Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I wish you were willing to provide an example of me doing this.

Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

Philip wrote:

Nils: I know that there are lots of theological theories about God being an eternal simple entity and you cannot ask why he exists. But that argument doesn't impress the atheist and that is important to understand when you discuss with atheists." I can add that to me there is no difference in the plausibility of a God that was created say one hundred billions year ago or a God that has existed eternally. In both cases it is reasonable to ask why he exists now.

Ah, but atheist don't ask the same deep questions about how the universe instantly came into being, showing the INSTANT things, and the NECESSARY things, IMMEDIATELY showing design and behaviors that obey very strict, complex laws. Where did that come from? How did some non-intelligent thing or things instantly create things that reveal what only an intelligence can provide? And how did they make the non-physical become physical, in a mere second? Or where did the right building blocks and conditions come from? ALL things have a source, right? Or they are eternal - are there ANY other possibilities?

If the UNIVERSE is eternal, OR had been eternal or part of a chain, it still doesn't explain the intelligence necessary for what exists. And ALL chains of things start with the very first link. Blind, non-intelligent things do not plan, strategize, design, "see" advantages, or maneuver to obtain them, cannot move themselves to do anything, cannot think or see in ANY way, can't compel any type of order, etc. And even if eternal, with unlimited time, the universe A) could not create itself and B) could not obtain sophistication, function or design on a level we still can scarcely understand.

Some physicists don't like the Big Bang as the beginning to this one and only universe - because (just like Einstein immediately realized) they well know the implications of a universe coming from a beginning in which NO matter or physical things pre-existed. So they creatively have speculated upon how we might have an eternal universe, or a chain of them. But scientific speculations, no matter how much sophisticated scientific jargon and terminologies are employed - even by attaching such "science-speak" of known processes to them - are not proven by hard data and testing, can't be falsified, etc. Ultimately, EVERY such theory asserting some unproven, eternal mechanisms I've ever read about required some pre-existing things or precise, complex conditions for the mechanisms propelling their theory to have been possible. And as for every such theory, no physical evidence whatsoever has been shown to support their ideas. And they never can explain how either the necessary complex conditions or the first universe came into existence.

So, atheists get all cranked up over how can God exist eternally, and yet they have no problem or concern with the idea that SOME eternal thing or things, on a remarkable scale and with unfathomably spectacular abilities and untold power, HAD to have existed and been eternal. I guess the good thing is that such scientists realize there had to be some ultimate source for all that exists, and that it HAD to be eternal. But to assert blind, random, things, without an intelligence making them possible and also enabling them, can explain all that has ever existed - that's no problem, right? That ANYTHING can exist without a cause - whether a universe or even just its building blocks and its exceptionally narrow range of necessary conditions - those are absolutely no problem - RIGHT?

@Philip
I am sorry but the discussion goes to fast for me. I have to comment later.
Nils

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I wish you were willing to provide an example of me doing this.

Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

And as I and others have said countless times before, you are conflating ontology and epistemology.
You agree that child rape is morally wrong. In order for child rape to be morally wrong, there needs to be an objective standard, by which wrong and right are judged. If there is no objective moral standard, nothing is wrong. With no objective moral standard, the very worst things, such as child rape, cannot be said to be morally wrong, only disadvantageous, or socially unacceptable.

Kenny, on this issue, you are a walking contradiction. You agree that child rape is always morally wrong, yet you refuse to accept the conclusion to your belief. Instead of just admitting the obvious, that morals are objective, you redefine words, and come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the truth.

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote: But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

Nice of you, Abe, that you consider the possibility that I am telling the truth.

What I described was what happened when I was about thirteen, I don't remember exactly what I thought about the consequences of my belief but that's not important. The reasoning was quite simple: I didn't see any evidence for a God. I didn't find any other arguments for a God. Therefore it was just as good to not believe in God.

Nowadays I have thought more of the consequences but find nothing that changes my mind. On the contrary.

You mention one argument that you think is a defeater namely that it is difficult to explain the beginning of the Universe without a God. I agree with that but what is the alternative? You say that there is an entity that you call God and attributes to him everything that is complex and then say that that solves all problems. But the atheist will ask: How came God into existence? To the atheist this question is exactly as difficult to answer as the question of the origin of the Universe. So nothing is gained by introducing a God. I know that there are lots of theological theories about God being an eternal simple entity and you cannot ask why he exists. But that argument doesn't impress the atheist and that is important to understand when you discuss with atheists.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

I understand that you think it is much harder to believe that nothing (or chance in a multiverse) created our Universe than believing in God. Probably because you believe in God for some other reasons. I don't. Initially, I had no other argument for not believing in God but Occam's razor. Nowadays I have some more but I'll come back to that later, probably in a new thread.

Nils

It is a strawman for an atheist to ask who created God because Christians don't believe in created gods and our God is eternal and eternal although hard to imagine is forever and thus cannot be created.A typical misunderstanding atheists make is to assume that the Christian God is created or that when Christians point out that things have a cause it means all things including God. But that is not what we are saying that all things have a cause because our God did not have a cause.But the argument is things are caused and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact.

It was just hard for me to understand how you claim you found no evidence for God and yet chose atheism that has no evidence it is the correct world view based on evidence and arguments for Christianity and arguments atheist philosophers have made about not needing evidence to be an atheist which is admitting to everybody there is no evidence it is the correct world view. It was just hard for me to understand how you could come to such a conclusion based on evidence especially when I really don't think evidence is needed if we have God did it or Nothing did it to choose from.

