Jump to content

Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God.


blackbird

Recommended Posts

On 12/7/2021 at 7:40 PM, blackbird said:

Here is an article that you need to read.

In part it says :

"The self-destructive logic of atheism

 

 If atheism is true then all our thoughts and values, and all our deepest convictions, including our belief in the validity of logical argument and the existence of mathematical and scientific truths, are simply an accidental by-product of our cerebral biochemistry and the mindless movement of atoms. - This individual does not understand how biology or chemistry or physics works, "accidental, by-product or mindless" are terms not used in any of those fields of study. Our thoughts transpire through systems of both chemical and physical atomic/molecular interaction, primarily led by our genes or environment. The system's primary goal is to thrive and reproduce. Subjective morality exists purely from a collective understanding and genetic propagation of the individual, thus the collective. For example, allowing killing of individuals in a collective inhibits the collective ability to prosper genetically. 

This means we are deluding ourselves when we think that we have free will, and with it, that inner freedom to weigh evidence and judge between conflicting arguments without which there can be no successful pursuit of truth, or acquisition of knowledge.-  Initial premise incorrect. Assumption that biological thoughts have no value is not determined and factually wrong, since there are unbelievers. For example people who both are not religious and do not believe in a god are still ethically functional, and can behave morally. This occurs without having “free will” (undefined). This argument also can be applied to those that do believe in a god, as their minds are the same physically as those that do not.  By this argument, thoughts of God are a chemical illusion just as much as free will thoughts are a chemical illusion. 

In reality, all our reasoning and conclusions are nothing more than the unplanned result of a long chain of entirely random non-rational physical causes over which we have no control.- There is nothing random or non-rational about our minds unless you want to talk about quantum interplay of the mind. The mind works quite well towards a goal, the goal of surviving and reproducing, nothing random or non-rational about the system. This idea is also incorrectly applied to evolution.  A lack of understanding of biology or physics is no reason for an unfounded conclusion.  

In other words, if we have no souls and no spiritual connection to God as the ultimate source of reason and truth, it follows that our brains, and therefore all our mental activity, are imprisoned within a process of physical determinism that discredits all thinking. - Minds are imprisoned within a process of genetic determinism, but this does not discredit the thought process or genetic goal. Why would this discredit our thinking? Physical determinism does not mean anything is discredited, it just means there will be a genetic thought process for an individual which may vary slightly per individual. 

We cannot be sure that any of our thoughts correspond to reality, moral or scientific, since we are biologically conditioned to think them regardless of whether they are true or not. - This is based on the premise there is absolute truth or untruth, no support that absolute/objective truth exists was produced. I would argue absolute truth does not exist. Genetic individual or group truth exists, but it is not objective, only subjective.

 By discrediting all thinking, including their own, atheists cut their own throats philosophically. Their view of ultimate reality is therefore self-refuting."   - Random sentence without a premise, why would we discredited our thinking just because it is genetically favorable thinking? Could quantum physics play a role in changing our thinking? Potentially, but that is inconclusive. The assumption that our thoughts are only genetically or environmentally controlled thus makes them discredited is exactly how it sounds, an assumption. No argument was made that are thoughts are discredited, especially when our thoughts have built the world, observe the world and interact with the world around us.  

Since you are challenging me on my morals, where does God get his morals from? And the answer can not be "god" because that is a circular argument. Otherwise I could say I get my morals from my morals, you see the circular logic. 

I have commented on many of your questions. Please answer the question, how do you not see god's behavior as sadistic or psychopathic? If a human were to act like god, killing and hurting others, would that person not be considered psychopathic or at least sadistic? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Winston said:

 

Since by definition God is the reference point of what is good and evil, and you claim to be able to judge God, what is your reference point for such claims? - I do not have a belief in objective good or objective evil, those are religious concepts created to bring order to a collective through theocracy. I would not force my ideas of right or wrong on someone, instead I would recommend a system in which one should operate in the collective for the benefit of the collective. This provided the individual does not lose any simple agreed upon rights of that individual. Simplistically, treat me with respect and I will treat you with respect. 

