INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

I'll respond to your other post later, but this stuck out, just as an item for housekeeping: naturalism and materialism are not "stand alone theories" at all- naturalism is a methodological presupposition, and materialism is a metaphysical or meta-theoretical position. Neither one is a "theory", in any sense- this is just a category error.

I have no idea what they are officially claimed to be. Both however are constantly used as stand alones. By that I mean limiting factors on reality. Naturalism in this context binds reality to the natural for example. That I strongly disagree with as not only untrue but unjustifiable. If you disagree with that or there is an official definition that disagrees then take my comments in their context but ignore whether they are "official" or not. My problem with both is that neither contains their own explanations in totality and both exclude what can't be rationally excluded.

 

[1robin]

Actually.....really......I did quite well in science studies.

It does not matter. Despite the fact that a huge proportion of sciences great minds have been men of faith. If you adopt faith your instantly thought a boob by those who find that world view convenient.

 

[1robin]

Better stated, since evolution is about life forms changing, not how life originated, the only thing that it depends on is one species changing into another species, which is a proposal that one study showed is accepted by 99.86% of experts in the U.S.

This is a repeat. Since I am tired of weeding out the new from the repeats in your posts I am not going to do so here.

 

[1robin]

Do you mean that significant scientific achievements by Christians reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible?

Of course not but it is perfectly consistent with it.

Are you implying that today, Christian physicists know more about physics than non-Christian physicists do because they are Christians?

Neither. I am claiming most of the crucial aspects of physics were Christian discoveries.

The ancient Greeks made notable contributions to science, art, and philosophy. What contributions to those fields did their Hebrew contemporaries make?

Any list of scientific breakthroughs is littered with Jewish persons. They may have made more contributions per person to science than any culture in history. Any theory that depends on defeating Jewish exceptionalism is doomed to fail in utter humiliation and I would love to do so. Game? Greeks did not produce many of the great breakthroughs but they did start asking the right questions.

The Roman Empire is sometimes called the Greco-Roman Empire because Greeks made substantial contributions to it.

Agreed.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Christian scientists have made more important contributions to science than anyone else, if Christianity had not come along, some other group of scientists might have made the most important contributions, but it would not be logical to claim that their religious beliefs had anything to do with their scientific achievements.

This is another hypothetical based on assuming what is not impossible occurred. It is meaningless.

Even if Christians were more moral than they generally are, that would still not necessarily mean that a God inspired the Bible.

Agreed but it would be perfectly consistent with it.

I suggest that you read an article about Greek achievements at Greek achievements and Greek history. It was written by a college history professor. He says:

"But it's not just in literature the Greeks excelled. They produced some of the world's greatest art, the first true science, and some of the greatest athletes the world has ever seen. In fact, of all the ancient peoples, it was the Greeks who contributed the most to subsequent civilization in virtually every field of human endeavor."

"The Greeks give us the first true historical works, and it was a Greek (Herodotus) that first used the term "history" for what we call history today. Not only did the Greeks give us our first historical works, they also give us some of our greatest."

"Not only do the Greeks give us our first history, they give us also our first political science, the systematic study of human government. When one studies political science today, one constantly uses Greek terms (monarchy, democracy, etc.). Why? Because the Greeks were the first to study the various forms of human government and to identify the strengths and weakness of each."

"Math is another area in which the Greeks made important contributions. You are all familiar with the Pythagorean theorum, and the Greek reverence for numbers that starts with Pythagoras is certainly an important contribution of the Greeks. Even more important, the Greek geometer, Euclid. Euclid's Elements was the main geometry textbook of the west for hundreds of years, and it remained the basis for all good geometry texts right up through the 1970's. What Euclid did was to take five fundamental axioms. From these axioms, he devises a series of more an more complex proofs. Now what's important here is *not* the practical application of geometry. What's important is the systematic, rigorous thinking process one must go through in coming up with these proofs. The study of Euclid taught generation after generation to think clearly and logically: and it is a pity that the current geometry texts have drifted away from this."

"The Greeks also made important contributions to the sciences. Biology, Physics, Physiology, Zoology: all Greek names, because the Greeks were the first to systematically explore these areas. Thales, the first Greek philosopher, also is the father of physics, asking a fundamental question: what are all things made of? The Greeks explored the question, coming up with promising answers. Ultimately, Greeks like Aristotle believed that the world was made up of four fundamental elements. Other Greeks added the idea that these elements in their turn were made up of invisible, indivisable particles they called atoms. Now we have a lot more elements than the Greek four, and we believe the atom can be divided into evern more fundamental particles, but note that the Greeks are certainly on the right track."

