Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing
and created itself with no intelligent cause.
You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing and created itself with no intelligent cause.
I clearly stated that I do not believe that everything came from nothing. Are you telling me what I believe?You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing and created itself with no intelligent cause.
First of all, you assume it "came to be" in the first place. Is an eternal entity really that incomprehensible to you? Second, it's a question with a very simple, elegant answer that was created over the span of decades by the world's top physicists: "Nobody knows."
Most likely? If you are not sure, say so.They DO know that energy dissipates until there are no useful concentrations left to do work.
ENTROPY, THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE LAW OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION
Is there an eternal "entity" that gathers enough energy together to make mass and matter? Most likely.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Is there an eternal "entity" that gathers enough energy together to make mass and matter?
Nope. It'd be neat, though... but no.
I don't mind if you come up with other theories than the one I've chosen.
Just make it a good one, that has some benefits.
The stupid ones don't offer anything of value.
You asked a question and I replied. Sorry if you didn't like the answer, champ.I don't mind if you come up with other theories than the one I've chosen.
Just make it a good one, that has some benefits.
Fully agree with you there, bud!The stupid ones don't offer anything of value.
Right, but that doesn't mean it's there. What actually happens to us? We 'feel', ineffably, that saving other is somehow the 'right' thing to do. That is an evolved response. We aren't intuitively aware that our actions are the result of millions of years of evolution, we aren't born with the knowledge that this sense of right and wrong is a reflex - so we come up with explanations, the most tenacious of which is "goddidit".
Yes. Evolution doesn't need apathy to be strictly intra-species. Altruism can manifest in a number of ways. 'Protect my kin' is one, 'defend against predators' is another. If dolphins evolve altruism via the latter, then their altruism would naturally extend to non-dolphin species - not because they violate some Darwinian law, but because, like all evolved instincts, there are side-effects.
In 'help my kin' altruism, the side-effect is that, in large societies, you end up feeling altruistic towards any human. In 'defend against predators', you end up helping non dolphins. Indeed, there is a benefit in some cases to helping other species - just look at how dogs, cats, sheep, and cattle, have flourished because of inter-species cooperation. How concious it is is an interesting question, but an irrelevant one here.
Ultimately, so long as the root behaviour causes a net benefit to the species, the trait will endure. Which leads nicely to the fundamental fallacy of creation.com's reasoning: "I can't imagine how it could have evolved, therefore, it didn't!" - such arguments from personal incredulity are illogical.
Ah, another fundamental fallacy. See, what creation.com is doing, is taking a popular phrase like 'survival of the fittest', assuming it is an accurate and exhaustive summary of the theory, and then using it to debunk evolution. The problem is that this is a strawman: evolution is not synonymous with 'survival of the fittest' (Darwin never even used the term).
Why wouldn't God make it OK? If it's wrong because God says so, then if he said it was right, it'd be right. Appealing to God as your source of morality doesn't make it objective.
On the contrary, it does do that, even on a minor level, and that's enough for a selection pressure to form. In social species where childrearing is incredibly resource-intensive - such as H. sapiens - committed paternity is a vital assets, and far outstrips promiscuity in terms of reproductive success.
Does rape violate this system of parental bond? Yes. Does preventing rape confer an evolutionary advantage? Yes.
a) You have yet to prove that sex is, in fact, sacred.
b) Privacy and dignity are wholly cultural constructs. Topless women in the 1950s would be seen as vulgar, even a public menace. Yet across the world women go topless as a matter of course. The 'dignity' inherent in covering one's breasts is an entirely cultural matter - why would you think sex is any different?
c) Sex is intimate, and serves to cement bonds between prospective parents. This, too, is one of the reasons we evolved to abhor rape: it turns something intimate and bond-forming into something violent and destructive.
