks to the contrary.

 

[FishFace]

How life came about from non-living molecues is unknown regardless of how many modern scientists are discussing it.

What is your point?

The fact is there is no definite scientific answer and I predict that there never be.

Why? Because you read so in a book?

I believe that God created life as Genesis tells us, life arose due to God not natural forces + God.

You've not quite got the point. Your system of belief is "God + natural forces," because you believe in both of them. But I, for example, only believe in natural forces. So Ockham's razor tells us we shouldn't select your system over mine unless it is necessary.
To believe in God is not necessary to believe in life (since you've not demonstrated the impossibility of natural abiogenesis) so God is unnecessary to our system of belief.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Good is good, God does not choose if something is good but rather recognizes if it is good or not.

So, are you saying that "goodness" exists before God? Who established what was "good"? If God made something and then saw it was good then clearly God did not establish "good" and "evil".

Who did? Does the concept of "good" pre-exist God? If not, and if God did not establish metrics for what is good vs evil, then who did? Can God do evil?

(see where this is going?)

--check "Euthyphro Dilemma" in Google for a better in-depth discussion of this.--

 

[LittleNipper]

So, are you saying that "goodness" exists before God? Who established what was "good"? If God made something and then saw it was good then clearly God did not establish "good" and "evil".

Who did? Does the concept of "good" pre-exist God? If not, and if God did not establish metrics for what is good vs evil, then who did? Can God do evil?

(see where this is going?)

--check "Euthyphro Dilemma" in Google for a better in-depth discussion of this.--

GOD is good. GOD is love. GOD is righteous. GOD is perfect. The attibutes of GOD exist because HE is eternal and not because they were bestowed on HIM. They exist because HE IS.

 

[Siderite]

So, are you saying that "goodness" exists before God? Who established what was "good"? If God made something and then saw it was good then clearly God did not establish "good" and "evil".

Who did? Does the concept of "good" pre-exist God? If not, and if God did not establish metrics for what is good vs evil, then who did? Can God do evil?

(see where this is going?)

--check "Euthyphro Dilemma" in Google for a better in-depth discussion of this.--

I have really enjoyed reading about this dilemma - thanks for your suggestion Thau!

I would like to hear what LN has to say about this idea:

"Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God" ref:http://www.moralphilosophy.info/euthyphrodilemma.html

 

[FishFace]

GOD is good. GOD is love. GOD is righteous. GOD is perfect. The attibutes of GOD exist because HE is eternal and not because they were bestowed on HIM. They exist because HE IS.

Way to miss the point. Here's a simple question: Is God good because he does what falls under the standard of good, or because, by definition, everything he does is good?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I too can cast aspersions if that’s the way you want it.

Be my guest. You won't be the first person, and you won't be the last.

The fact that science can explain a process does not mean that it is the only explanation of that process nor does it mean that God wasn’t the originator/author of that process.

It does not conclusively rule out a decieving deity, no. However, scientific conclusions are logically far more probable that 'goddidit' explanations (adherance to and violation of Occam's Razor, respectively, for one).

As for any gaps in current scientific understanding, if that is a problem then it is a problem for those who put their faith scientific understanding, and I don’t.

So you reject the conclusions derived from deductive reasoning?

So what?

If you had bothered to read the next few words, you'd see that I pointed out that initial definitions are rarely conserved (for example, 'Evolution', in the light of modern genetic research, has been more accurately defined).

Autogenesis, spontaneous generation also known as abiogenesis.

Well done, you can recite a piece of text. Your point?

So, some are slow reluctant to let the idea go. Perhaps they’ll end up forming their equivalent of the flat earth society.

The irony of your words is stunning.

All life. Exactly how much more probable is abiogenesis and why?

Why invoke a deity when inanimate processes explain the situation just fine? While said deity is not conclusively ruled out, it is irrational to arbitrarily invoke it into an explanation (qv. Occam's Razor).

 

[thaumaturgy]

GOD is good. GOD is love. GOD is righteous. GOD is perfect. The attibutes of GOD exist because HE is eternal and not because they were bestowed on HIM. They exist because HE IS.

I hope you chanted that with your fingers stuck in your ears. It isn't like it was a reasoned "response" to the dilemma per se. It is an active ignoring of the dilemma, which, believe it or not has flummoxed countless theologians and philosophers a lot smarter than you and I.

But if that is your answer, then go with it. Philosophy is for suckers.

 

[OdwinOddball]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. everything in heaven and earth is therefore evidence of the existence of God.And yours rest on your a priori assumption that He doesn't.

FoeHammer.

No, on the contrary. The conclusions of science rest on the evidence we have. No assumption about the existence or non-existence of god is ever made in science. because gods being a supernatural phenomena are outside the realm of science. This is why many Christians accept the ToE & big bang theory as the best explanations we have for how life & the universe started respectively.

Foe, some very serious advice here. I know you're not going to listen, but I will say it anyway.

Learn what it is you oppose before you spout off nonsense like the above quote. Your statements show that you know almost nothing about science. Yet, regardless of this you feel it is ok for you to conclude that science is wrong. This is called argument from ignorance. Its the sign of a very weak argument and it does nothing to further your position, instead it makes you look like a fool.

Even if you still end up disagreeing, at least if you could speak intelligently on the subject, and present arguments based on actual knowledge and not just your assumptions and opinions.

 

[LittleNipper]

Way to miss the point. Here's a simple question: Is God good because he does what falls under the standard of good, or because, by definition, everything he does is good?

GOD is the standard. Everything HE does is good.

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD is beyond your expectations of HIM. You must answer to HIM. HE doesn't need to answer to you.