The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Thief]

It is true that in a lot of the cases, that there is relationship between CAUSE and EFFECT.

But if there are evidences for the EFFECT, then there should be evidences for the CAUSE too.

That's not true in the case with the Creationist's argument for creationism or Intelligent Design.

We have evidences that nature and the universe existing, BUT with the Creator and Designer, THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCES FOR THE CREATOR or DESIGNER EXISTING.

You have shown no evidences whatsoever, Thief, that the Creator (or God) existing. You have admitted that yourself there are no evidences for God, when you said something like this below, a number of times:

​

If there are no physical aspects to this God, no mean of directly interacting with God definitively, and if this God is not of this world, then how can you possibly say God exist. That being the case, then God is merely imaginary, invented by superstitious men, who has no understanding of nature.

There are only belief in God, which people accept as being true.

That's acceptance is called FAITH, NOT evidences, NOT facts.

The CAUSE, is not real, because there are no evidences for God, never have been any evidence.

God is not independent of man's belief. God is not independent of the various scriptures accepted by the 3 main Abrahamic scriptures, namely the Tanakh, Bible and Qur'an.

If you have definitive and verifiable evidences for God being real, existing independently from your scriptures and from your personal belief, then by all mean, Thief, show it to us.

If you can't show to us, then your claim that God being the CAUSE is nothing more than baseless wishful thinking.

the effect IS the evidence of a cause

The universe is the effect
God is the Cause

 

[Thief]

Simple 'denial' is not a coherent response to anything.

Cause and effect can be denied simply based on a lack of evidence. You have not provided any objective evidence for you assertions.



First, your assertions did not make the chalk board. Again, again and again science does not prove anything, and it is still remains a fact that you have offered nothing coherent, nor objective evidence, to support your argument.

again and again...I say
science is good stuff

it will take you to that point of decision

then you can choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

I say Spirit first

 

[shunyadragon]

again and again...I say
science is good stuff

it will take you to that point of decision

then you can choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

I say Spirit first

Actually I agree that spirit first, but his is a question of faith, and not objective factual evidence to support an argument for those that do not agree,

 

[gnostic]

the effect IS the evidence of a cause

The universe is the effect
God is the Cause

And that's the most inane use of logic I have ever heard.

You still need to provide verifiable evidences for the existence of God, in order for this cause-and-effect scenario to work.

Without the evidences for God, then you have no "cause", and your claim of cause-and-effect is merely empty circular reasoning. Without evidences to god, there can be no link between cause and effect.

I could remove substitute god with Zeus, fairy godmother, or the pet cat Scruffy as the cause.

 

[Thief]

Actually I agree that spirit first, but his is a question of faith, and not objective factual evidence to support an argument for those that do not agree,

to disagree......you must deny the association of cause and effect

you need say....the entire universe simply launched itself into motion
without a 'Self' to send it forth

 

[Thief]

And that's the most inane use of logic I have ever heard.

You still need to provide verifiable evidences for the existence of God, in order for this cause-and-effect scenario to work.

Without the evidences for God, then you have no "cause", and your claim of cause-and-effect is merely empty circular reasoning. Without evidences to god, there can be no link between cause and effect.

I could remove substitute god with Zeus, fairy godmother, or the pet cat Scruffy as the cause.

the universe (one word) is the evidence

 

[shunyadragon]

to disagree......you must deny the association of cause and effect

Simply no. It is not necessary for all Theists to believe as you do, In fact it is problematic.

you need say. . . the entire universe simply launched itself into motion
without a 'Self' to send it forth,

Based on ancient outdated Theological assumptions.

In the reality of the present view of scientists, no one believes the above foolishness, too anthropomorphic.

 

[McBell]

to disagree......you must deny the association of cause and effect

No I don't.
You have not demonstrated that the universe is an effect.
You have merely declared it is.
care to support your bold empty claim?

you need say....the entire universe simply launched itself into motion
without a 'Self' to send it forth

Actually, since you are the making the claim there was a "Self" involved, it is on you to support said claim.
Been waiting for that for more than six years....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My view are not much different from yours, I view most parts of bible to be allegorical or mythological, especially from Adam to David...except that I view the events that happened to the people in the bible, especially those concerning divine miracles (eg creating light with just words, creating man from dust, the talking donkey, raining manna, etc) and the revelations/prophecies, to be largely improbable.

