INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

Your not butting in and welcome. There is no example of life being created in any lab but even if there were that would prove that it took intelligence. Abiogenesis has no exception known to man. I have repeatedly checked into these experiments people site and every one of them is the same. They failed to actually generate life of any kind. It is such a holy grail that it is big time news. They always give some kind of headline like "scientists unlock key to life on earth" you go read them and it is always only theories or infinitely less that life they have actually generated. If anyone did this it would instant Nobel and probably the biggest news ever so, no it has never been done. The closest I know of was amino acids. Which is like saying we generated an ounce of copper therefore we know how computers could arise on their own. Computers are more likely to arise on their own than life however.

Thank you.

I suppose I phrased that incorrectly. There are actually examples of the building blocks of life being created in several lab experiments that have been performed over the last 60 or so years. This is a big deal. It shows that the building blocks of life can arise by purely natural mechanisms and no, it doesn't prove that some kind of intelligence needs to be behind it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Miller and Urey were able to produce amino acids (the building blocks of proteins which make up the structural elements of living organisms) from molecules that are believed to have been present in the earth's early atmosphere. They did this by simulating conditions that may have been present in the earth's early atmosphere. Sidney Fox did a similar experiment and was able to produce 12 protein-like amino acids. Many others followed in their footsteps.

And a group of scientists in 2004 were able to synthesize methane (an organic compound) from inorganic chemicals. These are not small potatoes. This is not like saying we made some copper and therefore computers can arise on their own.(And I have no idea how you could assert that there's a better chance of computers rising on their own than that organice compounds could be produced from inorganic compounds.) It's like saying, "we're getting closer and closer to understanding how the basic building blocks of life could have arisen from inorganic compounds from natural conditions present on earth, and how those building blocks came together to form life." After all, our bodies are made up of chemicals interacting with other chemicals so this isn't way out in left field or something.

That was a deductive argument not a proof. We have the natural and anything outside of the natural (super natural). The natural can't produce anything from nothing therefore the supernatural is all that is left. No it is not proof but a well evidenced theory.

We have the natural, which is observable and demonstrable, and we have a supernatural which is supposed to make up things that exist outside of the natural world, as you've stated. The thing is though, nobody's ever been able to produce any evidence (i.e. nobody has been able to either observe it or demonstrate it's existence) for the supernatural so we have no reason to believe it actually exists. Therefore, we can't really make positive assertions about it. Assertions like "life can only come from a supernatural source." If we don't know that a thing exists, how can we possibly attribute characteristics to it, or posit it as reason for the existence of something else? Therefore it is not a well-evidence theory. And the supernatural may or may not be all that's left but we don't even know if there is a supernatural. You're just explaining something you consider to be a mystery with something else that's a mystery. Which doesn't tell us much of anything.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by " The natural can't produce anything from nothing." Especially when we don't even know if the supernatural exists to begin with. We can't just assume and assert things into existence.

If only a supernatural force could create life and if no life exists then that would be proof that a supernatural force did not produce life. However falsifiability is not necessary for faith claims. It is not even required by the scientists who demand it for God, for their own claims either. They demand things of God they can not provide for much of their own claims and have no justification for either.

Or, life exists, no supernatural force exists, therefore the supernatural cannot produce life. We have no evidence of the existence of anything supernatural let alone evidence that it can produce life or anything else.

Of course falsifiability is not required for faith claims, hence the requirement of faith. So why not just save the hypotheses and just admit it's all based on faith? There is no evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are not butting in, but I am out of time. I have no idea why you think those simple factual statements are invalid but I have no time to show this. Also if you want to discuss homosexuality specifically can you move it to this thread where it is already going on.

Have a good weakend and I will try and answer when I have time.

Well, because they are not simple factual statements.

And I believe I did explain where and why I found problems with them.

I look forward to your response and I guess I'll take a look at some of your posts in the thread you've linked me to.

You have a good weekend too.

 

[Agnostic75]

I normally do not do this but this is a authority fallacy. It does not matter because I have made no firm claim that macroevolution is not true, just that it has vast problems. Claiming a bunch of evolutionists believe in macro-evolution has little impact.

Large consensuses of experts frequently have a good deal of influence with laymen who know very little about science. I only disagree with a large consensus of experts when I believe that I know a lot about an issue. I do not know a lot about biology, so I choose to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

As I said let us get a universe to have any evolution in to start with.

The universe did not exist, then it did with all its rationality. What produced it?
I would not be interested in the finer points of evolution if they are not related to the concept of God. That is what is on the table. I do not care much about the vagaries of evolution alone.

For possibly the vast majority of majority of creationists, the "vagaries" of evolution are very important. Many creationists claim that if they cannot trust a literal interpreation of the book of Genesis, they cannot trust any of the rest of the Bible. Regarding social issues, I assume that the majority of people in the U.S. who strongly oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, and physician assisted suicide interpret the book of Genesis literally.

Perhaps your main interest is debating naturalists. If so, I do not promote or oppose naturalism. The universe is far too complex for mere humans to know how, and when, everything that exists came to exist. and how many universes might exist. You are dabbling in things that are way beyond your comprehension, and even beyond the comprehension of physicists. The board of directors of the National Academy of Sciences would not dream of issuing a statement that there is conclusive evidence that a God exists.