How do you determine what is good or evil? - Objective right and wrong does not exist. If I were to define good, it would be a result that produces at least maximum benefits with minimum loss to both the individual and to the collective. Genetically good is the action which produces a result that allows continuation of the body and reproduction. But this is subjective. 

Is it your human reasoning or personal opinion?  Tell us what is your standard to be able to make such judgments or claims? - What is best for genetic prosperity of the collective, but ultimately for the individual, ultraistic behavior of the collective.

If you have nothing, then it is just your own invention or imaginings - If we go this route in the conversation, where I as a human have no ability to hold my own moral understanding without the existence of a god, we would have to examine for evidence of a god, which we already determined there is no measurable evidence of a god. ( no supernatural spiritual is not measurable evidence)   

If the entire universe is His creation, then “morality,” including life and death, is by definition under His control. - As per the bible God did define certain morals such as the 10 commandments, “ you shall not kill. " being one of them, yet god throughout the bible kills many people and innocent children, breaking his own morals. God can not be moral yet break the moral rules, that would make him immoral.  

 

 So if you don't accept God as the standard of right and wrong or good and evil, then all you have is your own ramblings which have no authority in a universe that you are a mere speck in and was created by God, the only absolute standard of good and evil - Lets try a different approach since god existence is questionable. Why can't genetic morality exist? Traits handed down from those who behaved in positive ways, which led them to reproduce more often than those that did not.

 

At this point, I don't see the value of further discussion with you.  I don't believe you are interested at all in any information I gave you.  You have your mind closed.  So I won't pursue this any further at this point.   It is pointless as far as I can see.  I wish you well but believe you are in deep darkness.  Only God can save you from here on.  I ask God to be merciful to you and open your eyes.  I am convinced God is real, is a holy God without sin or flaw, and created everything.  You take the opposite position and do not seem to hear anything I put forward.  So will leave it at that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

At this point, I don't see the value of further discussion with you.  I don't believe you are interested at all in any information I gave you.  You have your mind closed.  So I won't pursue this any further at this point.   It is pointless as far as I can see.  I wish you well but believe you are in deep darkness.  Only God can save you from here on.  I ask God to be merciful to you and open your eyes.  I am convinced God is real, is a holy God without sin or flaw, and created everything.  You take the opposite position and do not seem to hear anything I put forward.  So will leave it at that.  

At this point, I don't see the value of further discussion with you.  I don't believe you are interested at all in any information I gave you.- All the information you provided me, I provided an answer back, showing you how it is a circular argument, has a lack of scientific understanding, or has a misleading unfounded conclusion.

You have your mind closed.- Not at all, I just expect measurable evidence or a solid argument, like most unbelievers.  

 So I won't pursue this any further at this point. -  I understand,  you have been shown a different perspective about your religion, and you wish to remove yourself from the conversation. You went into the discussion in the hopes of changing my mind, but not your own. 

It is pointless as far as I can see.- You see it as pointless because I do not believe in a god as of yet, which tells me you went into the discussion in the hopes of changing my mind, but not your own. 

You take the opposite position and do not seem to hear anything I put forward.  So I will leave it at that.  - I heard everything you put forward, and I countered it with logic, science or simple acknowledgment of circular arguments. Providing information that has unfounded conclusions or a lack of scientific understanding has no value in a debate.

To conclude this conversation

There is no evidence of a god, let alone a biblical god. The god of the bible appears to behave sadistic and psychopathic, tempting with the intent to harm, killing and murdering children for his pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, blackbird said:

  You don't want to listen or read anything from someone who believes in the Bible.  Further you think anything on creation.com is propaganda even though there are vast amounts of information and articles from professionals with degrees etc. and you have not read or studied any of it.  You only want me to provide information from someone who does not believe the Bible or someone who agrees with a non-believer.  That means we are wasting out time.  If you were serious in wanting to know about these things you would have given some indication you were interested, but you haven't.  You obviously don't want to know or even hear anything contrary to your own present bias against the Bible and God.  So I don't really have anything else at this point in time.

