INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Why do you bother quoting from all these authors? The world has lots of crackpots in it and many of them write books. What counts is evidence. If your authors give evidence, you should show it. Merely giving quotes is very like mere name-dropping. It cuts no ice.

Anyone that claims the names I gave are crackpots will not make for a meaningfull discussion. It never ceases to amaze me what a non believer is forced to deny and is willingto do so to maintain a lack of faith. Science and legal experts do not get any bigger than many of just the less than 1%, I provided. If you can't counter them dismissing them says more about you than them, or the arguement. Suggesting you are suffeciently justified in claiming Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, or Sir Edward Clarke do not know their buiness is desperate lunacy.

 

[Gui10]

I am the only one that gave any attempt at an argument. He only sarcastically dismissed it. There are not two apples to compare.

I do not hold a dogma at all because it is doctrine. I resent and dismiss digma and tradition. I developed my theology without influence of any outside source save experience with God and the Bible and other theological texts. I did not even know what born again meant until after I had been. I have changed what I thought repeatedly on some issues. I hold nothing that is intellectually unjustified.
Science is as dogmatic as possible. Fortunately where science is wrong it is demonstrable and does not allow for the continued belief of that dogma. However some do anyway. There are currently flat earthers still around. Religion might seem less flexible because it is less domonstatably false.
I know of no other field where failure is saluted so much. The Bible may have withstood so well because it needed no correcting. Thousands of years after a 3 year career in a backwater middle eastern area Jesus's words are still true and have required no correcting. There is no demonstrable fact that proves the Bible wrong outside scribal error. If you see fault in that I do not concur.
There is no match. There is a derogative term used to dismiss an argument that never took place. Religion is true or false independently of whether it is dogmatic and my religion is anything but.
Care to explain why I must or what a pigeon has to do with the truth of God? I get ten trillion tons of claims that science disproves the Bible and not a single ounce of proof. Where the heck is this ground breaking example? Where is the time magazine with your picture on the cover claiming such? Christianity is the most scrutinized concept in history and is still as merited in the age of reason (how an age where we kill our babies on an industry scale can be called reason is beyond me) as it ever was. Chess and pigeons have no place in the discussion as buzzwords have no explanatory power or scope. The death of Christianity is sung from every corner yet not a single nail can be found for the coffin.

You might want to check the deffinition of the word dogmatic.

I am not even debating the existence of god right now, I am just debating that you are the pigeon in this chess match, and you still haven't demonstrated that you aren't one. I'm sorry but your assumption that science is dogmatic cannot be farther from the truth. New theories arise every single day, some times contradicting the precedent answer to a same question, that is what makes science non dogmatic, science is never absolute nor has it ever claimed to be.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I meant dogmatic in that things are claimed to be true that are not known to be so.

But that's not "dogmatic", that's just belief. A belief is only dogmatic if it is based upon refusing to change your mind or the notion that it is completely absolute and unquestionable, usually derived from a particular text or dogma. Accepting a proposition as true, even if you cannot say for certain that it is, is not in and of itself dogmatic.

In other words string theory is claimed to be fact or very likely such even though there is no evidence of it.

But string theory is a highly theoretical framework used to explain facts. I'm not aware of many scientists who would claim that it is an absolute fact, and those that do do not do so dogmatically.

Of course things that are common knowledge and that contradict previous claims are eventually conceded most of the time. Fortunately the Bible does not require such revision.

Which makes the Bible a terrible source of knowledge and morality, since it doesn't change according to our increase of knowledge.

If you think natural law in this context that was created by God is binding on God and supernatural events I have nothing to add. It simply makes no sense. It is like saying a Boson is bound by Newtonian physics.

I've made no such claim. The point is that you cannot just make a clam, you have to support it. You made the claim, and have yet to support it whatsoever. So, where is your evidence that physical laws don't apply to God? The burden of proof is on you.

If you are unaware of the arguments that have been involved in this debate for hundreds of years in some cases I do not think you can contribute. Since I know very well that you are aware of them then you are being deliberately facetious.

No, I'm not, and I don't like the fact that you're attacking me personally rather than answering my simple question. Perhaps you can stop being so presumptuous and arrogant for a moment and actually respond to my request, unless it's too far beneath you.

Good night nurse. Asking questions you already have the answers for is mildly insulting. I will give one "The cosmological argument". There is no counter argument but please feel free to bang your head at your own discretion.

As far as I'm aware, the cosmological argument has been roundly refuted on these forums dozens of times with a swift application of logic. It's a non-argument based on false premises and assumptions that have no basis in reality. Please try another argument.

You are confusing evidence with proof.

And I'm almost certain you don't understand either.

I am almost intimidated into not listing any because It requires selecting from an infinite list. I will do it another way.

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

*INSERT LIST OF NAMES HERE - CLIPPED FOR BREVITY*

Yes, those are all names. Now, where is the evidence of God?

All these men and the thousands I did not list were experts at drawing conclusions from evidence and all agree that God is a likely reality.

Because they didn't know any better. Most of those people lived in a time where belief in God was the absolute norm, and anyone who didn't claim to do so was ostrasized, pilloried or socially outcast. They didn't have good explanations for how the Universe formed or how life came to be. Now, we do, so the need for God is shrinking. These people were all brilliant, but they - as with all people throughout history - are not all right absolutely 100% of the time about everything. This name-dropping exercise is infantile at best.

