INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Alceste]

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.

1. This may be true of our universe, but we are far from certain our universe is the only universe. In fact, we're now quite sure there are many others, potentially an infinite number with no beginning and no end. Some physicists speculate that our universe may be the result of previously existing parallel universes colliding.

M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Yes, if the universe is described as an effect, it must have been caused by something. Can you think of any plausible reason it could not have been caused by two other universes colliding? I can't.

3. That statement doesn't mean much if there are an infinite and eternal multitude of universes perpetually bumping into each other to spawn new universes and swallow old ones.

Universe Has Finite Lifespan, Higgs Boson Calculations Suggest

4, 5, and 6 are therefore also meaningless, since you've failed to demonstrate the necessity of the "supernatural."

If you're looking for answers, put down your Bible ask a physicist.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can't get to the site my DOD server blocks it.

You are referring to the article that I mentioned by Ken Miller at The Flagellum Unspun. You would easily be able to read the article on many computers, including iPads, and many smartphones, so getting access to the article would not be a problem. All that you need to type into an Internet search engine is "Ken Miller, flagellum."

Many creationists would have very little understanding of the article. Do you think that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for Christians who know very little about biology to reject macro evolution, and accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve? Many people who have low IQ's, and very little education, will never be able to have sufficiently informed opinions about macro evolution.

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.

But what you think you know does not have anything to do with the millions of people who know very little about biology. It is reasonable for those people to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept macro evolution, especially since the consensus includes the majority of Christian biologlsts, and biochemists, including Michael Behe.

If you wish, I can start a new thread at the Evolution Vs Creationism forum, and I will copy and paste all of Ken Miller's article, including the diagrams. Also, I will be happy to ask some experts to answer any of your questions that I am not able to answer. I doubt that you would be willing to have a public Internet debate with an expert on macro evolution. If you wish to have such a debate, I might be able to find someone with a Ph.D. in biology to debate you.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Not if the God provided them with a very comfortable eternal life, including excellent food, perfect health, and beautiful homes.

The historical record of Christ is a perfect moral record and yet they killed him.

But this thread is about the existence of a god as a necessity for the creation of the universe, not specifically the God of the Bible

 

[1robin]

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

I do not think claiming the Bible is irrelevant to a discussion about God is rational however I do not need except to define what God we are considering. I had read everything on that site even before you gave the link and it does not help your argument.
1. If you are saying that because a cosmologist said that a finite universe did not offer an advantage to a Christian means you have proven the case. The fact i gave 3 or 4 who said the opposite and at least two were not believers. Therefore I win in that context.
2. I said that scientists have a natural reluctance to comment on theological matters no matter what they believe so his statements are not determinative.
3. Just because he said that his theory did not prove God does not mean he is right and he did not argue against it anyway. He simply said it wasn't proven by his theory. Then kindly tell me what possible cause is even theoretically possible when nature did not exist that could have produced the universe. If every human being on the planet was an atheist there still would be no alternative candidate available at this time.
4. I can supply more quotes than you will be able to read by atheists and agnostics alone that claim God is a virtual necessity given what we know if necessary. Do you think one quote that was theologically neutral over turns all of this?

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

No they did not and I never said that. I said the argument is consistent with the Bible. Added into the other thousands of lines of argumentation and the case is very strong that God exists. Give me another possible candidate for the creation of the universe that will stand even my scrutiny and then you may have a point about this one issue. I gave the quote by Sandage (Who is probably more respected that all three of those guys) that made the case alone and can give hundreds more. I want to concentrate on the message not the messenger. Why you think one neutral comment overturns even the few positive ones I gave is a mystery. Argue the issue not the source. Why is what Vilenkin says right? Why is what Sandage said wrong? Vilenkin is smart but omniscient he is not.

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.

Again I do not usually do this but you are committing two fallacies in defense of one point that even you said has nothing to do with God (and then later said did). Appeal to numbers and appeal to authority fallacies for an argument that makes no difference about God. What is the point? I am not worried by you or them. The source of what I believe created all of yours.

What evidence do you have that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb?

Wait a minute here. What is waste of time for you can be used for effect by me. The majority of NT scholars on both sides concede this fact. Therefor by your own standards it must be so. As that is absurd I will add more historical conclusions: (1) the historical credibility of the burial story supports the empty tomb; (2) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb; (3) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity; (4) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition; (5) the narrative is theologically unadorned and nonapologetic; (6) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable; (7) the investigation of the empty tomb by Peter and John is historically probable; (8) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty; (9) Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb; and (10) Jesus' tomb was not venerated as a shrine.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/empty.html
BTW are you not bringing the Bible that you insisted not be discussed into the discussion.
There is more here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

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.