If a moral God exists, who in the world would object to that? It would be wonderful if a moral God exists.

Since millions of Christians accept macro evolution, what does God have to do with macro evolution?

If a God exists, that would not discredit macro evolution at all. If macro evolution is true, that would discredit a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

One research study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have lower incomes, and people who have less education.

You have said that you accept intelligent design, but you were not able to critique an article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity by Ken Miller at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html, and it is not wonder since it is very complex.

It is reasonable to assume that the majority of creationists would understand very little about the article.

If I said that the majority NT scholars agree on three things:

1. Jesus arrived on the scene with a sense of unprecedented divine authority.

2. That he was crucified.

3. That the tomb was found empty.

Would you find that convincing?

No. Regarding item 1, what evidence is there that Jesus' authority was divine?

Regarding item 2, if Jesus was crucified, that does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible.

Regarding item 3, I flatly reject that claim. Christians only became a problem for the Romans when they became more numerous. There were very few Christians in the world during the first century A.D. Noted Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that during the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to mount a riot in a small village."

Sociologist and author Rodney Stark has written over 50 books, including the best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity." In the book, Stark quotes archaeologists and papyrologists who confirm the very small Christian presence during the first century.

Therefore, it is unlikely that guards would have been posted at the tomb since Christians were not numerous enough for anyone to worry about. Without reasonable evidence that guards were posted at the tomb, you have no argument.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was put in a tomb, and that the tomb was Joseph of Arimathea's tomb? If you choose to quote a group of Bible scholars, I would like to know the percentage of them who are Christians.

Gary Habermas, Ph.D., philosophy, is a well-known Christian scholar, and is a professor at Liberty University. Consider the following form one of his articles:

http://www.garyhabermas.com/article...-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

A second research area concerns those scholars who address the subject of the empty tomb. It has been said that the majority of contemporary researchers accepts the historicity of this event. But is there any way to be more specific? From the study mentioned above, I have compiled 23 arguments for the empty tomb and 14 considerations against it, as cited by recent critical scholars. Generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological “party lines.” To be sure, such a large number of arguments, both pro and con, includes very specific differentiation, including some overlap.


Of these scholars, approximately 75% favor one or more of these arguments for the empty tomb, while approximately 25% think that one or more arguments oppose it. Thus, while far from being unanimously held by critical scholars, it may surprise some that those who embrace the empty tomb as a historical fact still comprise a fairly strong majority.

By far the most popular argument favoring the Gospel testimony on this subject is that, in all four texts, women are listed as the initial witnesses.


Contrary to often repeated statements, First Century Jewish women were able to testify in some legal matters. But given the general reluctance in the Mediterranean world at that time to accept female testimony in crucial matters, most of those scholars who comment on the subject hold that the Gospels probably would not have dubbed them as the chief witnesses unless they actually did attest to this event.


Third, without question, the most critically-respected witness for Jesus’ resurrection is the apostle Paul.

As Habermas admitted, "generally, the listings are what might be expected, dividing along theological 'party lines.'" He should have said "along theological, and worldview 'party lines.'" Surely very few skeptic Bible scholars believe that there is reasonable evidence that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb. What non-biblical evidence suggests to you that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb?

Regarding Habermas' comments about women finding the empty tomb, that argument has been discredited by a number of Bible scholars, including Dr. Richard Carrier. In part of an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/women.html, Dr. Carrier explains in great detail why the women discovering the tomb argument is not valid.

As far as the apostle Paul is concerned, Habermas is probably referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The texts say:

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time."

The majority of Bible scholar believe that Paul said that, but some do not, including Dr. Robert Price, who believes that the passage is an interpolation. He has an article about it at http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html.

No Bible scholar can accurately claim that they have reasonable evidence that Paul wrote all of 1 Corinthians, and that none of what he wrote has been changed, or added to. Even some conservative Christian Bible scholars have admitted that there are at least some interpolations in the New Testament, and those are only the obvious interpolations. Historically, surely many ancient writings contain unknown interpolations. It is reasonable to assume that some ancient interpolators were very good at writing interpolations in the style of the writers whose writings they revised.

 

[Ouroboros]

If a God exists, that would not discredit macro evolution at all, just biblical literalism.

Exactly. Only a literal interpretation of the Bible would mean Evolution is false. But if the Bible is not taken literal, God (if he/she/it exists) could have used Evolution to create species.

 

[Agnostic75]

Exactly. Only a literal interpretation of the Bible would mean Evolution is false. But if the Bible is not taken literal, God (if he/she/it exists) could have used Evolution to create species.

Thanks. You got what I meant, but I just changed it as follows:

"If a God exists, that would not discredit macro evolution at all, and if macro evolution is true, that would discredit a literal interpreation of the story of Adam and Eve."

It means the same thing, but it is easier to understand.

 

[steeltoes]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

Then carry on believing. This atheist doesn't want to convince you otherwise, if this makes sense to you and if this is what you need to make sense of how the world came into existence, then by all means go ahead and continue to believe it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Before anything, there was nothing? I don't believe you, energy/matter always existed. There was never a time before when there was nothing, that's just a baseless assumption on your part.