I think there are many other people who would be more serious about wanting to know about these things and may be concerned about their eternal destiny.  So I don't see any reason to pursue this with someone who has made up their mind to be in darkness and who refuses to accept any truth on the supernatural or spiritual matters.  If you change your mind, a search engine is easy to find answers and of course looking up references in the Bible yourself or reading it online.

Again my point was you need to already accept the Bible to find truth in it, I can't say it any clearer. I probably have a better understanding of your holy book than you do and by not even recognizing that you have not addressed my original post in the slightest,  it is you that has proved your not serious and are not willing to even consider anything outside your own presuppositions 

As far as your video he says the same thing virtually every presuppositional apologist says and the reason I didn't watch the entire 40 minute video is because I've heard it all before many, many ,many times before. Have you never heard of confirmation bias? Obviously not or you wouldn't refer me to such things. 

As far as creation.com,  the way the scientific community works is someone has a theory publishes a paper for PEER Review, but apparently you either don't understand this or know that no such research exists. 

Concerned about my eternal destiny? Made up my mind to be in darkness?What  ridiculous statements and when you ( or anyone for that matter) proclaim you have the truth that's a tell tale sign you don't have it

I have no bias against God,  but if you think asking for evidence of what you believe about very important issues is not acceptable, maybe you should take a look at why you believe what you do

If you want to take your ball and go home because I asked a couple "simple " questions seems to me tantamount to admittance you not only can't answer them but have never even looked into why you believe what you do, but by all means run away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Again my point was you need to already accept the Bible to find truth in it, I can't say it any clearer. I probably have a better understanding of your holy book than you do and by not even recognizing that you have not addressed my original post in the slightest,  it is you that has proved your not serious and are not willing to even consider anything outside your own presuppositions 

As far as your video he says the same thing virtually every presuppositional apologist says and the reason I didn't watch the entire 40 minute video is because I've heard it all before many, many ,many times before. Have you never heard of confirmation bias? Obviously not or you wouldn't refer me to such things. 

As far as creation.com,  the way the scientific community works is someone has a theory publishes a paper for PEER Review, but apparently you either don't understand this or know that no such research exists. 

Concerned about my eternal destiny? Made up my mind to be in darkness?What  ridiculous statements and when you ( or anyone for that matter) proclaim you have the truth that's a tell tale sign you don't have it

I have no bias against God,  but if you think asking for evidence of what you believe about very important issues is not acceptable, maybe you should take a look at why you believe what you do

If you want to take your ball and go home because I asked a couple "simple " questions seems to me tantamount to admittance you not only can't answer them but have never even looked into why you believe what you do, but by all means run away

In actual fact I gave you a lot of evidence of why you should believe the Bible, but you refused to accept it.  For example I gave you a list of prophecies that prove the Bible came from God.  You either just ignore what I say or refuse to accept, maybe a bit of both.  The Bible has internal evidence that proves it came from God.  You did not address the evidence I gave you about prophecies.  It is not a matter of "running away".  But it is a matter of whether one should spend a huge amount of time on something which seems pretty hopeless.  I have lots of better things to do.  If you seem like you are sincerely searching for the truth that would be a different matter.  But unfortunately I don't see that with you.  You have likely read Winston and maybe been emboldened by his anti God, anti Bible stance.  I'm not sure what couple "simple" questions you asked.  I have answered a fair amount of why you should believe the Bible.  I have also given you links for further information.  I can answer any reasonable question you raise and have done so.  But if your mind is closed to anything other than what you already believe, we are beating a dead horse.

As for "peer reviewed" scientific articles,  you have to understand that process is controlled by non-believers or atheists within the secular humanist scientific world.  Of course that is not going to be a normal venue for creation believing scientists.  They are unlikely to accept papers from creation scientists and there are many creation scientists.  Some of the greatest scientists that ever lived believed in God and creation.

25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

Modern scientists today do not have a monopoly on the question of God.   Nothing has been discovered in the last century of so that proves there is no God or that we were not created.  We are talking about the supernatural here.  That does not fit into the scope of the majority of scientists.  So it is a waste of time, using that as any kind of test of anything.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2021 at 1:52 PM, blackbird said:

Perhaps at least admit you don't know the answer and are willing to consider God as the answer. 

Yes, but not if you are talking Yahweh?