I could not give a rip what science thinks about this. They can't get science right half the time. This issue is settled by the historical method, laws of evidence and testimony, and NT scholars specifically. I can show it meets all three standards.

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.

Well the most perfect moral example in history was killed by us. Large portions of teh population hate morality and authority of any kind.

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.

You seem to be obsessed with what you claimed to not want to discuss. I guess science is the arbiter of all truth in your view and therefore love, morality, ascetic value, and everything beyond a telesope do not exist either.

Please reply to my posts in the thread on homosexuality.

Your last attempt to dismiss clear and conclusive data from the cdc soured me on that topic. Facts and reason have no effect of cognitive dissonance.
In summary you said here.
1. Whatever vilenkin says even if neutral trumps anything anyone else says.
2. That only science can determine the truth of anything.
3. You were no longer discussing the Bible and then you discussed it as much as anything else.
4. The consensus of scientists in a certain field is conclusive but in NT scholarship, history, and law it is meaningless.
That hardly makes a rational discussion possible.

 

[1robin]

You are referring to the article that I mentioned by Ken Miller at The Flagellum Unspun. You would easily be able to read the article on many computers, including iPads, and many smartphones, so getting access to the article would not be a problem. All that you need to type into an Internet search engine is "Ken Miller, flagellum."

Many creationists would have very little understanding of the article. Do you think that the Bible alone is sufficient evidence for Christians who know very little about biology to reject macro evolution, and accept creationism, and the story of Adam and Eve? Many people who have low IQ's, and very little education, will never be able to have sufficiently informed opinions about macro evolution.

First the link you gave did not work yesterday but this one worked today. Second the more questions you ask necessitates the more shallowly they are answered. Third I have never suggested, hinted, or believed that the Bible should be believed over certain truth and fortunately there is no need. I do suggest that once a person has experienced God he is justified to stick with the Bible in areas where unfounded challenges are made. For example I have no need to reject creation of the universe because Hawking panicked and coughed up M-theory to get him out of the God necessitating finite universe until his theory is proven.
You are asking me spend time critiquing and argument I never made and does not disprove the Bible. In fact the Bible predicts that changes within species are true but to humor you I will comment on the article.
The first third of it was a commentary on the history of creationism spun to fit his needs and has no application here. The central part was the exact same argument I have already said was the counter position and I pointed the fault with it in detail but will do so again but will not do so after that.
1. He says that creationists claim that it is illogical to think that a creature would for instance evolve all the parts of an electric motor without having them all present. This is very general but true.
2. He says he can prove that wrong by showing that two creatures have two functioning sets of common parts used in different ways.
3. He assumes that is proof because he assumes they evolved that way. He is basically saying they evolved because he assumed they did.
4. I have no idea what happened and neither does he.
5. It very well could be and is more logical to assume that God created one creature with a complex electric motor and another with a simpler machine made with less but identical parts that has a another function.
He did not solve the problem he kicked the can down the road. A clearer example of this same mentality can be seen in theories about life. The fact that life only arises from life has no known exception (never on its own) suggests God so clearly that many evolutionists have said oh yea maybe aliens seeded life here. Even if true and there is no evidence for it they have solved nothing. Life still comes from life they only backed it up a bit it and still need an intelligent source. All the facts are forced into the context of a presupposition. He may have been describing two things with common parts that were created if my assumption is used or maybe two with that evolved different stages of functionality if his are used. Either may be true but only mine has no logical objections (see #1 above). He nor I have any idea what actually happened and in either case God is left unaffected. The rest of the article was about other claims and issues.

But what you think you know does not have anything to do with the millions of people who know very little about biology. It is reasonable for those people to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept macro evolution, especially since the consensus includes the majority of Christian biologists, and biochemists, including Michael Behe.

If this does not affect the existence of God why do I have a need to resolve something that no one has to a certainty. What are you claiming?

If you wish, I can start a new thread at the Evolution Vs Creationism forum, and I will copy and paste all of Ken Miller's article, including the diagrams. Also, I will be happy to ask some experts to answer any of your questions that I am not able to answer. I doubt that you would be willing to have a public Internet debate with an expert on macro evolution. If you wish to have such a debate, I might be able to find someone with a Ph.D. in biology to debate you.

Since I could get to the link it is unnecessary for me but post any thread you wish. Maybe another person can add to what I said. BTW everything I said above is based on the simple and obvious idea that randomness is non-intentional. You need no PhD to understand that concept. I do have a degree in math however and I can provide very sophisticated and devastating mathematical objections to evolution if you wish.

 

[1robin]

[/color][/font]



Not if the God provided them with a very comfortable eternal life, including excellent food, perfect health, and beautiful homes.

I have no idea what this means.

But this thread is about the existence of a god as a necessity for the creation of the universe, not specifically the God of the Bible

We have to pick a definition to evaluate and I picked the most prevalent.

 

[1robin]

1. This may be true of our universe, but we are far from certain our universe is the only universe. In fact, we're now quite sure there are many others, potentially an infinite number with no beginning and no end. Some physicists speculate that our universe may be the result of previously existing parallel universes colliding.

This is the kind of thing that causes me to shake my head. The only evidence we have is for this universe and for God. You may say it is bad or good but it is the only evidence that exists. This leads you to an inconvenient truth and so you grab onto science fiction and fantasy to escape the horrible idea that the universe may have a purpose, we have actual value, and life has an ultimate meaning that does not involve a futile life and eventual heat death. You insist God must have absolute incontrovertible evidence yet cling to fantasy that has none and none even theoretically possible like grim death. What drives this desperation?

M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is funny you posted this. The PhD I work for studied under Alain Connes who pioneered Differential non commutative geometry. That bizarre math is part of what Hawking’s uses for M-theory and my boss said that both he and the other guy think M-theory is pure speculation based on almost nothing. But let me illustrate this another way.

Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory"
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815
E F pastoremeritus: Physicist, Sir Roger Penrose, says Stephen Hawking's "no-God-needed" theory of the universe is "hardly science and not even a theory"
Please see this as well:
Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God
It is brilliant.

Now I have no reason to suggest you dismiss Hawkings completely 9unless you have any desire to be consistent) I just point out the double standards for insisting the universe we have which indicates God so effectively and that God who has for better or worse, vastly more evidence than the none that M-theory does yet M-theory is supposed and our actual universe ignored. There is something very very wrong with that reasoning. I can pay Hawking’s to say Eskimo tricycle theory resolves the difficulty that reality unfortunately causes your side, and I am sure it would be appealed to as a reasonable alternative to every fact we actually know. Demands for evidence above and beyond the mountains that exist for God when you can't supply a scrap of it for multiverse and M-theory is unsettling.

2. Yes, if the universe is described as an effect, it must have been caused by something. Can you think of any plausible reason it could not have been caused by two other universes colliding? I can't.

So anything that can't be proven false is more reliable than a God that can be shown to have very good reasons to believe exists. Yep science is something else. BTW where did those universes come from. kicking cans will not help and it can't be shown that even the self-contradictory idea that two universes collided would produce anything like what we see in the big bang. If it was true it should have been called the big fictional mash made up to avoid unpleasant indications of known reality. It should not be expanding from a small point and should not have the constants and math that the actual universe has. You have literally grabbed onto anything to stop from being drowned in the inconvenient truth that known reality indicates.

3. That statement doesn't mean much if there are an infinite and eternal multitude of universes perpetually bumping into each other to spawn new universes and swallow old ones.

It does not mean much if a giant leprechaun is making universes in his toy shop either. I may use this post as an example of what it is that I find so irrational and disingenuous about the claims of atheists concerning science. Anything is preferable to a God suggested so clearly by facts and any fantasy no matter how desperate will do.

Universe Has Finite Lifespan, Higgs Boson Calculations Suggest

4, 5, and 6 are therefore also meaningless, since you've failed to demonstrate the necessity of the "supernatural."
If you're looking for answers, put down your Bible ask a physicist.

I can't take this stuff anymore, right now anyway. I would never ask a physicist what happened before his entire field of study existed or was possible, not that he could offer an explanation if it did. The greatest physicist of all time was a believer by the way. However you may continue to ask whomever you wish as long as he does not force that mean old God on you that every atom in the universe that we actually have points at so strongly. BTW even fantastic theories about other universes that sound like a drunk re-necks dreams do not get an infinite anything anyway. This was as I said the worst exhibition of double standards I have ever witnessed and proves every claim I have made about the reasoning method of atheists who rely on science fiction for convenience and demand more than the already more than suffecient evidence for God and who can supply none whatever for their favorite fantasy.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

No they did not and I never said that.

Following 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.

That does not dispute the existence of God, but neither does it suggest that a God is necessary for the creation of the universe. Vilenken was quite clear on that since he said that "there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning," and that "the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."


If all that you are saying is that it is plausible that a God exists, that is fine. If you are saying that it is probable that a God exists, I think that Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth would disagree with that.

Are you going to make any more posts in the thread on homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

I do have a degree in math however and I can provide very sophisticated and devastating mathematical objections to evolution if you wish.

That would not do you any good with the majority of experts since William Demski's mathematical arguments against evolution have been widely rejected by biologists, biochemists, and a good number of mathematicians. Dembski has a Ph.D. in math, but his mathematical arguments were widely rejected, just as yours would be. Since Demski knows that he is not going to change the minds of many experts, I assume that he was trying to impress laymen with his mathematical arguments against evolution.

As many experts have said, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming.

Of course, you are just bluffing since you would not be willing to have a public Internet debate with an evolutionist who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Pending further evidence, it is reasonable for people to accept macro evolution.

Why do you sometimes mention atheists since from a conservative Christian perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians will be in the same boat. Today, the vast majority of non-Christians already believe in God.

 

[1robin]

Following is what Vilenkin said again:

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

I will not respond to this again.
1. I can practically quote it without looking. He said that his theory did not give theology an advantage. That means that in his unqualified opinion (he is no theologian) it does not prove God exists.
2. What he said does not make or break anything.
3. I countered his claim by providing ones from other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so.
I hope this diversion into futility does not re-appear again.

That does not dispute the existence of God, but neither does it suggest that a God is necessary for the creation of the universe. Vilenken was quite clear on that since he said that "there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning," and that "the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."

He is saying that there are fantastic ideas that have no evidence that we can suppose overcome all their problems exist and they would have to compete with God as the. So flipping what? I can invent a fantasy to undue any fact you name. Until you can show there is any reason to believe they might be true they are literally nothing. What you are seeing is a man that:
1. He is speaking about something as a secular scientist and if he posited God it is not just possible it is likely he would be ridiculed and his career damaged. There are very many examples of good even secular scientists who were open to the idea of God that were ostracized for it. I would even be cautious about what I said. Why has this one man who is one third of one team that composed one of countless arguments consistent with God now become the arbiter of all truth, even truth he has no qualifications in what so ever. His job and expertise was to get from what we have to the beginning or lack thereof. It ends there he does not become the mouth piece for theology for goodness sake. He is done when the universe began. I only used him to show that it did begin and he has no training beyond that point even if he had emphatically ruled out God it would mean nothing.

If all that you are saying is that it is plausible that a God exists, that is fine. If you are saying that it is probable that a God exists, I think that Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth would disagree with that.

I am saying what we discover as time goes along is suggestive of a God. In fact when totaled, God is the only current candidate available to explain it all. Is that proof, no. It is more likely than any other concept available based on what we know yes.

Are you going to make any more posts in the thread on homosexuality?

I will take a look and see but your attempts to dismiss the data I gave leave me less than enthusiastic. How can an issue be resolved if facts are not acknowledged?

I was reading statements by cosmologists last night last night. One very prominent one that I can't remember his name for my life said he could have written the same theory that Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth did from the first five books of the OT. That is a bit optimistic but does indicate how closely they match up. I am sure I can find it if I must.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

That would not do you any good with the majority of experts since William Demski's mathematical arguments against evolution have been widely rejected by biologists, biochemists, and a good number of mathematicians. Dembski has a Ph.D. in math, but his mathematical arguments were widely rejected, just as yours would be. Since Demski knows that he is not going to change the minds of many experts, I assume that he was trying to impress laymen with his mathematical arguments against evolution.

I tell you what you are one of the most bizarre argument makers I have ever seen. You basically say here I do not care if 1 + 1 = 2 if the experts disagree then it equals whatever they say. Then you say whatever argument I provide would be wrong because you know of another one that you claim is. Why do you discuss anything? You are simply assuming whatever you wish to be true is. Then inventing argumentation that is invalid to justify whatever you chose to believe before the discussion began. I have never even heard of that guy. I can see you have no interest in this so never mind. In fact I am not sure I am even necessary for what you are doing.

As many experts have said, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming.

And as you have said it does not affect God even if true so why are you obsessed with it. Neither I nor no human on earth has ever seen macroevolution happen. It fails the scientific method and has countless problems and critics. Yet even if the experts are right (and they may be but they do not know it yet) it makes no difference anyway by your own admission. What is going on here? Not to mention you have to commit two logical fallacies to even make the claim to begin with.

Of course, you are just bluffing since you would not be willing to have a public Internet debate with an evolutionist who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Of course not nor is there any need. There already exists hundreds of them from two evenly matched people. Did you at some point challenge me to do this? I claim you will not debate Ravi Zacharias? Did I win something? Was not inventing challenges, not communicating them, then declaring them refused the standard?

Pending further evidence, it is reasonable for people to accept macro evolution.

Yes it is and I have never suggested otherwise, I even believe that it has happened probably but do not believe it alone has or could produce what we have.

Why do you sometimes mention atheists since from a conservative Christian perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians will be in the same boat. Today, the vast majority of non-Christians already believe in God.

You are going to have to explain this self-contradictory idea. I am looking at this from a Christian world view and it is incoherent. Atheists and agnostics for instance will not get into heaven but are not the same in other respects. The conclusion that God may exist but they are not convinced yet is intellectually valid. The claim God does not exist is absurd and based in emotion. The vast majority (even if true and I am not sure it is) do not believe in the God I do. They believe in mostly incoherent and insufficiently evidenced concepts of "God". Most by simple logic have to be wrong because most major religions are exclusive. BTW what is this supposed to prove. You either offer some strange claim and that is it or the other extreme which is to provide my argument for me and then dismiss it. It is feast or famine with you and neither extreme advances the issue.

 

[Agnostic75]

I will not respond to this again.

1. I can practically quote it without looking. He said that his theory did not give theology an advantage. That means that in his unqualified opinion (he is no theologian) it does not prove God exists.

2. What he said does not make or break anything.

3. I countered his claim by providing ones from other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so.

Well now you have gone from cosmology to theology. Let's take them one at a time. If we are talking about cosmology, your own source, Vilenkin, said that his research, and the research of Borde, and Guth, do not give the theologian much of an advantage over the scientist. So that takes care of them. Regarding other cosmologists, do you have any evidence that the majority of physicists have claimed that it is probable that a God created the universe?

In one of your posts, you said the following:

"The latest cosmology bears that out and the steady state or eternal model is fast falling out of fashion. One of the most reliable and comprehensive studies to show this is the: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. It was designed to be simple and leave out loop holes and has gone a long way to settle the issue for good."

Now you have impeached your own witness by saying that you have "countered his claim by providing ones from other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so."

Famed mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who worked alongside Stephen Hawking for many years developing Big Bang theory, has debunked Hawking's 'no-God-needed' theory of the universe as "hardly science" and "not even a theory."

That is a form of quote mining. Wikipedia says the following about quote mining:

"The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

Wikipedia says the following about Roger Penrose:

"Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association."

Perhaps you would now like to impeach another one of your own witnesses, and find some "other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so" as you said about Vilenkin.

Even if a God exists, I do not believe that it is possible to reasonably prove that by only using physics, at least not at this time.

As far as theology is concerned, that would involve years of debates, and quoting many books, and many experts. I am not going to spend years debating the Bible, but I am quite curious why you believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

If macro evolution is true, as the vast majority of biologists believe, and if modern man is at least 50,000 years old, as the vast majority of experts believe, how would that affect the Bible's genealogies, and how did God communicate with all humans for the approximately 40,000 years prior to 8,000 B.C.? I assume that in say 25,000 B.C., human languages were not very well developed, and that religions were not very well developed either. In other words, how good of a history book is the book of Genesis from a literal perspective? How good of a history book is the entire Old Testament as far as all supernatural claims are concerned?

 

[Agnostic75]

Why do you sometimes mention atheists since from a conservative Christian perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians will be in the same boat. Today, the vast majority of non-Christians already believe in God.

You are going to have to explain this self-contradictory idea. I am looking at this from a Christian world view and it is incoherent. Atheists and agnostics for instance will not get into heaven but are not the same in other respects. The conclusion that God may exist but they are not convinced yet is intellectually valid. The claim God does not exist is absurd and based in emotion.

It is common knowledge that the vast majority of non-Christians in the world, billions of them, believe in god(s). As such, they do not believe that a god might exist, but that a god does exist. From a conservative Christian perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians who reject Christianity will be in the same boat after they die unless they accept Christianity. Whether they were an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Hindu would not make any difference.

Your cosmological arguments would be irrelevant for non-Christian theists, and deists since they already believe in god(s). For many centuries, many Christian pastors and missionaries have argued for the existence of God without any references to physics. The New Testament says that just hearing the Bible can influence some people. The book of Acts says that Peter preached a brief sermon, and over 3,000 people became Christians. I assume that physics was never mentioned.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Since I just cut and pasted this post to the thread on homosexuality, if you wish, you can reply to this post in that thread instead of this thread.

Your last attempt to dismiss clear and conclusive data from the cdc soured me on that topic. Facts and reason have no effect of cognitive dissonance.

The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. Here is a good example from that thread:

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV.

This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous.

As far as I know, there is not any documented scientific research that shows that monogamous homosexuals are a good deal more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals.


It would be ridiculous to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples who have been monogamous for decades should practice abstinence beccause there is no guarantee that they will stay monogamous.


Which would you recommend to heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex, that they practice monogamy, or that they practice abstinence for life?


Since most homosexuals who have HIV, and/or other STD's, are not interested in monogamy, it is quite obvious that they would be much less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, your plan would do very little to lower the rate of HIV, and other STD's. The majority of medical professionals believe that the best approach is to deal directly with homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, who have medical problems, not to deal with healthy homosexuals, and healthy heterosexuals.

You conveniently refused to reply to those arguments, and the arguments are valid.


Here is another example:

You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

I do not agree and can provide sources if needed.......

What sources? Surely none of the following organizations:


American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association


In debates, it is customary to provide sources, not boast about them without quoting them, or mentioning their names. What sources are you talking about?

The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. How do you explain that? If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. That is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.


When one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. That also is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.


Why don't you ask your sources to comment on the two arguments that I just used and post their replies?


A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetics and environment.

You conveniently did not reply to those arguments either, and you refused to provide the sources that you said you could provide. I could show many other examples of your illogical arguments if necessary.


Regarding your comments about the CDC, I told you that I never questioned those statistics, and you cannot find even one case where I did. What I questioned was your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, even monogamous homosexuals. As I showed, that is absurd.


You mentioned a study by the International Journal of Epidemiology that said that homosexuals as a whole do not live as long as heterosexuals do. In part of your post, you said "that was a pro gay study. Are they prejudiced as well?" I replied that "the study is not prejudiced. It is from a very reputable organization."


So you obviously did not state the facts correctly about my comments about the CDC. However, I did question a good deal of your outrageous post #304, which was full of lies, and misrepresentations. You copied a bunch of stuff from two Christian websites even though you have no clue how much of it is true. The first web site was mostly trash, and did not have any references.


The CDC would never recommend abstinence for life as a good solution for homosexuals who have STD's, let alone for monogamous homosexuals, and neither would any other prestigious major medical association. Rather, they would recommend having safe sex. That solution would obviously be the same for heterosexuals.



I believe that you have read all of my most recent posts in that thread, and will not admit that some of my arguments are better than some of your arguments. I told you that if a problem has no solution, no one is at fault. You claimed that you are not obligated to provide a solution, but yet you proposed abstinence for life as a solution when in fact even some of the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality would not recommend that all homosexuals practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals.


There are not any doubts whatsoever that there are not any valid secular arguments against all homosexuals, certainly no more so than there would be if a minority of homosexuals had more car accidents than heterosexuals do. Following your same line of reasoning, if a minority of homosexuals had more car accidents than heterosexuals do, all homosexuals should not drive cars. As a whole, teenagers have a lot more car accidents than other people do. Do you recommend that all teenagers be prohibited from driving cars?

 

[Agnostic75]

There already exists hundreds of them from two evenly matched people. Did you at some point challenge me to do this? I claim you will not debate Ravi Zacharias.

No, I will not debate Ravi Zacharias about the Bible, but I would be willing to debate him about secular arguments against homosexuality.

I assume that you would not be willing to debate the resurrection of Jesus with Dr. Richard Carrier.

 

[1robin]

Well now you have gone from cosmology to theology.

