Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[KCfromNC]

There is of course a HUGE lobby behind evolutional thinking.

In much the same way as there is a HUGE lobby behind round-earth thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's naturalistic evolution, dead things evolving into living things by themselves,without a purpose or reason.
Get a clue, you have the brains.

I think you're trying to describe abiogenesis (poorly). Evolution has nothing to do with "dead things evolving".

Since you don't seem to understand what you're talking about here, I would suggest that you actually look into what these words mean and the evidence that supports them...then come back and try to explain why they're wrong.

You mean geneticists (and not all,at all) support the idea.
DNA reduces it to poor fantasy.
Data does not write itself.
Books don't either.
Ask any information scientist.

What's an "information scientist"? We aren't talking about books...we're talking about DNA. If you know of any geneticist who doesn't believe in evolution...I'd like to hear about him/her. Do you have any names?

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is of course a HUGE lobby behind evolutional thinking.

What lobby? What are they lobbying for....and to whom are they lobbying?

 

[Hieronymus]

No one ...at least, not in the way you mean.

Then what accounts for it being written, and the system of which it is part (to implement it).
Order out of chaos without an ordner?
Law of entropy is wrong?

Scientists don't believe there's some magical being sitting at a typewriter "writing" DNA.

The alternative is dead unconscious things doing it with no reason.

 

[Chriliman]

That doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. If theism is incorrect, we have the situation that we experience today.

You're asserting that it's a fact that God does not exist, yet you know it's not a fact. It's a fact that you don't believe in God, but this does not mean it's a fact that God does not exist.

Theists are incorrect that God exists, and atheists have been right all along to be skeptical of theistic claims.

Again, you're asserting your beliefs as facts. If it's a fact that God does not exist, then you should easily be able to prove this as fact, but you can't, all you can factually say is that you do not believe in God.

If you really mean: if the concept of theism were unknown, there would be no conceptual need for the word "atheism", that would be true.

What you've said WOULD be true, ONLY if the concept of theism is UNKNOWN, yet we know theism is known so what you've said is actually not true.

However, that wouldn't make atheism "incorrect". It would simply make the concept unnecessary.

IF theism were unknown, it would make atheism unknown as well, therefore it would be impossible to even say atheism is unnecessary because no one would know about atheism because of the fact that theism would be unknown.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think you're trying to describe abiogenesis (poorly).

Itś naturalistic abiogenesis which is the poor (and desperate) idea.

Evolution has nothing to do with "dead things evolving".

Abiogenesis does by definition.

Since you don't seem to understand what you're talking about here, I would suggest that you actually look into what these words mean and the evidence that supports them...then come back and try to explain why they're wrong.

The default reply when in trouble...
We should avoid that kind of distractions.
But it's tempting...

What's an "information scientist"?

Maybe itś not the proper term in English, but it usually has to do with computers.
Hence IT (information technology)

We aren't talking about books...we're talking about DNA.

We're talking about code, meaningful strings of characters etcetera.
Like a computer programme for example.

If you know of any geneticist who doesn't believe in evolution...I'd like to hear about him/her. Do you have any names?

Don't plea ignorance, it's not credible.

 

[Chriliman]

So, to summarize this nugget of logic: Even if God doesn´t exist God exists?

No, in actuality it's that it's impossible for God to not exist because even IF evidence arose that disproved an eternal God, wherever that evidence came from would become the highest eternal source of knowledge(God).

 

[Hieronymus]

What lobby? What are they lobbying for....and to whom are they lobbying?

Why do you think you believe it?
Did you do the research and reasoning behind it yourself?
Why did i believe it in the past?
We get it fed at school and through many other ways as if it is a proven fact.
The other side of the story is ridiculed in public, doesn't have the platforms evolutionism has.
So it's just good old religious indoctrination, under the guise of science...
It's naturalism.

Evolutionism is a product /spin off of theosophy.

 

[quatona]

No, in actuality it's that it's impossible for God to not exist because even IF evidence arose that disproved an eternal God, wherever that evidence came from would become the highest eternal source of knowledge(God).

So, to summarize: You are going to redefine "God" the way it suits your argument as you walk along.
Btw. did you miss my question for clarification (What is the truth claim of atheism that you have in mind in your argument about it being "correct/incorrect") again - or are you intentionally ignoring it?

 

[Hieronymus]

In much the same way as there is a HUGE lobby behind round-earth thinking.

No it isn't, because we can observe the earth's shape any time.
Speciation has purportedly happened in the past, a long time ago.
The species have been here for a long time.
So itś not the same at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Itś naturalistic abiogenesis which is the poor (and desperate) idea. Abiogenesis does by definition.

So you're aware of the term...are you aware it's not the same thing as evolution?

Maybe itś not the proper term in English, but it usually has to do with computers.
Hence IT (information technology)We're talking about code, meaningful strings of characters etcetera.
Like a computer programme for example.