Simply compare two cultures, and you'll see how morals are different. In the USA, Janet Jackson's nipple caused a national outrage, while things like Darfur are shrugged off. In others countries, this would be reversed; in the UK, for instance, a slip of a nipple would be a mildly humourous, but otherwise unnewsworthy event.
Why? Because a) we've evolved a sense of sexual titilation, b) culture exagerrates or otherwise morphs this evolved sense to focus on different things (in Shakespeare's time, ankles were as erotic as bare breasts are today).
Do I think rape could ever be morally justified? In the case of species like ducks, yes: we may not like it, but their species evolved (or, if you prefer, were designed by a loving God) to use rape as an intricate part of the mechanism. The females' vaginas counter-evolves to ward off the males' penis', a strange kind of evolutionary arms race. In humans, rape may be justified if the alternative is something worse (such as multiple rape).
If we're going down into moral philosophy, you need to define your terms. What, exactly, do you mean by 'moral objectivity'?
There are two things wrong with your analogy. First, you're wrong about your conclusion: you would indeed reach the story if you took an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps. With time, we have that luxury.
Second, your analogy assumes that you can be 'at' infinity - you can't. It's the same fallacy that makes people not understand how 0.999... recurring is numerically equal to 1. They just can't grasp the fact that there's no end to it.
I don't doubt, but this is a case where popular TV shows have been rather misleading. Show me the evidence, the actual, hard evidence, that says the universe had a beginning - not a Big Bang, but a beginning.
I disagree. Simply being uncaused doesn't mean you're eternal, for two reasons:
1) it assumes you're part of some linear timeline, which may well not be the case,
2) there's no reason why this uncaused cause couldn't cease to be after the universe is made. Indeed, who's to say the uncaused cause's cessation is why the universe is here.
3) there's no reason why 'uncaused' means 'has existed for eternity' - after all, isn't that exactly the same proposition you're arguing against earlier?
4) there's no reason why 'uncaused' doesn't mean 'came into existence at a finite time' - an event without a caise.
If he is outside time, then he cannot do anything. If something is outside time, it isn't eternal - it's static.
1) It's incorrect that "the lesser cannot produce the greater". Ever heard of fractals?
2) Even if it's true, that only means the uncaused cause is greater than the universe - it doesn't mean it's the greatest thing possible. Logically, if your argument worked, we'd only know that there was some object that was at least as great as the universe at work.
3) What, exactly, do you mean by 'greater'? More mass? More space? 'Great' also carries connotation of worth and value - surely you're not equivocating here?
1) Fine Tuning? You've yet to prove that.
2) ID? You've yet to prove that.
3) IC? You've yet to prove that.
4) Morality? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, your absolute best conclusion could only be, "evolution can't explain it". That is not an argument for God, FYI.
5) The Bible? You've yet to prove that.
The prophecies? You've yet to prove that.
6) Jesus' resurrection? You've yet to prove that.
7) The First Cause? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, you would only have concluded that some object caused the universe to exist. You're yet to equate that to... anything.
Liar.
Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Since I lack belief in deities, I am an atheist.
Wow, that was simple
Because I see no evidence for the existence of any deity, hence, I lack belief in them. You may think you have evidence, but I contend that you don't - faulty logic and spotty data do not evidence make.
Err, what? You assert that you have substantial evidence, but I disagree that you have any. What then?
You assert that atheism doesn't exist, which is absurd. Suppose someone is raised to adulthood, having never heard your arguments. What then?
Romans 1:20 is simply incorrect. Like most things in the Bible, taking an overly literal, out-of-context interpretation of translations of translations of translations of lost text is not the best approach.
Some do, some don't, some don't care. But what we want is irrelevant - only the truth matters, whatever that may be.
So, the non-demonstrable, non-testable and non-falsifiable evidence.
That kind of evidence proves you wrong.
is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated.
Creationism dressed up as science.
Long since shown to be reducible.
Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?
Presupposition.
Unsubstantiated.
Special pleading. You cannot show that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause, and that the cause necessarily would have to be a deity - or that deities are even possible.
