You are the one insisting on using baby talk to describe evolution.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
What replacement term would satisfy you? "The simple single cell"?
I can understand the sentiment but sound reason is not a matter of opinion. The only thing anyone must prove is the veracity of their own arguments, which includes the veracity of the premises upon which those arguments are built.
The only way it would their burden to prove the non-existence of God is if they were saying that the Big Bang or evolution happened BECAUSE God doesn't exist but that isn't their argument. Their argument is that the universe's current state can be explained entirely by natural processes. God doesn't come into it for them.
In other words, their worldview is atheistic but that doesn't mean their arguments in favor of evolution (or whatever) are constructed with the non-existence of God as an actual premise. If they do make such an argument, then you've got them but don't jump the gun and presume they have a logical burden that they don't have or else you risk getting needlessly whacked by a skilled debater.
Clete
No goo lead to me or anyone else.
The term "goo" implies a random collection of lifeless chemicals not intricately designed sperm cells, ovum and countless other things with millions of WILDLY complex biochemical machines working in concert to produce a new human life.
Clete
Christians don't resort to an error by informing atheistic evolutionists that they can no more prove evolution created life forms on earth than Christians can prove God created life on earth.
It is not the atheist's burden to disprove faith in God, it is their burden to prove their faith in evolution.
The atheist can place all his faith in the assumption that no supernatural forces were involved in the origin and continuation of life on earth, but he cannot prove his faith is an irrefutable scientific fact and not simply assumed.
Atheists can comfort themselves in the belief that God must not exist because humans cannot see Him, but atheists cannot prove their assumptions about the unknown are irrefutable scientific facts.
I agree. The apparent superiority of one argument over another in human debates may seem to some to prove their scientific theories are irrefutable scientific facts, but that is far from the truth. God establishes what are irrefutable facts, not human debate.
They can and do!
Your point here is actually well taken but you should have added the word "rightly"...
"Law makers and public officials cannot RIGHTLY take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions."
Here is God's argument:
2 Peter 3
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
God says those who refuse to believe His Biblical record are willingly ignorant of the facts.
There is no excuse for not challenging atheists for insisting that no supernatural forces were involved in the creation of the universe and life on earth because they cannot prove that opinion.
What do you mean atheist arguments are not based on a false belief that natural forces are responsible for the origin of the universe and life on earth and that no supernatural forces were involved? How are their theories of origins not based upon assumptions about the unknown that they cannot prove?
They don't usually claim that they can prove it, at least the smart one's don't. That's why it's the THEORY of evolution.
If they are making a faith based claim, yes.
The claim that it's a mere assumption is a claim that a skilled debater would ask you to prove. He would point out that your introduction of the super-natural is to claim facts that are not in evidence. It is not a faith based assumption to presume something doesn't exist when you have no evidence that it does. In other words, it is not the atheist's burden to disprove the super-natural until affirmative evidence for the super-natural is presented.
Right! This is a main reason why people who are actually atheists often call themselves agnostics.
Hmm, that feels like an overstatement to me.
Humans are quite capable of PROVING things true or false. Not all things, to be sure, but many things and while losing a debate does not NECESSARILY prove the other side true, the reverse of that isn't the case. In other words, if I PROVE my case then it's negation is NECESSARILY false and my debate opposition loses.
Clete
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I only read him in reflection but in that brief exposure I always pick up three or four points that are ripe for ridicule
All true but it wouldn't move an atheist an inch because they do not accept the existence of the God we claim that passage is about and even written by.
They don't have to prove it unless affirmative evidence to the contrary is presented. It is NOT unreasonable to presume the non-existence of a thing for which there is no evidence.
They do believe that there is no evidence! They are quite wrong on that point but that doesn't shift the burden of proof to them.
I mean, ultimately, yes, they are without excuse because the evidence is everywhere you look but that's a different discussion than what is and is not their burden to prove IN A DEBATE.
