6days
New member
True.... That is why it is so baffling that evolutionists (Steller, chemical, biological) are satisfied with a blind faith.
Why Believe in a god?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
6days
New member
Ty... you seem to argue for, and against things based on nothing but ignorance. (Lack of knowlege). *Do you understand selection? Mutations? Of course populations change. But how in the world do you think that goes against the Biblical creation model?Tyrathca said:
This is another argument based on ignorance. Do you realize I could make the same argument for Biblical creation? You can disprove Biblical creation by finding a rabbit in the Precambrian. (And, do you know why we don't expect that?)Tyrathca said:
But, neither of the two arguments is totally honest. We don't expect to find rabbits in the Precambrian, but if it happened, I'm sure we would find a way to explain it. In fact we have evidence of numerous surprises to evolutionists, in the geological record that are explained away with silly pseudoscientific explanations. For ex... sophisticated eyesight is found with no evidence of gradual change. The explanation offered for this surprise was 'It must have evolved in a geological blink of an eye'. Don't you think it would be scientific to consider sudden appearance and great design is evidence of a Designer?
No, but I did offer a simple argument. I will re-phrase it .... evolutionists argued that a useless appendix is evidence AGAINST a Creator. So, doesn't it then follow that a useful appendix is evidence FOR a Creator?Tyrathca said:
*Tyrathca said:
If that is true, then I'm sure you would agree that good design, containing complex specified information, is proof of a designer?
Again Tyrathca,.... your bring another argument based on ignorance. You should try understand pros and cons of your 'opponents' argument, so you don't create poorly designed arguments.
1. Many evolutionists have argued that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed; therefore no creator. But, it turns out that only the evolutionist argument was poorly designed. *Science has found that our eye has an amazing design...some have used words such as "optimal".
Evolutionists argued that a poor design is evidence AGAINST a Creator. So, doesnt it then follow that a good design is evidence FOR a Creator?
2. From God's Word, we understand we live in a fallen world. We understand why there sickness, disease and death. We don't expect that we live in a perfect creation... but we sure do see evidence for it.
We don't expect to disprove 'evolution'. It (common ancestry) is a non falsifiable belief. And....as you suggest, even if evolution was disproved, many would look to solutions such as aliens, or anything but the Creator God of the Bible. (It was only a couple days ago I read a secular article how Darwinian explanations are failing, and new solutions should be sought)Tyrathca said:
Are you willing to follow evidence that leads to an omnipotent, omniscient creator?
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
I've massively cut this post down to avoid derailing this thread into yet another debate about evolution.
Your ideas have to first survive on their own merits irrespective of other ideas.
But until I see some reason other than personal testimony and incredulity I extremely doubt the ideas of god/s
Do you have any reasons why I should agree with your beliefs? That is the point of this thread is it not? Arguing why I shouldn't believe the mainstream science I already do doesn't really answer that question.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
I can't really resist this one though... Are you saying poor design and goods design are evidence for the creation model?
Yes 6days this might seem like a radical concept for you but no one else having an answer doesn't automatically make your answer right. Just like if someone shows acupuncture doesn't work doesn't then mean chiropractors are effective.
Your ideas have to first survive on their own merits irrespective of other ideas.
You're being the question here. I will follow the evidence wherever it leads, if that ends up being you're god I will floor or there. If your god exists I'd be a fool to not believe it simply because I don't like it.
But until I see some reason other than personal testimony and incredulity I extremely doubt the ideas of god/s
Do you have any reasons why I should agree with your beliefs? That is the point of this thread is it not? Arguing why I shouldn't believe the mainstream science I already do doesn't really answer that question.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Nope. But I did say that what evolutionists claimed was poor design often turns out to be great design. I used our eyes as an example.*Tyrathca said:
Not radical...illogical.*Tyrathca said:
*
Ok... so you are open to evidence that leads to a Creator. It's natural to have doubts.*Tyrathca said:
Yes... I have reasons. *First of all -- You should agree with science. But "mainstream science" you mention *is often just the popular opinion which science later disproves.*Tyrathca said:
But lets revert back to the OP. *P.Z.Meyers says we don't need an intelligent authority to explain the universe. Meyers of course is expessing a belief that is not based on science or logic.*
Did the universe have a beginning? If it had a beginning, then science and logic suggest there has to be a cause. If you agree, then that cause must have existed eternally. *So does the cause, or the universe exhibit evidence of design, and follow laws? *I believe the universe does appear designed. Things which appear designed, may be evidence of a designer. Codes containing instructions always *have an intelligent designer. Our DNA is evidence of an intelligent designer. *I believe scientific laws are evidence of a law giver.*
Meyers says Christians are unable to answer basic questions. He is wrong. *There are reasons why we believe.