That is far more than an assumption, it is the latest cosmology, see: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. Even within the very simple and accurate scientific philosophy of the Kalam cosmological argument there can't be an infinite anything. That same line of reasoning has been around since the Greeks and is still just as true as ever. If energy always existed then the number of past fluctuations would have been infinite. How did we go through an infinite amount of past fluctuations to arrive at this one? Nothing can fluctuate or change unless time exists. If time is eternal then the past number of seconds is also infinite and you have the same problem. It just won't work. I have no idea where you got your claim but if it was Newton’s conservation laws they only apply once we have energy. Natural law can't create anything. 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.

Well, if the research of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin is the go to place for the latest conclusions about cosmology, let's see if Vilenkin agrees with you about the necessity of a God creating this universe. Consider the following:

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

If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but.......” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

The trend of cosmology is definitely in the finite direction and the pendulum is I believe approaching the no return point. Of course almost no one claims that something came from nothing, because it is a ridiculous concept. I will illustrate the impact of this by what it has produced. When the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theorem pretty much nailed the coffin shut there was a big big problem for atheistic scientists. They had a universe that required a cause and no nature to generate one. That unavoidably made the super natural a logical necessity to the extent that only fantasy and science fiction could remedy their bizarre hopes. That is why an explosion in multiverse, M-theory, and oscillating verses has recently skyrocketed (string theory might be thrown in as well). There is not a scrap of evidence for any of them and even worse not even a potentiality for any. Yet that was the only course (true or even logical or not) that got them out of the cosmological inevitability they were in. If you suggest that something other than unbelief drove that (I agree that is a presumptuous claim) then why is the adoption of those theories so prevalent among non-believers. The double standards kill me. When galaxies are found to not have enough matter in them to hold them together a miraculous dark matter that can't be seen or detected by anything (and is virtually supernatural) is simply claimed to be there as a fact yet God is not allowed to even be considered for creation. The thought process is baffling without another Biblical concept called spiritual blindness. I agree that God is not a proven fact but many "facts" of science require more faith given less evidence.

But your own prized sources, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, would diasgree with most of that, including your claim that the universe must have had a supernatural cause. How can you know more about physics than your own sources do?

A good number of scientists are agnostic about whether or not a God exists. That group of scientists maintains that a naturalistic universe, and a supernatural universe, are both plausible. I do not see anything wrong with that approach pending further advances in physics. A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics has an extensive list of agnostics from various fields of education, including science. The science section includes Einstein, and Hubble.

The search for truth does not have a time limit. From one perspective, quantum physics is still in its infancy when we consider how much we know compared with how much we do not know. A lot has changed just since Einstein died 58 years ago. A hundred years from now, college textbooks in physics will be much different than they are now. So will textbooks in biology. We do not even fully understand how the simplest cell works, and we do not have a cure for the common cold, but you go way beyond those problems and claim to know the answer to the most difficult, and complex problem in quantum physics, which is to solve the nature of everything. Your main problem, of course, is that you are not able to write down your theory in a form that would be accepted by any peer reviewed science journal in the U.S.

There is a species of jellyfish that is immortal, and only dies from predation, and accidents. A type of snail can manufacture its own chloroplyll. All of the wonders of nature cannot be quickly solved during your lifetime in order to accommodate your religious beliefs.

Since you think that you know a lot about physics, you should visit a web site that is called "Physics Forum." It has over 3,000 members, and deals only with science. Many of the members know far more about physics than you do, and would be happy to discuss your theories about the necessity of a supernatural universe with you. I am not saying that a God does not exist, only that you cannot reasonably prove that a supernatural universe is a necessity. The National Academy of Sciences would not say that a supernatural universe is a necessity.

Although I am an agnostic, I wish to say that you have misjudged atheists. Most of them would rejoice if it turned out that a moral God exists, and provided a comfortable eternal life for everyone who had good character regardless of their worldview. It is really quite simple. If an atheist man likes nice women, he quite naturally would like a nice God far better since a nice God would be able to provide him with eternal benefits, not just temporal benefits like women can.

There is nothing at all wrong with a moral, authoritative God. In human society, without authority, there would be anarchy. Authority from wise, moral parents is fine too. So, it is ridiculous that many Christians accuse atheists of not wanting to be told what to do by God.

An atheist friend of mine recently died at age 50. He was a brilliant college professor, and was greatly admired by most of his students. He was one of the most moral men who I have ever known. He was gentle, kind, and respectful to everyone. I used to pay him a nominal amount of money to critique some of my writings, and he claimed that I overpaid him. I didn't overpay him, but that is what he thought. If anything, I underpaid him. He had an IQ of 173, and two masters degrees, and scored 1560 on the SAT when the maximum score was 1600, including a perfect score of 800 on the verbal section. Actually, he said that he was an atheist/agnostic. He was an atheist regarding the existence of the Gods of all religious books, and agnostic about the existence of any God.

Anyway, from a biblical perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians will be in the same boat, including billions on non-Christian theists, and deists. The vast majority of non-Christians in the world today already believe in God.

