A Challenge

[Seven]

i have yet to see some good creationist arguments in this thread.

Creationism when you really get down to it is a matter of faith, and faith based positions aren't based on logic or evidence. Faith may be strengthened by these things, but it's not dependent on them.

I don't think you'll find any good arguments for creationism.

 

[emiliano]

Am yet to find a Christian whose happiness could be improve in any way by science or the theory of evolution, I enjoy all the gadgetry that they have been able to create and the discoveries that they make, but what I seek most of all in this life has not been found in these things, but like all rational beings I am in the pursuit of happiness, I can only find that in my faith, I feel sorry for the reprobate, but I believe in God absolute sovereignty He saves whom He wants, so I understand that some will never come to faith, because Faith is gift from God given to the elect, they are drawn to the supreme good/God.

 

[Seven]

Am yet to find a Christian whose happiness could be improve in any way by science or the theory of evolution

You just found one
I guess you could say I'm a born again atheist

 

[emiliano]

You just found one
I guess you could say I'm a born again atheist

But I said a Christian, you are not a Christian, so what this got to do with anything?

 

[Seven]

I was a Christian for most of my life, understanding science and evolution has made me much happier.

 

[PureX]

wrong!. humans define those characteristics by observing a river. those characteristics are "DESCRIPTIVE" since they describe the river, not "PRESCRIPTIVE" because the river does not FOLLOW those "CHARACTERISTICS" . THE RIVER DOES WHAT IT DOES REGARDLESS, it just seems like it follows our "assigned" characteristics because we are too ignorant to see past ourselfes..... still no understand?

This is an irrational argument. The river is as it is. That is it's 'nature'. And that nature expresses specific characteristics. And it does not express other characteristics. This is so regardless of whether or not any human beings perceive this river-nature and define it, or they don't. The characteristics we humans define about the nature of a river ARE IN THE NATURE OF THE RIVER. The physical phenomena we call "river" is real, it exists, and is perceivable by us BECAUSE of it's specific nature.

ok. i think you missed the point. let me make it easier for you to understand.

This sort of condescension only makes you look arrogant and foolish.

basically your point was:

"the universe is governed by natural laws. laws require a lawgiver, and so there must be a divine governor."

No, this was not my point at all.

My point is that the nature of the universe is such that it expresses itself in certain ways, and does not express itself in other ways. And importantly, what the universe does NOT express is random chaos, as it logically would, were it a meaningless, purposeless expression of energy. Since this universe does appear to be expressing some order, it is then performing a function, and therefor is presumed to have a purpose. I do not know what the source of that order is, nor what is it's purpose, but the common term we would use to refer to this mysterious source is "God". Therefor, the universe itself stands as evidence for the existence of "God".

Your argument that the river, and the universe, doesn't have any nature until we humans come along and define one for it is irrational because we could not define the nature of a phenomena that we couldn't perceive. And if a given phenomena had no nature, we wouldn't be able perceive it at all.

... the universe is not governed by anything, nor is it obeying anything.

Then how do you explain the fact that energy cannot be expressed in any and every way, but can only be expressed in certain specific ways?

there is a difference between prescriptive laws and descriptive laws. natural laws are merely human definitions of the way things normally behave, not prescriptive mandates, as with societal laws.

This is irrelevant. What matters is that the "laws" exist apart from our perception of them. And they shape/create the nature of existence regardless of us.

when i let go of a pencil, it does not think, "oh, the force is released and i am free to move. i better move toward the center of the earth or i am in deep trouble with my designer."

I have said nothing about thinking pencils or intelligent designers. Please leave these straw arguments for someone else's debate.

the laws of nature, unlike the laws of traffic, describe what does happen, not what we would like to happen. using these laws allows us to make predictions so that when matter "behaves" according to natural regularity, it seems as if it is conforming to what our minds are expecting to happen.

But it is the fact that matter does behave "according to natural regularity" that gives existence a function and purpose. And that fact leads us to the mystery source of that function and purpose that we call "God".

if this argument were valid, the mind of a god, not being a random jumble of synapses, would equally be "governed" by some laws of order itself, thus requiring a higher lawgiver." -Dan Barker.

Once again you are creating straw arguments for propositions that I am not making. Your original challenge asked for logical evidence for the existence of "God". I propose that all of existence is that evidence. I am not proposing to unravel the mystery of "God" for you. I am simply showing you that logically, the nature of existence is such that it leads us to the concept of a mystery source for the function and purpose of existence. It is the evidence you requested.

 

[Bishadi]

For all intents and purposes I will group Atheists and Toothfairy Agnostics together under Atheists because they are essentially the same thing (toothfairy agnostics say that due to the omnipotent properties of god he/she/it could exist but it is so unlikely that it doesn't, that they dont worry about it...like the toothfairy)

There are two issues I would like to bring up, though these are old news to most, it seems like some people need a reminder.

Issue One)

Atheists have a tool in their belt they call the scientific method. The method of reason. One of the most crutial parts of the scientific method is evidence. If Religions try to use the scientific method for God, they fall short in that category.

Issue Two)

Logic. If Religion would like to use this tool of Philosophy then then there are things that the arguers need to remember. Namely, you cannot pick and choose which rules you think are applicable to your arguement. If you decide to use Logic then all of the rules apply, even the ones that defeat your arguement.

Most common rule that is wrongly applied is the rule of proof of existence. Which, put simply, is: it is up to the person to prove that something exists not for the others to prove that this something doesn't exist. Logically this is true for God, Thor, toothfairies, and anything else you care to say exists.

The tool in religions belt is the definition of God. Omnipotence. He could make these things exactly as they are with no evidence of himself if he wanted.

The main reason for my thread is this: In logic, I consider a bad arguement for the side you believe in is worst than a good argument for the opposite side. Which leads me to my Challenge.

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound arguement as to why he exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

Or

If evidence turns up, Admit to there being a god and carry out your life appropriately.

Cheers

Great OP (Opening Post)

What if 'understanding' offered truth in which, you can have your cake and eat it too, would you become ONE with GOD?

Meaning: by observing all them definitions from all them religions out there, it seems within the sciences a mirror image can be found.

The spirit, the life of all, the beginning/ending, creator, the Father, the everything!

Then in the sciences they suggest a Big Bang, in which all that is, is a part of the ONE whole.

They both suggest when 'time' began, there was light. From the light, atoms and energy (adam and eve)....

From that they combined, making another. (for any cell to make another it must give up a portion of itself (adams rib story).

The tree of life (genesis) could be mirrored to darwins 'tree of life'.... in which all is from A&E, from the ONE, from the light; since the beginning (evolving).

Basically a rendition framing the 'process' of how all exists from the ONE, can be understood by a word (the name of God).

So from base mass, with the light of life (energy upon mass) all life evolves.

The next threshold is when mankind knows choice (apple story). Then words began; as every word known was/is created by mankind, within God (existence).

They evolved with time (knowledge evolves).

And as promised a pinnacle could (will) be reached. (have faith in God/Existence)

That pinnacle is when the sciences and religions can combine under the name of God. (the math to provide the understanding of the trinity; mass, energy and time=ONE)

then to see that life is the process of existence, and in fact a reversal of the current laws of nature (2nd law of thermodynamics)... in which the current model represents a random assembly; the reality is, there is nothing random about life and the light that gives life.

Neither the sciences or religions know they can be combined and since I personally trust God (existence as a whole) then to observe as much of God's revealing to mankind as possible, it does reveal, as promised, the combining truth.

The 'name' of God is real and it is the final revelation to mankind.

so each can have their cake and eat it too

if they choose truth and remain honest (that is the miracle each can experience) (being humble enough to evolve within God, for God; as being ONE with God)

God is all that is and to 'isolate' ourselves from God, is being away from the garden (nature/existence) by choice (selfish)................

the rules say be honest first!

I trust God and appreciate life over being accepted; how about you?

 

[Alceste]

I was a Christian for most of my life, understanding science and evolution has made me much happier.

Me too. I sang in the church choir and everything. I am much happier engaging with - and empirically learning about - the immediate reality I live in. Religion was boring, and boredom makes me unhappy. Science is endlessly fascinating. Being fascinated makes me happy.

 

[cristheseeker]

Am yet to find a Christian whose happiness could be improve in any way by science or the theory of evolution, I enjoy all the gadgetry that they have been able to create and the discoveries that they make, but what I seek most of all in this life has not been found in these things, but like all rational beings I am in the pursuit of happiness, I can only find that in my faith, I feel sorry for the reprobate, but I believe in God absolute sovereignty He saves whom He wants, so I understand that some will never come to faith, because Faith is gift from God given to the elect, they are drawn to the supreme good/God.

youve just found one. no, not me. DAN BARKER.

go to the bookstore and pick up his book. "godless" (how an evangelical preacher became one of america's leading atheists.)

he was an active evangelist for 19 years!! he was also one of the most famous christian songwriters (wrote "mary had a little lamb") he slowly "converted" to atheism during a 5 year quest of enlightenment and reason, and now, is happier than ever. he actually said, that abandoning his religion has freed up his mind, and regrets having wasted 19 years of his life in a "mental prison".

again, pick up his book or just you tube some of his debates.


but you are right, you can not "officially" find a christian who's life is improved by science, because although that is true for a vast majority of christians out there(i was one too), no one will admit it because of fear of rejection from their community, in most cases THEIR ONLY COMMUNITY. so its fear of hummiliation and rejection that keeps them "in the closet". though they are in fact agnostic/even atheists in their mind.

 

[painted wolf]

How about Ken Miller?

He is a very content christian and an evolutionary biologist.

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

BISHADI:

"Science never proves anything beyond a shadow of doubt. If that were the case, it wouldn't be science; it would be math."

while science does not proove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, religion does not prove anything

creationists try to explain complexity with more complexity and so explain nothing.

"god belief is just answering a mystery with a mystery, and therefore answers nothing" -dan barker.

so excuse me for choosing science over religion.


pureX , no worries, ill get to your post by tonight

 

[Kathryn]

but you are right, you can not "officially" find a christian who's life is improved by science, because although that is true for a vast majority of christians out there(i was one too), no one will admit it because of fear of rejection from their community, in most cases THEIR ONLY COMMUNITY. so its fear of hummiliation and rejection that keeps them "in the closet". though they are in fact agnostic/even atheists in their mind.

Sorry, but what a load of $%#^. I am a Christian, and my life is constantly improved by science - thank GOD for scientists and their probings into the mysteries of life! Furthermore, I can't IMAGINE my Methodist Christian community rejecting me if I decided that I "believe in evolution."

Do you actually believe that most Christians (in your words, the "vast majority") are not embracing some scientific theories because of fear of rejection by their Christian community? That they (we? Mainstream Christianity?) are actually CLOSET agnostics who are just afraid to "come out?"

Wow, I don't know what sort of milquetoast Christian communities you've been exposed to, but I sure don't see that as truth from my perspective. Personally, most of the Christians I know believe that much of the Genesis story is somewhat allegorical - that Genesis is not a SCIENCE book, but that it's a book of RELIGIOUS TRUTHS. The truth of Genesis to a Christian is that the Creator created all things - many Christians (like myself) take the position of, "Well, I'm not exactly sure of the SPECIFIC DETAILS of how God created this universe, but I do believe that He created all things."

The only time I am "opposed" to scientific theories are when they are in direct opposition to a spiritual truth that I believe. Even then, I am willing to give that particular theory time to develop (and often play out), let the dust settle, debates resolve, etc.

As for mystery - I'm ok with that too. As humans, I doubt very seriously that any of us, individually or collectively, will ever fully understand the profound mysteries of the beginnings of life, death, souls, time, etc. So what?

Live today. Make a difference TODAY.

 

[cristheseeker]

This is an irrational argument. The river is as it is. That is it's 'nature'. And that nature expresses specific characteristics. And it does not express other characteristics. This is so regardless of whether or not any human beings perceive this river-nature and define it, or they don't. The characteristics we humans define about the nature of a river ARE IN THE NATURE OF THE RIVER. The physical phenomena we call "river" is real, it exists, and is perceivable by us BECAUSE of it's specific nature.
This sort of condescension only makes you look arrogant and foolish.
No, this was not my point at all.

My point is that the nature of the universe is such that it expresses itself in certain ways, and does not express itself in other ways. And importantly, what the universe does NOT express is random chaos, as it logically would, were it a meaningless, purposeless expression of energy. Since this universe does appear to be expressing some order, it is then performing a function, and therefor is presumed to have a purpose. I do not know what the source of that order is, nor what is it's purpose, but the common term we would use to refer to this mysterious source is "God". Therefor, the universe itself stands as evidence for the existence of "God".

Your argument that the river, and the universe, doesn't have any nature until we humans come along and define one for it is irrational because we could not define the nature of a phenomena that we couldn't perceive. And if a given phenomena had no nature, we wouldn't be able perceive it at all.
Then how do you explain the fact that energy cannot be expressed in any and every way, but can only be expressed in certain specific ways?
This is irrelevant. What matters is that the "laws" exist apart from our perception of them. And they shape/create the nature of existence regardless of us.
I have said nothing about thinking pencils or intelligent designers. Please leave these straw arguments for someone else's debate.
But it is the fact that matter does behave "according to natural regularity" that gives existence a function and purpose. And that fact leads us to the mystery source of that function and purpose that we call "God".
Once again you are creating straw arguments for propositions that I am not making. Your original challenge asked for logical evidence for the existence of "God". I propose that all of existence is that evidence. I am not proposing to unravel the mystery of "God" for you. I am simply showing you that logically, the nature of existence is such that it leads us to the concept of a mystery source for the function and purpose of existence. It is the evidence you requested.

ok, let me give it one last shot, though im pretty sure you understand this concept, and your pride just doesnt let you accept it.


NATURE..........IS
GOD..............IS

we wrote books describing NATURE
we wrote books describing GOD


we read books describing NATURE
we read books describing GOD


we understand the descriptions/characteristics of NATURE, described in books.
we understand the descriptions/characteristics of GOD, described in books.

our descriptions/characteristics of NATURE, do not affect NATURE.
our descriptions/characteristics of GOD, do not affect GOD.

NATURE does not accept, follow, or conform to the laws/characteristics/descriptions we have given or assigned it, our laws/characteristics/descriptions conform to NATURE. NATURE does not have characteristics or laws.

GOD does not accept, follow, or conform to the laws/characteristics/descriptions we have given or assigned him, our laws/characteristics/descriptions conform to GOD.(if you are a believer that is) GOD does not have characteristics or laws.


NATURE(not just on earth, but nature in general (cosmos)) is, was, and will be regardless of our existence, or our "LAWS".
GOD is, was, and will be regardless of our existence, or our "LAWS".


NATURE does not need a designer.
GOD does not need a designer.


if you want to make the argument that nature because of its complexity, does need a designer, and its designer is god, then for fairness sake you also have to apply that same argument to god, and say, god, in his complexity needs a designer, and his designer is a greater god.

you cant just use one reason or logic and apply it to everything, except the thing you wish to prove. THAT IS KNOWN AS "BEGGING THE QUESTION".



prove to me that the COSMOS did not always exist. prove to me that the cosmos has a beginning and an end. (and by cosmos i dont mean our observable universe, i mean the space, or matter, our universe is in, along with other universes(if thats the case)

now you might say, the bible or other holy books are proof. but again, that is a circular argument aka (begging the question), since the bible is implying god's existence. besides, everyone has their own book backing their own theory.



say, i am cruising on the freeway and all of the sudden the guy infront of me slams on the brakes. i dont react in time and you know the rest.

now, the guy i collided with is alone in his car. and i am with a family member. DOES THE POLICE OFFICER REASON: "OH, WELL, the accident was between the two drivers only, so that leaves us with a neutral party(my family member) LETS USE HER AS A CREDIBLE WITNESS" ???????

no!. that is nonsense.

do you understand where im coming from now? pureX

 

[painted wolf]

we understand the descriptions/characteristics of NATURE, described in books.

If we did, there would be no argument against evolution.

we understand the descriptions/characteristics of GOD, described in books.

If we did, we wouldn't have so many different flavors of Christianity or the other big book based religions.

wa:do

 

[PureX]

ok, let me give it one last shot, though im pretty sure you understand this concept, and your pride just doesnt let you accept it.


NATURE..........IS
GOD..............IS

we wrote books describing NATURE
we wrote books describing GOD


we read books describing NATURE
we read books describing GOD


we understand the descriptions/characteristics of NATURE, described in books.
we understand the descriptions/characteristics of GOD, described in books.

our descriptions/characteristics of NATURE, do not affect NATURE.
our descriptions/characteristics of GOD, do not affect GOD.

NATURE does not accept, follow, or conform to the laws/characteristics/descriptions we have given or assigned it, our laws/characteristics/descriptions conform to NATURE. NATURE does not have characteristics or laws.

Here is the flaw in your logic:

"WE write books describing nature ..."

"WE read books describing nature ..."

"WE understand the descriptions/characteristics of nature, described in the books..."

"OUR descriptions/characteristics of nature do not affect NATURE."

"NATURE does not accept, follow, or conform to the laws/characteristics/descriptions we have given or assigned it, our laws/characteristics/descriptions conform to NATURE."

You were doing fine up until this point, then you irrationally concluded that:

"NATURE does not have characteristics or laws."

Yet nothing you have stated up until this moment supports that conclusion, or even leads us to conceive of it.

I agree that there is a difference between the laws we humans presume to exist in nature, and the laws that actually exist in nature. And I agree that the laws we presume to exist are presumed. But this tells us absolutely nothing about the laws that actually exist. This is the inevitable limitation of human logic and experience.

But in you opening post, you specifically asked for LOGICAL EVIDENCE. And it is logic that causes us to presume that those laws of nature exist. And the evidence for that presumption, and for those laws, is our experience of NATURE ITSELF.

Your conclusion, then, that there are no natural laws, is both irrational and illogical.

GOD does not accept, follow, or conform to the laws/characteristics/descriptions we have given or assigned him, our laws/characteristics/descriptions conform to GOD.(if you are a believer that is) GOD does not have characteristics or laws.

I agree, but this has no bearing whatever on the actual existence of "God", nor on God's actual nature (if God exists). And your opening post did not ask about the nature of God, or the existence of God, but instead, you asked for LOGICAL EVIDENCE that would support the existence of God.

I have provided you with this evidence, and so far all you've done in response is promote an irrational and illogical conclusion regarding the 'laws of nature'.

NATURE(not just on earth, but nature in general (cosmos)) is, was, and will be regardless of our existence, or our "LAWS".
GOD is, was, and will be regardless of our existence, or our "LAWS".

I agree. But I was never talking about "our laws". I was talking about the actual laws (limitations) that the actual universe does actually follow, regardless of us.

NATURE does not need a designer.
GOD does not need a designer.

Please explain how you can know this. And need it or not, it does appear that existence does abide by a set of limitations. And those limitations do determine it's nature.

if you want to make the argument that nature because of its complexity, does need a designer, and its designer is god, then for fairness sake you also have to apply that same argument to god, and say, god, in his complexity needs a designer, and his designer is a greater god.

I have said nothing about complexity, nor a designer. I wish you would stop arguing with proposals that I have not made.

prove to me that the COSMOS did not always exist. prove to me that the cosmos has a beginning and an end. (and by cosmos i dont mean our observable universe, i mean the space, or matter, our universe is in, along with other universes(if thats the case)

It doesn't matter whether the 'cosmos' is finite or perpetual. Neither of these traits were a part of the evidence I proposed.

now you might say, the bible or other holy books are proof. but again, that is a circular argument aka (begging the question), since the bible is implying god's existence. besides, everyone has their own book backing their own theory.

Apparently, you want to argue with anyone's proposal but mine. I have said nothing about books or bibles.

say, i am cruising on the freeway and all of the sudden the guy in front of me slams on the brakes. i dont react in time and you know the rest.

now, the guy i collided with is alone in his car. and i am with a family member. DOES THE POLICE OFFICER REASON: "OH, WELL, the accident was between the two drivers only, so that leaves us with a neutral party(my family member) LETS USE HER AS A CREDIBLE WITNESS" ???????

no!. that is nonsense.

do you understand where im coming from now? pureX

I think you're arguing with ideas that I have not proposed, nor do I even agree with. You seem to be debating with yourself, here.

 

[darkendless]

Great OP (Opening Post)

That pinnacle is when the sciences and religions can combine under the name of God. (the math to provide the understanding of the trinity; mass, energy and time=ONE)

then to see that life is the process of existence, and in fact a reversal of the current laws of nature (2nd law of thermodynamics)... in which the current model represents a random assembly; the reality is, there is nothing random about life and the light that gives life.

What do you mean there is nothing random about life? Since you seem to understand physics don't you have any idea about the atomic theory, where electrons are random. Colloidial collisions are random. Rain drops falling on my head are random. Do attribute these things to God or something?
The laws of Thermodyamics hold true for EVERYTHING. If you can break the laws of thermodynamics, you're doing something wrong

 

[Luminous]

You just found one
I guess you could say I'm a born again atheist

i could be called a born-again agnostic
my brother tried to make me christian. such religion is hard to understand. so i lied, but lie no more. as a child going against crazies is scary. :cover:

 

[cristheseeker]

If we did, there would be no argument against evolution.


If we did, we wouldn't have so many different flavors of Christianity or the other big book based religions.

wa:do

at the end of the day though all sects of all monotheistic religions agree on the basic general characteristics of god. and most religionists do understand the theory of evolution. so it is not a question of understanding but rather acceptance.

my statements were generalizations.

 

[painted wolf]

Do they?
My faith is monotheistic and our view of god is quite different from the book based faiths view.

I think your statements over-generalize

wa:do

 

[cristheseeker]

"You were doing fine up until this point, then you irrationally concluded that:"

if you believe that nature does have laws that it follows, then you must also agree that god has laws that he follows. otherwise you are a hypocrit in presenting your argument.

"But this tells us absolutely nothing about the laws that actually exist. This is the inevitable limitation of human logic and experience. "

you assume that laws actually exist in nature/universe/cosmos. and yet your assumption conveniently stops here and does not apply to god. why? does god not follow laws? if so, prove he doesnt, i have already proven he does.

"But in you opening post, you specifically asked for LOGICAL EVIDENCE"

what opening post? i think you are confusing me with the author of this thread.

"it is logic that causes us to presume that those laws of nature exist. And the evidence for that presumption, and for those laws, is our experience of NATURE ITSELF."

i dont agree, but either way, wouldnt it also be logic that causes us to presume that those laws of god exist. and that the evidence for that presumption, and for those laws. is our experience of GOD HIMSELF". (for those who actually experience, or claim to have a relationship with god)

you see, it is silly for me to expand my argument with you to this level , since nature we can actually physically observe where as the god concept is not observable, and so anybody can make any claims about god, without anyone else being able to disprove them. so im basically wasting my time with you and your assumption that while nature is subject to laws, god is not.

"I was talking about the actual laws (limitations) that the actual universe does actually follow, regardless of us."

how do you know that nature/universe/cosmos actually follows laws and is limited? and not just appears to be following laws, because of our own mental limitation?

how do you know that nature/universe/cosmos does not follow ITS OWN laws?

how do you know that nature follows the laws set by god? because thats clearly what you are implying.

how do you know that god himself does not actually follow laws?

you seem to think god is exempt from the logic you apply to nature..and that is dishonest.

but say you are right, and nature does follow laws, based on our observations of it..... you must surely think that god also follows laws based on our observations of him in genesis, he followed the laws of reason or thought, action/reaction, in creation. he first planned, then acted, and finally analyzed his creation saying "it was good".

who's laws did god follow in creating existence? his own? then why can nature not also follow its own laws?

if god followed his own laws in creating existence, and therefore did not require a law giver himself, then why cant cosmos also follow its own laws and not need a law giver itself?