Before you reach for the habitually misapplied authority fallacy safety blanket, I am not claiming their faith proves God is true. I am saying their faith makes claims God is not evidenced or not intellectually permissible ridiculous and almost insane.

Belief does not equate to evidence. So, if all these people had good reasons for believing in God, where are those reasons? What evidence did they use to reach their conclusions?

Instead of wearing myself out posting evidence to be ignored I will instead say I am unaware of any fact that is inconsistent with God from science or any other field.

Firstly: You've haven't presented a single piece of evidence in spite of being repeatedly asked.

Secondly: Of course you can't provide evidence AGAINST God, because God is a supernatural, unknown entity according to most theologies. Any test which may be devised that fails to detect a God can be hand waved away by "magic".

Thirdly: Can you produce factual evidence against the existence of Ra, Zeus or magical forest pixies?

Because the odds against a life permitting universe are infinite.

How is that worked out? How could anyone possibly calculate that since we don't even know all the forms of life that are possible or which atmospheres (if they are even required) are necessary to sustain them? That's a completely erroneous conclusion drawn from nothing but thin air.

One thing is for sure the evidence for God is infinitely greater than multiverses, but only one is allowed.

Then where's the evidence for God? Please present it.

The probability of getting life by chance is astronomically, absurdly, hyperbolically, rediculous and just plain nuts.

Again, that's total garbage. Look into statistical thermodynamics and you'll see why any "probability calculation" for life is patently absurd.

I did not mean to suggest it did.

Yes you did. You said:

As we now know and as the Bible has always said the universe began to exist and is expanding.

So, you clearly DID say that's what the Bible said, and are now lying.

I meant it suggested it began to exist. It is claimed it suggests it is expanding but I did not mean to imply that myself.

Despite the fact that you clearly said it.

However here it is: Isaiah 40:22 teaches that God “stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.” This would suggest that the universe has actually increased in size since its creation. God has stretched it out. He has expanded it (and is perhaps still expanding it).

Boy, that's a real "stretch".

Quote me a single statement where I said or even hinted that because the Bible says X then X is true.

That's not what I said at all. You said the Bible made predictions, and that these predictions were true. You are now lying again.

That was completely false. I use the argument the Bible says X and the universe suggests X and therefore X is likely true.

Which is exactly what I said you said - what I asked, and you failed to answer, is how does that demonstrate that a God exists?

I agree that it shouldn't be as it has no facts inconsistent with the Bible available but it is none the less.

Actually, it has lots of facts that are inconsistent with the Bible. Science has already ruled-out a young earth, Adam and Eve and the great flood.

 

[Looncall]

Anyone that claims the names I gave are crackpots will not make for a meaningfull discussion. It never ceases to amaze me what a non believer is forced to deny and is willingto do so to maintain a lack of faith. Science and legal experts do not get any bigger than many of just the less than 1%, I provided. If you can't counter them dismissing them says more about you than them, or the arguement. Suggesting you are suffeciently justified in claiming Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst, or Sir Edward Clarke do not know their buiness is desperate lunacy.

Maybe they do know their business. Even if so, what counts is the evidence they brought to bear on the questions at hand. Just name-dropping counts for nothing. Let's see the beef!

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe they do know their business. Even if so, what counts is the evidence they brought to bear on the questions at hand. Just name-dropping counts for nothing. Let's see the beef!

They were lawyers and politicians in the 19th century. A lot has happened since then in science, philosophy, religion, and history. I wouldn't count their words having too much weight in this debate.

 

[1robin]

You might want to check the definition of the word dogmatic.

I was operating from what I thought Dogmatic means. I am grammar challenged and will defer to your conclusion. I would instead request the context of what I claimed be considered not the technical semantics of it.

I am not even debating the existence of god right now, I am just debating that you are the pigeon in this chess match, and you still haven't demonstrated that you aren't one. I'm sorry but your assumption that science is dogmatic cannot be farther from the truth. New theories arise every single day, sometimes contradicting the precedent answer to a same question, that is what makes science non dogmatic, science is never absolute nor has it ever claimed to be.

Pigeon chess is slang and not a familiar concept to me. You will have to indicate how pigeon chess makes my claims less meaningful. Let's drop dogmatic and instead let me restate what I intended to imply. Religious views that have not changed are only invalid or held for illogical reasons if they have been proven false. They are made based on faith and that is a legitimate foundation for theological beliefs to be maintained without sufficient proof that a claim is wrong. There is no problem here. Science and scientists constantly assert that it is the study of what is factually demonstrable (the scientific method) and much of it, is demonstrable fact. No problem so far. Where the problem comes in is when theories that have insufficient basis in demonstrable fact are used as counter claims to theological ones. Claiming the multiverse fantasy is a concept that justifies rejection of creation as a intellectually permissible faith based belief is a problem. I considered that dogmatic but that may not be technically the perfect word. It however is not a reasonable argument whatever term you apply. Multiverses, bubble verses, an infinite chain of past events, life from non-life etc....infinite are faith based assumptions that do not have any persuasive power and no effect on Biblical claims. Biblical claims are supposed to be faith based and evidence indicated. Scientific claims are supposed to be fact based and evidenced confirmed not faith based and many times lacking evidence or even any potential future evidence possible. Theory has internal uses within science they are not arguments against theological claims. In fact most theological claims are supernatural and can't be examined by the small percentage of natural law we understand. You may use any labels you wish to apply to this as the label was not my point, explanatory power was. Most of the cosmological claims and much of the biological aspects of creation are far more supported by evidence and reason than the scientific theory the permeates academics but both are faith based conclusions. We simply admit it.