Tyrathca
New member
You think that it is illogical to think that just because I'm wrong you're not automatically right? Or to simplify it you think it is logical to think that if I'm wrong then you must be right? Is that really what you are saying?
Think carefully before answering yes and remember this isn't a dichotomy.
Yes.
Nothing is 100% certain outside math
Your opinion on science is irrelevant.
You disagree with the scientific experts and my own opinion on the state of current evidence. You disagree based on your own misunderstandings and ignorance.
Will some of it be proved wrong? Likely, but science rarely goes through fundamental reversals of opinion (when it does is a big deal like Einstein and Darwin). What's more it hasn't been disproved yet and even if it is that doesn't make creationism right.
No it is a fair representation of science so far. None of our science requires an intelligent authority in order to make its predictions. Not one branch of science.
Maybe. The current observable universe did in the big bang but it is unclear if this was the beginning. Some have it as the start of time (the north pole of North), other models have it as actually a "big bounce" after a "big crunch" (my opion is thats unlikely but not impossible) some have us as a bubble of spacetime from an infinite regress of universes. And those are just some of the options, the answer is we really don't know and might never know.
Nope. Internal properties within the universe do not necessarily apply outside/to it. Essentially you are trying to apply causality (a property derived from time) to time itself. You have no logical basis to assume this must be the case.
You believe. But science has shown multiple times that the appearance of design to humans does not always mean there was a designer.
You've had this explained to you in the creationism and evolution thread. This is just your misunderstandings of the cocept of information and codes and your treating an assumption in a useful mathematical model as a scientific law.
You can barely define your concept of information anyway so how you would test your idea anyway is a mystery.
You believe
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
God created math
Tyrathca
New member
6days
New member
What I said is correct. Science often proves evolutionists poorly devised arguments to be false.
How about death and taxes??
The Bible tells us to have a evidence based faith so that we can know for certain.
Most of what Darwin believed has been proved wrong. Evolutionism is an unfalsifiable belief system. Its like a fog that covers any landscape. Evolutionists claim both useless and functional organs are evidence of their belief. Both good design and bad design are shoehorned to fit beliefs.
No...He is expressing his religious views.
Haha.... Those are a few of the silly answers silly answers...there are more. For example a current cosmologist suggests that in order for the universe to prosper there has to be black holes spawning new universes.Tyrathca said:
Those are all nonsense beliefs (And there are more)... They are not based on a shred of evidence.
In any case ..... You tried to dodge the question with a "Maybe" and then silly possibilities about infinite regress... A big bounce, again and again... Etc.
Science and logic suggest that anything which begins, has a cause. Most of the silly possibilities listed just try push the beginning back...back...back. The Bible offers a logical answer... An uncaused omnipotent, omniscient Creator caused the beginning.
What I said was "Things which appear designed, may be evidence of a designer." The fine tuning of our universe is evidence. Our eyes are evidence. DNA is evidence. ETC.Tyrathca said:
You don't have an answer. EVERY information bearing code known has a code maker. The atheists only reply to this is that DNA is not a real code.Tyrathca said:
DNA is evidence of a "super Intelligence" ( Former atheist A. Flew)
6days
New member
Science is a form of worship. We can see the majesty of our Creator in the vastness of the universe... and in the incredible sophistication and complexity of the cell. For example:
* Our bodies contain about 100,000,000,000,000 cells
* Some cells are so small it would take 6,000 cells placed end to end to make 1 inch (apprx 2.5 CM)
* And yet if all our cells were placed end to end, they would encircle the earth more than 200 times
Each tiny cell has 3 major parts:
1. MEMBRANE- Ernest Borek has observed: “The membrane recognizes with its uncanny molecular memory the hundreds of compounds swimming around it and permits or denies passage according to the cell’s requirements”
2. CYTOPLASM- There are over 20 different chemical reactions occurring at any one time, with each cell containing five major components for: (1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition; (4) repair; and (5) reproduction. Within the cytoplasm organelles as the mitochondria which can number more than 1000 per cell.
There is an amazing busy factory within each cell. For example:
A. Endoplasmic reticulum is a transport system that takes things to where they are needed.
B. Ribosomes are protein producing factories(within each cell)
C. Golgi bodies are warehouses which store the proteins until needed
D. Lysozomes are the 'gabage trucks' They dispose of the garbage.
3. NUCLEUS is the control center. Within the nucleus is the genetic machinery of the cell (chromosomes and genes containing DNA).
*Within each DNA there are about 3 billion base pairs
*The chemical code in the human genome would fill a 300-volume set of encyclopedias of approximately 2,000 pages each.
The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact of our Creator.