Atheists do not ask who created God, but they do ask how God came to be. And always there is this unclaimable answer that God is eternal, had no beginning, has no end. That is something you believe in with blind fate.
We (I as an agnostic materialist) do not believe something on just blind fate. We need evidence, or at least some proof of reliable possibility. And as long as that is not present, we accept the most or very likely logical possibility of our best understanding of that unknown as the answer, until proven (partly) otherwise. There are assumptions involved, but nothing like blind faith.

It is a strawman to ask how God came to be.It is intellectual dishonesty to ask that question.It does not apply to the Christian God and you cannot make it.It is not by blind faith that I believe God is eternal.It is based on reality in our world that things are caused in our world and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality. So that if you reject this logical conclusion based on the reality in our world you are denying reality.

And you must as an atheist do this which is why you are willing to believe that there can be some unexplained way without a God with no basis in reality,fact or evidence.You must go outside the reality of our world if you reject God as the cause of our universe and accept things that require far,far more faith to believe and accept than if you just believed in God.

Philip touched on this above talking about how certian physicists don't like the big bang and so they come up with all kinds of possibilities outside our known reality as possible ways universes could be caused without a God but without any evidence and it is not peer reviewed science too.

They do this all to avoid God as the cause but despite their attempts and wild imaginations they can never get around the fact that things are caused in our universe and world and so their must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality. No matter how hard they try they cannot make wild imaginations fit into reality that they can think up to replace God and this is why the big bang is still king in science despite all of these other ideas and it does not look like the big bang is changing anytime soon despite these speculations that go outside of reality and require far,far more faith to believe and accept over God.

It is actually atheists accusing us of what they are willing to do and that is believe and accept things as a cause for our universe with no basis in reality,fact or evidence but still entertain it anyway as a possibility over God based on blind faith and the denial of reality.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I wish you were willing to provide an example of me doing this.

Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

RickD wrote: And as I and others have said countless times before, you are conflating ontology and epistemology.

Is it possible to not believe in God and understand Ontology and Epistemology? Or does a complete understanding of these terms require a Theistic belief?

RickD wrote: You agree that child rape is morally wrong. In order for child rape to be morally wrong, there needs to be an objective standard, by which wrong and right are judged.

And who is this objective moral standard that you speak of?
Humm… Lemme guess…. Yahweh; the God of Christianity.
But then there is this other guy of Zoroastrianism who says Ahura Mazda is the objective moral standard!
Humm.. Lemme guess… this Zoroastrianism dude is just plain wrong, because Ahura Mazda is a false God thus he doesn't exist so he can’t be the objective moral standard.
But then this Zorastrianism guys says the same thing about you and Yahweh! How do you demonstrate that your claim trumps his?

RickD wrote: If there is no objective moral standard, nothing is wrong. With no objective moral standard, the very worst things, such as child rape, cannot be said to be morally wrong, only disadvantageous, or socially unacceptable.

Kenny, on this issue, you are a walking contradiction. You agree that child rape is always morally wrong, yet you refuse to accept the conclusion to your belief. Instead of just admitting the obvious, that morals are objective, you redefine words, and come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the truth.

Consider a scenerio that Yahweh didn’t exist. Would this make morality subjective? If Objective morality requires a standard, and that standard is Yahweh, wouldn’t that mean Objective morality requires the existence of Yahweh? Would this mean rape is not morally wrong if Yahweh did not exist? Which goes back to my first point; is it possibility to understand objective morality (not conflate ontology and epistemology) without believing in the God of Christianity?

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I wish you were willing to provide an example of me doing this.

Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

RickD wrote: And as I and others have said countless times before, you are conflating ontology and epistemology.

Is it possible to not believe in God and understand Ontology and Epistemology? Or does a complete understanding of these terms require a Theistic belief?

RickD wrote: You agree that child rape is morally wrong. In order for child rape to be morally wrong, there needs to be an objective standard, by which wrong and right are judged.

And who is this objective moral standard that you speak of?
Humm… Lemme guess…. Yahweh; the God of Christianity.
But then there is this other guy of Zoroastrianism who says Ahura Mazda is the objective moral standard!
Humm.. Lemme guess… this Zoroastrianism dude is just plain wrong, because Ahura Mazda is a false God thus he doesn't exist so he can’t be the objective moral standard.
But then this Zorastrianism guys says the same thing about you and Yahweh! How do you demonstrate that your claim trumps his?

RickD wrote: If there is no objective moral standard, nothing is wrong. With no objective moral standard, the very worst things, such as child rape, cannot be said to be morally wrong, only disadvantageous, or socially unacceptable.

Kenny, on this issue, you are a walking contradiction. You agree that child rape is always morally wrong, yet you refuse to accept the conclusion to your belief. Instead of just admitting the obvious, that morals are objective, you redefine words, and come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the truth.

Consider a scenerio that Yahweh didn’t exist. Would this make morality subjective? If Objective morality requires a standard, and that standard is Yahweh, wouldn’t that mean Objective morality requires the existence of Yahweh? Would this mean rape is not morally wrong if Yahweh did not exist? Which goes back to my first point; is it possibility to understand objective morality (not conflate ontology and epistemology) without believing in the God of Christianity?

I'm going to hold you to atheistic philosophers who claim if you are not making a claim you don't need any evidence and say since you brought up another world view it is up to you to make a case for wjhy we should choose to accept that world view over the Christian world view. Because atleast that world view has a cause for morals, atleast I think it does,but why should we?

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure how it can work with us being the "Fred" unless you wish to put forward some positive arguments for Atheism.

Re: evidence, the fact Nils didn't even know of Aquinas' arguments which are generally presented at some point an an introductory Philosophy of Religion course... and the fact many of my posts have made you really have to think and even left you unsure how to respond, suggests to me that at least with you two, there are many strong arguments for God's existence that do infact exist which you likely haven't thought about.

Yet, one need not go to such lengths as Aquinas even. Children tend towards belief in God (as scientific studies on such reveal). God from the created order seems to be an obvious intuition, and yet, we bury God for some reason or another, convince ourselves out of belief. The natural disposition of humanity carries recognition of something greater, purpose, eternity, etc. Yet, our natures also tend to want to distance ourselves and run from such.

PS. I'm not thousands of years old.

Sorry for the late respons...

To start with, using that Scooby Doo video to make his point is ridiculous. It is a cartoon! Why did you come up with that Kurieuo? Even in the Scooby Doo universe ALL seemingly supernatural creatures turn out to be of natural origin. No exception. And then, suddenly, real zombies are introduced! In a cartoon one can create everything and thus set things to ones desired outcome. It is in no way representative for the real world.

As for the thousands of years... The theistic indoctrination is thousands of years old. It started with that first idea of a God and kept evolving within all those years. It has since been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There have been many false believes and ideas in human history. And the theists have used many denials. "The Earth is not the centre of the universe" is a denial (though not only exlusive Christian). People kept believing that until it got too ridiculous to continue believing.
It are the theists that keep on adjusting their believe to new scientific discoveries and truths. Things theists first rejected and denied 'suddenly' are 'bend and twisted' into that new truth. But only when all else has failed. Because they need to hang on their believe and cannot accept the real (cold and bitter) reality.

That's why theists are the real "Fred".

There is no positive side to atheism. And no negative side either. It is indifferent. It is what people make of it. But that also is the case for theism. Theists have done the most unbelievable cruelest things to other humans, in the name of God. And also the most beatiful things. Atheists have the same freedom of doing those things. So, what's the difference?

Thank you JustAtheist, you seem to be more seeing matters as I do. That is, either:

1. We Christians believe in an illusion or are deluded, hence our reasoning must be impaired (i.e., wishfulfillment for God to exist in a cold a bitter world); OR
2. You (Atheists) are simply in denial, your hearts blinding you to the truth (which isn't just something I came up with, but saturated Scripture in both OT and NT).

In either case, the judgement of one side has become rationally impaired in that it has become clouded by subjective and passionate desires. I'd say people on all sides actually are emotionally affected, nonetheless, the one who is right in their beliefs are the one's whose subjective judgements and intuitions are more correctly calibrated to see truth.

So then which side is more likley correct in their judgements? It is here I point out that those who become Christians very often report of their blindness being taken away. Where do you think the lyrics to Amazing Grace came from with Newton's "once was blind, but now I see"? It's like watching TV in black and white or on an older fuzzy analog broadcast, and then you see full crisp UHD colour. The person who has seen both, knows what they've experienced and in a better position to talk. The person who has only experienced black and white simply has no idea, such that if they are to comment that full crisip UHD colour doesn't exist, they're talking from ignorance.

On the other hand, what about Christians who become Atheists? It's not like they will report being blind and now seeing God who doesn't exist. Rather, they might say they believed in a delusion, but did they ever truly see like others see? They might think so, but then they've never been in the shoes of say a Newton who was truly blind for most of his life and then saw. Growing up with Christianity can create a blindness of its own, just as much as being Atheist. So I'm very doubtful whether such Christians ever truly understood and saw God like those who report God being so evident. If they did, then they wouldn't call themselves Atheists but rather Apatheists.

Further, Atheists get so passionate debating against God, believers and the like. This is rather revealing that they have deeper seated emotional issues to do with God. It is clear someone like Dawkins has deep seated emotional peeves to with God. IT is clear to me that many who debate against God on boards like this one over my 20 years experience, that the hearts of such are evidently emotionally affected in such a way that they wont to deny God. This as I see impairs their judgement when it comes to rationally assessing a range of logical evidences and arguments for God's existence.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
I wish you were willing to provide an example of me doing this.

Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

RickD wrote: And as I and others have said countless times before, you are conflating ontology and epistemology.

Is it possible to not believe in God and understand Ontology and Epistemology? Or does a complete understanding of these terms require a Theistic belief?

RickD wrote: You agree that child rape is morally wrong. In order for child rape to be morally wrong, there needs to be an objective standard, by which wrong and right are judged.

And who is this objective moral standard that you speak of?
Humm… Lemme guess…. Yahweh; the God of Christianity.
But then there is this other guy of Zoroastrianism who says Ahura Mazda is the objective moral standard!
Humm.. Lemme guess… this Zoroastrianism dude is just plain wrong, because Ahura Mazda is a false God thus he doesn't exist so he can’t be the objective moral standard.
But then this Zorastrianism guys says the same thing about you and Yahweh! How do you demonstrate that your claim trumps his?

RickD wrote: If there is no objective moral standard, nothing is wrong. With no objective moral standard, the very worst things, such as child rape, cannot be said to be morally wrong, only disadvantageous, or socially unacceptable.

Kenny, on this issue, you are a walking contradiction. You agree that child rape is always morally wrong, yet you refuse to accept the conclusion to your belief. Instead of just admitting the obvious, that morals are objective, you redefine words, and come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the truth.

Consider a scenerio that Yahweh didn’t exist. Would this make morality subjective? If Objective morality requires a standard, and that standard is Yahweh, wouldn’t that mean Objective morality requires the existence of Yahweh? Would this mean rape is not morally wrong if Yahweh did not exist? Which goes back to my first point; is it possibility to understand objective morality (not conflate ontology and epistemology) without believing in the God of Christianity?

I'm going to hold you to atheistic philosophers who claim if you are not making a claim you don't need any evidence and say since you brought up another world view it is up to you to make a case for wjhy we should choose to accept that world view over the Christian world view. Because atleast that world view has a cause for morals, atleast I think it does,but why should we?

I was just using the Zoroastrianism belief in a scenario as an example of a belief RickD does not hold. I was in no way suggesting RickD, or anybody else worship Ahura Mazda or consider him as the basis of Objective morality or a world view.
What do you think of the points I made? Your thoughts?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Here's one:

We had a conversation in which you agreed that it is always wrong to rape children, yet you claim morality isn't objective.

As I've said countless times before, the fact that I and nearly everybody else will claim that rape is always wrong, doesn't make it an objective moral issue; a lot more has to come into play than that. Because it cannot be demonstrated as wrong, it is a subjective moral issue; I've been consistent with this.

Ken

RickD wrote: And as I and others have said countless times before, you are conflating ontology and epistemology.

Is it possible to not believe in God and understand Ontology and Epistemology? Or does a complete understanding of these terms require a Theistic belief?

RickD wrote: You agree that child rape is morally wrong. In order for child rape to be morally wrong, there needs to be an objective standard, by which wrong and right are judged.

And who is this objective moral standard that you speak of?
Humm… Lemme guess…. Yahweh; the God of Christianity.
But then there is this other guy of Zoroastrianism who says Ahura Mazda is the objective moral standard!
Humm.. Lemme guess… this Zoroastrianism dude is just plain wrong, because Ahura Mazda is a false God thus he doesn't exist so he can’t be the objective moral standard.
But then this Zorastrianism guys says the same thing about you and Yahweh! How do you demonstrate that your claim trumps his?

RickD wrote: If there is no objective moral standard, nothing is wrong. With no objective moral standard, the very worst things, such as child rape, cannot be said to be morally wrong, only disadvantageous, or socially unacceptable.

Kenny, on this issue, you are a walking contradiction. You agree that child rape is always morally wrong, yet you refuse to accept the conclusion to your belief. Instead of just admitting the obvious, that morals are objective, you redefine words, and come up with any excuse to avoid accepting the truth.

Consider a scenerio that Yahweh didn’t exist. Would this make morality subjective? If Objective morality requires a standard, and that standard is Yahweh, wouldn’t that mean Objective morality requires the existence of Yahweh? Would this mean rape is not morally wrong if Yahweh did not exist? Which goes back to my first point; is it possibility to understand objective morality (not conflate ontology and epistemology) without believing in the God of Christianity?

I'm going to hold you to atheistic philosophers who claim if you are not making a claim you don't need any evidence and say since you brought up another world view it is up to you to make a case for wjhy we should choose to accept that world view over the Christian world view. Because atleast that world view has a cause for morals, atleast I think it does,but why should we?

I was just using the Zoroastrianism belief in a scenario as an example of a belief RickD does not hold. I was in no way suggesting RickD, or anybody else worship Ahura Mazda or consider him as the basis of Objective morality or a world view.
What do you think of the points I made? Your thoughts?

Ken

I think it is typical to see atheists bring up other gods or religions usually it is Zeus,Flying spaghetti Monster,etc but they act like that bringing up some other world view or god gets them off the hook when they are confronted about their atheistic world view and the need to own that world view they have accepted. And when challenged to own their world view try to get out of it by bringing up other world views as you have,implying that we cannot know which is the most true and correct world view like themselves when we can. Also I already explained to you why Christians would not believe in other gods that are not Holy and why and yet it is like you did not learn anything I explained to you about other gods and how they are not Holy like Jesus is. I mean you're ignoring things that you need to know about religion that could help you make a more correct choice if you ever considered believing in a god.But you are not owning your world view when it comes to morals and how you have them in an atheistic world view.You are twitching and playing word games to avoid the point.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Justhuman wrote: Atheists do not ask who created God, but they do ask how God came to be. And always there is this unclaimable answer that God is eternal, had no beginning, has no end. That is something you believe in with blind fate.
We (I as an agnostic materialist) do not believe something on just blind fate. We need evidence, or at least some proof of reliable possibility. And as long as that is not present, we accept the most or very likely logical possibility of our best understanding of that unknown as the answer, until proven (partly) otherwise. There are assumptions involved, but nothing like blind faith.

It is a strawman to ask how God came to be.It is intellectual dishonesty to ask that question.It does not apply to the Christian God and you cannot make it.It is not by blind faith that I believe God is eternal.It is based on reality in our world that things are caused in our world and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality. So that if you reject this logical conclusion based on the reality in our world you are denying reality.

And you must as an atheist do this which is why you are willing to believe that there can be some unexplained way without a God with no basis in reality,fact or evidence.You must go outside the reality of our world if you reject God as the cause of our universe and accept things that require far,far more faith to believe and accept than if you just believed in God.

Philip touched on this above talking about how certian physicists don't like the big bang and so they come up with all kinds of possibilities outside our known reality as possible ways universes could be caused without a God but without any evidence and it is not peer reviewed science too.

They do this all to avoid God as the cause but despite their attempts and wild imaginations they can never get around the fact that things are caused in our universe and world and so their must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality. No matter how hard they try they cannot make wild imaginations fit into reality that they can think up to replace God and this is why the big bang is still king in science despite all of these other ideas and it does not look like the big bang is changing anytime soon despite these speculations that go outside of reality and require far,far more faith to believe and accept over God.

It is actually atheists accusing us of what they are willing to do and that is believe and accept things as a cause for our universe with no basis in reality,fact or evidence but still entertain it anyway as a possibility over God based on blind faith and the denial of reality.

"Intellectualy dishonest"???

Really?

Clearly you have no idea at all about atheism or agnosticism, for if you did you wouldn't have written that, because for an agnost it is a perfectly valid question.

Since in 'our' atheistic worldview nothing is and can be everlasting, and certainly not without a beginning, thus also God had to have a beginning. And the only way for a God-like being to exist is by evolution. Taken a billion years to evolve, such a being would be way and way beyond our current understanding, at a level which we might very well call 'God'.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is actually atheists accusing us of what they are willing to do and that is believe and accept things as a cause for our universe with no basis in reality,fact or evidence but still entertain it anyway as a possibility over God based on blind faith and the denial of reality.

That depends on what you are willing to see. As long as you keep your eyes actively closed to any possible atheistic cause, you cannot see, or discuss, about any of those atheistic viewpoints.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure how it can work with us being the "Fred" unless you wish to put forward some positive arguments for Atheism.

Re: evidence, the fact Nils didn't even know of Aquinas' arguments which are generally presented at some point an an introductory Philosophy of Religion course... and the fact many of my posts have made you really have to think and even left you unsure how to respond, suggests to me that at least with you two, there are many strong arguments for God's existence that do infact exist which you likely haven't thought about.

Yet, one need not go to such lengths as Aquinas even. Children tend towards belief in God (as scientific studies on such reveal). God from the created order seems to be an obvious intuition, and yet, we bury God for some reason or another, convince ourselves out of belief. The natural disposition of humanity carries recognition of something greater, purpose, eternity, etc. Yet, our natures also tend to want to distance ourselves and run from such.

PS. I'm not thousands of years old.

Sorry for the late respons...

To start with, using that Scooby Doo video to make his point is ridiculous. It is a cartoon! Why did you come up with that Kurieuo? Even in the Scooby Doo universe ALL seemingly supernatural creatures turn out to be of natural origin. No exception. And then, suddenly, real zombies are introduced! In a cartoon one can create everything and thus set things to ones desired outcome. It is in no way representative for the real world.

As for the thousands of years... The theistic indoctrination is thousands of years old. It started with that first idea of a God and kept evolving within all those years. It has since been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There have been many false believes and ideas in human history. And the theists have used many denials. "The Earth is not the centre of the universe" is a denial (though not only exlusive Christian). People kept believing that until it got too ridiculous to continue believing.
It are the theists that keep on adjusting their believe to new scientific discoveries and truths. Things theists first rejected and denied 'suddenly' are 'bend and twisted' into that new truth. But only when all else has failed. Because they need to hang on their believe and cannot accept the real (cold and bitter) reality.

That's why theists are the real "Fred".

There is no positive side to atheism. And no negative side either. It is indifferent. It is what people make of it. But that also is the case for theism. Theists have done the most unbelievable cruelest things to other humans, in the name of God. And also the most beatiful things. Atheists have the same freedom of doing those things. So, what's the difference?

Thank you JustAtheist, you seem to be more seeing matters as I do. That is, either:

1. We Christians believe in an illusion or are deluded, hence our reasoning must be impaired (i.e., wishfulfillment for God to exist in a cold a bitter world); OR
2. You (Atheists) are simply in denial, your hearts blinding you to the truth (which isn't just something I came up with, but saturated Scripture in both OT and NT).

In either case, the judgement of one side has become rationally impaired in that it has become clouded by subjective and passionate desires. I'd say people on all sides actually are emotionally affected, nonetheless, the one who is right in their beliefs are the one's whose subjective judgements and intuitions are more correctly calibrated to see truth.

So then which side is more likley correct in their judgements? It is here I point out that those who become Christians very often report of their blindness being taken away. Where do you think the lyrics to Amazing Grace came from with Newton's "once was blind, but now I see"? It's like watching TV in black and white or on an older fuzzy analog broadcast, and then you see full crisp UHD colour. The person who has seen both, knows what they've experienced and in a better position to talk. The person who has only experienced black and white simply has no idea, such that if they are to comment that full crisip UHD colour doesn't exist, they're talking from ignorance.

On the other hand, what about Christians who become Atheists? It's not like they will report being blind and now seeing God who doesn't exist. Rather, they might say they believed in a delusion, but did they ever truly see like others see? They might think so, but then they've never been in the shoes of say a Newton who was truly blind for most of his life and then saw. Growing up with Christianity can create a blindness of its own, just as much as being Atheist. So I'm very doubtful whether such Christians ever truly understood and saw God like those who report God being so evident. If they did, then they wouldn't call themselves Atheists but rather Apatheists.

Further, Atheists get so passionate debating against God, believers and the like. This is rather revealing that they have deeper seated emotional issues to do with God. It is clear someone like Dawkins has deep seated emotional peeves to with God. IT is clear to me that many who debate against God on boards like this one over my 20 years experience, that the hearts of such are evidently emotionally affected in such a way that they wont to deny God. This as I see impairs their judgement when it comes to rationally assessing a range of logical evidences and arguments for God's existence.

Hey, theists can get very passionate too with debating!

How about spreading the Word of God? In human history Christians have 'spread' that Word sometimes by brute force. That's not debating, but passionate it is.

For our debate, I'd call it a stalemate. Since we more or less have the same conclusion, and since it is impossible to bring forth any argument or reason to convince otherwise.

I think the most valuable thing we can learn is understanding. Understanding why someone thinks the way they do, even if it is the opposite of what one thinks themselve.
That's a challenging task to accomplish, because it requires one to truly open their mind to some pretty invasive ideas and thoughts.

I think your boat is sailing past mine, had already sailed past some time ago. I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Also, I'm not sure I see what relevance "the Word of God" being spread by brute force or otherwise has to do with matters. Seems like handwaving away and a cliche you've just come to embrace. I'd be interested to know if you could name a specific instance. And still yet, what is pertinent is what Christ Himself said and taught, hence Christianity.

You might want to look over history of what secular regimes brought in, but I'm sure you'd distance yourself from such.

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

Nice of you, Abe, that you consider the possibility that I am telling the truth.

What I described was what happened when I was about thirteen, I don't remember exactly what I thought about the consequences of my belief but that's not important. The reasoning was quite simple: I didn't see any evidence for a God. I didn't find any other arguments for a God. Therefore it was just as good to not believe in God.

Nowadays I have thought more of the consequences but find nothing that changes my mind. On the contrary.

You mention one argument that you think is a defeater namely that it is difficult to explain the beginning of the Universe without a God. I agree with that but what is the alternative? You say that there is an entity that you call God and attributes to him everything that is complex and then say that that solves all problems. But the atheist will ask: How came God into existence? To the atheist this question is exactly as difficult to answer as the question of the origin of the Universe. So nothing is gained by introducing a God. I know that there are lots of theological theories about God being an eternal simple entity and you cannot ask why he exists. But that argument doesn't impress the atheist and that is important to understand when you discuss with atheists.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

I understand that you think it is much harder to believe that nothing (or chance in a multiverse) created our Universe than believing in God. Probably because you believe in God for some other reasons. I don't. Initially, I had no other argument for not believing in God but Occam's razor. Nowadays I have some more but I'll come back to that later, probably in a new thread.

Nils

It is a strawman for an atheist to ask who created God because Christians don't believe in created gods and our God is eternal and eternal although hard to imagine is forever and thus cannot be created.A typical misunderstanding atheists make is to assume that the Christian God is created or that when Christians point out that things have a cause it means all things including God. But that is not what we are saying that all things have a cause because our God did not have a cause.But the argument is things are caused and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact.

It was just hard for me to understand how you claim you found no evidence for God and yet chose atheism that has no evidence it is the correct world view based on evidence and arguments for Christianity and arguments atheist philosophers have made about not needing evidence to be an atheist which is admitting to everybody there is no evidence it is the correct world view. It was just hard for me to understand how you could come to such a conclusion based on evidence especially when I really don't think evidence is needed if we have God did it or Nothing did it to choose from.

Atheists do not ask who created God, but they do ask how God came to be. And always there is this unclaimable answer that God is eternal, had no beginning, has no end. That is something you believe in with blind fate.
We (I as an agnostic materialist) do not believe something on just blind fate. We need evidence, or at least some proof of reliable possibility. And as long as that is not present, we accept the most or very likely logical possibility of our best understanding of that unknown as the answer, until proven (partly) otherwise. There are assumptions involved, but nothing like blind faith.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is a strawman to ask how God came to be.It is intellectual dishonesty to ask that question.It does not apply to the Christian God and you cannot make it.It is not by blind faith that I believe God is eternal.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that shows your God has no beginning, (which you do not) it is a logical assumption that your belief is based on blind faith

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is based on reality in our world that things are caused in our world and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality.

While there are things that are caused in our world, it is a blind leap of faith to conclude all things except one are caused, and everything else is caused by this single uncaused cause. Logic tells us, if one thing is uncaused, multiple things can also be uncaused.

abelcainsbrother wrote:So that if you reject this logical conclusion based on the reality in our world you are denying reality.

Your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions such as the ones I pointed out

abelcainsbrother wrote:And you must as an atheist do this which is why you are willing to believe that there can be some unexplained way without a God with no basis in reality,fact or evidence.You must go outside the reality of our world if you reject God as the cause of our universe and accept things that require far,far more faith to believe and accept than if you just believed in God.

The reality of our world does not point to God as this first cause. The only way YOU get there is by inserting God where science has gaps in knowledge; I.E. God of the gaps.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Philip touched on this above talking about how certian physicists don't like the big bang and so they come up with all kinds of possibilities outside our known reality as possible ways universes could be caused without a God but without any evidence and it is not peer reviewed science too.