Do you recognize the good and evil in him?

You have called in the KJV, and it says that god created evil for his pleasure.

Thoughts on that?

Regards

DL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, French Patriot said:

Do you believe in talking serpents and donkeys?

Do you believe what you sing at Easter when you sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan?

Regards

DL

Well, there was a talking serpent in Genesis ch3 that talked to Eve in the garden of Eden.

"1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? {Yea…: Heb. Yea, because, etc.} 2  And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."   Genesis 3:1-5 KJV

"According to Numbers 22, the Moabite king Balak had sent for Balaam to come and place a curse on the Israelites, who had escaped from Egypt and were in the wilderness. As Balaam was riding on a donkey to meet Balak, the angel of the Lord blocked their path. The donkey saw the angel and kept stopping, but Balaam did not see the angel and struck the donkey three times trying to get it to keep going forward. At this point the narrative reports a conversation between Balaam and his donkey:"  The Talking Donkey in the Bible: Balaam’s Donkey in Numbers 22 | Biblical Christianity (irr.org)

" 28  And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29  And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30  And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. "  Numbers 22:28-30 KJV

"Let’s first understand that the Bible was not suggesting that donkeys can naturally talk. People in the ancient world understood just as well as we do that donkeys do not have the capacity for speech. In the New Testament, Peter actually makes this point when referring briefly to the Old Testament passage. He speaks about wicked people who “have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with the voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet” (2 Peter 2:15-16). Peter states that the donkey was “mute,” meaning of course that donkeys are naturally incapable of speech."  

So if the donkey talked, it was God who made him to do so.  Nobody says donkeys can normally talk.  But this may have been a miraculous event or supernatural event.  The Bible is full of supernatural events.  It is a Bible of the supernatural.

The last sentence is not worth answering as it is nonsense.  Nobody sings Adam's sin was a happy event.  Just your invention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Yes, but not if you are talking Yahweh?

Do you recognize the good and evil in him?

You have called in the KJV, and it says that god created evil for his pleasure.

Thoughts on that?

Regards

DL

There is no evil in God and God does not create evil for his pleasure.

"Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him."  Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil? | GotQuestions.org  

It sometimes helps to read what different expositors have to say about different subject in the Bible in order to understand the context.  Search engines are useful for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

 

The last sentence is not worth answering as it is nonsense.  Nobody sings Adam's sin was a happy event.  Just your invention.

 

I did not write your Exsultet hymn.

Nice to seer how little you know of your own theology.

No wonder all you have is Got Question and their canned answers, that answer nothing.

Keep your head right up your god's genocidal ass.

Given you believe in talking animals, the damage is already done to your thinking.

You love a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous god.

Saran loves you for your choices.

Regards

DL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

"Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I 

 

2 hours ago, French Patriot said:

Too stupid to know what you quote.

Regards

DL

 

One could point out that a change in word does not make light of or change the statement. Even if evil was replaceable, it is quoted in the bible several times over, with the same meaning. Someone else causing evil |ie misery|, would be the hold the same meaning as god creating evil | ie misery|.

" I make peace, and create | adversity, affliction, calamity, distress misery, woe|" they are all synonyms of the word evil. God still creates horrible actions, from affliction to misery, quite immoral. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Winston said:

One could point out that a change in word does not make light of or change the statement

This is true, but in this case, where evil is being created to produce pleasure in the perpetrator, one would have to see that as evil, unless one could explain what the pleasure was and if it was only good for god but also the one having evil done to him or her.

The duality of things isd why our friend above would not even touch the fact that Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

 

Christians cannot do apologetics and that is why Christianity is dying.

Good riddance to homophobia and misogyny and a genocidal prick of a god.

Regards

DL

 

 

Edited by French Patriot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 12/9/2021 at 6:36 AM, blackbird said:

At this point, I don't see the value of further discussion with you.  I don't believe you are interested at all in any information I gave you.  You have your mind closed. 

Oh the irony. You suggesting someone's mind is closed then want to end the discussion because you don't like facts and hearing dissent. 