"I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well" Psalm 139:14
There are many great short videos which can give you an idea of the busy 'manufacturing city' within each of your cells. Here is one of the many videos trying to give you a glimpse; and keep in mind that this 'manufacturing city' is so tiny that up to 20,000 cells can fit within this '0'.
Nonon... I hope you can watch this short 3 minute video produced by Harvard trying to portray what goes on in just a single cell. We have an AWESOME God!!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...4420EA307A061374BA834420EA307A06137&FORM=VIRE
There is no evidence that God created Math.
I think it is more likely that Shepherds counting sheep invented Math.
There is no evidence you're human.
There's one way that it can be done. And that's to be anti-abortion/pro-life.
'You one of those?
We already played this game. You keep wanting me to put into words what I mean by evil and foulness and wickedness. I keep saying in so many words, "Imagine a person, raping an infant, and then murdering an infant, that's evil," and you deny that I'm defining evil. I guess we just cannot communicate verbally. Maybe if we witnessed an enactment of a person raping and murdering an infant, I could point to the stage or the screen and define it for you ostensively. That's evil, that's what I mean.
Maybe we'd actually have to see it done for real for you to truly, truly understand what I mean by evil. Maybe you'd have to do it yourself, I don't know. I do know, that we are stumbling over a very very basic thing here.
I'm not assuming anything I'm not actively testing.Your assumption here is that these are metaphysical things to begin with let alone that you then assume that metaphysical require an omnipotent omniscient being.There you go confusing linguistics and philosophy again. It's like the idea of metaphors, not all words are meant to be taken literally, or that words don't always reflect reality is an alien concept to you.
There is a term for this: "concrete thinking"
Thats good because any attempts to "pressure" me in an internet forum would be nothing but amusing. The problem is your "just hear" is actually "hear my claims and just believe", this whole thread is all about "why" and despite numerous attempts by me to extract it you continue to not actually explain the "why" of what you say (you just endlessly repeat it as if the claim itself is self-evident or self-proving)
I don't need a belief in a god to call those things evil though I suspect you and I have different meaning to the word (mine has no mysticism or inherent properties of the universe assumed)
One could equally say the same about Islam and Mohamed or several other faiths. If its good enough for you its good enough for them.... and you can't all be right (but you can all be wrong).
Tyrathca
New member
Thats odd because what I said was correct. Science consistently proves crearionists poorly devised arguments to be false.
"Evidence based faith".... That sounds like an oxymoron. What does it even mean?
It is objective fact that no branch of accepted science or their predictive models require a god.
You see this is why it is hard to take your opinion seriously. Here we have the published hypothesises of many different physicists based on different variants of current models of various physics and here you are dismissing them simply because you find them "silly". Further experimentation will show if their model is a reflection of reality or just close.
Again hard to take you seriously on science. You think that saying there are multiple alternative possible explanations for which we have insufficient evidence to choose between is a "dodge". Seemingly you are so enamoured by the biblical way of claiming to know everything already regardless of the evidence.
Simply put you can not claim there must be a god because of the need for an uncaused cause until you show there must be an uncaused cause. Here we have alternative explanations for the universe which are emergent from known physics (unlike your god hypothesis) that give possible (regardless of how unlikely you may thnk they are) alternatives that bypass the entire problem. Do I know which if any are right? No. Is it possible they are all wrong? Yes, even quite probable. Do I pretend to know the answer tot his fundamental question of the universe? No and your confidence that you somehow do know the answer is not reassuring.
(We haven't even got into even more odd explanations like temporal loops either!)
As I have shown there are alternative answer that don't require an uncaused cause. However even if we assume there is an uncaused cause (which has a high, though not certain, chance of being true) all you have then is that - an uncaused cause. There is no logical reason to then assume the uncaused cause is omniscient or allpowerful or even thinks at all. There an almost innumerable number of alternative explanations with just as much evidence (none) of being true. Even if there is an omnipotence and an omniscient being preceding the universe (which I don't conceed is true - this is a thought experiment) that doesn't even mean that it is the same as the uncaused cause.
Maybe there was an unthinking uncaused cause which caused something which has one solitary power - the ability to create universes? Doesn't even need to have any intelligence behind it, not omnipotent or know anything about what it is doing. Just causes universes to be born. It has as much evidence for it as an omniscient omnipotent god.
I've given you an answer in a seperate thread where we debated this for sometime. I don't feel like dredging it up and rehashing it given you're the same old broken record who hasn't tried to ever address the fundamental problem of this argument. You have no scientific basis to prove this claim of yours, you can't even define informtion in such a way as to test for it.
