Questions, Misconceptions, Objections,..etc,

[GostHacked]

Okay, grab your popcorn! MOVIE TIME!

http://kids4truth.com/Dyna/Watchmaker/English.aspx

yeah....I know....it's meant for kidz....but hey, at least it's really simplified.

Could you not find adults4truth?

God is also a watch, so who made him? But god can't always have been there right? I mean all the parts to make up this 'god' had to come from somewhere right? So who made the watchmaker?

[dre]

Could you not find adults4truth?

God is also a watch, so who made him? But god can't always have been there right? I mean all the parts to make up this 'god' had to come from somewhere right? So who made the watchmaker?

Can you imagine anyone watching that movie and actually finding it compelling? Holy crap...

[betsy]

My "purpose" was my appreciation of your let's-not-get-too-worked-up-over-internet-debates comment.

I apologize if I misread this as rational.

Yeah, right.

[betsy]

Can you imagine anyone watching that movie and actually finding it compelling? Holy crap...

Well I thought I was doing you guys a favor seeing how you struggle so....

Anyway, since you didn't like that.....where were we again? Oh yes....I'm still waiting for your answer, and so far all you're giving is hot air of nothing. Here it is again, the cork that plugs flappy lips:

betsy:

Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context!

How is that???

So what's your answer? How do you explain that?

Edited September 10, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Question by Gosthacked: God is also a watch, so who made him? But god can't always have been there right? I mean all the parts to make up this 'god' had to come from somewhere right? So who made the watchmaker?

This article provided the Biblical viewpoint, but I guess you don't want that. Of course you guys claim you want "reason." <choking> Ahem.

So here's the logical explanation:

Logically Speaking

The eternality of the Creator may be argued in another way as well. Consider the following logical line of argument.

(1) If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today. It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing exists, then “nothing” will be the case -always, for nothing simply remains nothing - forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. If there is absolutely nothing but nothing, there cannot ever be something. “Nothing” and “something” -applied to the same object, at the same time - are mutually exclusive terms.

(2) Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always. Let us state the matter again: If nothing cannot produce something, and yet something exists, then it follows necessarily that something has existed always. The question then becomes this. What is the “something” that has been in existence always?

(3) In logic, the “law of the excluded middle” states that a thing either is, or it is not. A line either is straight, or it is not straight.

Let us apply this principle to the matter at hand. Something has existed forever. That “something” must be either material in nature, or non-material. If it can be demonstrated that the eternal “something” is not material in nature, then it must follow that the eternal “something” is non-material in nature.

Another term for the “non-material” would be “spirit.” The question now becomes — what does the available evidence reveal? Is it the case that “matter” has existed forever, or does the evidence argue that the eternal “something” is non-matter, i.e., spirit?

(4) The most reputable scientists in the world concede that “matter” is not eternal. In his book, Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977), Dr. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and himself a professed agnostic, describes his perception of the initial creation of the universe. He speaks of that moment when “the first particles of matter appear” (21), thus, prior to that moment, matter did not exist.

Subsequently, he declares emphatically that “modern science denies an eternal existence to the Universe?” (30). There is not a particle of evidence that the universe has existed forever. The very fact that scientists attempt to assign an “age” to the universe is revealing within itself.

(5) In view of the foregoing, namely that something has always existed, and yet that “something” is not of a material nature, the student of logic is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the “something” that is eternal is non-material — which means it must be “spirit” in its essence. The Scriptures identify that spirit Being as God. “God is spirit?” (Jn. 4:24) — an uncreated, eternal Spirit Being.

Both Scripture and logic, then, in marvelous concert, testify to the fact that God is eternal. He had no origin. He is the everlasting I AM. No one “made” him. He simply IS.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/673-who-made-god

Edited September 10, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Yeah, right.

I don't understand how you could read it any other way.

[GostHacked]

Question by Gosthacked: God is also a watch, so who made him? But god can't always have been there right? I mean all the parts to make up this 'god' had to come from somewhere right? So who made the watchmaker?

This article provided the Biblical viewpoint, but I guess you don't want that.

You are just finding this out now??

Of course you guys claim you want "reason." <choking> Ahem.

So here's the logical explanation:

Belief in a god requires no logic. And yet you are trying your best, and failing every moment that you are trying to bring logic into this situation.

God is a watch. Who made the watchmaker? Sounds like a chicken/egg scenario.

[cybercoma]

God is a watch. Who made the watchmaker?

She's not going to answer this because she knows that if she says nobody made God or something about God not having a creator then you'll just use her words to ask why do people need a creator then.

[GostHacked]

She's not going to answer this because she knows that if she says nobody made God or something about God not having a creator then you'll just use her words to ask why do people need a creator then.

That much has at least been obvious in these threads.

[The_Squid]

So what's your answer? How do you explain that?

It is convenient for theists to apply that word in the bible to explain a cosmic phenomenon. It does not mean that the people who wrote it knew anything about the subject. Isn't the universe expanding? That's different than stretching.

How come the bible got the age of the earth wrong by billions of years if it is such a receptacle of cosmic knowledge?

I know there won't be an answer.... that's OK. Just shows how absurd it is to be picking and choosing a few words from an old book and trying so hard to make them relevant today...

[Black Dog]

You can question with all your why this....why that....and the answer is, only God knows. He let us know when He wants us to know, and what He wants us to know.

The crucial question however, is the how. How could those desert doods have stated what science only recently found out - and with the help of modern technology to boot!

As I stated: they didn't know. The stretching mentioned in the Bible is not a reference to the post Big Bang expansion of the universe.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

That much has at least been obvious in these threads.

The argument that humanity is so complex that it could only have been accomplished by a creator begs the questions that the creator then must be more complex than its creation. This means a more complex creator must have created the first creator. It logically builds an infinite regression. As soon as you say a creator isn't needed on one level, then that means a creator isn't needed at our level and the argument that there "must" be a creator due to our complexity falls apart. You know this. I know this. Any reasonably intelligent person knows this.

The best and only argument betsy or anyone of her faith could have is that "there is no reason to believe in a Creator's existence, but I choose to out of faith." All of her attempts to link God to science and logically determine God's existence are foolish and futile. The problem with that kind of honesty is that it means she and others of her faith cannot dictate public policy based on ideas that they choose to believe but have no reasonable basis in reality. You can't say, "creationism must be taught in schools because that's what I choose to believe." Why? Because then you open the door for others to say that Pastafarianism must be taught in schools because that's what they believe. You can't say "gay marriage is wrong because that's what I believe" and the government should legislate against it because then you open the door for others (as unlikely as it is) to say that straight marriage is wrong because that's what someone else believes.

This is why religion has no place in public policy or outside the Church. You want to have a personal relationship with Christ, great! If however you want to tell everyone else that they must follow what you believe Christ wants and that you'll use the government to legislate if necessary then you damn well better have something more concrete to support your assertions than "that's just what I believe." No argument for Christ has ever extended beyond that.

[bleeding heart]

The argument that humanity is so complex that it could only have been accomplished by a creator begs the questions that the creator then must be more complex than its creation. This means a more complex creator must have created the first creator. It logically builds an infinite regression.

"It's turtles all the way down!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[betsy]

She's not going to answer this because she knows that if she says nobody made God or something about God not having a creator then you'll just use her words to ask why do people need a creator then.

yep. Nobody made God. He's always been around.

[GostHacked]

yep. Nobody made God. He's always been around.

And this is touted as logic? Really? Because by your own logic , the watch needs a watchmaker, but the watchmaker has always existed? Did he magically spentaneously appear out of some primordial cosmic soup?

Edited September 10, 2012 by GostHacked

[dre]

And this is touted as logic? Really? Because by your own logic , the watch needs a watchmaker, but the watchmaker has always existed? Did he magically spentaneously appear out of some primordial cosmic soup?

Thats the thing. The watch is so complexed it must have had a watchmaker. Humans are so well designed there must have been a designer. So stands to reason that since god is obviously more complex than either of those things he MUST have been "intelligently designed"!

The answer to this little paradox?

Meeeeeeeeeh. He must have already been around!

Edited September 11, 2012 by dre

[Guest Manny]

I really hate to jump in threads like these, because they are so banal! I mean, arguing at this level about religion. Like arguing "Who made God???" The question is kind of an insult, or utterly pointless to people who have deeper more mature beliefs than this.

But in spite of that I should like to point out, who made the big bang? Same dilemma for the human mind really, we can't reconcile the idea of cause and effect with what scientists are telling us, that the dimension of time did not exist, there was no "before" the big bang. The question itself is illogical! If you can imagine a line, having two fixed points in space, there is a sense of finitude. But if you curl that line around itself, making it into a circle, and ask, where is the beginning? You now have a difficult question to answer. Just sayin

[dre]

I really hate to jump in threads like these, because they are so banal! I mean, arguing at this level about religion. Like arguing "Who made God???" The question is kind of an insult, or utterly pointless to people who have deeper more mature beliefs than this.

But in spite of that I should like to point out, who made the big bang? Same dilemma for the human mind really, we can't reconcile the idea of cause and effect with what scientists are telling us, that the dimension of time did not exist, there was no "before" the big bang. The question itself is illogical! If you can imagine a line, having two fixed points in space, there is a sense of finitude. But if you curl that line around itself, making it into a circle, and ask, where is the beginning? You now have a difficult question to answer. Just sayin

I dont think that pointing out the fatal flaw in the "watch makers thesis" is really banal. When someone proclaims that a human is so complexed and well designed that there must have been an intelligent designer, that question is inevitable.