 

On 12/9/2021 at 6:36 AM, blackbird said:

So I won't pursue this any further at this point.   It is pointless as far as I can see.  I wish you well but believe you are in deep darkness.  Only God can save you from here on.  I ask God to be merciful to you and open your eyes. 

How patronising of you. It's typical godbotherer jargon as if prayers have ever done anything. If you believe all the fairy tales in your silly bible, you are the one with self induced darkness or you are blind. If you did pray, how do you know your prayers are answered? Do you get an email or text? Now do you see how ridiculous you theory is? It's all religious bollocks. 

 

On 12/9/2021 at 6:36 AM, blackbird said:

I am convinced God is real, is a holy God without sin or flaw, and created everything.  You take the opposite position and do not seem to hear anything I put forward.  So will leave it at that.  

I suggest you do exclude yourself from any discussion about you imaginary ghost friend. You keep your toys and play with them at home. There's no room in earth for religious clap trap. 

 

Edited by Charles Anthony
repaired mal-formed quotes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 5:59 PM, Winston said:

 If atheism is true then all our thoughts and values, and all our deepest convictions, including our belief in the validity of logical argument and the existence of mathematical and scientific truths, are simply an accidental by-product of our cerebral biochemistry and the mindless movement of atoms. - This individual does not understand how biology or chemistry or physics works, "accidental, by-product or mindless" are terms not used in any of those fields of study. Our thoughts transpire through systems of both chemical and physical atomic/molecular interaction, primarily led by our genes or environment. The system's primary goal is to thrive and reproduce. Subjective morality exists purely from a collective understanding and genetic propagation of the individual, thus the collective. For example, allowing killing of individuals in a collective inhibits the collective ability to prosper genetically. 

This means we are deluding ourselves when we think that we have free will, and with it, that inner freedom to weigh evidence and judge between conflicting arguments without which there can be no successful pursuit of truth, or acquisition of knowledge.-  Initial premise incorrect. Assumption that biological thoughts have no value is not determined and factually wrong, since there are unbelievers. For example people who both are not religious and do not believe in a god are still ethically functional, and can behave morally. This occurs without having “free will” (undefined). This argument also can be applied to those that do believe in a god, as their minds are the same physically as those that do not.  By this argument, thoughts of God are a chemical illusion just as much as free will thoughts are a chemical illusion. 

In reality, all our reasoning and conclusions are nothing more than the unplanned result of a long chain of entirely random non-rational physical causes over which we have no control.- There is nothing random or non-rational about our minds unless you want to talk about quantum interplay of the mind. The mind works quite well towards a goal, the goal of surviving and reproducing, nothing random or non-rational about the system. This idea is also incorrectly applied to evolution.  A lack of understanding of biology or physics is no reason for an unfounded conclusion.  

In other words, if we have no souls and no spiritual connection to God as the ultimate source of reason and truth, it follows that our brains, and therefore all our mental activity, are imprisoned within a process of physical determinism that discredits all thinking. - Minds are imprisoned within a process of genetic determinism, but this does not discredit the thought process or genetic goal. Why would this discredit our thinking? Physical determinism does not mean anything is discredited, it just means there will be a genetic thought process for an individual which may vary slightly per individual. 

We cannot be sure that any of our thoughts correspond to reality, moral or scientific, since we are biologically conditioned to think them regardless of whether they are true or not. - This is based on the premise there is absolute truth or untruth, no support that absolute/objective truth exists was produced. I would argue absolute truth does not exist. Genetic individual or group truth exists, but it is not objective, only subjective.

 By discrediting all thinking, including their own, atheists cut their own throats philosophically. Their view of ultimate reality is therefore self-refuting."   - Random sentence without a premise, why would we discredited our thinking just because it is genetically favorable thinking? Could quantum physics play a role in changing our thinking? Potentially, but that is inconclusive. The assumption that our thoughts are only genetically or environmentally controlled thus makes them discredited is exactly how it sounds, an assumption. No argument was made that are thoughts are discredited, especially when our thoughts have built the world, observe the world and interact with the world around us.  

Since you are challenging me on my morals, where does God get his morals from? And the answer can not be "god" because that is a circular argument. Otherwise I could say I get my morals from my morals, you see the circular logic. 

I have commented on many of your questions. Please answer the question, how do you not see god's behavior as sadistic or psychopathic? If a human were to act like god, killing and hurting others, would that person not be considered psychopathic or at least sadistic? 

 

 

Very well plagairised.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2022 at 1:47 AM, Colin Norris said:

I suggest you do exclude yourself from any discussion about you imaginary ghost friend. You keep your toys and play with them at home. There's no room in earth for religious clap trap. 

I usually ask those like our friend to post even more, because when Christians show their stripes, they help kill their own religion because few these days like homophobes and the misogynists or a religion that has parents haying their gay or female children.

Regards

DL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Colin Norris said:

Very well plagairised.  

The fundamental issue is that these religious debates are not honest. 

For example blackbird asked for my perspective on how the universe started, but does not want to discuss the perspective beyond an intelligent designer. Furthermore the same level of evidence is not applied to "god" vs required by science. 

Eventually they come down to make an assertion that god exists because without god there would be no universe. The amount of circular reasoning becomes frustrating and potentially pointless to discuss. 

Overall why waste our limited time? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Winston said:

The fundamental issue is that these religious debates are not honest. 

For example blackbird asked for my perspective on how the universe started, but does not want to discuss the perspective beyond an intelligent designer. Furthermore the same level of evidence is not applied to "god" vs required by science. 

Eventually they come down to make an assertion that god exists because without god there would be no universe. The amount of circular reasoning becomes frustrating and potentially pointless to discuss. 

Overall why waste our limited time? 

The arrogance of them to believe that every thing is explained by God as if they know everything. They virtually know nothing about the universe and never will. 

It's breathtakingly ignorant to believe it's all explained in an ancient book supposedly written by idiots. Yet here we are,  grown human beings devoting their whole lives to that rubbish while ridiculing other for asking questions. Its like they were vacinnated with holy water water or alter wine. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Winston said:

The fundamental issue is that these religious debates are not honest. 

For example blackbird asked for my perspective on how the universe started, but does not want to discuss the perspective beyond an intelligent designer. Furthermore the same level of evidence is not applied to "god" vs required by science. 

Eventually they come down to make an assertion that god exists because without god there would be no universe. The amount of circular reasoning becomes frustrating and potentially pointless to discuss. 

Overall why waste our limited time? 

Accusing me of not being honest is a very poor argument.   You know very well I have told you I believe that it took an intelligent designer to create the complex universe we live in.  I gave you many examples of the complexity of it which I believe is evidence of an intelligent designer.  But your argument is that I must provide proof of how a complex part of the universe or a complex life form such as a cell was created by God.  I explained to you God did not tell us how he created the universe.  He only told us he did create it in the book of Genesis.  So there is absolutely nothing dishonest about my saying that.  It is just a simple fact which you refuse to accept as a reasonable belief. 

It is you who demand some kind of scientific proof that God created everything.  All I have is the evidence of the created universe which the Bible points out should be sufficient.  If you don't accept that it is entirely your choice.  You have been taught and cling to the idea that nothing should be accepted unless it fits into some kind of "scientific methodology".  There are things in life that do not fit into the paradigm of mainstream science, things such as good versus evil, love, feelings, and what humans consider as morals.  The question of why the universe even exists or why mankind exists does not fit into any science paradigm.  You cannot fit a lot of things into the science paradigm.  You want to fit how God created everything into some kind of scientific methodology or you reject the claim that God created everything.  That is not how God has chosen to operate.  Belief in creationism is based on faith in the written revelation and a rational belief that a complex result had to have intelligence behind it.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

the written revelation

That has a talking serpent and donkey and a water walker and you think such a book of imaginary characters is some kind of truth.

You show how poorly you understand religions and morals, given that the God you posit as creator is an evil God.

Are you not concerned with your moral sense?

What is intelligently designed in your genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God?

His morals are not intelligent at all.

Too bad Christians do not care if they follow Satan.

Regards

DL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article has philosophical arguments for God.  the introduction says this:

"Why think God exists? Skeptics often demand that theists need to conclusively prove that God is there before either of us can believe He is there. But just because I may not be able to convince a skeptic that God exists doesn’t mean I cannot know God exists. God can reveal Himself to people in numerous ways, some of which don’t involve arguments. For instance, the Spirit Himself testifies to Christians’ spirits that we are God’s children (Romans 8:16). And God can also withdraw knowledge of Himself (Romans 1:18–32). I don’t have to be a master debater for God to reveal himself to me sufficiently to know that He exists. See Agnosticism for more information.

If an argument is sound and solid, it acts as a sign pointing to God.

In fact, there is no such thing as a ‘conclusive proof’, if by this one means an argument that compels universal acceptance. No argument can make people believe its conclusion. Humans are not logic-chopping robots; they come with biases, experiences, and tastes that affect the way they view arguments. For instance, consider the contrast between C.S. Lewis, a former atheist who later embraced idealistic philosophy, and Antony Flew, a hard-nosed evidentialist philosopher. Lewis was convinced by the moral argument for God, which shows God to be the moral ideal: “it is more important that Heaven should exist than that any of us should reach it.”1 Flew rejected Lewis’ moral argument for God, although late in life he was convinced of deism by the argument from design. He adopted a ‘convince me with hard evidence’ stand (a position he apparently never abandoned).

But if there are no conclusive proofs for God (in the above sense), what use are arguments for God? If an argument is sound and solid, it acts as a sign pointing to God. But signs only convey limited information, and people looking at a sign need to properly read and respond to the sign. A person who ignores a stop sign, or misreads a speed limit sign, will act accordingly. Their response may even have disastrous consequences. But that’s hardly the fault of the sign! In the same way, good arguments for God don’t have to tell us everything about God. Nor can we make people read and respond to them properly. All they offer is a public case commending belief in God as reasonable. And all we can do is faithfully portray the signs. We plant and water, but only God can give the increase (1 Cor. 3:7).

As such, when reading these arguments below, it must be understood that they are offered in that very spirit. They are not conclusive proofs, but signs pointing to God, showing at the very least that belief in Him is reasonable, if not rationally obligatory."

For the whole article and the actual philosophical arguments go to:

Arguments for God - creation.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Accusing me of not being honest is a very poor argument. 

Reread what I wrote, I accused you of not having an honest discussion. I am quite sure you honestly believe in a god.

It becomes a dishonest discussion to expect science to provide evidence but not creationism.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I gave you many examples of the complexity of it which I believe is evidence of an intelligent designer. 

You are missing the possibility that apparent complexity is from the system, not a designer. 

Having the premise that an intelligent design created the universe is extremely complex, you would have to show how something that operates in time and space can manufacture time and space?

In this case tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything? 

 

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

That is not how God has chosen to operate.

You know how god operates yet you can not explain the method by which god creates.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

rational belief that a complex result had to have intelligence behind it.

But I can just show that a grain of sand as complex as it may be is just pure physics at work, no designer required. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Winston said:

Reread what I wrote, I accused you of not having an honest discussion. I am quite sure you honestly believe in a god.

It becomes a dishonest discussion to expect science to provide evidence but not creationism.

You are missing the possibility that apparent complexity is from the system, not a designer. 

Having the premise that an intelligent design created the universe is extremely complex, you would have to show how something that operates in time and space can manufacture time and space?

In this case tell me why I can not just assert that I created the universe and everything, including you? Or do you agree that I can assert that I created everything? 

 

You know how god operates yet you can not explain the method by which god creates.

But I can just show that a grain of sand as complex as it may be is just pure physics at work, no designer required. 

 

No, it is not dishonest to say God created everything without having to explain how he created it.  As I explained God did not choose to explain how he did it.  It was obviously a supernatural act of God.  Why do you assume someone must explain it to you before you will believe it?  God is far above created man.  What gives anyone the right to demand to be told how God created everything?  We are mere created beings.  We have no rights beyond which our Creator gave us.  We need to know our place in the universe as such.

You cannot just assert you created the universe simply because you are not God as I explained above.

I do not know how God operates beyond what he has said in his revelation, the Bible.  I simply accept that he created everything that exists and he does not have to explain anything to me.  It is supernatural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...