If we were to take your idea to it's logical extreme, DNA is evidence of humans designing themselves. EVERY information bearing code has a human code maker (we are the only code makers you are referring to right?). Therefore DNA must be designed by humans! Or perhaps DNA just looks similar to our codes (much like many things we have created that it turns out nature beat us to) and we AREN'T the only way code can be made. And the "code" of DNA has a code maker, it's just not intelligent or thinking (it's mutation and natural selection)
Why should I care about the opinion of who I'd never heard of until he converted from atheism to deism in his very later years? He had some good ideas within philosophy within his time but that lends nothing to his much later hollow contributions.
Is there a particular argument he made which you found compelling or was it merely the idea he was an atheist who became a deist?
Tyrathca
New member
Yes I do, that you have such trouble doing so is information in itself.
If you're going to ask me to agree to something and then extrapolate so much from it such that you think it tells us something about the fundamental nature of the universe then I will need you to be very specific about what you actually mean. A slight alteration in your meaning can have profound changes to your extrapolated conclusions.
Because that is not a definition. Based on that "definition" one can say that ONLY raping and murdering (not just one) an infant (not a child or adult) is evil. Which I am fairly confident is not what you actually think.
To simplify it for you if I ask you to define obesity and you tell me that Mr Jones is obese that's not actually providing a definition of obesity is it? You've just labelled a specific example. It only tells me that Mr Jones is obese and doesn't let me apply the definition to anyone else to tell if they are obese or not too. The same with your "definition" of evil, you've simply labelled something as evil with no way of saying that anything else is evil.
You might as well name it blurple. You're just applying a label not telling me anything useful let alone anything that would explain why you think it requires god.
It's conversations with people like you which make me think there is a subset of the population which we as atheists should actively try and make sure never deconvert. It seems like if you were to one day suddenly stop believing in a god for whatever unlikely reason you would then go on a killing spree raping and maiming as you went.
If there were no god watching over your shoulder, or if he simply told you one day he didn't care then why wouldn't you go out and do these things you label evil? Don't tell me it won't happen, it's a thought experiment and besides your god is omnipotent supposedly so he could do ANYTHING (even if you say it's impossible)
glassjester
Well-known member
Because there is something, rather than nothing.
Something must have caused that to be so.
Whatever that cause is, as Aquinas says, "This, all men call God."
Certain characteristics of this God can be reasoned, based on the simple fact that It created the universe.
PZ Meyers does, by the above definition, believe in some type of god.
If he believes that the universe had the power to cause itself to be, then the universe is his god.
Whatever he believes the traits of his god to be, can be debated separately. But he (and any other atheist) certainly believes in Aquinas' uncaused cause.
glassjester
Well-known member
Evil is that which ought not be.
Can you think of any event at all which absolutely should never occur, under any circumstances whatsoever (perhaps Nihilo's example)? If so, then you acknowledge that things can be objectively evil.
6days
New member
The universe declares the majesty of God. What a privileged time in history we live... science reveals how awesome our creator is as we discover the world around us. Science can help us worship Him.Nonon said:
Henry Schaefer, professor of chemistry and director of the center of computational quantum chemistry U. of Georgia wrote: "The significance and joy in my Science come in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself "so that's how God did it."
Here are a couple more examples of how science helps reveal the truth of scripture and the majesty of our Creator.
* The Hubble telescope has allowed us to realize that there are trillions of stars in the universe.
* Each star appears unique. One astronomer has said " literally every place the Hubble has looked, it has found something fantastic"
The Bible says " this sun has 1 kind of splendor, the moon and the other, and stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."
Until recent times people thought the stars were all the same or similar, yet Paul, inspired by God tells us every star is different.
Before Galileo, people thought there were only a couple thousand stars. Yet the prophet Jeremiah must have blown people minds when he said "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured". The secularists must have scoffed. Yet today we know there my be far more stars than grains of sands of the sea. How many stars are there? Perhaps about 1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
PureX
Well-known member
... According to me.
Clearly, you have no idea what the word "objective" means.
How old are you, you idiot? "People like me." Censored. You are censored.
You agree with the Christian faith, that raping and murdering infants is evil, yes or no.
I assume yes.
Now, the only way you can logically rationally philosophically linguistically justify that, is to believe in the Maker.
With one exception.
Are you pro-life and anti-abortion. Is abortion murder. Yes or no, thanks.
Tyrathca
New member
I'm going to assume you're swearing at me here.
I said people like you because you're not the first to describe your morality in such a way. You have quite clearly stated that raping and murdering wouldn't be evil (and therefore I presume would ok) if your god didn't exist. This seems to be your entire argument it seems. If you really have no other reason to think that such things shouldn't be done and ate bad other than your god then please never stop believing. If you do have other reasons then your whole argument seems to collapse.
I've already answered this (yes) and provided you with a definition that in part hero's explain why yes.
How does your god justify it philosophically. I'm still waiting for you to justify this claim.
I'm curious as to what this would be. But if there is one exception then maybe there are more you just haven't thought of yet
No
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk