Evidence for God from Science

I think that we Christians need a whole new strategy when it comes to dealing with atheists.We do not need to try to convince atheists God is real to atheists but instead we should work on trying to teach atheists to go by evidence in order to get to the truth of any issue and that is how important it is to go by evidence in order to determine the truth of a matter.

Because atheists don't realize how much atheism hinders a person from going by evidence.I know this will sound offensive to atheists because it can be like an insult to you personally when your wold view is chalkenged just like with religions.It is the same for atheists.But atheism hinders a person from going by evidence to determine the truth.

This is because atheists admit that they have no evidence that atheism is true.And this is the case with only atheists as far as I know. But the moment a person chooses a world view like atheism where there is no evidence it is true it causes the person to go on how they feel instead of evidence.Atheists accept atheism and then are told you don't need any evidence and so any person who accepts this kind if thinking starts to go on how they feel rather than evidence.

There is something wrong with somebody that asks for proof God exists but then has accepted a world view they know has no evidence,muchless proof it is the correct choice to make. The only way to determine truth and facts is to go by evidence though and so atheists are not going on evidence but how they feel about a god instead.

So that all they can do is come up with reasons for not believing in a god but it is not based on evidence but how they feel towards gods. We cannot reach people with evidence for God with atheists thinking like this because they are not going by evidence but how they feel. So instead of providing evidence for God our focus should be on teaching atheists the importance of going by evidence to determine what is true or not because until they choose to go by evidence and let the evidence take them where it will lead to and be willing to change their mind and admit they are wrong evidence will not be convincing to them.

We should only provide evidence to ake a point that we can but not to convince them God is real.

Also for fellow Christians there is a cause for this kind of thinking in our world and I believe it has to do with the teaching of evolution as true science.The theory of evolution has hurt the way we do science and so we need to do everything we can to defeat evolution once and for all.Now Christians have done tried everything else except the Gap Theory when it comes to evolution and it has not worked and so if we really do desire to defeat evolution we must change what we have been doing and we must use the Gap Theory to do it.Let's just try it knowing that no creation interpretation is a salvation issue.If you are a Christian who rejects evolution I want to challenge you to stop using the creation interpretation you have been using and use the Gap Theory instead when dealing with evolutionists and I believe you will see and realize how much more effective it is over the one you have been using. Just try it for some time and I think you'll see how effective it is against evolution.

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.

Philip wrote: 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.

Really! So which scientific theory claims everything that has ever existed has had a cause. BTW if science DID say that, that would include your concept of God (assuming he existed) which would mean you would have to reject science as well; right?

Philip wrote: That's what science studies and measures, and only can. And we have not one example of physical things that are uncaused.

As I’ve said before, just because we have never observed “X” doesn’t mean “X” never happens.

Philip wrote: 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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! How did you make the leap that if something is eternal that it transcends the physical? Where did that come from?

Philip wrote: So right there, he cannot refute that God is that "thing." And the complexity and design shows only some incredible intelligence can explain that.

You made a leap in the wrong direction with that “eternal = transcends the physical” claim; now you continue in that wrong direction

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.

Philip wrote: 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.

Science goes back as far as it can; it doesn’t say there was a first cause, and it doesn’t say there was not a first cause. What existed before the singularity that expanded to become the Big Bang, science admits to not having an answer

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

Philip wrote: 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 -

Or perhaps another explanation that you haven’t thought of yet

Philip wrote: 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!

So it is either God or magic huh? Oh wait….. What’s the difference? Kinda sounds like the same thing to me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote: 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.


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

abelcainsbrother wrote:You are wrong right off the bat by claiming not all things are caused in our universe and world because they are.

So…. because you said it, that makes it true; right? Got it!!!

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Again; because you said it; that makes it true; right? (if nothing else, at least you are consistent)

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Tell you what; instead of just saying stuff and insisting I take you at your word, why don’t cha provide a link or something that backs up your claims? That way I’m liable to take you a little bit more seriously.

abelcainsbrother wrote: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

I suspect you are confusing me with someone else. I’m not the one claiming no first cause at all, I’m the one who claimed that the same logic used to claim a single first cause, can also be used to claim multiple first causes.

abelcainsbrother wrote:.this is because you really don't care about the facts of our world you just refuse to go by evidence unlike me.