Try to think about it from their side of the debate. What if you were asked to participate in a debate about evolution but you didn't get to pick which side you had to argue. You're in a debate class and the professor assigned you the task of arguing in favor of evolution. As soon as your opponent attempted to make you prove the non-existence of the supernatural, if you're any good at debating at all, you'd win the whole debate. At the very least, you'd win major points on that particular point because it simply wouldn't be your burden to proven such a thing.
Show me the argument for evolution that anyone has made that has the non-existence of the supernatural as a PREMISE.
It doesn't exist, at least overtly, not that I've ever seen. If someone told you that God exists and that His act of creation was what we call the Big Bang and everything in the natural world since then has proceeded based on the natural laws that came with that Big Bang. So, now he's conceded the existence of the supernatural but not that it has anything to do with anything that has happened since a pico-second after everything went Bang.
See my point there? The existence of the supernatural is not directly relevant to a debate about evolution. The existence of the Christian God certainly is! But that's a whole different debate, right?
Because they aren't mere assumptions. It is not a mere assumption for me to reject the existence of green swans because there is no evidence that green swans do exist. The lack of evidence is not PROOF but it is sufficient to remove it from the realm of blind faith or mere assumption.
Clete
I'm not concerned about those who see evolution as an unproven theory. I am referencing those who wrongly claim evolution is a proven scientific fact.
l will continue to insist that an unproven theory is more assumption than fact.
I never presumed that my arguments would move an atheist off bad assumptions and beliefs.
How is it reasonable to assume invisible elements do not exist because they are invisible? That is not reasonable, but nonsense.
Those who claim Christians have some mysterious burden to prove anything are not thinking clearly. Atheists may claim they have no burden to prove anything and I agree with that opinion of theirs if that is what they want to claim.
Anyone making an unsubstantiated claim in a debate is at a disadvantage, but that does not mean the disadvantaged is wrong. Nobody can prove a lie is true so all false claims are still false whether those speaking the truth have disadvantages or not.
No professor should presume to imply valid arguments can be made in proof of erroneous beliefs in blind faith.
No. Show me the atheist arguments that can be made for the origins of the universe and life on earth that do not assume there is no God.
Any argument that denies the fact of God's creation of the universe and life on earth is based upon unproven assumptions, not scientific facts. Science cannot detect God so any claims as to the origin of the universe and life on earth that assumes God was involved or assumes God had no part in the matter is not a scientific claim.
You cannot claim that opinions that God does not exist are not assumptions.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
They do it all the time, when analyzed theoretically. Theory supports ideology and when public officials take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions, it is from the theoretical perspective which supports our ideologies that we make such judgments.
There's a certain ideology that supports 'lockdowns' for an example. That ideology at its base is very conservative (meaning here basically 'safety oriented') and those ideologues would characterize liberals as 'reckless' or 'dangerous' 'extremists', for authorizing people to just go wherever they want. Both sides would see the other as wrong headed, wanting to take public actions based on illogical and unsupported notions, but the ideas come from the theories supporting the ideology.
How are those two sentences not contradictory?
Of course I can. I suppose it depends on just what one means by assumption, which is why I've been adding the word "mere" to it. What I'm suggesting is that for many atheists their belief that there is no God isn't born out of mindless sort of flippant assumption they've made. I do not believe that the legend of Thor was originated by aliens from outer-space who visited Earth in ancient times. That is NOT a mere assumption on my part. I don't believe it because I've been given no reason to believe it. Likewise, someone who doesn't believe in God because he's been given no reason to do so, isn't making a mere assumption. Maybe he's ignorant or maybe he's made an error (or both) but that isn't the same thing and I don't care how many times you show up here to ignore the things I've said and repeat yourself, it IS NOT the atheist's burden to prove that God does not exist! You can go right on demanding it from them if you want but all you're going to accomplish is them laughing in your face and blowing you off as, what is in their minds, a typically ignorant Christian who hasn't any idea what he's talking about or how to think properly. You'll hand your enemy weapons they have no right to wield while disarming yourself.