 

[1robin]

Without time, there can be no eternity.

The Biblical concept of eternity which exixted long before secular scientific definitions of eternity did contains time but is not in anyway bound by time.

As you can clearly see, the Bible says that God lives in eternity. I looked up the word “eternity” to see the definition and it means “forever” or “without end”. Eternity is clearly just a concept to us that we have great difficulty in comprehending fully. God exists outside of the realm of time and yet sent Jesus Christ into the realm of time at the perfect time to accomplish what God needed to accomplish. So I believe that the dimension of time does not limit God. Einstein theorized that as we approach the speed of light that time would slow and then finally stop. I find that very interesting since the Bible says that God is Light! That is pretty awesome stuff to think on.
God

If your definition of eternity is limited by time it is not the Biblical concept you are discussing and so irrelevant to these issues.

 

[1robin]

the only way anything can exist is eternity. eternity, limitless duration of time, governed by universe exploding (brith) and collapsing (death) over and over and over again. each time, the collapse of universe (matter is drawn to the center at near-speed of light, where it crashes and explodes) causes massive explosion of raw power, known as Big Bang. this has been going on since the dawn of time, because it supposedly will happen again, if the scientific article i once read is trustworthy. its a cycle of eternity.

this eternity and limitless duration of time is, for me, the dependency of existence and nonexistence, the ultimate divine law of nature. yin and yang. our world must be eternal, and this eternity - the union of nonexistence and existence - is what we call God.

Much of modern secular cosmology indicates an eternal natural universe is physically impossible. The dominant theory is the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe concept.
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

No universe that is expanding on the average can possibly be infinate in duration.

 

[1robin]

An existence with an infinitely long time is not the same thing as entities which exist without time.

Please see the above post. The more I learn about the claims of an eternal universe the more reasons I find (secular reasons) it can't possibly be true.

 

[Gui10]

I was operating from I thought Dogmatic believes. I am grammar challenged and will defer to your conclusion. I would instead request the context of what I claimed be considered not the technical semantics of it.


Pigeon chess is slang and not a familiar concept to me. You will have to indicate how pigeon chess makes my claims less meaningful. Let's drop dogmatic and instead let me restate what I intended to imply. Religious views that have not changed are only invalid or held for illogical reasons if they have been proven false. They are made based on faith and that is a legitimate foundation for theological beliefs to be maintained without sufficient proof that a claim is wrong. There is no problem here. Science and scientists constantly assert that it is the study of what is factually demonstrable (the scientific method) and much of it, is demonstrable fact. No problem so far. Where the problem comes in is when theories that have insufficient basis in demonstrable fact are used as counter claims to theological ones. Claiming the multiverse fantasy is a concept that justifies rejection of creation as a intellectually permissible faith based belief is a problem. I considered that dogmatic but that may not be technically the perfect word. It however is not a reasonable argument whatever term you apply. Multiverses, bubble verses, an infinite chain of past events, life from non-life etc....infinite are faith based assumptions that do not have any persuasive power and no effect on Biblical claims. Biblical claims are supposed to be faith based and evidence indicated. Scientific claims are supposed to be fact based and evidenced confirmed not faith based and many times lacking evidence or even any potential future evidence possible. Theory has internal uses within science they are not arguments against theological claims. In fact most theological claims are supernatural and can't be examined by the small percentage of natural law we understand. You may use any labels you wish to apply to this as the label was not my point, explanatory power was. Most of the cosmological claims and much of the biological aspects of creation are far more supported by evidence and reason than the scientific theory the permeates academics but both are faith based conclusions. We simply admit it.

'' Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Origin:
"... (it's) rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)''

Because like you say, Religion has never logically been proven wrong.

You seem very little educated about actual science when you say that ''biological aspects of creation are far more supported by evidence and reason than scientific theory''. What does that even mean? There is absolutely no more proof that life was ''created by someone'' than proof that santa claus exists (for the lack of a better example). And as many theories as exist in science, they are considered ''theories'', they are not yet widely accepted, they will only be once the proof and empirical calculated evidence will be DEMONSTRATED.

 

[1robin]

But that's not "dogmatic", that's just belief. A belief is only dogmatic if it is based upon refusing to change your mind or the notion that it is completely absolute and unquestionable, usually derived from a particular text or dogma. Accepting a proposition as true, even if you cannot say for certain that it is, is not in and of itself dogmatic.

I have indicated my definition of dogmatic may have been faulty. I try and avoid meaningless semantic arguments. Label my claims as you wish.

But string theory is a highly theoretical framework used to explain facts. I'm not aware of many scientists who would claim that it is an absolute fact, and those that do not do so dogmatically.

String theory is on the way out. It has not a single shred of evidence known to indicate it's existence. Winnie the poo is just as valid a explanation. I worth a PhD Christian. He is well aware of these issues that are a little over my head. We were discussing the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe paper. It leaves no room for an infinite universe. The box keeps tightening that indicates only a God solution the more we learn. We were naturally curious to see what Hawking and the rest of those guys said. They are left with claiming M-theory based on string theory is responsible for creation. As we investigated we ran across a doctor in something called trans finite differential geometry that my boss studied under. He called the guy at Vanderbilt and he said string theory is on the way out (he is not a Christian) it is getting a desperate reputation among scholars these days. M-theory was even worse but so insanely complex very few know enough to know why. Basically M theory is "I know God can't have done it because I do not like it so make up something technical that can do anything and claim it did it" No evidence "who cares" I have many degrees. When it is all boiled down natural law has never created anything that did not already exist, ever, especially since it did not exist to do so before the universe did.

Which makes the Bible a terrible source of knowledge and morality, since it doesn't change according to our increase of knowledge.

That can indicate either it was right all along or what you claim. It surely has the reputation of the former.

I've made no such claim. The point is that you cannot just make a clam, you have to support it. You made the claim, and have yet to support it whatsoever. So, where is your evidence that physical laws don't apply to God? The burden of proof is on you.

Are you suggesting I have to elaborate on chicken genetic processes to know that chickens most likely come from eggs that came from chickens. God is a possible explanation, it is not necessary to prove how he does things to know if it the best and in most cases the only logical solution. God as a concept is the originator of supernatural law, that is the hypothesis, and so to evaluate that by natural law is a very bizarre waste of time. When you explain how M-theory explains the universe I will ask God how he does what he does. Did you tell your mother she did not love you until she scientifically proved it? Are you familiar with how the issues are discussed in professional debate? When you buy a computer are you doubtful about it's human source until you go to computer engineering school for 8 years? Humans are the most likely explanation of computers to a 8 year old that does not even go to school.

No, I'm not, and I don't like the fact that you're attacking me personally rather than answering my simple question. Perhaps you can stop being so presumptuous and arrogant for a moment and actually respond to my request, unless it's too far beneath you.

Facetious is not a very offending attack. You have indicated time and again you are not aware of how these issues are discussed nor what the arguments. I do not think you are ignorant, so what is going on. Use your own label. I have even explained why your full explanation of an explanation is logical nonsense when Dawkins did it, yet you ask for it again. That is frustrating. When a suspect is determined to be the likely killer is he set free until the exact steps used to produce him are provided. It is not a logical request. These claims are discussed in different ways, as well as historic and legal issues.

As far as I'm aware, the cosmological argument has been roundly refuted on these forums dozens of times with a swift application of logic. It's a non-argument based on false premises and assumptions that have no basis in reality. Please try another argument.

Well as long as the pros still think it is a valid point of contention and the issue still unresolved at Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford etc... The delusions of grandeur in the forum will not due. If a debate happens tonight they will debate that issue with meaningful dialog. They will not even hint it is a settled issue. In fact I know it isn't and even very recently the case has become even stronger for God.

And I'm almost certain you don't understand either.

Complain about offense and then do so as well. My statement had context yours is lost on me.

Yes, those are all names. Now, where is the evidence of God?

I never used them as evidence for God. I used them as evidence for the intellectual suitability and reasonability of faith and as a counter to arrogant claims that science has proven the Bible flawed. Not according the greatest scientists in history. You claimed that the cosmology issue was settled. One of those men is one of the top five cosmologists of recent history. Maybe you should inform him. I tell you what until you can actually do anything with the cosmological argument beyond dismissing what can't be consider that my evidence.

Because they didn't know any better. Most of those people lived in a time where belief in God was the absolute norm, and anyone who didn't claim to do so was ostracized, pilloried or socially outcast. They didn't have good explanations for how the Universe formed or how life came to be. Now, we do, so the need for God is shrinking. These people were all brilliant, but they - as with all people throughout history - are not all right absolutely 100% of the time about everything. This name-dropping exercise is infantile at best.

I am weary of this stuff. We have not learned a single fact recently that changes anything about these issues. The universe still began. it still had a cause, time still is not eternal, natural law still does not create matter from nothing, we stil only know of one universe, we still have no found any strings, good night nurse these issues are tired. Sorry at the end of a day of this my patience is used up. God is still by far the most likely answer and many of those scientists are modern. For Gosh sakes one of the two guys that cracked DNA is a Christian.

Belief does not equate to evidence.

Never said, implied, hinted, or thought it did.

So, if all these people had good reasons for believing in God, where are those reasons? What evidence did they use to reach their conclusions?

Is Newton’s faith invalid unless I can illustrate his process in its generation. NO. I can assume Newton knew physics and math most of which has not been added to significantly in this context and he felt faith was consistent with it. In fact I know professionals who never use the Bible in an argument from God. God is almost a logical imperative given reality. The Indian former speech writer for Reagan is one (I forget his name). In fact most debates never use the Bible as proof of anything except what the proposition is. You ask all the wrong questions. Is calculus invalid until it can be shown how he discovered it. He said he did so by thinking about it constantly. I imagine faith was the same not that it matters one bit. Haveing to explain the explenation is an infinate regression that has no end or justification.


Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Firstly: You've haven't presented a single piece of evidence in spite of being repeatedly asked.

You dismissed the cosmological argument on ridiculous grounds and so I assume I mentioned it. Until you can do with it what no one has there is no need of more.

Secondly: Of course you can't provide evidence AGAINST God, because God is a supernatural, unknown entity according to most theologies. Any test which may be devised that fails to detect a God can be hand waved away by "magic".

You can not even build a case that indicates God probably does not exist and that is infinitely possible. The best I have seen is kicking the can.

Thirdly: Can you produce factual evidence against the existence of Ra, Zeus or magical forest pixies?

None of them have a fraction of the textual attestation of my God. Not one has a sufficient nature to explain or account for much of anything. They are capricious, human like, non-omnipotent, non-evidenced myths. They gave no comparable prophecy, made no scientific claims unknown at the time, do not have a complex consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors, have not withstood scrutiny and time, do not have 1 of every three people who claim to have experienced them, make no complex and logical philosophical claims, nor have an unblemished historical corroboration of their claims. Who cares? Is Winnie the poo an equal quantity with God. I could have made negative comparisons for ever these are all that reason would demand.

How is that worked out? How could anyone possibly calculate that since we don't even know all the forms of life that are possible or which atmospheres (if they are even required) are necessary to sustain them? That's a completely erroneous conclusion drawn from nothing but thin air.

You should be immortal keyboard not flame. Is there an end in sight? That is easy. There is no physical necessity for what we have and there are an infinite number of combinations the prohibit any life permitting universe. Again these are well known facts. They are so God suggestive that pure fantasy is the only escape. Multiverses and the like.

Then where's the evidence for God? Please present it.

I will only list the cosmological argument and 2,500 prophecies in the most studied, influential, and cherished book in history. This post is long enough and you have countered neither.

Again, that's total garbage. Look into statistical thermodynamics and you'll see why any "probability calculation" for life is patently absurd.

I studied thermodynamics in engineering school. Every indication of thermodynamics implies God and a non-eternal universe, and intention behind extreme complexity.

Yes you did. You said:
As we now know and as the Bible has always said the universe began to exist and is expanding.
So, you clearly DID say that's what the Bible said, and are now lying.
Despite the fact that you clearly said it.

If I did I did not remember it I never have made that claim before though I believe it to be true and assumed I did not here. I did not lie. Lying requires intent and the Bible does not require me to lie to defend. I usually end discussions if lying is insinuated but I will let this one go since I did make a mistake it seems.

Boy, that's a real "stretch".

Why in the world would you say that? Heavens are indicative of the universe. It is stretching in that verse and reality. As I said I do not use this claim normally and so have no special interest in it here.

That's not what I said at all. You said the Bible made predictions, and that these predictions were true. You are now lying again.

That is the last chance. Accuse me of lying again and I am out. I meant that if 2000 predictions are made and they are historical facts that were fulfilled that indicates the reliability of the document. The exact same process is used in legal and historical claims every single day. However it is not sufficient proof but it should be enough for faith.

Which is exactly what I said you said - what I asked, and you failed to answer, is how does that demonstrate that a God exists?

If Genesis said here is a MacDonald’s on Pluto and there is that would indicate very strongly that God exists. Similarly God says Tyre, Babylon, Israel etc... will be destroyed with very great detail long before they were and it comes to pass and is verified by history or indicated by archeology then that is evidence. I do not get the contention.

Actually, it has lots of facts that are inconsistent with the Bible. Science has already ruled-out a young earth, Adam and Eve and the great flood.

If you will look at the answers in genesis site you will see that a literal interpretation of most events in genesis is not a widely held view by Biblical scholars. A young Earth is not even a claim it is derived from Hebrew genealogies and they are temperamental. If you can stick with a few points instead of a hundred allusions to points and accusations then there might be resolution. How about Tyre, Babylon, cosmology, or any other well know argument that I think is rational? There is not a rate of return on this much investment that justifies this much time and do not accuse me of lying again. I make mistakes; I have no need to lie. Have I debated you before? I do not not remeber anyone, both this prolific and accusatory. I am exhausted.

 

[1robin]

'' Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

I should have been familiar with the term I am engaged with that type all the time. Well you have backed yourself into a corner here:
You must prove that I am ignorant of the issues discussed on the subject by the professional scholars and you can prove (by education) what can't be proven not to exist does not in fact not exist. I also never remember claiming victory in a debate. That does not even fit the context. Good luck identifying me as a pigeon on a chess board. I am actually rated about 1500 in chess.

Origin:
"... (it's) rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)''

I do like the humor but have no idea why you think it meaningful in a debate until you can prove the above.

Because like you say, Religion has never logically been proven wrong.

If I said that I meant that God can't be disproved and I know of no fact that disproves the Bible outside of 5% scribal error.

You seem very little educated about actual science when you say that ''biological aspects of creation are far more supported by evidence and reason than scientific theory''.

I claim no special level of education in biology. I have a degree in math and am competent in physics as well. I went to one very fine and respected engineering school UAH. The apollo moon program guys (Von Braun). My claims about biology however come from well-respected debaters, philosophers, and scientists. I know what many of the problems are and the math that makes them so and any indication my claims were wrong say more about you than me unless I made a typo somewhere. I have seen every debate on evolution I can find and see them discuss the same problems.

What does that even mean? There is absolutely no more proof that life was ''created by someone'' than proof that santa claus exists (for the lack of a better example).

The improbability against life arising by chance are hyperbolic. That does not prove God did it but it does indicate that hypothesis more likely if it is allowed to be a candidate. How do you account for probability after probability greater than 1 in 10^50th being overcome in 15 billion years and a law that has no known exception being by passed to get life without mind? Not to mention the probabilities are cumulative because they are contingent. Also keep in mind that anything greater than 1 x 10^50th is considered zero by science and ignored and many of them necessary for life coming from non-life are far far worse.

And as many theories as exist in science, they are considered ''theories'', they are not yet widely accepted, they will only be once the proof and empirical calculated evidence will be DEMONSTRATED.

I agree with the spirit of the concept, unfortunately that is many times not the case. In fact I know of no scientific argument I regularly see against God that meets these conditions. Multiverses, oscillating verses, eternal universes, life from non-life, string theory. holographic reality, and every argument I see over and over have no basis in evidence at all. Most do not even have any evidence potentiality. The cosmological implications given by the most prominent theory to date I know of the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe implies a God like cause so emphatically that it is almost inescapable and all attempts to get around it lie in fanatsy like M-theory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That can indicate either it was right all along or what you claim. It surely has the reputation of the former.

To Christians maybe, but definitely not to science.

Are you suggesting I have to elaborate on chicken genetic processes to know that chickens most likely come from eggs that came from chickens. God is a possible explanation, it is not necessary to prove how he does things to know if it the best and in most cases the only logical solution.

I never asked you to "prove how he does things", I asked you for evidence.

God as a concept is the originator of supernatural law, that is the hypothesis, and so to evaluate that by natural law is a very bizarre waste of time.

Then so is assuming that God created natural laws. A hypothesis which cannot be tested to find out whether or not it is true is functionally identical to a hypothesis which is false.

When you explain how M-theory explains the universe I will ask God how he does what he does.

Why should I have to do that? One theory not being adequate doesn't make yours any more adequate.

Did you tell your mother she did not love you until she scientifically proved it?

Ridiculous hyperbole will not shift the burden of proof off your claim.

Are you familiar with how the issues are discussed in professional debate?

Yes. When a person makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to present evidence that their claim is true.

When you buy a computer are you doubtful about it's human source until you go to computer engineering school for 8 years?

Again, stop with the ridiculous hyperbole. It serves no purpose but to desperately hide the fact that you continually shift the burden of proof.

Facetious is not a very offending attack. You have indicated time and again you are not aware of how these issues are discussed nor what the arguments. I do not think you are ignorant, so what is going on. Use your own label. I have even explained why your full explanation of an explanation is logical nonsense when Dawkins did it, yet you ask for it again. That is frustrating. When a suspect is determined to be the likely killer is he set free until the exact steps used to produce him are provided. It is not a logical request. These claims are discussed in different ways, as well as historic and legal issues.

You're never going to give me a straight answer, are you?

Well as long as the pros still think it is a valid point of contention and the issue still unresolved at Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford etc...

Please present to me evidence that this is the case. As far as I'm aware, the cosmological argument no longer stands.

The delusions of grandeur in the forum will not due.

It's not a delusion of grandeur. The cosmological model has been refuted. I could write out a refutation for you now, if you wish.

I never used them as evidence for God. I used them as evidence for the intellectual suitability and reasonability of faith and as a counter to arrogant claims that science has proven the Bible flawed.

And yet, it's evidence of neither.

Not according the greatest scientists in history.

... Who didn't know as much then as we do now. Again, this is an entirely puerile argument.

You claimed that the cosmology issue was settled. One of those men is one of the top five cosmologists of recent history. Maybe you should inform him.

What are you talking about? Do you think the cosmological argument being refuted would suddenly mean that there would be no more religious scientists?

I tell you what until you can actually do anything with the cosmological argument beyond dismissing what can't be consider that my evidence.

Like I said, I'm happy to give you a refutation if you like, but it may take an entirely separate thread. In fact, there already is one. It's this very same thread, in which the entirety of the first dozen or so pages are people refuting the cosmological argument. I can give you a digest on request.

I am weary of this stuff. We have not learned a single fact recently that changes anything about these issues. The universe still began.

Actually, we don't really know that yet. We know that the Universe came from a single point, but is that "the beginning"? We have yet to fully understand what happened before the "planck" time, so asserting that the Universe had a definite beginning (beyond for simple practicality of language) is, as far as I'm aware, unfounded.

it still had a cause, time still is not eternal, natural law still does not create matter from nothing, we stil only know of one universe, we still have no found any strings, good night nurse these issues are tired.

Argument from ignorance.

Sorry at the end of a day of this my patience is used up. God is still by far the most likely answer and many of those scientists are modern. For Gosh sakes one of the two guys that cracked DNA is a Christian.

So? That doesn't make it "the most likely answer".

Never said, implied, hinted, or thought it did.

You're lying again:

"I am saying their faith makes claims God is not evidenced or not intellectually permissible ridiculous and almost insane."

Is Newton’s faith invalid unless I can illustrate his process in its generation. NO.

Actually, yes it is. Your contention is that, because all of these people believed in God, that must mean that God is a rational or reasonable conclusion to come to. But that's not logical reasoning. You need the logic to conclude something is reasonable, and if something is without any evidentiary support - regardless of who or how many people believe it - it can be dismissed freely.

I can assume Newton knew physics and math most of which has not been added to significantly in this context and he felt faith was consistent with it. In fact I know professionals who never use the Bible in an argument from God. God is almost a logical imperative given reality.

Demonstrate this, please.

You dismissed the cosmological argument on ridiculous grounds and so I assume I mentioned it. Until you can do with it what no one has there is no need of more.

You're welcome to peruse the first few pages of this thread again and see for yourself how ridiculously wrong you are.

You can not even build a case that indicates God probably does not exist and that is infinitely possible. The best I have seen is kicking the can.

See point number 3.

None of them have a fraction of the textual attestation of my God.

Irrelevant. The truth of a claim does not, in any way, change depending on how much is written about the subject. Now answer the question:

Can you produce factual evidence against the existence of Ra, Zeus or magical forest pixies?

Not one has a sufficient nature to explain or account for much of anything.

I'd think the Egyptians and Greeks would have strongly disagreed. Now, answer the question.

They are capricious, human like, non-omnipotent, non-evidenced myths.

And yours is a pointless, baseless, omnipotent, non-evidenced myth. Now answer the question.

They gave no comparable prophecy,

Neither did yours, save some creative interpretation of scripture. Answer the question.

made no scientific claims unknown at the time,

Same as above.. Answer the question.

do not have a complex consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors,

Irrelevant, answer the question.

have not withstood scrutiny and time, do not have 1 of every three people who claim to have experienced them, make no complex and logical philosophical claims, nor have an unblemished historical corroboration of their claims. Who cares? Is Winnie the poo an equal quantity with God. I could have made negative comparisons for ever these are all that reason would demand.

Why can't you answer the question? If Ra, Zeus and pixies can be so easily dismissed by you, then demonstrating their nonexistence should be trivial. Instead, I get this overly defensive, fallacy-riddled diatribe. You're clearly not thinking very rationally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You should be immortal keyboard not flame. Is there an end in sight? That is easy. There is no physical necessity for what we have and there are an infinite number of combinations the prohibit any life permitting universe. Again these are well known facts.

No, it's total garbage. I've already explained why. Can you respond to my argument or not?

I will only list the cosmological argument and 2,500 prophecies in the most studied, influential, and cherished book in history. This post is long enough and you have countered neither.

The cosmological argument has already been refuted and I've repeatedly asked you to provide some prophecies and the only ones you have presented so far have been no such thing. You've presented nothing. Stop claiming to have evidence if you're so unwilling to present it.

I studied thermodynamics in engineering school. Every indication of thermodynamics implies God and a non-eternal universe, and intention behind extreme complexity.

Well then, I'm sure that Nobel prize will be in the mail. I sure hope the rest of the scientific community catches on.

Also, it may be a personal question, but where did you study engineering?

Why in the world would you say that?

Because you're clearly reading a meaning into the words that isn't really there and trying to make it fit.

Heavens are indicative of the universe.

If you choose to reinterpret it that way.

That is the last chance. Accuse me of lying again and I am out.

But you have lied, repeatedly. You could just admit that you either misread my arguments or forgot about your own, but until then whenever I see you say something that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, I will accuse you of lying.

I meant that if 2000 predictions are made and they are historical facts that were fulfilled that indicates the reliability of the document. The exact same process is used in legal and historical claims every single day. However it is not sufficient proof but it should be enough for faith.

But that's clearly not what you said, and nor is the quote you attributed to me anything resembling an argument that I made. Ergo, you are either mistaken and not admitting fault, or you are lying.

If Genesis said here is a MacDonald’s on Pluto and there is that would indicate very strongly that God exists.

Sure. But it doesn't do that, does it?

Similarly God says Tyre, Babylon, Israel etc... will be destroyed with very great detail long before they were and it comes to pass and is verified by history or indicated by archeology then that is evidence. I do not get the contention.

You honestly can't see the difference between those claims? How much "detail" does the Bible go into? Can you demonstrate when these "prophecies" were written and what confirms them?

If you will look at the answers in genesis site you will see that a literal interpretation of most events in genesis is not a widely held view by Biblical scholars.

Not anymore, no.

If you can stick with a few points instead of a hundred allusions to points and accusations then there might be resolution.

And if you could just answer a single question that I've put to you it might help as well. Don't pretend you're trying to reach a resolution when you attempt to obfuscate and dodge at every available opportunity.

How about Tyre, Babylon, cosmology, or any other well know argument that I think is rational?

You have to demonstrate them first.

There is not a rate of return on this much investment that justifies this much time and do not accuse me of lying again.

Even when you lie?

I make mistakes; I have no need to lie.

Then admit to your mistakes. When you misquote me, admit fault and apologize.

 

[1robin]

To Christians maybe,

Nope, it is either true and not in need of revision or not. That is not a subjective claim.

I never asked you to "prove how he does things", I asked you for evidence.

What? Please illustrate what evidence can even theoretically exist for an act of God. A lack of evidence is only relevant if you can prove that we should have more than exists. There is at least as much evidence for creation as there is for multiverses, an eternal universe, abiogenesis, M-theory, String theory, or holographic models. By your standards they must also provide the evidence they do not have nor ever will have or give it up.

Then so is assuming that God created natural laws. A hypothesis which cannot be tested to find out whether or not it is true is functionally identical to a hypothesis which is false.

See above. It seems two separate set of standards exist.

Why should I have to do that? One theory not being adequate doesn't make yours any more adequate.

That was not the point. The point is they both have similar amounts of proof. Yet one is tolerated and one avoided like the plague and declared not even allowed in academics.

Ridiculous hyperbole will not shift the burden of proof off your claim.

I do not have the burden you insist I do. My examples show the silliness of the request and the inconsistency of demands for proof.

Yes. When a person makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them to present evidence that their claim is true.