 

[Agnostic75]

The trend of cosmology is definitely in the finite direction and the pendulum is I believe approaching the no return point. Of course almost no one claims that something came from nothing, because it is a ridiculous concept. I will illustrate the impact of this by what it has produced. When the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theorem pretty much nailed the coffin shut there was a big big problem for atheistic scientists. They had a universe that required a cause and no nature to generate one. That unavoidably made the super natural a logical necessity to the extent that only fantasy and science fiction could remedy their bizarre hopes. That is why an explosion in multiverse, M-theory, and oscillating verses has recently skyrocketed (string theory might be thrown in as well). There is not a scrap of evidence for any of them and even worse not even a potentiality for any. Yet that was the only course (true or even logical or not) that got them out of the cosmological inevitability they were in. If you suggest that something other than unbelief drove that (I agree that is a presumptuous claim) then why is the adoption of those theories so prevalent among non-believers. The double standards kill me. When galaxies are found to not have enough matter in them to hold them together a miraculous dark matter that can't be seen or detected by anything (and is virtually supernatural) is simply claimed to be there as a fact yet God is not allowed to even be considered for creation. The thought process is baffling without another Biblical concept called spiritual blindness. I agree that God is not a proven fact but many "facts" of science require more faith given less evidence.

Are you suggesting that in a given year, whatever the century, people should choose to believe whether or not God exists based upon the current trend in cosmology? Fifty years ago, what should people have believed about the existence of God? What about 1,000 years ago?

What about macro evolution, which contradicts the story of Adam and Eve? How should people decide that issue today? What about fifty years ago? What about 1,000 years ago?

 

[1robin]

Thank you.

You bet.

I suppose I phrased that incorrectly. There are actually examples of the building blocks of life being created in several lab experiments that have been performed over the last 60 or so years. This is a big deal. It shows that the building blocks of life can arise by purely natural mechanisms and no, it doesn't prove that some kind of intelligence needs to be behind it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

There is no known example of nature bringing into existence life, consciousness, information, or basically anything. Yet without God it must have been done trillions of times. That is not science that is faith. The universe had to start out fine tuned to the trillionth degree in countless contingent areas just to get a universe at all, much less one that could support life. The fact (if it is one) that science has manipulated conditions so very basic (lower than equilibrium) complexity has occurred would simply prove yet again intelligence is required. However making amino acids is like making a few grains of sand, a few splinters of wood, and an ounce of copper and declaring west minster abbey arose by natural law. You can’t even get the existence of wood, copper, and sand by natural law.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith
He was a brilliant Chemist and could put the concepts of life arising by chance in terms that make it simple and unchallengeable. You can find some of his works at that site. His concepts are timeless facts not fads or theory.

Miller and Urey were able to produce amino acids (the building blocks of proteins which make up the structural elements of living organisms) from molecules that are believed to have been present in the earth's early atmosphere. They did this by simulating conditions that may have been present in the earth's early atmosphere. Sidney Fox did a similar experiment and was able to produce 12 protein-like amino acids. Many others followed in their footsteps.

The complexity difference between low equilibrium amino acids and even a cell a more marked than the sun compared with a flashlight.

And a group of scientists in 2004 were able to synthesize methane (an organic compound) from inorganic chemicals. These are not small potatoes. This is not like saying we made some copper and therefore computers can arise on their own.(And I have no idea how you could assert that there's a better chance of computers rising on their own than that organic compounds could be produced from inorganic compounds.) It's like saying, "we're getting closer and closer to understanding how the basic building blocks of life could have arisen from inorganic compounds from natural conditions present on earth, and how those building blocks came together to form life." After all, our bodies are made up of chemicals interacting with other chemicals so this isn't way out in left field or something.

They have not produced a single exception to life only coming from life. If you wish to have faith they will that is fine, I don’t because I know what they are up against. BTW why is creating methane important. It happens in nature and has little to do with God or life.

We have the natural, which is observable and demonstrable, and we have a supernatural which is supposed to make up things that exist outside of the natural world, as you've stated. The thing is though, nobody's ever been able to produce any evidence (i.e. nobody has been able to either observe it or demonstrate its existence) for the supernatural so we have no reason to believe it actually exists. Therefore, we can't really make positive assertions about it. Assertions like "life can only come from a supernatural source." If we don't know that a thing exists, how can we possibly attribute characteristics to it, or posit it as reason for the existence of something else? Therefore it is not a well-evidence theory. And the supernatural may or may not be all that's left but we don't even know if there is a supernatural. You're just explaining something you consider to be a mystery with something else that's a mystery. Which doesn't tell us much of anything.

Context is everything. I claim that the supernatural is the only known concept capable of producing reality as we KNOW it. It is not a fact but has more than enough evidence to justify faith. I find that secular intellectuals make a serious error here. You believe that science is about fact and religion only about faith. I can illustrate the error in this way. When the universe was first shown reliably to be finite and therefore in need of a supernatural cause (the natural did not exist prior to the universe) it caused secular scientists to cough up multiverses, string theory, and holographic theory to avoid this inconvenient fact. Not one of them has a scrap of evidence yet they are all preferred to the supernatural. Science many times demands more faith given less evidence than God ever has. Caesar wrote the Gallic wars for specific self-promotion. The oldest copy we have is 950 years after the events and we only have two. The Bible has thousands of copies within just a couple hundred or so years (partial copies much earlier) and exhibits extreme accuracy and sincerity from its authors yet Caesar's Gallic wars are taught as fact and the Bible is fought like the plague. Something is not right here and double standards are heavily involved. Dawkins said that unless the cause for God can be given then God does not exist. Philosophy 101 teaches that infinite regression causation is impossible and an irrational requirement especially for a uncaused concept. In fact his own methods make every fact in the universe false. Yet he insists the scientific ones are true and the theological ones are false.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by " The natural can't produce anything from nothing." Especially when we don't even know if the supernatural exists to begin with. We can't just assume and assert things into existence.

We can if we are not too exclusive.
1. The universe began to exist.
2. The universe must have a cause.
3. The natural did not pre-exist the universe.
4. The universe must have had a cause outside the natural.
5. Outside of nature is the super natural.
I can go on but the supernatural was all I needed here.

Or, life exists, no supernatural force exists, therefore the supernatural cannot produce life. We have no evidence of the existence of anything supernatural let alone evidence that it can produce life or anything else.

Yes we do. The universe is full of things that can't be brought into existence by nature including life but less absolutely than matter and energy. Nature can produce nothing new it can only arrange and manage. We also cannot detect Dark matter yet we infer it exists by it's effects. In fact dark matter is an effect as is every other atom in the universe and whatever the cause it must lie outside of nature and is therefore super natural. To get God requires a little more effort but you did not say God.

Of course falsifiability is not required for faith claims, hence the requirement of faith. So why not just save the hypotheses and just admit it's all based on faith? There is no evidence.

Because there is more evidence for faith than most scientific claims yet no absolute proof. It is a reasoned based conclusion no different from most of science. Yet we are honest enough to say ultimately it is faith while the scientists are not. If you really want to hammer out a single concept please delete the others as to cover any one concept in depth will take more room and time than we have.

 

[1robin]

Well, because they are not simple factual statements.

And I believe I did explain where and why I found problems with them.

I look forward to your response and I guess I'll take a look at some of your posts in the thread you've linked me to.

You have a good weekend too.

I can't remember which statements you mean. If you are referring to the cosmological argument, It has no known flaws. Of course a few have challenged it but it is still as valid as it was when the Greeks first debated it. If you wish to believe on faith that it will ultimately be wrong you are welcome to but do not call that logic or reason. There is no known academic reason sufficient to invalidate its simple precepts. If you are referring to something else ignore everything you just read.

 

[1robin]

Large consensuses of experts frequently have a good deal of influence with laymen who know very little about science.

I do not know a lot about biology specifically but I do know enough math, philosophy, and simple logic to understand the theory has big problems. I will give you one so you may have something to deny at least. The visual system is composed of several systems. The eye, optic nerves, and the visual cortex. Forgetting these things require engineering even our most brilliant engineers can't match, the eye and the visual cortex are built by plans contained in separate areas of DNA. How is it two separate series of countless mutations resulted in a perfectly matched pair of systems that require complexity in their compatibility beyond comprehension. If that isn't bad enough then how did these two systems achieve the same cohesion in many different branches of evolution. Basically this is equivalent of the same person winning the lottery about a trillion times. Now how do evolutionists explain even the eye alone not to even mention what I gave. Dawkins was asked to prove the eye evolved, he literally drew a picture or series of cartoons and said "there proof". Random mutation is lethal 99.9% of the time.
Most of the leading officers and citizens in Germany believed socialism good and that they would win WW2 in 1940. The most brilliant meteorologists in the eighties believed a mini ice age was going to kill us in the 1980's.
Being that macro evolution does not prove God (only single interpretations of a few scriptures maybe) I have no need to defend it or attack it. First get a universe at all, much less a life permitting one, then another trillion astronomically improbable things, then life it's self without God first.

For possibly the vast majority of majority of creationists, the "vagaries" of evolution are very important. Many creationists claim that if they cannot trust a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, they cannot trust any of the rest of the Bible. Regarding social issues, I assume that the majority of people in the U.S. who strongly oppose homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, and physician assisted suicide interpret the book of Genesis literally.

Of course vagaries are important that is all they have. It is one assumption based on another and requires more faith than the Bible. It's an ounce of data and a metric ton of conclusion. Genesis has little to do with most of those social issues and I am not obligated to defend what anyone claims about their own interpretation philosophy. I must live and die and then be judged by what I believe and that is what I defend and it is theologically valid and common.

Perhaps your main interest is debating naturalists. If so, I do not promote or oppose naturalism. The universe is far too complex for mere humans to know how, and when, everything that exists came to exist. and how many universes might exist. You are dabbling in things that are way beyond your comprehension, and even beyond the comprehension of physicists. The board of directors of the National Academy of Sciences would not dream of issuing a statement that there is conclusive evidence that a God exists.

The universe is rational and humans are rational. Therefore we can understand the universe. That does not mean we do but my general beliefs are consistent with philosophic, scientific, and historical methods that have no exceptions or are conclusive. Sure I could be wrong but currently there is no way to show that I am. For example cause and effect (even in the quantum) and abiogenesis have no known exceptions.

If a moral God exists, who in the world would object to that? It would be wonderful if a moral God exists.

Many atheists and skeptics of every kind. The historical record of Christ is a perfect moral record and yet they killed him.

Since millions of Christians accept macro evolution, what does God have to do with macro evolution?

Very little which is why I have no idea why you are going on about it. It might affect a few interpretations, but that is not a certainty. I think the idea flawed for logical reasons not theological ones.

If a God exists, that would not discredit macro evolution at all. If macro evolution is true, that would discredit a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve.

Agreed to some extent.

One research study showed that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have lower incomes, and people who have less education.

Provide the correlation or conclusion to make this relevant.

You have said that you accept intelligent design, but you were not able to critique an article on the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity by Ken Miller at The Flagellum Unspun, and it is not wonder since it is very complex.

I can't get to the site my DOD server blocks it. I did however state the problem with the most prevalent refutation of IC. Instead perhaps you can explain how a creature would retain parts of a complex machine without any use and which reduce survivability for millions of years waiting on the rest of the machine to evolve. Why retain a blind eye for a million years until a visual cortex magically appears?

It is reasonable to assume that the majority of creationists would understand very little about the article

You are debating me not them and I could not get to the article. Our servers only block nefarious and inflammatory sites. Which one is it?

No. Regarding item 1, what evidence is there that Jesus' authority was divine?

That is not what I said. If you could not read my statement why do you feel you can critique creationism? I said he appeared on the scene with a SENSE of divine authority. He could have been crazy but the fact he acted like he had that authority is what is granted by scholars.

Regarding item 2, if Jesus was crucified, that does not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible.

I did not use it for that purpose. The argumentation of unbelievers if anything is inconsistent. You seem to say that unless I provide proof I never claimed existed faith is invalid. Yet the "brightest" minds in secular science adopt countless things that have no evidence and no evidence even possible. What are you guys thinking? What I provide are facts or reasonable conclusions that are consistent with God not proof. Just like most of science and history the issue is adopted or rejected on faith given evidence not proof. Can you prove reality did not appear five minutes ago with the appearance of age. No, you have faith based on evidence that is not the case.

Regarding item 3, I flatly reject that claim. Christians only became a problem for the Romans when they became more numerous. There were very few Christians in the world during the first century A.D. Noted Christian Bible scholar N.T. Wright has said that during the first century A.D., there were not enough Christians "to mount a riot in a small village."

What are you talking about? The third claim was the Tomb was empty. What do raids, NT Wright, and the Romans have to do with this. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Sociologist and author Rodney Stark has written over 50 books, including the best-selling book "The Rise of Christianity." In the book, Stark quotes archaeologists and papyrologists who confirm the very small Christian presence during the first century.
Therefore, it is unlikely that guards would have been posted at the tomb since Christians were not numerous enough for anyone to worry about. Without reasonable evidence that guards were posted at the tomb, you have no argument.

I will make you a deal. I will present two acknowledged secular facts in the context of your requests for every one that you can provide for the well accepted theories of multiverses and life arising on its own. If not then I demand the God theory be treated equally as these other things. If you must be wrong at least be consistent.

Regarding Habermas' comments about women finding the empty tomb, that argument has been discredited by a number of Bible scholars, including Dr. Richard Carrier. In part of an article at

Did No One Trust Women?

The testimony of two women equaled one man in Hebrew law. That is a simple fact of history.

, Dr. Carrier explains in great detail why the women discovering the tomb argument is not valid.

This is silly. The only way it is invalid is if it did not happen.

As far as the apostle Paul is concerned, Habermas is probably referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The texts say:

I will make you another deal if for every link you provide where someone says that the Gospels are inaccurate, I will provide two that say the opposite if when I do you concede the issue. I can gain from your requests as to how many Christians (which is incidental not causal) are among them you are simply looking for a way to dismiss anything inconvenient and I do not see the justification in a scholar war in that case unless there is a goal agreed to. I never said an evolutionist can't be used to defend evolution. I argued evidence not about supposed bias. Or you can pick your most prized Gospel problem and we can simply resolve that. I do not have time to follow you as you hopscotch around the Bible taking a cursory glance and making erroneous conclusions about Paul, guards, how many Christians there were, or women witnesses. It takes time to undue the obfuscation of historical revisionists and second guessing redactionists with hostile presuppositions that ruin their scholarship.

Again if you will reduce this down to only your best where getting to the bottom of it will be practical then I will get very detailed. If I was to adequately counter every claim you sprayed out here it would take weeks. Pick your best.

 

[1robin]

Exactly. Only a literal interpretation of the Bible would mean Evolution is false. But if the Bible is not taken literal, God (if he/she/it exists) could have used Evolution to create species.

Actually the Bible said evolution existed thousands of years before science. It hints it has limits but definately says it exists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Actually the Bible said evolution existed thousands of years before science. It hints it has limits but definately says it exists.

Yeah, the Qur'an did too, but it also described the big bang, plate tectonics, and embryonic development - so the Muslims got you beat.

 

[1robin]

Are you suggesting that in a given year, whatever the century, people should choose to believe whether or not God exists based upon the current trend in cosmology? Fifty years ago, what should people have believed about the existence of God? What about 1,000 years ago?

What about macro evolution, which contradicts the story of Adam and Eve? How should people decide that issue today? What about fifty years ago? What about 1,000 years ago?

Why in the world would you think I said this? I never said that paper means all shall believe in God. I said it is perfectly conistent with the description of God and the idea that God created the universe. My job is to make facts available, what you do with them is not. However by your strange logic above then we should never believe in anything, ever, because it may change. Including your precious concensus on macro evolution. That is a moral, scientific, and logical train wreck. In a debate against God all I have to do is wait and you always wind up in these self laid traps.

You said macro evolution had little to do with God now you say it dissproves him. Which is it? The truth is God requires less faith than macro-evolution even if it is true and that is certainly not settled.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, the Qur'an did too, but it also described the big bang, plate tectonics, and embryonic development - so the Muslims got you beat.

Then we both got the unbelievers beat. Regardless the Quran also has seven earths, a donkey, spiritual artillery made from asteroids and seven heavens in there somewhere. Plus entire stories borrowed from gnostic and heretical sources known to be false. As well as every Quran in existance being burned and a new and very politically motivated one substituded at one point. Add in the fact Muhammad exhibited the exact characteristics the Bible gives for demon possession plus his original conclusion he was in fact possessed and the Muslim car fades into the Bible's draft quickly. However the atheist car seems to have stalled at the start line. No universe possible without the supernatural.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No universe possible without the supernatural.

Yep, this is what all your rationalizations, obfuscations, and hand-waving come down to. Unfortunately, no amount of words, posts, circular arguments, logical fallacies, or comedically blatant cognitive bias will make this a fact. No matter how blue your face becomes, when you distill all your noise down to its essence, all your arguments rely on a baseless assumption that can only be believed through faith. And there's certainly nothing wrong with that, but at least have the intellectual, and basic, honesty to admit this. At least to yourself.

 

[1robin]

Well, if the research of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin is the go to place for the latest conclusions about cosmology, let's see if Vilenkin agrees with you about the necessity of a God creating this universe. Consider the following:
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe « Debunking William Lane Craig

You keep making arguments for me I never did. You went from an empty tomb claim to ones about Paul, the Romans, how many Christians there were in 34AD, women's legal status in Hebrew law, and Guards at the tomb. Now you are going from an example of the trends in modern cosmology to it being the best source and Velankin's comments on God. I can make own claims. Velankin is a secular cosmologist neither a theologian nor a philosopher.

He did say this however as well: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).
http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/
Why does he say they were hiding from scientific truth? Maybe because of the theological implications.

However I did not say anything about his beliefs I only said his findings are consistent with Biblical cosmology. That is all I have to defend. He is a scientist and addresses things scientifically. These days it is paramount to career suicide to even mention God. If you do the jackals will deny tenure and publication and have destroyed many very competent scientists’ careers. That is not the main reason though, it just is not normal to posit theological issues in a scientific setting. Pretty sad but that is the state of things. The reason it is so important is there has been a struggle by atheist scientists to claim the universe is eternal and in need of no designer (which is a faith based conclusion not science) however it is al but certain that they were wrong and the universe needs a creator. To get from that to God I have no need of Velankin as he is not qualified. I could have used cosmologists if needed:

“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9. (they do not get any bigger than Sandage)


“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”- John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA) Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.


As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? - George Greenstein (American astronomer)Greenstein, George. The Symbiotic, Universe: Life and Mind in the Cosmos. (New York: William Morrow, (1988), pp. 26-27


And my hands down favorite:

“This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth… [But] for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; [and] as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)

But your own prized sources, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, would disagree with most of that, including your claim that the universe must have had a supernatural cause. How can you know more about physics than your own sources do?

I never said anything about them being prized sources. I said what they produced is the most reliable cosmology today. I know absolutely nothing (say it again) about them personally. If in fact they are not men of faith then that just makes their claims stronger. They say the universe began to exist. The Bible says it did so as well. The Bible says who created it but the scientists can't. They are left with nothing and nothing produces nothing. I tell you why don't you either disprove God did it or at least offer a more likely candidate. These guys may also love soccer and hate golf. I however love golf and hate soccer and they have no authority over them or what happened before nature existed. No one has, it is an issue that only theology addresses and maybe philosophy. Scientists are very shy about theological comments but I can supply more of them than you can dismiss if I needed to. There are several hundred for everyone I provided above and my favorite was an agnostic. In fact to show that I am not avoiding scholar wars I will have one on this issue if you wish. I have files of them but a scientist has no advantage over anyone else concerning the supernatural. Your call.

A good number of scientists are agnostic about whether or not a God exists. That group of scientists maintains that a naturalistic universe, and a supernatural universe, are both plausible. I do not see anything wrong with that approach pending further advances in physics. A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agnostics has an extensive list of agnostics from various fields of education, including science. The science section includes Einstein, and Hubble.

Agnosticism is an intellectually valid position but atheism is not.
Continued below;

 

[1robin]

The search for truth does not have a time limit. From one perspective, quantum physics is still in its infancy when we consider how much we know compared with how much we do not know. A lot has changed just since Einstein died 58 years ago. A hundred years from now, college textbooks in physics will be much different than they are now. So will textbooks in biology. We do not even fully understand how the simplest cell works, and we do not have a cure for the common cold, but you go way beyond those problems and claim to know the answer to the most difficult, and complex problem in quantum physics, which is to solve the nature of everything. Your main problem, of course, is that you are not able to write down your theory in a form that would be accepted by any peer reviewed science journal in the U.S.