Despite what creationists think of me and my view that I think Genesis is a myth or allegory, and despite my frequent clashes with creationists, I actually love Genesis myth about creation and flood, because it is my favourite book of the whole bible.

I like all sorts of myths, but I treat them as work of literature, not historical records. And I like myths enough to devote and to create 2 websites -

1. Timeless Myths
2. and Dark Mirrors of Heaven.

i simply enjoy ancient and medieval storytelling, it doesn't mean i have to believe in them as true.

The problem with creationists is that they view as literally true, as if they were history.

I just don't view Genesis to be historically or scientifically true or accurate, because most evidences are contrary to the biblical stories. The real values are the messages in the allegory - the moral messages - and not it's historical accuracy.

Genesis is sort of like one of Jesus' parables. The parables (or allegories) were never meant to be taken as literal; they are a teaching tool meant to make others contemplate the morality of the stories.

And I believe that you know that

For over a thousand years most educated people viewed the Bible as allegory. It wasn't until the last few hundred years that the movement to view it as literal and fact took off in the US. I think it is one of the worst movements that has happened in Christianity. The funny thing is that I see literalists interpret it in so many different ways. Especially a book like Revelations. You get all kinds of wild imaginings sprouting from what is written in that book alone.

It is thinking like that have inspired me not to waste time on things that can't be proven. That and what you have stated. Many of the stories that are claimed to be true accounts don't hold up to the evidence that says otherwise. I would rather discuss science and argue what the evidence means.

I like myth too and many of the stories in the Bible are compelling when viewed as literature. This is true of the stories of other religions and mythology in general.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

the effect IS the evidence of a cause

The universe is the effect
God is the Cause

You are offering a specific cause and for that you will need more than just a biased assumption.

 

[gnostic]

For over a thousand years most educated people viewed the Bible as allegory. It wasn't until the last few hundred years that the movement to view it as literal and fact took off in the US. I think it is one of the worst movements that has happened in Christianity. The funny thing is that I see literalists interpret it in so many different ways. Especially a book like Revelations. You get all kinds of wild imaginings sprouting from what is written in that book alone.

It is thinking like that have inspired me not to waste time on things that can't be proven. That and what you have stated. Many of the stories that are claimed to be true accounts don't hold up to the evidence that says otherwise. I would rather discuss science and argue what the evidence means.

I like myth too and many of the stories in the Bible are compelling when viewed as literature. This is true of the stories of other religions and mythology in general.

I don't hate religion, so I am not anti-religion, or I am not even anti-theism.

I believe that everyone have the rights to follow their religions or not follow.

But I am anti-creationism, especially like what you said, when it defy scientific evidences.

And you are right, they (creationists) do make things up. They often misrepresent the evidences and the science, giving Christianity a bad name.

The bible doesn't teach basic biology, geology or astronomy, so why do they make things up where there are gaps in such knowledge?

I don't see Thief's, or other creationists' points, in arguing against the fossils, when the bible never mention fossils. I don't their points in arguing against evolution, when the bible cannot even teach basic high school biology.

They frequently used the Genesis' "kinds" against "species", but "kind" is not very specific, nor clear. Science required clear language and to be very specific in their explanations, the bible isn't, and often used metaphors and similes.

Metaphors can have multiple meanings and contexts, making it useless in anything but in literature, like poetry.

You, and many other Christians and Jews here, understand science, and they don't mix it up with religions.

Creationists, on the other hand, like to mix it up with just about everything, and if they could, they would throw in the kitchen sink.

 

[Thief]

You are offering a specific cause and for that you will need more than just a biased assumption.

There is only one God
there is only one creation
Spirit first

seems simple enough to believe it

 

[gnostic]

the universe (one word) is the evidence

The universe is only the evidence for itself.

There is no evidence for god.

And there is no evidence to link the god to the universe.

How can god be a cause, when there are no evidence for god?

 

[12jtartar]

My view are not much different from yours, I view most parts of bible to be allegorical or mythological, especially from Adam to David...except that I view the events that happened to the people in the bible, especially those concerning divine miracles (eg creating light with just words, creating man from dust, the talking donkey, raining manna, etc) and the revelations/prophecies, to be largely improbable.

Despite what creationists think of me and my view that I think Genesis is a myth or allegory, and despite my frequent clashes with creationists, I actually love Genesis myth about creation and flood, because it is my favourite book of the whole bible.

I like all sorts of myths, but I treat them as work of literature, not historical records. And I like myths enough to devote and to create 2 websites -

1. Timeless Myths
2. and Dark Mirrors of Heaven.

i simply enjoy ancient and medieval storytelling, it doesn't mean i have to believe in them as true.

The problem with creationists is that they view as literally true, as if they were history.

I just don't view Genesis to be historically or scientifically true or accurate, because most evidences are contrary to the biblical stories. The real values are the messages in the allegory - the moral messages - and not it's historical accuracy.

Genesis is sort of like one of Jesus' parables. The parables (or allegories) were never meant to be taken as literal; they are a teaching tool meant to make others contemplate the morality of the stories.

And I believe that you know that

Agnostic,
As magnanimous as you try to sound, you evidently have not considered what many scientists are now saying. Many now say that the Bible is accurate throughout Genesis. Something that they admit they have been wrong about for many years. Many scientists even are forced to believe in a God, a Superior mind that created all things. And especially do they say that DNA proves their is a God who created all things, and mainly because written in our DNA is the instructions for our complete growth, from inception to maturity. Scientists are even now capable of reading the instructions written on our DNA. Even Scientists admit that these instructions had to have been written by a Superior mind, God, Romans 1:20.

 

[Thief]

The universe is only the evidence for itself.

There is no evidence for god.

And there is no evidence to link the god to the universe.

How can god be a cause, when there are no evidence for god?

and again.....Cause and effect

the universe is the effect
God is the Cause

 

[gnostic]

and again.....Cause and effect

the universe is the effect
God is the Cause

This is Circular Reasoning 101.

It certainly isn't science.

Science deals with evidences, not an imaginary "cause".

Where are the evidences for God?

And don't say the "universe", because the evidences for the universe are not evidences for God.

 

[gnostic]

Agnostic,
As magnanimous as you try to sound, you evidently have not considered what many scientists are now saying. Many now say that the Bible is accurate throughout Genesis. Something that they admit they have been wrong about for many years. Many scientists even are forced to believe in a God, a Superior mind that created all things. And especially do they say that DNA proves their is a God who created all things, and mainly because written in our DNA is the instructions for our complete growth, from inception to maturity. Scientists are even now capable of reading the instructions written on our DNA. Even Scientists admit that these instructions had to have been written by a Superior mind, God, Romans 1:20.

Care to list the names of these biologists?

And where does the bible say anything scientifically valid in regarding to genetics and DNA.

The bible is a book of theology, not science. And the bible is today creationist's idiot book, because creationists can no longer think rationality and independently, if you think scientists now accept the bible as science textbook.

 

[Thief]

This is Circular Reasoning 101.

It certainly isn't science.

Science deals with evidences, not an imaginary "cause".

Where are the evidences for God?

And don't say the "universe", because the evidences for the universe are not evidences for God.

nay....existence is linear

Spirit first

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is only one God
there is only one creation
Spirit first

seems simple enough to believe it

I believe that, but I can't prove it. I don't have the evidence to tell a polytheist or an atheist that they are wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agnostic,
As magnanimous as you try to sound, you evidently have not considered what many scientists are now saying. Many now say that the Bible is accurate throughout Genesis. Something that they admit they have been wrong about for many years. Many scientists even are forced to believe in a God, a Superior mind that created all things. And especially do they say that DNA proves their is a God who created all things, and mainly because written in our DNA is the instructions for our complete growth, from inception to maturity. Scientists are even now capable of reading the instructions written on our DNA. Even Scientists admit that these instructions had to have been written by a Superior mind, God, Romans 1:20.

I am aware of a small number of scientists that have largely forsaken their duty to objective scientific analysis that make such claims. The majority of scientists, whether believer or not, don't make any claims to the validity of Genesis and as far as I know, most would deny the validity of Genesis.