Physicists have provided many answers concerning our Universe, but none of them include God. So they don’t need to dismiss the Big Bang in order to get away from your God of the gaps answers. If some don’t like the Big Bang, it has nothing to do with trying to get away from God.

abelcainsbrother wrote:They do this all to avoid God as the cause but despite their attempts and wild imaginations they can never get around the fact that things are caused in our universe and world and so their must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality.

Yes! Another fine example of God of the gaps.

abelcainsbrother wrote:No matter how hard they try they cannot make wild imaginations fit into reality that they can think up to replace God and this is why the big bang is still king in science despite all of these other ideas and it does not look like the big bang is changing anytime soon despite these speculations that go outside of reality and require far,far more faith to believe and accept over God.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Big Bang theory does not include God. The only way God gets there is via inserting God where science has gaps I.E. God of the gaps

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is actually atheists accusing us of what they are willing to do and that is believe and accept things as a cause for our universe with no basis in reality,fact or evidence but still entertain it anyway as a possibility over God based on blind faith and the denial of reality.

Most Atheists I know of admit to not having all of the answers. The problem with you is you insist on having all the answers, and you get those answers by inserting God where nobody knows the answer thus God of the gaps.

Ken

Ken: While there are things that are caused in our world, it is a blind leap of faith to conclude all things except one are caused, and everything else is caused by this single uncaused cause. Logic tells us, if one thing is uncaused, multiple things can also be uncaused.

First place, Ken shouldn't be talking about what science says, because he's already said he doesn't accept what its consensus asserts abouth the beginning of the universe - apparently, mostly, because science also asserts ALL things to have a cause. That's what science studies and measures, and only can. And we have not one example of physical things that are uncaused. And the order obviously imposed upon all things is complex, incredibly and mathematically so, and thus the complex algorithms with the universe obey MUST have some intelligence behind it - as it is unreasonable to think otherwise. At least Ken hints that SOME thing or things must be uncaused, and thus eternal. He's admitting that there is an eternal that transcends the physical, and that it is uncaused. So right there, he cannot refute that God is that "thing." And the complexity and design shows only some incredible intelligence can explain that.

Ken: Physicists have provided many answers concerning our Universe, but none of them include God. So they don’t need to dismiss the Big Bang in order to get away from your God of the gaps answers. If some don’t like the Big Bang, it has nothing to do with trying to get away from God.

Ah, but they cannot get away without having a first cause, although through descibing speculative explanation filled with impressive-sounding scientific jargon that cannot be proven - and there are a number of these. Because EVERY speculative, explanatory alternative theory I've seen that explains how their is some supposed eternal chain of universes, etc. - every one of them starts with something that pre-existed, whether astonishing perfect conditions, existing things or processes ongoing - every one of which is dependent. It's just that their theory has kicked the "can" (the question of the original Source of things) down the road, as to how this got started. But they all also start with a premise that no God is required, while acknowledging some kind of God-like, miraculous (by every definition of the word excepting the spiritual realm) processes that are asserted to be eternal, yet without any explanations for their THEORIES' obvious gaps.

Ken: In case you haven’t noticed, the Big Bang theory does not include God. The only way God gets there is via inserting God where science has gaps I.E. God of the gaps

Well, Ken, SOME God-like originating source MUST exist, or either you believe that blind, random, unguided things can produce stupendous precision by themselves, given enough time - and that would have to be true, whether in another dimension or the physical one that came into existence instantly. And the characteristics and supposed "capabilities" of blind, random things cannot change, see, plan, learn, or strategize, recognize advantages, etc., but we're to believe they did and can develop such capabilities - because the, yes, GAPS between their original state cannot explain what they are claimed to have produced.

So, Ken must have a belief that astonishing things can come from non-intelligent things - whether eternal or not. But at least he has admitted that something must be eternal that developed astounding capabilities, yet with impossible gaps able to explain it. And we see the amazing results, with a list of unfathomable and NECESSARY designs and interactivity. He must admit, at the very least, that these are inexplicable, God-like things, regardless of how they came about, that SOME Source had to have this ability and intelligence. To assert that random, blind things can produce what exists is laughable. Einstein knew it! So do many other scientists. Why? Because they don't believe in pure magic - whether of the universe or anything else. Why? Because it is irrational to believe in such. Apparently, Ken believes magic is possible. But I don't have that kind of faith!

Kenny wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

Nice of you, Abe, that you consider the possibility that I am telling the truth.

What I described was what happened when I was about thirteen, I don't remember exactly what I thought about the consequences of my belief but that's not important. The reasoning was quite simple: I didn't see any evidence for a God. I didn't find any other arguments for a God. Therefore it was just as good to not believe in God.

Nowadays I have thought more of the consequences but find nothing that changes my mind. On the contrary.

You mention one argument that you think is a defeater namely that it is difficult to explain the beginning of the Universe without a God. I agree with that but what is the alternative? You say that there is an entity that you call God and attributes to him everything that is complex and then say that that solves all problems. But the atheist will ask: How came God into existence? To the atheist this question is exactly as difficult to answer as the question of the origin of the Universe. So nothing is gained by introducing a God. I know that there are lots of theological theories about God being an eternal simple entity and you cannot ask why he exists. But that argument doesn't impress the atheist and that is important to understand when you discuss with atheists.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

I understand that you think it is much harder to believe that nothing (or chance in a multiverse) created our Universe than believing in God. Probably because you believe in God for some other reasons. I don't. Initially, I had no other argument for not believing in God but Occam's razor. Nowadays I have some more but I'll come back to that later, probably in a new thread.