If you look at any serious list I have ever posted about the great scientific cultures they all include the Greeks. I have never denied their contributions. In fact the entire Muslim hey day of science occurred primarily because unlike their Christian neighbors of the time they preserved Greek texts and took the next step. However the Greeks, once the Catholics lost their strangle hold were eclipsed by Christian discoveries. Many people lay the entire scientific mind set behind the explosion of science in the enlightenment at the feet of the Christian who believing a created universe should contain rationality set out to find it. Something that did not occur in the east.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why in the world should all lesbians practice abstinence since their risks of getting STDs is less than gay men, and even less than heterosexual men and women? You most certainly never adequately answered that question.

I have answered every one of these in every form many times. Not doing so again.

That is absolutely false, and the thread on homosexuality proves it. I remember our discussions about lesbians very well. They were quite brief, and all that you did was claim that it was wrong for me to divide homosexuals into segments, but you never said why since you know that if you did, you would have embarrassed yourself. Quite obviously, as most medical experts know, it is reasonable to divide any group of people into segments if there are significant statistical differences between them. That way, prevention, and treatment become much more effective. You surely know that lesbians' anatomy is much different than the anatomy of gay men, and that that primarily accounts for the fact that lesbians have far lower risks than gay men do, and lower risks than heterosexual men and women do.

No major medical organization recommends abstinence for all homosexuals, and much less so for all lesbians, and that includes the CDC, but for some very strange reasons, you believe that you won the debate.

Not going there again. Did you think I was kidding?

That's ok, you do not have to answer. I just wanted to show that you did not tell the truth since we discussed lesbians very little. You did not want to discuss that issue very much since you knew that you have no case against all lesbians that could be solved by them practicing abstinence.

I will not discuss homosexuality any more in this thread unless you choose to. I achieved my goals in the thread on homosexuality since I reasonably disproved your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That is really what the debates came down to since from a secular perspective, no action is wrong if there are not any reasonable alternatives. As every major medical association knows, abstinence for all homosexuals is not a reasonable solution for homosexuality.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I forget if this is the thread in which the topic has come up several times, but I was just watching physicist Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig on "God on Cosmology", and came across an interesting quote from Alan Guth, co-author of the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, which Craig likes to misrepresent as providing support for theism, and which 1robin has cited in a similarly mistaken vein-

Guth, in response to "does the universe have a beginning?"-

"I don't know whether the universe had a beginning, I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal, but nobody knows."

Now, this isn't especially surprising if you know what the BGV is about (since it implies none of what Craig argues it does)- but for those who've been hoodwinked by Craig, this is somewhat eye-opening.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I forget if this is the thread in which the topic has come up several times, but I was just watching physicist Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig on "God on Cosmology", and came across an interesting quote from Alan Guth, co-author of the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, which Craig likes to misrepresent as providing support for theism, and which 1robin has cited in a similarly mistaken vein-

Guth, in response to "does the universe have a beginning?"-

"I don't know whether the universe had a beginning, I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal, but nobody knows."

Now, this isn't especially surprising if you know what the BGV is about (since it implies none of what Craig argues it does)- but for those who've been hoodwinked by Craig, this is somewhat eye-opening.

I just found this:

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig

Hahaha. I'm going to give it a read.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Thief]

You are in no position to claim that the vast majority of experts are wrong.



Tens of millions of Americans are creationists, and do not believe that Adam and Eve had any genetic predecessors. That is understandable since Genesis 2:7 says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If theistic evolution is true, that verse would be a very odd way for a God to describe how he created a man. Genesis 2:21-22 say "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." If theistic evolution is true," those verses would be a very odd way for a God to describe how he created a woman.

It does happen though.
Someone will step forward with a different perspective and the rest of the world says...oh!

You have seen my take on Chapter Two of Genesis?
I've been posting as much for years.

 

[Agnostic75]

It does happen though. Someone will step forward with a different perspective and the rest of the world says...oh!

You have seen my take on Chapter Two of Genesis?

I've been posting as much for years.

No, I haven't read your comments on that topic, but I am glad that you agree with what I said.

 

[1robin]

That's ok, you do not have to answer. I just wanted to show that you did not tell the truth since we discussed lesbians very little. You did not want to discuss that issue very much since you knew that you have no case against all lesbians that could be solved by them practicing abstinence.

I will not discuss homosexuality any more in this thread unless you choose to. I achieved my goals in the thread on homosexuality since I reasonably disproved your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. That is really what the debates came down to since from a secular perspective, no action is wrong if there are not any reasonable alternatives. As every major medical association knows, abstinence for all homosexuals is not a reasonable solution for homosexuality.

I reject your conclusion.

 

[1robin]

I forget if this is the thread in which the topic has come up several times, but I was just watching physicist Sean Carroll's debate with William Lane Craig on "God on Cosmology", and came across an interesting quote from Alan Guth, co-author of the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem, which Craig likes to misrepresent as providing support for theism, and which 1robin has cited in a similarly mistaken vein-

Guth, in response to "does the universe have a beginning?"-

"I don't know whether the universe had a beginning, I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning. It's very likely eternal, but nobody knows."

Now, this isn't especially surprising if you know what the BGV is about (since it implies none of what Craig argues it does)- but for those who've been hoodwinked by Craig, this is somewhat eye-opening.

That is funny. I meant to recommend that debate to you. It was the finest example of a competent respectful and reasonable non-theist debater. I have never seen IMO Craig's equal but Connell got closer than anyone. And that quote was one of the best points he made. If you would like to discuss that debate it would be a good discussion. Your choice.

 

[1robin]

I just found this:

Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig

Hahaha. I'm going to give it a read.

That site is not the best source but that theory you bring up is one of the most profound models in cosmologies history. Read you site plus this one and we can discuss it if you want, and if you will please stick too the issues only.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

 

[Agnostic75]

I reject your conclusion.

Well of course you do, but since every major medical organization in the U.S. agrees with me that all homosexuals should not practice abstinence, I am satisfied with my arguments.

In some thread, you complained that I left for a few weeks, but surely it is acceptable for everyone at these forums to come and go as they please. I have other priorities that are much more important than debating you, and sometimes I lose interest since life is much too short to spend too much time debating.

Please reply to my post #3368.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is funny. I meant to recommend that debate to you. It was the finest example of a competent respectful and reasonable non-theist debater. I have never seen IMO Craig's equal but Connell got closer than anyone. And that quote was one of the best points he made.

Well, only because Craig has devoted so much effort and energy to misrepresenting the nature and consequences of the BGV theorem; if Craig was honest about the fact that the BGV theorem does NOT imply that, even for the models the BGV applies to, there must be a beginning of the universe, or that the BGV does not apply to all models of the universe (and likely does not apply to our own), then this point wouldn't have needed to be made at all.

In my estimation, Carroll made many far better points, including completely undermining most of Craig's claims about cosmology; to which Craig has no counter-argument. After watching Craig shred debaters who are clearly in over their heads (Hitchens, Dawkins), it was extremely amusing to watch him get caught with his pants down for once (unfortunately, I'd imagine many in the audience were not familiar enough with either contemporary cosmology or philosophy to catch what had just transpired). But if I had to pick one, it would be his third thesis- that theism is essentially out of the running because it is not well defined- which is awfully similar to a point I've been stressing here for some time (regarding God/theism as an explanation, i.e. IF explanations are answers to questions AND explanations are propositional AND IF mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND IF X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), then "X did it" neither explains nor justifies why anything occurs, and is metaphysically and ethically vacuous).

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I am transferring some of my arguments from another forum to this forum since there are more people at this forum, and because I wish to consolidate my arguments about the existence of God into one thread, at one forum.

Not long ago, I made an argument that Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and that it is reasonably possible that it is God who is actually masquerading as an angel of light. You said that God has given Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil supernatural beings. However, that is a very poor, and illogical argument since if God is evil, and omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive, including you, and it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible. You are not able to provide any reasonable proof that you, a mere fallible, imperfect human, would be able to outsmart an omnipotent, omniscient evil God. No rational person would believe such a thing.

I get the point but it is not that simple because the same book also gives ways to detect a false angels of light. For example a false prophet will not be 100% accurate, etc.......We are certainly no left hopelessly without methodologies to separate the two.

That does not make any sense at all since an evil God could easily have inspired all Bible prophecies. Obviously, that would be part of his deceptions.

William Lane Craig touts the issue of "multiple, independent attestations," but even if there were ten Gospels instead of four, most Christians would not accept them if they said that God will send everyone to hell. That has to be the case because of since self-interest, which largely causes people to become religious in the first place. According to self-interest, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time reasonably proving that God will send everyone to hell.

I think that you once made an argument that many Christians have done things that are against their self-interest. That is true regarding how you meant it, but not regarding how I meant it. What I meant was that few, or no Christians willingly do anything that is against their "ultimate" self-interest, which is having eternal life. If the Bible said that everyone will go to hell, it would definitely be in everyone's self-interest to try to discredit it, and hope that some other God, or even aliens, would provide them with a comfortable eternal life, and only a relative handful of people would accept the Bible.

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. In some cases, their parents give up Christianity as a result. What justification is there for God to allow, or cause that?

If you don't mind, I would still like your explanations for the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional? Why was the story written?

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

No he did not. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That is false. Every specific thing that God does, and does not do, is dictated by his nature. God specifically must not lie, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific inaction. God must create humans, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific action. If God acted contrary to those two examples, he would not be God.

John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If God had not given the world his only begotten Son, he would not be God, and such inaction would have been against his nature, which dictated that he give the world his only begotten Son. God cannot act, or inact, contrary to his nature.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That suggests that God giving the world his only begotten Son was optional, but it certainly was not optional since if God had not done that, he would not have been God, and quite obviously, God must always be God. Logically, in order for God to give the world his only begotten Son, he first had to create humans.

Since God's love dictates specific inactions, such as not telling lies, it logically follows that his love also dictates specific actions, such as creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son. If God is never bound by specificity, then all of his actions, and inactions would be equal, and it would never matter what he specifically does, or does not do, and that cannot be true.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest conceivable being. J.P. Moreland, who is a very distinguished colleague of William Lane Craig, has said that it is impossible for God to have his attributes to a greater degree that he already has them. That implies that if God could have done anything better than he already has, he would have done it, and that when God does anything, it has to be the best that he can do, or he would not have done it. When God created man, and gave man his only begotten Son, that was the best that he could have done at that time. God's perfect, omnibenevolent nature dictated that he do those things.

You have said that God would be good even if he never did anything. That is ridiculous. Even if all that God ever did was think, he would be doing something, and he cannot control his thoughts any more than he can control his actions. For example, God cannot lie. He is not even able to consider lying because of his perfect, omnibenevolent nature. God had to create humans since that was part of his nature. Obviously, he had to have thought about doing it before he did it since thinking about doing it is also part of his nature. Since God could not have avoided thinking about creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son, he could not have avoided creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son.

No intelligent case could be made that God can control his thoughts. In addition, no intelligent case could be made that God cannot control his thoughts, but can control his actions.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder.

God's omnibenevolent nature is always his only justification for doing things, and the only reason why he ever does anything.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things.

Repeat of the repeat above.

And I repeat the fact that morality has no meaning without choice.

The God of the Bible does not exist since no admirable God would ask people to love him for doing things that he has to do.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The following is from another forum. It is complied from a number of our discussions in a thread that is titled “The right religion,” and some of this post will be revisions.

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since I am only referring to skeptics who have already been evangelized and would have become Christians under different circumstances, including living in another city in the same country, living in another country, or having different parents.

Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant.

That does not have anything to do with my arguments, and does not refute them. Let me try to make my arguments simpler for you. Let's say that John lived in South Korea. He grew up in a Christian home, had devout Christian parents, and attended church regularly, so he was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable. By age 18, John became a skeptic, and stayed a skeptic for the rest of his life. He lived in South Korea for his entire live. Most Christians would claim that John will not have eternal life. However, if John had been sent to the U.S. when he was a baby, and lived there for the rest of his life, it is reasonably possible that he would have become a Christian.

Let me put it another way. For the sake of argument, let's say that scientists were able to duplicate John at birth, and made one million exact duplicates of him, including his soul, and spirit. The scientists placed the duplicates in a wide variety of places all over the world, with adoptive parents of all major worldviews. It is a virtual given that at least some of the duplicates would have become Christians. Let's call one of them Tom. In your opinion, will Tom have eternal life?

Please answer the question.

John's life would have been exactly the same as Tom's life if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, and John would have become a Christian.

I am saying circumstances are not to blame.

No, I just proved that they are to blame since there are not any doubts whatsoever that if John had been placed in the home that Tom was placed in instead of Tom, John would have become a Christian. Since my arguments are irrefutable, you will have no choice except to complain about my hypothetical arguments, but hypothetical arguments are valid, and are frequently used by Christians.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since Tom not have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised. My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

However the circumstances would not have dictated that, the hearts in the clones would have.

There is no need for semantics. Well of course the hearts of the clones would have made the choices, but many of the choices that they made were different because the circumstances were different. Thus, the circumstances dictated which worldview some the clones would choose.

Where does God guarantee an equal amount of evidence and chances to every human being in history? He offers enough evidence not an equal amount.

Equal evidence for everyone is not the issue, at least not yet, since for all practical purposes, John and Tom are the same person. Does Tom the clone deserve to have eternal life since he became a Christian? Why should anyone be denied eternal life merely because of their circumstances? After you answer the questions, I will continue my arguments.

Circumstance certainly largely determines how well you do in debates at these forums. If there were dozens of skeptics at these forums, with Ph.D.s in physics, biology, philosophy, history, theology, and sociology, you would not have any change of winning debates regarding many of the topics that are discussed at these forums. Thus, no skeptic needs to be concerned about how well they do when they debate you since they know that you would lose if you debated experts. Yes, I would also lose debates about many issues if I debated them with Christian experts, and that is why I seldom debate topics that I would not be willing to debate with experts. I would be happy to debate the Tyre prophecy, and homosexuality with any Christian expert. I would also be happy to debate certain aspects of the existence of God, and God's morality with any Christian expert.

I would not be willing to debate biblical textual criticism with Christian experts since I know that my knowledge of that field is limited. So is yours, and that is why no one should pay any attention to your amateurish comments about it. No comments that you have said about biblical textual criticism settled anything since when they are used in debates by well-informed people, they merely lead to counter arguments, which lead to other counter arguments, and years later, there are still more counter arguments, and most laymen are not qualified to judge the debates. Biblical textual criticism is a very vast field. The minimum amount of adequate knowledge of source material is very extensive, and takes many years to study. Very few teenagers who become Christians have anywhere near enough knowledge about biblical textual criticism to make well-informed comments about it.

Is it your position that Christian achievements, and charitable giving, reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible? If so, I am certain that a large number of skeptic historians, and sociologists would easily defeat you in debates about that topic. If that is your claim, I will start a new thread about that topic, and quote you with your permission.

 

[Agnostic75]

I never did. I have no personal knowledge of biology. The arguments I used were first, not claims evolution does not happen.

Well of course you never said that variation among species does not happen since all creationists know that it does happen.

I never even said macro evolution doesn't. I said there is no proof it does and there are major problems with all of it.

Since you said that you have no personal knowledge of biology, you are not in any position to make any personal claims about macro evolution.

Second the arguments are from professionals who do have knowledge and PhD's.

The professionals that you referred to are part of a relative handful of creationist experts. One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution.

You are in no position to claim that the vast majority of experts are wrong.

A good percentage of creationist experts also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their opinions about creationism are probably confirmation bias, and religious presuppositionalism, not objective scientific research.

Two of the best known creationist organizations in the world are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG), both of which accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

Of course I question evolution, even theistic.

You said:

The theory as it exists in textbooks or think tanks is not reality itself and does not have to depend on much of anything. The reality the theory is supposed to represent must necessarily depend on many things. I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution. I was careful about my words. To no effect (as usual) it seems. You cannot have a theory about something if the necessary precursor did not occur. I cannot have a theory about what was found on the moon unless it is true we went here and that it exists.

You implied there that you do not question theistic evolution, only naturalistic evolution, but elsewhere, you said that you question it.

Yes, you can have the theory of evolution without having a precursor for it. As most experts know, that is because the occurrence of macro evolution can be inferred by lots of scientific evidence without the need to discuss the origin of life. A Wikipedia article at Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says:

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as "the fact of evolution."

On the other hand, there is not any valid scientific model for creationism since if it is true, no one has any idea how God created the universe, and living organisms.

The judge at the Dover trial was John E. Jones III. He is a Christian, and a Republican. He said:

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.......After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]

Regarding "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation," science has obviously progressed quite a lot for centuries without taking the existence of God for granted, and it should since science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God. In order to properly discuss that topic, theology, and philosophy must primarily be used.

Dr. Ken Miller is a biologist, and a theistic evolutionist. Although he is a Christian, and obviously believes that God exists, he loves biology since he has a great curiosity to learn about some of the steps that God has used to change life on earth. That is certainly reasonable grounds for Christians to become biologists. Christian physicists also have a great curiosity to try to understand some things about how God created, and runs the universe.

The study of macro evolution is partly useful since it reasonably proves that if a God exists, the story of the creation of Adam, and Eve in the book of Genesis is false since it implies that macro evolution is false.

Am I supposed to believe what I am told without challenging it?

Of course not, but you should not challenge things that you do understand, such as when you questioned Ken Miller's article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at The Flagellum Unspun.

Some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes. Why is that?

Women are also much more likely to become theists than men are.

 

[Agnostic75]

Any claim to there having always been energy or time is not only an assumption without any justification it is an absurd assumption that produces logical impossibilities.

Why can't eternally existing energy have caused the Big Bag to occur?

What scientific evidence precludes the existence of eternally existing energy?

 

[Thief]

Why can't eternally existing energy have caused the Big Bag to occur?

What scientific evidence precludes the existence of eternally existing energy?

How about design?

Energy or substance....not having form....then....BANG!

THEN the energy AND the substance have form.

Looks like design to me.