Why would i ask them about DNA?

Don't plea ignorance, it's not credible.

You made the claim. Since you can't back it up, I'll just assume it's false.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then what accounts for it being written, and the system of which it is part (to implement it).
Order out of chaos without an ordner?
Law of entropy is wrong?

Entropy isn't "chaos" or disorder...again, this whole line of thinking seems to be based in your poor understanding of science. Here's a short article explaining entropy...

http://www.science20.com/train_thought/blog/entropy_not_disorder-75081

The "law of entropy" has to do with thermodynamics. If you think it causes some kind of evidence for god...let's hear it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do you think you believe it?
Did you do the research and reasoning behind it yourself?

Lol no, I didn't do the research myself...but I've read lots of it. I've also read quite a bit about the evidence itself, as well as criticisms of the evidence.

The amount of evidence for evolution is staggering...and there's more evidence all the time. It crosses multiple fields of science, including many that have practical applications today...like modern medicine. It's probably the most well established theory in all of science.

As for its critics, I've never seen them put forward any evidence which contradicts evolution. Those critics of a religious nature seem to count on the likelihood that their followers won't be looking into the evidence themselves...which allows them to make false claims regarding evolution.

Why did i believe it in the past?
We get it fed at school and through many other ways as if it is a proven fact.
The other side of the story is ridiculed in public, doesn't have the platforms evolutionism has.
So it's just good old religious indoctrination, under the guise of science...
It's naturalism.

Evolutionism is a product /spin off of theosophy.

I've noticed that when I asked you for evidence of god...you simply started complaining about evolution. If you think there's some connection there...let's hear it. If you have any evidence...let's see it.

I'm not here to educate you about all of the science that you don't understand. You can do that for yourself if you were genuinely interested in the truth.

 

[Chriliman]

So, to summarize: You are going to redefine "God" the way it suits your argument as you walk along.
Btw. did you miss my question for clarification (What is the truth claim of atheism that you have in mind in your argument about it being "correct/incorrect") again - or are you intentionally ignoring it?

I'm not redefining God, I'm defining Him in a more clear way.

I already answered the other part of your question. Atheism claims it's reasonable to lack belief in God, but in reality atheists either believe God does not exist or believe God is possible. There's no lacking belief in the concept of God, you either accept it as false or you accept it as true or at least possible.

You seem to be on the rational side of atheism by believing God is possible. No?

 

[Chriliman]

Why? Your explanation of "theism existed first" isn't a reason why atheism is wrong if theism is wrong. You're not even trying to think about this...

Theism is the belief in god(s). If theism is incorrect...then it's incorrect to believe in gods. If it's incorrect to believe in gods...then it's correct to not believe in gods.

That makes atheism correct.

I don't think any atheists would agree with you on this...let alone "many".

This response I gave to Eudaimonist should answer your question.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-gods-existence.7711675/page-57#post-69424634

 

[Chriliman]

No, in actuality it's that it's impossible for God to not exist because even IF evidence arose that disproved an eternal God, wherever that evidence came from would become the highest eternal source of knowledge(God).

Can anyone explain how this is not logical proof that it's impossible for God to not exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can anyone explain how this is not logical proof that it's impossible for God to not exist.

Suppose that the evidence that god doesn't exist came from some aspect of reality or the universe itself...

You're saying that the universe is then "god" in your mind?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This response I gave to Eudaimonist should answer your question.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-gods-existence.7711675/page-57#post-69424634

It doesn't answer my question...we were discussing if theism is incorrect/illogical.

That post you linked to discusses if theism is unknown.

Can you answer my question or not?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You're asserting that it's a fact that God does not exist, yet you know it's not a fact. It's a fact that you don't believe in God, but this does not mean it's a fact that God does not exist.

Don't get your panties all in a twist. I was replying to your nonsense with an example of how your logic doesn't hold. It was your logic that I was addressing, and there's no reason I shouldn't consider it from a godless-universe perspective.

It's not like I'm specifically going to assume that a God exists, right? Or that Christian apologetics succeed, right? You are speaking to atheists, right? I did preface my comments with "If theism is incorrect...", right?

What you've said WOULD be true, ONLY if the concept of theism is UNKNOWN, yet we know theism is known so what you've said is actually not true.

I was being GENEROUS and exploring a perspective in which your line of argument might hold at least some water.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't get your panties all in a twist. I was replying to your nonsense with an example of how your logic doesn't hold. It was your logic that I was addressing, and there's no reason I shouldn't consider it from a godless-universe perspective.


eudaimonia,

Mark

When you speak to him and use proper, sound, well reasoned logic...it goes right over his head. However...

When you speak with him using his own primitive form of children's logic, he goes and points out the logical errors in it (or tries to)

There's an old saying about "not getting into an argument with a certain type of person, lest you be mistaken for one"...but I can't remember how it goes lol...