Clete
Since science cannot detect non-visible supernatural entities and science cannot prove events that happened that were not observed and for which there is no irrefutable proof actually happened in unobserved ways, opinions about the origin of the universe and of life on earth cannot be called science.
"Science" isn't something that "detects" anything. It is the process of obtaining knowledge, or simply knowledge itself.
Using reason itself is sufficient to find out whether an invisible supernatural Entity that we call "God" exists.
Here's how, simply because of the phrase, "I think, therefore I am":
| - I never doubt that I exist. - I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist. - I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence. - I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist. - I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence. - I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy. - Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists. - Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause. - Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. - I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself. - And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever. - And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever. - And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me. - And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal. - And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness. - And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive. - So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal. - And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God". - And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist. - And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational. - And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love. - And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good. - So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving. - And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived. - And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us. - And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false. - Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life. |
Haven't you ever heard of "forensic science"?
They're opinions. Opinions are not necessarily facts. Doesn't mean they CAN'T be facts.
Just because atheists don't believe in God does not mean science does not give good reasons to believe in His existence."Science" isn't something that "detects" anything. It is the process of obtaining knowledge, or simply knowledge itself.
Using reason itself is sufficient to find out whether an invisible supernatural Entity that we call "God" exists.
Here's how, simply because of the phrase, "I think, therefore I am":
- I never doubt that I exist.
- I never doubt that truth exists, because for example, it is true that I exist.
- I never doubt that reason exists, because I can reason to the truth of the previous sentence.
- I never doubt that there is a reality, because truth and reason exist.
- I never doubt that the universe exists, because I exist as part of it, and I can reason to the truth of its existence.
- I never doubt that the universe must have had a beginning, because stars still burn available energy.
- Since truth and reason exist, I never doubt that logic exists.
- Since I exist and logic exists, I never doubt that existence itself must be rational.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that whatever has a beginning must have a cause.
- Since logic and reason exist, I never doubt that the effect cannot be greater than the cause.
- I never doubt that whatever caused the universe must be powerful and even greater than the universe itself.
- And since logic exists, I realize that nothing that has a beginning can have existed forever.
- And since the Cause of the universe must exist, I realize that it has no beginning, and has existed forever.
- And since this uncaused Cause created the universe, i.e., its ingredients, I don't doubt that it also created me.
- And since I'm a person and the effect can't be greater than the cause I don't doubt that the Creator is personal.
- And because we persons are creative like He is, I never doubt that we are made to some extent in His likeness.
- And because the Creator is a person, I never doubt that He must be alive.
- So I never doubt that the attributes of our eternal Creator are that He is living and personal.
- And I never doubt that human beings refer to the living and personal eternal Creator as "God".
- And I never doubt that to be a person, one must have a will, so that it is by God's will that I exist.
- And because we creatures have the ability to know our Creator, I never doubt that He is relational.
- And because He made us with the ability to love, I never doubt that the Creator Himself can love.
- And because God can love, and He made us to know good and evil, I therefore never doubt that He is good.
- So I never doubt our all-powerful, eternal Creator God who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving.
- And I never doubt that all these things could be intuitively understood by everyone who's ever lived.
- And because God is good and loving and made us, I never doubt that He cares about us and wants to save us.
- And I never doubt that if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead as prophesied, that Christianity is false.
- Nor have I ever doubted that if Jesus did rise from the dead, then all other religions are false and as He claimed, He is the only way to eternal life.
Haven't you ever heard of "forensic science"?
They're opinions. Opinions are not necessarily facts. Doesn't mean they CAN'T be facts.
Duh...
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
In fact science and philosophy when assembled together describe God as a non-local hidden Person. It does not mean He exists, it just describes Him if He does exist.
Science can philosophize about the supernatural but it cannot speak authoritatively about things of which it has no evidence or knowledge.