So what evidence do you have of a single first cause?

abelcainsbrother wrote:And you must go by no evidence the moment you choose atheism because there is no evidence atheism is true and correct.

For me atheism is the default position; it is not something I’ve chosen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yet I just gave you evidence for why not only God but an eternal God is needed also and the Christian God is eternal

No; you never gave me any evidence of any of that stuff; all you do is proclaim something as true, and I’m supposed to take your word for it. However, if you now have evidence that your eternal God created the Universe, I would be more than happy to see it.

ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Nils wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Nils wrote:

Really, as I see matters, people willfully ignore the evidence. Have buried their heads in the sand. Are blinded. Hence as Newton reported in his now famous Amazing Grace song, "was blind, but now I see" -- something many, many Christians report experiencing -- being previously blind and now seeing. Previously seeing that world in black and white, and now seeing the world in colour. What are they seeing? Perhaps as Freud and Kant might suggest we see a delusion or illusion.

"willfully ignore" and "burying heads in sand". Not partiularly respectful. Shall we start to discuss who is most blinded? You certainly think that I am not fully aware of your arguments and I think the corresponding about you, but I think you are intellectually honest and I would appreciate if you regard me being intellectually honest as well

I was at first annoyed by Freud and Immanual Kant's characterisation of those who believe in God also as having some psychological issue. Found such disrespectful. But then, think about it.

On both sides of the debate there are presumably equally intelligent people who are familiar with many argument for/against God's existence. It seems a bit rich for one side to say the other side is just stupid, illogical and unintelligent.

Yet then, why if both are presumably logical and rational, does each side come to polar opposite conclusions -- not just on God's existence, but often times falling down on different sides of specific arguments they find/do not find convincing? It seems logic an reason doesn't get us anywhere in objective agreement but comes down to subjectiveness.

Logic, rational arguments and the like, therefore ultimately have nothing to do with why someone believes or doesn't believe. Such might help to reinforce in our own heads the reasons why we do/don't believe, but perhaps such is ultimately merely confirmation bias. Rather, there seems to be something else deeper going on in why we believe or don't.

What I'd argue is that why we believe or do not believe ultimately comes down to something like:

1) One side being blinded and willfully ignorant to God's existence (that doesn't mean you are being purposefully ignorant, rather your heart or nature is such that it is just blinding you to the evidence and truth -- something supported in Scripture and by conversion experiences of many who state something like they once were blind);

OR similarly,

2) People who believe in God are deluded, believing in an illusion due to some psychological issue, mental issue or what-have-you.

It's not disrespectful at all as I see it. Rather, it is stating an obvious possible reason for why both sides do not agree despite having equal human intelligence and reasoning ability. If anything, assuming you and your side are equally intelligent and rational is in fact quite respectful, given the same doesn't seem often returned by Atheists (or Atheist-leaning folk) towards Christians.

Kurieuo, I almost missed your post that arrived just before I answered another post.

Well, In some way I agree with you but I dislike the wordings of your #1. To be "willfully ignorant" is misleading. I think a willfully ignorant person is a person that knowingly avoids getting information. There may be such atheists but I don't think you can find them on forums that discuss philosophy or theology.

Sorry, but I still believe Atheists (especially those who take a positive position that God doesn't exist) are wilfully ignorant. I'd also include those weaker forms who simply do not acknowledge God. This wilful ignorance also extends to Atheists frequenting forums like this and I'd include yourself in that. To be clear, I believe your heart is set against God for some reason, which leads you to desire God to not exist.

My heart is set against God, you say. If it was set that way when I was thirteen by what was it set and why? If you say that it was set by myself that had to have been unconsciously because I am rather certain that I had no conscious desire to desire God to not exist. And in which way was I wilfully ignorant at that age. What do you think I should have done not to be called wilfully ignorant?