Nils

It is a strawman for an atheist to ask who created God because Christians don't believe in created gods and our God is eternal and eternal although hard to imagine is forever and thus cannot be created.A typical misunderstanding atheists make is to assume that the Christian God is created or that when Christians point out that things have a cause it means all things including God. But that is not what we are saying that all things have a cause because our God did not have a cause.But the argument is things are caused and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact.

It was just hard for me to understand how you claim you found no evidence for God and yet chose atheism that has no evidence it is the correct world view based on evidence and arguments for Christianity and arguments atheist philosophers have made about not needing evidence to be an atheist which is admitting to everybody there is no evidence it is the correct world view. It was just hard for me to understand how you could come to such a conclusion based on evidence especially when I really don't think evidence is needed if we have God did it or Nothing did it to choose from.

Atheists do not ask who created God, but they do ask how God came to be. And always there is this unclaimable answer that God is eternal, had no beginning, has no end. That is something you believe in with blind fate.
We (I as an agnostic materialist) do not believe something on just blind fate. We need evidence, or at least some proof of reliable possibility. And as long as that is not present, we accept the most or very likely logical possibility of our best understanding of that unknown as the answer, until proven (partly) otherwise. There are assumptions involved, but nothing like blind faith.

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is a strawman to ask how God came to be.It is intellectual dishonesty to ask that question.It does not apply to the Christian God and you cannot make it.It is not by blind faith that I believe God is eternal.

Unless you have some empirical evidence that shows your God has no beginning, (which you do not) it is a logical assumption that your belief is based on blind faith

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is based on reality in our world that things are caused in our world and so there must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality.

While there are things that are caused in our world, it is a blind leap of faith to conclude all things except one are caused, and everything else is caused by this single uncaused cause. Logic tells us, if one thing is uncaused, multiple things can also be uncaused.

abelcainsbrother wrote:So that if you reject this logical conclusion based on the reality in our world you are denying reality.

Your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions such as the ones I pointed out

abelcainsbrother wrote:And you must as an atheist do this which is why you are willing to believe that there can be some unexplained way without a God with no basis in reality,fact or evidence.You must go outside the reality of our world if you reject God as the cause of our universe and accept things that require far,far more faith to believe and accept than if you just believed in God.

The reality of our world does not point to God as this first cause. The only way YOU get there is by inserting God where science has gaps in knowledge; I.E. God of the gaps.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Philip touched on this above talking about how certian physicists don't like the big bang and so they come up with all kinds of possibilities outside our known reality as possible ways universes could be caused without a God but without any evidence and it is not peer reviewed science too.

Physicists have provided many answers concerning our Universe, but none of them include God. So they don’t need to dismiss the Big Bang in order to get away from your God of the gaps answers. If some don’t like the Big Bang, it has nothing to do with trying to get away from God.

abelcainsbrother wrote:They do this all to avoid God as the cause but despite their attempts and wild imaginations they can never get around the fact that things are caused in our universe and world and so their must be an uncaused first cause based on this fact of reality.

Yes! Another fine example of God of the gaps.

abelcainsbrother wrote:No matter how hard they try they cannot make wild imaginations fit into reality that they can think up to replace God and this is why the big bang is still king in science despite all of these other ideas and it does not look like the big bang is changing anytime soon despite these speculations that go outside of reality and require far,far more faith to believe and accept over God.

In case you haven’t noticed, the Big Bang theory does not include God. The only way God gets there is via inserting God where science has gaps I.E. God of the gaps

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is actually atheists accusing us of what they are willing to do and that is believe and accept things as a cause for our universe with no basis in reality,fact or evidence but still entertain it anyway as a possibility over God based on blind faith and the denial of reality.

Most Atheists I know of admit to not having all of the answers. The problem with you is you insist on having all the answers, and you get those answers by inserting God where nobody knows the answer thus God of the gaps.

Ken

You are wrong right off the bat by claiming not all things are caused in our universe and world because they are.It is not some things like you imply but all things in our world have a cause.This is reality and the facts of this world that you deny and so you cannot see the truth.And no it is not a blind leap of faith to conclude an uncaused first caused is required because all things in our world are caused by something else and so it requires an uncaused first cause to get it all started.It is you with a giant leap of faith that an uncaused first cause is not needed ignoring the facts of our world. I have challenged you before to list anything in our world that does not have a cause and you never did.this is because you really don't care about the facts of our world you just refuse to go by evidence unlike me.And you must go by no evidence the moment you choose atheism because there is no evidence atheism is true and correct.Yet I just gave you evidence for why not only God but an eternal God is needed also and the Christian God is eternal and so I'm right and it is you that believes things are possible without any evidence,not me. You are choosing "materialism of the gaps" by rejecting God and have no evidence for that kind of reality or thinking and you never will because it is not reality.I do choose God of the gaps but unlike you I have evidence behind my faith.You atheists need atleast the Flying Spaghetti Monster to get it all started,but you have nothing to work with as an atheist.You go with nothing as a cause but don't expect to convince many people to think like you.Perhaps you atheists should atleast consider aliens got it all started but you have nothing.And nothing it will always remain as long as you ignore evidence and facts of our world.