What is it you do that you have this much time free? I want in. I have a job where I am currently unable to do anything but that is temporary and I still can't keep up with the volume you produce. Of course theology was mentioned that is the entire context I have been discussing these issues. My only interest in that theorem or cosmology is how it impacts theology. Without that I simply do not care. His cosmology is exactly what you would expect from the Pentateuch. However as a scientist has no expertise in linking the two, he can only show what happened he can't show it does or does not correspond to the Bible. That only requires common sense and has no advantage over anyone. Physicists have no roll in the debate other than to say what the nature of the material reality is. Theologians compare that with what they have concluded the Bible says and see if it is a match. These are very very simple concepts here. What is it you do not get? If the Bible said 4000 years ago God made the center of the Earth out of nacho cheese well then I would want to know if a geologist can confirm that it is made out of nacho cheese. Once he does or does not his role is over. What he thinks about God has no relevance.
In one of your posts, you said the following:

"The latest cosmology bears that out and the steady state or eternal model is fast falling out of fashion. One of the most reliable and comprehensive studies to show this is the: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. It was designed to be simple and leave out loop holes and has gone a long way to settle the issue for good."
Now you have impeached your own witness by saying that you have "countered his claim by providing ones from other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so."

This is getting a little ridiculous even for you. My claim above only concerned his cosmological conclusion it did not even hint at his theological conclusions (that I have no reason to value, he is trained in cosmology not NT textual criticism). His expertise is in natural law and that is not suited for evaluating the supernatural. For some strange reason you submitted a statement by him that was theological but neutral. I said I do not care what he says about theology but gave several cosmologists that opposed his neutrality to show that even if he was competent in theology I could counter it on those grounds as well. Do you really not understand the principle here?

That is a form of quote mining. Wikipedia says the following about Roger Penrose:

What is?

"Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." Penrose is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association."

This is really really getting weird. You accuse me of quote mining (out of context). You do not prove this or attempt to but say Penrose is an atheist. That makes it even worse for your side. If he admits God is a logical solution or possibility when his position would make that unlikely unless sincere it strengthens the point. It is called the principle of embarrassment. If even an atheist is open to God then it is more profound than a theist being open to it. Then you post a statement by him that says he thinks there is a much deeper and more meaningful explanation and purpose to the universe that atheistic materialism claims. Which is an argument for my side. What are you doing?

In what context is this not an indictment of Hawking’s counter claims against God.
Speaking on the station's weekly faith debate programme Unbelievable? on Saturday 25 September, Penrose described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations."
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=16815
Either prove those words mean something other than what those words mean or withdraw that ridiculous accusation.

Perhaps you would now like to impeach another one of your own witnesses, and find some "other cosmologists as highly respected or even more so" as you said about Vilenkin.

I have given three that you have not done anything at all to counter until you do I have no need of more.

Even if a God exists, I do not believe that it is possible to reasonably prove that by only using physics, at least not at this time.

I never said you could. In fact I said the opposite time after time. This is one argument among many, in one branch of science among many, in one field of academics among many, contained in one line of reasoning among many that all make God a likely reality. That is it. I hope this proof stuff is abandoned since I have claimed the opposite every day for months now.

but I am quite curious why you believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were posted at the tomb.

What is going on here. I gave ten facts or logically derived conclusions. I guess you just ignored them and asked again. I can't keep doing this. Here are eight of them for the last time.
An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty:
(1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb periscope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html
Add to that the fact that the Gospels were widely read within the lifetimes of witnesses of the events yet not one single counter account exists. Not one "wait I minute I was there and that never happened" scrap of anything anywhere.

If macro evolution is true In other words, how good of a history book is the book of Genesis from a literal perspective? How good of a history book is the entire Old Testament as far as all supernatural claims are concerned?

I have had it with this argument from two fallacies that is sometime claimed to counter theology and sometimes claimed to not be relevant. The last thing I will say is that genealogies only get us back to the first Homo sapiens with a soul not the first human. Hebrew genealogies are very very inconsistent anyway. They at times only give living patriarchs; sometimes all patriarchs, sometimes all males, sometimes include females, and sometimes are grouped in sections of 14 even if a name is used twice for ceremonial reasons. I would doubt all dates given by genealogies only their start and finish and the inclusion of the names are reliable. There are usually more names than are in the chain but the ones in it are valid. Please be more careful in your argumentation. The first 75% of this post makes no sense. I took nothing out of context, you did. I did not use a cosmologist to make theological points until you did. Penrose being a non-believer actually helps my claims and hurts yours.

 

[1robin]

It is common knowledge that the vast majority of non-Christians in the world, billions of them, believe in god(s). As such, they do not believe that a god might exist, but that a god does exist. From a conservative Christian perspective, ultimately, all non-Christians who reject Christianity will be in the same boat after they die unless they accept Christianity. Whether they were an atheist, a Buddhist, or a Hindu would not make any difference.