You are incorrect. None is needed.
But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.
*I* do not have to provide evidence, as I am not making the positive claim. You are.
You have failed to provide this "substantial evidence" that you keep referring to.
I do not believe that. Or are you now telling me what I believe?
Are you calling me a clown?
So are insults and apologetics are all you have? As I undertand it, both are in violation of the rules for this forum.
And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.
Allegedly. You haven't shown that. You haven't shown that my explanations are, as you say, incoherent. Get to work.Your proof of this?
Your explanations are the assumptions, you keep with the "cultureexaggereddidit" or "evolutiondidit", show exactly how.
When you add the fact that "macro-evolution" didn't happen, your explanations are null and void. but assuming "macro-evolution" happened, your assumptions are still incoherent.
I have shown to you that Morality isn't about "survival and passing our genes" and that Morality is an ought or ought not Obligated by God. and you come up with excuses such as "culture exaggerated it", where is your proof?
God can explain morals coherently, He has shown us what is right and wrong, we are made in God's image, we have the urge to do right and not wrong. God is Good, and anything against God is evil. it is written in the heart.
Yes, it can. Genes dictate how our bodies develop, which includes our neurology. We are born with instincts and reflexes, including behavioural ones. No one has to teach a baby to recognise a face, our brains have evolved to do that automatically (that's why we see them in clouds and other natural objects). We don't need to be consciously aware of what our genes are doing, for them to do their work.Still doesn't coherently explain altruism. why would anyone want to help their fellow neighbor survive, a gene can't tell anyone to,
Sure it would - people are idiots, and just because something is repeated often, doesn't mean it's true. People think that, before Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat. Not true. Just because it's a common misconception, doesn't make it true. Likewise, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of the actual theory."evolution" is about "survival of the fittest", otherwise it wouldn't be constantly mentioned when talking about "evolution"
As I demonstrated earlier, the Bible is replete with examples of God ordering rape. Your only retort was, "They're out of context". You refused to show how, which is more telling of your position than mine.The thing is, God wouldn't make it ok.
Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and Holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, good expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil., - Janine M. Ramsey
rape will never be ok, since God condemns rape and it isn't in His image. God is unchanging, Holy and Righteous, and since we are made in God's image, it will never be ok.
That doesn't prove sex is sacred, it proves that we Westerners are squeamish about sex. It's cultural.A. If sex wasn't sacred, it would be a jungle, in public, no dignity, no love to it. we keep it private, and it has importance. it is to express love pleasurably to your spouse and to procreate, something in God's image. to give, love, and create, with pleasure. that is why sex is sacred, and sex like anything else can be corrupted and not sacred when not done in God's image.
Err, it's not - it is, once again, cultural. Go to Africa and witness all the tribesmen and women going naked in the streets - according to you, this is morally wrong. According to them, it's how they've always done it.B.Prove how it came from culture. doesn't explain why it is morally wrong to go naked in the streets.
*sigh* The answers are there, but you skip right over them. Why do we have sex to reproduce? Because it vastly increases genetic variation in the offspring (compared to, say, parthenogenesis or asexual budding). This helps the offspring survive in changing environments.c)"evolution" doesn't explain why everything fits, why is there only male and female, why not any other "species", why does man need woman and woman need man to procreate? this coincidence stuff doesn't add up. why would sex have to be bond forming, pleasurable, beautiful? this is too intelligent to be coincidence or "evolution", "evolution" cannot explain this intelligent irreducible complexity, only God can.
I already have - the fact that one culture (the US) abhors a nipple while another finds it funny (the UK) while another sees nothing odd about it (tribesmen in Africa), proves that the differences are culture. It's as obvious that it's cultural as language is.And yet it is still, humorous, why?, why does nudity have such shame? why do we wear clothes to cover our bodies from others?
"evolution" can't explain why public nudity is morally wrong. if "evolution" happened, there would be no such thing as privacy or shame, sex wouldn't be private and there would be no shame in public nudity.
A.Prove how it "evolved".
B.Prove how "culture exaggerates" anything.
Give evidence, I don't take word of mouth from someone who slanders.
*sigh* You don't even both to read, do you?rape of any kind can never be justified and you know it. all rape is wrong.
1) Humans count using a finite number of finite steps. That, you're right, won't get to to infinity.Nope, still won't get to the store if it is, finite steps or not, it is still infinitely away. please count down from infinity to 1, you can't do it. you would never get to 1 if you are infinitely away. same with time, we would never get here if the past was infinite.
I repeat, show me the evidence.Infinite regression being impossible. there is a first uncaused cause, and that is God.
also, godandscience.org /apologetics/beginning
Err, even if causality did what you think it did (it doesn't), it doesn't prove or disprove the linearity of time.1. Cause and Effect.
'Uncaused' only means there wasn't some other event that caused it to be. That's it. That doesn't mean it couldn't cease to exist.2. Then the uncaused cause isn't uncaused, since the uncaused cause is uncaused the uncaused cause must always exist. you are thinking in terms of something that is caused
Then prove it's God, and not some inanimate phenomenon.3. the universe had a beginning, it is caused, hasn't always existed, so it is not eternal. The first uncaused cause which created the universe is uncaused, so by default the uncaused cause will always exist, nothing can affect the uncaused cause, so the first uncaused cause, God is eternal, has and always will exist.
4. if the first uncaused cause just came into existence, then the uncaused cause wouldn't be, uncaused. being uncaused, God is eternal. nothing before Him.
Then present your logical syllogism.1.The lesser will not produce the greater, the first uncaused cause cannot be less than His creation, that is simple logic.
Prove it.2. Yes it does mean that, by default actually is the greatest which no greater can be conceived.
So I ask when you exactly mean by 'nothing greater' - and your answer is 'nothing greater'. What a fantastically enlightening response3. Perfect, nothing greater. greatest intelligence(all knowing), created space, time and matter,(all powerful) eternal. the first uncaused is not a mindless object, the first uncaused cause has a mind, the first uncaused cause is God.
SBC, I've already said I'm not debating someone else. Use your own words. If I had the time or the inclination to rebut this wall of text, I'd do it over at Godandscience.org.from, Godandscience.org:
No, actually, you haven't. You only ever asserted that it exists, and I preemptively explained how the common examples (the eye, etc) don't do what you think they did. You never actually gave any examples yourself. If you disagree, then cite the post number, and I'll go over them.Yes I have, refer back to my previous posts, stop ignoring it.
As I said, I'm on CF, not darwinismrefuted.com. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go about debunking another website - I'm here to engage in a dialogue with you.Again, refer back to my previous posts, used darwinismrefuted.com to show IC.
Err, no, you haven't. You're argument thus far consists only of, "I don't like moral subjectivity, therefore, I'll go with moral objectivity!".Nope, I have proved that Morals are from God.
I want to focus on this. Do explain what this 'numeric code' is that proves the Bible. In your own words.Numeric Code
*sigh* Once again, I'm not debating someone else's work.Things like telling us how the Earth is round and in space during a time when people thought it was flat.
Job 26:7, He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.
Isaiah 40:22, He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Prophecy on The Messiah, Jesus Christ.
from matthewmcgee.org :
Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks
For more Prophecies go to reasons.org /articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible
So the Bible's later chapters have reference to the Bible's earlier chapters. You know what other books do that? The Harry Potter series.-Predicted in the Old Testament, Documented in The Gospels,
No, it proves that they believed it. There are also Buddhist martyrs, Muslim martyrs, etc - do they prove their religions? No, of course not: martyrdom just proves how much you believe something, not whether it's actually true.has Extra Biblical mentions, and The Early Christians martyrs prove that the Resurrection happened.
Lewis' dichotomy is a famous example of faulty logic: by arbitrarily restricting the options, he forces a conclusion. In reality, there are other options (for instance, Jesus was right about some things and wrong about others).-Liar, Lunatic, or The Lord by C.S. Lewis. Great moral teachers are not liars, and are not lunatics, thus Jesus Christ is The Lord.
I have another: "It didn't happen". There were allegedly hundreds of eye-witness accounts, yet none of them thought to write anything down. There were contemporary historians and archivists of religious and political movements at exactly the right time who, surprisingly, never mention any of these miraculous (or even mundane) events.-The Resurrection is the only explanation for what happened.
You mean the Shroud of Turin? The one that was proven years ago to be a Medaeival fake?-The Shroud of Jesus Christ.
When you add the fact that "macro-evolution" didn't happen, your explanations are null and void. but assuming "macro-evolution" happened, your assumptions are still incoherent.
But these are not scientific facts, or you would not be here.Yes it is, to deny it would be ignorance, most archaeologist, most historians agree it is historically accurate. add that to the fact that Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection happened, confirming everything in The Bible as fact, and confirming that God exist.
You are making the claim, you provide the scientific evidence to support it, not opinions of historians.if you have an objection then I'd like to hear it, I'd easily refute it, because Guaranteed you cannot come with a valid objection to The Resurrection of Jesus Christ or The Bible's Historical validity.
ID was tossed out of court back at Dover.Your proof? You have to back yourself up with evidence.
Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?If your going to object to Fine Tuning, please object, and I'll easily refute you.
Me.Says?
You showed no such thing.Your proof?
Even if there were objective morals, it does not prove that any deities are still required.I showed that morals are obligated and are objective, and that only God can explain Morality.
Show me specifically where you demonstrated that the 1) the universe had a beginning 2) it required a cause 3) that cause was by necessity a deity of some sort 4) it was your deity.Yes I have. look at all my previous posts.
You do not get to dictate the definitions of words, so your argument is dismissed.Therefore "atheism" doesn't exist. since you can't back up your "disbelief" or "lack" of belief with evidence, "atheism" doesn't exist.
As you are just repeating yourself here, so will I: But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.I have provided substantial Scientific, Logical, and Historical evidence to show that God exist.
You are incorrect. Lack of belief does not require justification.Yes you do have to provide evidence, otherwise your "lack" of belief is unjustified and ignorant.
This is nonsensical. No matter how you try, attempting to reword the definition of "atheism" will not poof your deity into existence.there is no evidence for your "lack" of belief, thus you cannot "lack" belief. thus "atheism"/"lack" of belief doesn't exist.
As the request is nonsensical.you "atheist" ask for evidence, and my fellow Christians and I provide it, yet when we ask for evidence for "atheism", you can't provide it.
No, I am being skeptical.I have been providing the substantial evidence throughout this thread, you are being ignorant.
That would be off-topic to the thread. Search my posts if you want.Then what do you believe? please explain and provide evidence.
I take offense at your insult, even with your attempt to reword it. If you do it again, it will be reported.1, I'm not calling anyone a clown, "atheist" are deceived, are ignorant, or don't know that God exist. what I am calling a clown is "atheism".
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.And it is funny how you would bring up forum rules as if I broke any rule or have insulted anyone when I haven't.
I have done no such thing. My comments are directed at your arguments.if anything, the "atheist" on this site are the ones who should be banned for constantly being disrespectful and constantly slandering The Lord.
No, all you have done is shown that you presuppose the existence of your deity, prior to examining your 'evidence'.2, I provided substantial evidence that God exist, and the evidence I have provided has yet to be countered, all I get in return is illogical assumptions and insults. that is because the I have provided evidence cannot be objected. the evidence that God exist, is fact.
Who are you to dicate yes or no answers from me, when you refuse to acknowledge a basic premise such as "atheism" does not make a positive claim, therefore requires no evidence to support it?now answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? answer with a simple Yes or No.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?