The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

Which one was that?

"Expansion of space".

 

[Radrook]

"Expansion of space".

To be honest-that is a concept that I find impossible to visualize.

 

[variant]

Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

If God's existence were obvious there would be no atheists beyond those that deny the obvious.

So, this is a verse that demonstrates that the Bible contains passages that are false.

 

[Radrook]

If God's existence were obvious there would be no atheists beyond those that deny the obvious.

So, this is a verse that demonstrates that the Bible contains passages that are false.

I don't see anything false in those words. It is simply saying that it considers people who don't see God's hand in nature as inexcusable because his hand should clearly be noticed in nature. There are scientists who agree with the scripture. Also, denial of the obvious need not be motivated by inability to see the obvious. There are other reasons why people choose to deny the obvious besides inability to see. So your premise is flawed.

 

[Maile78]

On the subject of ID, do you think the term, 'retro-engineering', should be abandoned, in favour of 'retro-happenstance' ? If not, why not, since 'engineering' in terms of all our physical human fabrications , necessarily implies (intelligent) design' All design is intelligent by definition, as are its synonyms, 'plan', scheme', etc.

I wonder you folk have the nerve to show up on Chrisian boards. There are so many 'slam dunk' proofs in modern physics of not just deism - but theism, most indisputably, the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, which finally persuaded very reluctant Anthony Flew, the Dawkins of his day - that some kind of deism must be responsible for the creation of the universe.

Could share a link to more info on the "slam dunk proof" you spoke of? I would love to research these for myself.

 

[HenryM]

If God's existence were obvious there would be no atheists beyond those that deny the obvious.

And it's obvious to you that from chaos comes order, by chance, that life comes from non-life, that you "evolved" from amoeba? Whole premise is completely non-observable in nature, while the opposite is observable non-stop in nature (from order always comes chaos/deterioration if left to chance, from non-life doesn't come life, one species doesn't morph into another species...).

 

[Maile78]

And it's obvious to you that from chaos comes order, by chance, that life comes from non-life, that you "evolved" from amoeba? Whole premise is completely non-observable in nature, while the opposite is observable non-stop in nature (from order always comes chaos/deterioration if left to chance, from non-life doesn't come life, one species doesn't morph into another species...).

You should look up Kenneth Miller's lectures also his book "Finding Darwin's God". Evolution is very observable in nature. Check him out he is very interesting to listen to. Also he is a Christian.

 

[Radrook]

And it's obvious to you that from chaos comes order, by chance, that life comes from non-life, that you "evolved" from amoeba? Whole premise is completely non-observable in nature, while the opposite is observable non-stop in nature (from order always comes chaos/deterioration if left to chance, from non-life doesn't come life, one species doesn't morph into another species...).

Strange how they try to make us seem like the ones who are being irrational isn't it?

 

[HenryM]

Strange how they try to make us seem like the ones who are being irrational isn't it?

Yes, but in this world satan reigns, so it's the natural order of things. Comes a time when things will change.

 

[Monna]

To be honest-that is a concept that I find impossible to visualize

O ye of little faith ... and imagination.

Is God easier to visualize accurately?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And it's obvious to you that from chaos comes order, by chance, that life comes from non-life, that you "evolved" from amoeba? Whole premise is completely non-observable in nature, while the opposite is observable non-stop in nature (from order always comes chaos/deterioration if left to chance, from non-life doesn't come life, one species doesn't morph into another species...).

You might find self-assembly and self-organization interesting fields...

 

[Michael]

O ye of little faith ... and imagination.

Is God easier to visualize accurately?

In the sense that God presumably has a tangible effect on humans on Earth, yes. Space expansion is a complete dud in the lab, inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, and inside our local galaxy cluster. In short, that particular claim cannot ever hope to be "tested" using any control mechanisms during any human lifetime, now or even in the future. It will always remain a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

 

[HenryM]

You might find self-assembly and self-organization interesting fields...

Are you saying it's obvious to you that elements and laws of physics burst into reality from nothing, chaos self-organized to order by chance, life came from non-life, after a while you came from amoebas, and here you are, typing wisdom away?

 

[Michael]

Are you saying it's obvious to you that elements and laws of physics burst into reality from nothing, chaos self-organized itself by chance, life came from non-life, after a while you came from amoebas, and here you are, typing wisdom away?

Talk about "acts of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

 

[HenryM]

Talk about "acts of faith" in the unseen (in the lab).

I agree.

 

[variant]

And it's obvious to you that from chaos comes order, by chance, that life comes from non-life, that you "evolved" from amoeba? Whole premise is completely non-observable in nature, while the opposite is observable non-stop in nature (from order always comes chaos/deterioration if left to chance, from non-life doesn't come life, one species doesn't morph into another species...).

"A super powerful being did it" is not obvious no.

The exact nature of how the universe exists, how life exists, ect isn't obvious either, but that's a matter of careful detailed study that might prove ultimately unfruitful.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but if "a super powerful being did it" were my "explanation" I wouldn't be on your high horse.

 

[quatona]

In the sense that God presumably has a tangible effect on humans on Earth, yes. Space expansion is a complete dud in the lab, inside the solar system, inside the galaxy, and inside our local galaxy cluster. In short, that particular claim cannot ever hope to be "tested" using any control mechanisms during any human lifetime, now or even in the future. It will always remain a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

Space expansion isn´t a statement of faith - it´s a personal relationship.

 

[variant]

I don't see anything false in those words. It is simply saying that it considers people who don't see God's hand in nature as inexcusable because his hand should clearly be noticed in nature.

If God were clearly involved in nature we should be able to study it quite well.

This is untrue, as we can not.

God is an interpretation of some people's experience of the universe, and it is by no means obviously correct.

The passage is false.

There are scientists who agree with the scripture. Also, denial of the obvious need not be motivated by inability to see the obvious. There are other reasons why people choose to deny the obvious besides inability to see. So your premise is flawed.

My premise is that it is not obvious to me so, a presuppositional argument is interesting (in a very arrogant way) but not very convincing.

 

[HenryM]

Went left and right on how to answer atheist/agnostic. Finaly, it dawned on me. With nothing.

 

[Radrook]

If God were clearly involved in nature we should be able to study it quite well.

This is untrue, as we can not.

God is an interpretation of some people's experience of the universe, and it is by no means obviously correct.

The passage is false.



My premise is that it is not obvious to me so, a presuppositional argument is interesting (in a very arrogant way) but not very convincing.

I guesss we disagree on that.