The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What about the arguments in Judaism that says that God is singular?

Then they would need to provide refutation of the argument that is presented based on the Resurrection of Jesus.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then they would need to provide refutation of the argument that is presented based on the Resurrection of Jesus.

Besides all the Jews saying it didn't happen? Besides versus in the bible that say that God is not a man? Besides the numerous time that the declaration is made that "I The Lord God am one?"

 

[McBell]

Besides all the Jews saying it didn't happen? Besides versus in the bible that say that God is not a man? Besides the numerous time that the declaration is made that "I The Lord God am one?"

You seem to have forgotten that what Call thinks is true is true unless proven, TO HIM, otherwise.
Truth and facts have no bearing on it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You seem to have forgotten that what Call thinks is true is true unless proven, TO HIM, otherwise.
Truth and facts have no bearing on it.

I just find it odd to state faith claims as facts. I believe in God I believe in Jesus but I wouldn't sit here and claim it to be a fact. It's faith, there's no empirical evidence to actually support my claim beyond hearsay as I was neither there nor anywhere at the time.

 

[McBell]

I just find it odd to state faith claims as facts. I believe in God I believe in Jesus but I wouldn't sit here and claim it to be a fact. It's faith, there's no empirical evidence to actually support my claim beyond hearsay as I was neither there nor anywhere at the time.

I understand and agree.

However, some people have to be much more vigilant in order to protect their faith.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I understand and agree.

However, some people have to be much more vigilant in order to protect their faith.

Which is all well in good but my issue with call isn't so much about the defending but just that he doesn't seem to have a grasp on what evolutionary theory is saying. Which is also fine but I always thought it was best to know about what you're against so you can make coherent and accurate arguments against it.

 

[Ouroboros]

My goodness guys!!! I believe in Christian theism, the God of the Holy Bible, and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Those arguments point in the direction of a cosmic Creator and the argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus points to Christian theism.

Goodness gracious.

Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution also believe in Christian Theism, The God of the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ of the New Testament, and a creator of cosmos, but the only difference is that they believe the evidence in nature points to how God created the universe and are able to read Genesis as the allegory of creation.

Goodness gracious, you haven't understood this yet?

 

[McBell]

Which is all well in good but my issue with call isn't so much about the defending but just that he doesn't seem to have a grasp on what evolutionary theory is saying. Which is also fine but I always thought it was best to know about what you're against so you can make coherent and accurate arguments against it.

It goes back to truth and facts not having any bearing in the matter for him.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Besides all the Jews saying it didn't happen?

Then they would ignore the historical evidence that supports it.

Besides versus in the bible that say that God is not a man? Besides the numerous time that the declaration is made that "I The Lord God am one?"

This is turning in to a Trinity debate, which is one of my specialities. Lets not take it there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I just find it odd to state faith claims as facts. I believe in God I believe in Jesus but I wouldn't sit here and claim it to be a fact. It's faith, there's no empirical evidence to actually support my claim beyond hearsay as I was neither there nor anywhere at the time.

It isn't an absolute fact, but the argument is more plausible than its negations; that is the point.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then they would ignore the historical evidence that supports it.



This is turning in to a Trinity debate, which is one of my specialities. Lets not take it there.

Historical evidence of what? You mean what was written? There is no non scriptural historical evidence. No tomb location, no inscription, no written works by Jesus. If you take the bible as evidence that's fine but there is no historical evidence of the resurrection.

I'm sure you can argue the trinity, enough versus in the bible though especially in the Old Testament would prove you wrong.

 

[McBell]

It isn't an absolute fact, but the argument is more plausible than its negations; that is the point.

Only to those, like yourself, who refuse to educate themselves.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I base my evidence on the validity and soundness of those arguments. If that isn't good enough, to bad.

I just debunked in detail all of them. Where does that leave us?

Refute the arguments that I am using for evidence/reasons of why I believe in Christian theism. I am not interested in word games or semantics.

State your arguments for Christianity and I'll give it a crack.

Regardless, I have good reasons to believe in Christian theism.

Name a few.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I base my evidence on the validity and soundness of those arguments. If that isn't good enough, to bad.

Then you should've just been honest and said that you don't have any or are not aware of any empirical evidence for creationism.

The 5th one is the Resurrection of Jesus, right?

Yes. How is "the Resurrection of Jesus" an argument? This is just the name of a particular Christian doctrine, it is not an argument.

Refute the arguments that I am using for evidence

Saying "I am using these arguments as evidence" doesn't make them evidence; they are deductive a priori arguments, not empirical evidence. If this is all the evidence you have, then you have no evidence, you have some deductive a priori arguments.

Of course, I've pointed out the fatal flaws in most of these arguments in various threads on this board, many of them ones you participated in (at least for a little while, before you found yourself in too deep and inevitably beat a hasty getaway) so there isn't really anything new here.

I am not interested in word games or semantics.

The soundness of a deductive argument is not semantics or word games. Nice try though.

Regardless, I have good reasons to believe in Christian theism.

Only if "good reason" is interpreted rather broadly, to say the least.

My beef is with naturalists that use evolution and abiogenesis to explain the origins of life and species. It is just that simple.

That's fine. That doesn't change the fact that you've claimed repeatedly, among other things, that the theory of evolution "depends" on abiogenesis- which is patently false. As I've suggested several times now, if your "beef" is with naturalism then argue against that.

 

[McBell]

... if your "beef" is with naturalism then argue against that.

Sadly, I am a feared he thinks he is....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sadly, I am a feared he thinks he is....

No doubt. But at least he could say "naturalism is false because... how could it possibly be true???" rather than "evolution is false because... how could it possibly be true???". Its just confusing.

 

[McBell]

No doubt. But at least he could say "naturalism is false because... how could it possibly be true???" rather than "evolution is false because... how could it possibly be true???". Its just confusing.

He is not the first person I have run across who thinks naturalism and evolution are one and the same.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Historical evidence of what? You mean what was written?

Um, frankie, that is basically where we get all of our historical information from, you know...from stuff that was "written".

There is no non scriptural historical evidence.

There is no non egyptian historical evidence that king tut existed either. Second, you are assuming that non scriptural evidence is necessary, when it isn't. Third, we have non scriptural evidence.

No tomb location

We don't have tomb or grave locations of many historical figures. Second, even if we do, how would you actually know that it is the alleged individual. Third, even if we did have the actual tomb, you would probably just say that exact thing; "we don't know whether it is actually Jesus' tomb. It could be anyone's tomb". So please.

, no inscription, no written works by Jesus.

Written works are not requirements to establish historical facts.

If you take the bible as evidence that's fine but there is no historical evidence of the resurrection.

There is historical evidence of an empty tomb and historical evidence of the post mortem appearances by Jesus.

I'm sure you can argue the trinity, enough versus in the bible though especially in the Old Testament would prove you wrong.

Try me.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Okay. 1st which is the kalam cosmological argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance. It proposes that we HAVE to have a creator just because.

That isn’t the argument, Monk. So I asked you to elaborate on your critique of the arguments that apologists present, and so far within the first sentence you are off to a horrible start.

For us to exist something had to "start" us. This is not something we know. There is no evidence that supports it. It is simply arguing from the false premise that we think we have to have a cause and that cause is god.

The argument is everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause, meaning things don’t just pop in to being completely uncaused out of nothing. So you are wrong, yet again.

2nd is the Ontological argument. It has a long history of nonsense and I cannot believe that it has continued with such intensity.

The first to really start using it was Anselm and his premise is that god exists because the concept that we have created is "most perfect" and that something that exists outside of the mind in reality would by nature alone be more perfect than something within our minds alone ergo god must exist outside of our mind.

This is flawed in several ways but was successfully rebutted and debunked by Gaunilo who pointed out that if one "thought of a most perfect Island and an Island that existed outside the mind would be more perfect than one only in the mind would mean that by his logic that Island must exist by default."

This pointed out something that should be very simple. Our minds do not have the ability to "will" things into existence and nor do we and our imaginations get to make the rules for the universe in which we live. I would also add on to my personal criticism and say that by the definition of god we cannot "know" or "conceive" of him in our minds in the first place.

David Hume stated that there is no possibility of us using priori reasoning to prove something exists. I can go on.

However the ontological argument has continued throughout the years but make the same mistakes each time. The only variation that I found moves out of the same niche is the one proposed by Mulla Sadra. His variation that stated that existence is good and has variations of perfections. And that if there is a scale of perfections then there is a cap at some point of perfection and that cap is god therefore god exists.

However he fails to provide a reason or argument for why there is a scale of perfection. How is, for example, a photon more perfect or less perfect than a hydrogen atom? Functionality and purpose is a human invention of the mind that aren't necessities in the real world. Therefore the idea of scaled perfection based on any sort of criteria has no meaning and therefore there is no god. (if we were to use this type of argument). Though the concept is muddled further than that by other arguments.

I specifically said the Modal Ontological Argument, so basically everything you just said is irrelevant because you mention practically every version but the one I specifically said.

3rd. is about consciousness and how sentience is better explained by theistic answers rather than scientific ones.

Well that pretty much wraps up all of the theistic arguments.

Do you mean to push the argument from its inductive form or its deductive form? The inductive portion is nothing more than an appeal based on an argument from ignorance. It is a proposition that sentience is derived not from the physical and that somehow sentience is a separate form of existence than our physical bodies and matter. This is unsupported but still proposed as the argument.

You have to refute the actual premises of the argument. The argument is that the brain is distinct from the mind, meaning they are not the same thing. Your mind is not made up of matter, but your brain is. So the mind transcends the brain and owe its existence so a non-empirical source.

4th There is no reason to assume the universe is fined tuned. Life came after the universe not vice versa. Our life is dependent on the universe. The universe and its laws are not dependent on our life or ability to live. If the universe had existed with different laws it is possible that other forms of life could have existed.

So basically what you are saying is because there are different ways we could have made an airplane that would mean that the airplane that we did make is not fine tuned? That does not logically follow because the airplane that we did make is fine tuned for air transportation despite the fact that there were other ways it could have been made.

Currently if you talk about the non-universal laws and the fine tuning of just our specific planet (i.e. the distance from the sun, rotation, moon, ect) then the argument still fails. We obviously would have life where life can't form. The vast majority of the universe (by a near infinite amount actually) does NOT support life.

Once again, that does not follow. My backyard doesn’t support the occupancy of 1,000 people. That doesn’t mean that my neighbor’s backyard doesn’t support the occupancy of 1,000 people, or even more. Just faulty logic all the way around.

And we have assumed even if by an incomplete equation (Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) there should be other life. So its not inconceivable or even surprising that we exist. The fine tuning argument only makes sense if you know nothing about statistics or the facts we have acquired.

And you obviously know nothing about the fine tuning parameters that were met to make life permissible. If any of these 30+ constants were off by even the tiniest degree, life wouldn’t be possible. You don’t get that kind of precision from mindless processes.

5th There is literally by definition no argument here. This is just you stating something that someone told to you with no evidence. It holds no more ground than the argument for the life, testeimant and death of Muhammad or The Buddha or my little pony season 5.

Actually it does. Tell ya what, I challenge you to an informal debate on mibbit (thanks to Kryptid). We can discuss any of those 5 topics you like.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Um, frankie, that is basically where we get all of our historical information from, you know...from stuff that was "written".



There is no non egyptian historical evidence that king tut existed either. Second, you are assuming that non scriptural evidence is necessary, when it isn't. Third, we have non scriptural evidence.



We don't have tomb or grave locations of many historical figures. Second, even if we do, how would you actually know that it is the alleged individual. Third, even if we did have the actual tomb, you would probably just say that exact thing; "we don't know whether it is actually Jesus' tomb. It could be anyone's tomb". So please.



Written works are not requirements to establish historical facts.



There is historical evidence of an empty tomb and historical evidence of the post mortem appearances by Jesus.



Try me.

There isn't. Existence yes, death yes, post mortem? No. The gospels don't even get the post mortem story correct and were not even eyewitnesses.

As well for the trinity read the Old Testament