Only claims to absolute truth. I claim that that faith in the Bible is intellectually reasonable and permissible. Demands for the methods of how God did things does not apply.

Again, stop with the ridiculous hyperbole.

I am shifting nothing, because I do not have the burden. My examples are an indication of that and reality is not hyperbolic by definition.

You're never going to give me a straight answer, are you?

Yep but you will never accept it. Asking for an explanation of something that by definition has no explanation even possible does not have the ability to burden me with anything beyond frustration. The question is ridiculous and silly and only illustrates the lack of knowledge of the one asking it. Uncaused, first causes by definition have no antecedent cause.

As far as I'm aware, the cosmological argument no longer stands.

It stands in every modern debate I have seen. You surely can't be arguing against the finite universe I hope. It has become almost un challengeable. Here is an example of the science: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. So if we have a universe that popped into existence then it must have a cause that has certain characteristics. It can't be material, it can't be subject to time, and it can't be dependent of space nor natural law. I can get very detailed if you wish but do not want to type more than required. The description given by men with no scientific training and long before philosophy is exact in every detail with what that cause must be. The probability against that if false is astronomical.

The cosmological model has been refuted. I could write out a refutation for you now, if you wish.

The science is all trending in a finite universe direction. The philosophy is inescapable if that is the case. You can only say it is not proof and I agree.

And yet, it's evidence of neither.

What?
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."

J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."
This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

... Who didn't know as much then as we do now.

Ok, for this to be worth typing you must know a scientific fact that has been learned in the past five years that can overturn the Bible. However some of the experts I gave are still alive and working. Sandage is a modern legend.

What are you talking about? Do you think the cosmological argument being refuted would suddenly mean that there would be no more religious scientists?

Yes I think men that have devoted their lives to making conclusions from evidence would follow the conclusions of firm evidence.

Like I said, I'm happy to give you a refutation if you like, but it may take an entirely separate thread.

I know all the counter arguments. Debate is a hobby of mine and I know very well what is going on in professional circles. The issue is not resolved and the most modern evidence is trending towards a finite universe.

Actually, we don't really know that yet. We know that the Universe came from a single point, but is that "the beginning"? We have yet to fully understand what happened before the "planck" time, so asserting that the Universe had a definite beginning (beyond for simple practicality of language) is, as far as I'm aware, unfounded.

If you will review the Valankin theorem above it is independent of such things. That is why it is so profound.

Argument from ignorance.

Stating God did it would be, stating God as the best hypothesis available is not. Fallacies are much abused things. In fact you would have had to declare fallacy for about half of Sir Doyle's famous dictums as well as most of modern law defining them the liberal way you do.

You're lying again:
"I am saying their faith makes claims God is not evidenced or not intellectually permissible ridiculous and almost insane."

That is it I am out. You lack the honor to make a discussion civil. First lying implies intent and you have no access to that one way or the other, and to state an accusation without justification is intellectually dishonest. You would be hard pressed to find a single instance of me accusing anyone of lying even when I knew it to be the case. You have repeatedly done the opposite and I will not abide it. Second there is nothing in my statement above that equates faith with evidence. Conclusions of bilions of reasoning individuals does not equal evidence it is an indicator that evidence exists. However your side has used the prevalence of scientific consensus as an argument for proof over and over again in official circles. To paraphrase what I said, is that to claim there is no evidence when 2 billion people have concluded the opposite is unreasonable and desperate. Humans are described as pattern seeking, reasoning, logical beings. No other creature ever known has exhibited the slightest fraction of information dependence we do. Universal or extremely prevalent beliefs are used to indicatethe likely existence of what the core of those beliefs suggest in academics and law. You could have said that the argument that vast belief is not a strong indicator of truth but you chose the adoption of offensive accusations based on information you do not have and the repetition of that is where I draw the line. I do not have time for this.

 

[Gui10]

J. N D. Anderson was an evangelical missionary. As for Clifford Moore, I don't know. What I'm saying is that I believe they are biased. You see, all the ''evidence'' you ''demonstrate'' from christian professionals. This is a problem in our debate, because I can give an equal amount of evidence AGAINST your claims, from professionals that are NOT religious.

Would it be fair to value each others professionals?

 

[1robin]

J. N D. Anderson was an evangelical missionary. As for Clifford Moore, I don't know. What I'm saying is that I believe they are biased. You see, all the ''evidence'' you ''demonstrate'' from christian professionals. This is a problem in our debate, because I can give an equal amount of evidence AGAINST your claims, from professionals that are NOT religious.

Would it be fair to value each others professionals?

Being non-believers, is just as problematic bias wise in a theological context as mine are. I am unfamiliar with what sources you mean. I was not attempting to suggest my scholars made God true just simply that they indicate faith is intellectually valid and has much evidence. BTW I do not think those men among the thousands of others were unaware of the appeal to bias when they gave their statements. Those are excerpts from much longer texts that give the detailed and secular reasons why the conclusions were reached. I reject automatic bias but do concede scholar wars are problematic

 

[F0uad]

Without time, there can be no eternity.

Your logic says that nothing could have exited before time.
Yet scientist agree that time came to existence and moreover that things did exist before it.

 

[PolyHedral]

Your logic says that nothing could have exited before time.
Yet scientist agree that time came to existence and moreover that things did exist before it.

[citation needed]
Nothing existed before time. By definition.