I agree with the second half of this but in my view the God's they believe in do not exist. The Bible does not say belief in God gets you to heaven. In fact it says even the demons and Satan believe in God. It says you must believe on what Christ did, repent, and be born again to get to heaven. Those concepts can and have filled books.

Your cosmological arguments would be irrelevant for non-Christian theists, and deists since they already believe in god(s). For many centuries, many Christian pastors and missionaries have argued for the existence of God without any references to physics. The New Testament says that just hearing the Bible can influence some people. The book of Acts says that Peter preached a brief sermon, and over 3,000 people became Christians. I assume that physics was never mentioned.

I am really getting frustrated with your posts. I never said cosmology was necessary to believe in God. I never said cosmology is an argument against another God alone (you must bring in their theology first). The fact that the creation myths of other God's are incompatible with cosmology is the problem. Most other for example have their "God" make something from something that already existed and cosmology says that the universe came from nothing. Once you see a thousand of these details all line up with details in the Bible and contradict details in every other religion then you can say the other God's are likely myths or worse.

Unless you answer this I am done. Why are you making the argument that God can be believed in without cosmology? Of course he can and I never suggested that he couldn't. In fact this thread contains many other ways I gave to arrive at faith. Why are you saying this?

 

[1robin]

No, I will not debate Ravi Zacharias about the Bible, but I would be willing to debate him about secular arguments against homosexuality.

I have no idea what Ravi thinks about homosexuality but whatever it is he can't be challenged. He is the most effective debater I have ever seen and I have seen most. He is also one of the most compassionate men I have ever seen. I have seen him take the most hostile, literally spitting mad, atheist who came to Cambridge or Oxford just to tear him to pieces become a docile changed person in minutes. I have even seen him make the debater refute his own position to the laughter of the entire school even the debater himself. He is like a logic machine. Of course no one is critic free, especially a genius on his level that has the courage of his convictions. I would recomend you check out his biography. He has I think 4 earned degrees, and at least 4 honorary ones. Speaks where no Hitchens or Dawkins has, like behind the iron curtain or to the UN.

I assume that you would not be willing to debate the resurrection of Jesus with Dr. Richard Carrier.

I bet you would not box Muhammad Ali. Can you arrange this debate? I have watched every debate I can find on Christianity and do not remember this guy and I am not sure I have ever heard his name. Get me his claims and I will examine them. This is one issue I would debate Einstein on.

 

[Agnostic75]

Of course, you are just bluffing since you would not be willing to have a public Internet debate with an evolutionist who has a Ph.D. in biology.

Of course not nor is there any need. There already exists hundreds of them from two evenly matched people.

On the contrary, there is a need if you are arguing against macro evolution based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. Since you are not able to adequately critique Ken Miller's article on the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun, you are not sufficiently informed about macro evolution to debate it based upon your own personal knowledge of biology. If you are merely quoting a relative handful of experts who agree with your religious opinions, why should anyone pay attention to anything that you say about macro evolution? Even if you were an expert, why should laymen trust your opinions over the opinions of a large consensus of experts, including the majority of Christian biologists? For laymen, accepting macro evolution is a good bet.

Consider the following:

Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Many of the creationist experts in biology that you referred to have the same attitude that Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse do, which is that science is only right when it agrees with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. That is science from belief, and from convenience, not following the evidence wherever it leads.

A good percentage of creationist experts in biology also believe that a global flood occured. Since it is very probable that a global flood did not occur, is that not sufficient evidence to suspect confirmation bias, and presuppositionalism on the part of many creationist experts in biology regarding macro evolution?

You have said that some experts have serious reservations about macro evolution. What about the vast majority who don't? Who are you to adequately judge debates between experts? Ken Miller testified at the Dover trial. He said that some experts on the other side had no rebuttals for some of his arguments. Since a large consensus of experts accepts macro evolution, you should have said that the vast majority of experts have serious reservations about creationism.

It is often not difficult to find a relative handful of people with college degrees who believe all kinds of wierd things. The vast majority of creationists, and the vast majority of everyone else, would not be able to understand Ken Miller's article well enough to have informed scientific opinions about it, nor would they be able to understand William Dembski's mathematical arguments for intelligent design. Your arguments in this thread would not be well understood by probably at least 90% of the people in the world. How much knowledge about science, history, and biblical criticism do you think the Bible requires people to know before they become Christians?