But in spite of that I should like to point out, who made the big bang? Same dilemma for the human mind really, we can't reconcile the idea of cause and effect with what scientists are telling us, that the dimension of time did not exist, there was no "before" the big bang.

The difference is most scientists when asked such a question will simply tell you "we dont know!".

[Melanie_]

The argument that humanity is so complex that it could only have been accomplished by a creator begs the questions that the creator then must be more complex than its creation. This means a more complex creator must have created the first creator. It logically builds an infinite regression. As soon as you say a creator isn't needed on one level, then that means a creator isn't needed at our level and the argument that there "must" be a creator due to our complexity falls apart. You know this. I know this. Any reasonably intelligent person knows this.

The best and only argument betsy or anyone of her faith could have is that "there is no reason to believe in a Creator's existence, but I choose to out of faith." All of her attempts to link God to science and logically determine God's existence are foolish and futile. The problem with that kind of honesty is that it means she and others of her faith cannot dictate public policy based on ideas that they choose to believe but have no reasonable basis in reality. You can't say, "creationism must be taught in schools because that's what I choose to believe." Why? Because then you open the door for others to say that Pastafarianism must be taught in schools because that's what they believe. You can't say "gay marriage is wrong because that's what I believe" and the government should legislate against it because then you open the door for others (as unlikely as it is) to say that straight marriage is wrong because that's what someone else believes.

This is why religion has no place in public policy or outside the Church. You want to have a personal relationship with Christ, great! If however you want to tell everyone else that they must follow what you believe Christ wants and that you'll use the government to legislate if necessary then you damn well better have something more concrete to support your assertions than "that's just what I believe." No argument for Christ has ever extended beyond that.

+1. This is the perfect answer to this entire thread (and several other threads, too.)

[Guest Manny]

The difference is most scientists when asked such a question will simply tell you "we dont know!".

Not really. There are a few untestable hypotheses that scientists cling to. String theory is not completely proven. M-Theory is nice, very fantastic sounding, mind expanding concepts. Todays creation mythos

[Guest Manny]

And if anyone thinks that's unscientific, well interesting to note that there are certain ideas in cosmology, I mean the science of cosmology that allude to the universe being like a simulation taking place in a game, even perhaps in a giant computer. Observations made by Sir Martin Reese, for example. There is a youtube video, "What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" that asks some troubling, metaphysical questions.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Manny

[cybercoma]

+1. This is the perfect answer to this entire thread (and several other threads, too.)

Thanks, Melanie.

[betsy]

And this is touted as logic? Really? Because by your own logic , the watch needs a watchmaker, but the watchmaker has always existed? Did he magically spentaneously appear out of some primordial cosmic soup?

Logical explanation was given. Take it or leave it.

[cybercoma]

Logical explanation was given. Take it or leave it.

No. "Logical" explanation was never given. Your gut feeling was given. You believe God exists because that's just what you believe. You've given no logically verifiable evidence for His mere existence, let alone that you have some sort of insight into His wishes and desires and that public policy and people's lives ought to be geared around that.

[betsy]

Cybercoma:

The best and only argument betsy or anyone of her faith could have is that "there is no reason to believe in a Creator's existence, but I choose to out of faith." All of her attempts to link God to science and logically determine God's existence are foolish and futile. The problem with that kind of honesty is that it means she and others of her faith cannot dictate public policy based on ideas that they choose to believe but have no reasonable basis in reality.

Oh baloney!

I've said it before and I'll explain it again. I'm debating with non-believers, therefore I cannot just go about invoking simply faith!

You guys were the ones who cockily threw the usual challenge(s) in past threads! You've made gloating claims about the ignorance of believing in God, that faith is without reason and senseless, that Christians are close-minded believers. But you never really reflected on yourselves, and on your own belief!

All I did was accept your challenge, and engage you in an area I'd assume you'd understand the most - science.

That science now proves that it is infact evolutionists who show ignorance by their lack of understanding, their inability to grasp logical reasoning - that therefore, evolutionists are the ones being senseless and without reason - and are actually the ones who are close-minded, naturally must be the most unexpected result you'd ever imagined! Whacked!

Getting clubbered by your own club!

You keep ignoring this challenge:

betsy:

Whether it is or it is not the right translation....the fact of the matter is that the word, "stretches" or "stretching," still ended up appearing in the Bible! 11 times! In the right context!

How is that???

Just because you ignore that which you cannot explain, does not necessarily mean it's gone.

That same reality still exists.

Anyway, evolutionists' bumbums nowhere look as cute - nor are they even remotely similar - to ostriches' behinds from where I look....just so you know.

Edited September 12, 2012 by betsy