I claim the answer I have is consistent with facts. I never said it therefore was proven. I only ask that it be considered as being as valid as even the most absurd and found less of scientific theory and yet it is not. It is your side that is being obtuse and opposing things based on preference and claiming things as counter to God that are actually faith based guesses devoid of any evidence.

There is a species of jellyfish that is immortal, and only dies from predation, and accidents. A type of snail can manufacture its own chlorophyll. All of the wonders of nature cannot be quickly solved during your lifetime in order to accommodate your religious beliefs.

I have no need for them to be. Your side is the one that claims to be able to explain everything with the exception of al the most profound questions of human experience. This tangent your own is hypocritical in the extreme. I like mystery and wonder.

Since you think that you know a lot about physics, you should visit a web site that is called "Physics Forum." It has over 3,000 members, and deals only with science. Many of the members know far more about physics than you do, and would be happy to discuss your theories about the necessity of a supernatural universe with you. I am not saying that a God does not exist, only that you cannot reasonably prove that a supernatural universe is a necessity. The National Academy of Sciences would not say that a supernatural universe is a necessity.

I said I had a lot of it, I never said I liked it or wanted to discuss something so boring and dry. I do like the concepts in physics but hate the tedium and have no wish to debate arrogant academics out to impress others by the use of terms others do not know and neither understand. Suffice it to say there is nothing known in physics that is inconsistent with God. In fact it almost makes God or something similar necessary. See the first and second laws. The academy has no input, expertise, or authority on the supernatural. They only dimly understand a small section of the natural. You might as well say that the national endowment for the arts does will not issue a statement about what Quasars are.

Although I am an agnostic, I wish to say that you have misjudged atheists. Most of them would rejoice if it turned out that a moral God exists, and provided a comfortable eternal life for everyone who had good character regardless of their worldview. It is really quite simple. If an atheist man likes nice women, he quite naturally would like a nice God far better since a nice God would be able to provide him with eternal benefits, not just temporal benefits like women can.

An agonistic is respectable. Claiming a God does not exist is not. That is a preference not a logical conclusion and is intellectually dishonest however I agree that most are not militant about it, but many of the most prominent are.

There is nothing at all wrong with a moral, authoritative God. In human society, without authority, there would be anarchy. Authority from wise, moral parents is fine too. So, it is ridiculous that many Christians accuse atheists of not wanting to be told what to do by God.

I am only echoing what that God actually said. It can be seen in countless examples. One being that Dawkin's who has no competence what so ever in theology or philosophy did not write a book called "God may not exist" instead he wrote "The God delusion". Hitchens says heaven is a celestial dictatorship and they both gets applause from countless idiots. At least Hitchens is funny, Dawkins is just incompetent.

An atheist friend of mine recently died at age 50. He was a brilliant college professor, and was greatly admired by most of his students. He was one of the most moral men who I have ever known. He was gentle, kind, and respectful to everyone. I used to pay him a nominal amount of money to critique some of my writings, and he claimed that I overpaid him. I didn't overpay him, but that is what he thought. If anything, I underpaid him. He had an IQ of 173, and two masters degrees, and scored 1560 on the SAT when the maximum score was 1600, including a perfect score of 800 on the verbal section. Actually, he said that he was an atheist/agnostic. He was an atheist regarding the existence of the Gods of all religious books, and agnostic about the existence of any God.

That is interesting but what is the conclusion? I never said atheists can't be moral or smart. They however can't ground actual morals within atheism, they must smuggle them in from God or their morality isn't moral but only preference.

Anyway, from a biblical perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians will be in the same boat, including billions on non-Christian theists, and deists. The vast majority of non-Christians in the world today already believe in God.

I have no idea what that means. Anyway your call on the cosmology scholar war but I do not think it will settle anything if you are desperate enough to find fault with the cosmological argument itself. By the way what is the fault you find in it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I am not going to discuss the Bible anymore since this thread is about the existence of God. As I said in one of my previous posts, Vilenkin has said that his, Borde's, and Guth's research does not offer much of an advantage to Christians as reasonable proof that a God exists. Here is what Vilenkin said again:

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

If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but.......” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

So if you are claiming that cosmology reasonably proves that a god exists, Vilenken, Borde, and Guth disagree with you.

Regarding macro evolution, you are not nearly an expert in biology. Even if you were, I would still take the word of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian experts over yours. You tried to trip me up by asking me some questions about biology. I am not able to answer them, but thousands of experts can, and I will be happy to get answers from experts to any questions that you have. It is not me who you have to worry about, it is experts who would demolish you in a one on one Internet debate.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb? If you wish. I will start a new thread on this topic at the General Religious Debates forum. I can guarantee you that there is not a large scientific consensus regarding where Jesus was buried, and certainly not that guards were posted at the tomb.

If a moral God exists, wonderful. Who would object to that? I wouldn't, and almost no one else would either if they believed that such a God exists.

If the vast majority of scientists one day said that it is very probable that a God exists, that would not reasonably prove that a God inspired the Bible.

Please reply to my posts in the thread on homosexuality.