For I see evidence for God, is plain and obvious, His invisible attributes (goodness, love, beauty, order, power, aseity and like) are clearly visible around us.

You say so in spite of that you know that I definitely don't find it obvious that these things are proofs that God exists. Now I am still reading the thread "Is being an atheist irrational" to find out your arguments. When I done that I would like to discuss your arguments in detail.

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Tell me, if someone told you the Sun didn't exist, what would you say of such a person except that they are in denial, being foolish or wilfully ignorant of such? God is just as clear to me as the Sun. How else can I then understand those who deny His existence as anything other than something like being in denial, foolish or wilfully ignorant?

I would call such a person foolish but not wilfully ignorant. It requires more than ignorance to say that the Sun doesn't exist because there are no arguments at all for the non-existence of the sun. However, there are lots of arguments against the existence of God and you know them. Therefore is seems irrational to equate denial of God with denial of the sun.

Nils wrote:I would prefer to state the two camps differently.

I have read somewhere that about 50% of the population believes in some higher power and 25% don't irrespective of the social environment. The remaining 25% are sensitive to the environment. I think that there is some truth in this but I haven't seen the source of the statement. Nicholas Wade writes in his book, The faith instinct, about why evolution favours religious feelings. So it is possible that there are two types of persons.

1) People that have a desire, a drive, a longing, a sensitivity etc. to believe in a higher power that can give extra meaning to life and perhaps make the live seem a bit safer etc.

2) People that don't have that desire.

This structuring doesn't necessarily imply anything about the existence of God.

These two camps will evaluate evidences differently for sure. But I think a dialogue should be possible, finding out which arguments are valid or not, quite independent of which camp you belong to or the answer of the God question.

Personally I belong to camp #2 as you know. A Christian friend says that I am tone-deaf respect to religion and that may be true.

Many who come to believe in God's mere existence often had no desire, drive, longing. Rather, many are often logically lead via reason to see what is so obvious, namely, that God exists. Explore the works of CS Lewis, I'd recommend to you reading his Mere Christianity which can be freely found online today.

I have read "Mere Christianity" some years ago and I skimmed through the first part again now. He writes about the moral argument, but I don't find it convincing. We can discuss that later if you want.
I indicated above what I think is the difference between religious and non-religious. I understand that you have a different view but do you understand my view?

Regarding your lack of desire, perhaps such just shows your heart's disposition. Don't you see how such supports what I say with the condition of the heart blinding one to evidence and truth? Of course I'd expect you to have no desire. I believe it'd also run much deeper than that, that you actually begrudge God of something or many things in your life and the world. And so, this then clouds your desire to even want to truly know God exists.

I am a bit unsure of your wording "your heart" earlier. I assume that you don't mean it literally, but do you just mean my feelings or something else? But now you say "your heart's disposition". What exactly do you mean? Besides, you are making it easy to you by neglecting my rational arguments and just trying to do a psychological analysis of me.

Disagree? Let me ask you some questions. Accept as a given God exists, and now explain to me how you perceive God to be? Is this God good? Loving? Does He care about us?

This is a difficult question but let me try. Suppose that I read an article proofing logically that it is beyond doubt that God exists. It would not change my impression that he doesn't relate to me. I don't feel that he loves (or hates) or cares about me and that feeling would not change if the only thing I got to know were that he exists. Why did you ask?

Nils

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote: 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.


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

abelcainsbrother wrote:You are wrong right off the bat by claiming not all things are caused in our universe and world because they are.

So…. because you said it, that makes it true; right? Got it!!!

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Again; because you said it; that makes it true; right? (if nothing else, at least you are consistent)

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Tell you what; instead of just saying stuff and insisting I take you at your word, why don’t cha provide a link or something that backs up your claims? That way I’m liable to take you a little bit more seriously.

abelcainsbrother wrote: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

I suspect you are confusing me with someone else. I’m not the one claiming no first cause at all, I’m the one who claimed that the same logic used to claim a single first cause, can also be used to claim multiple first causes.

abelcainsbrother wrote:.this is because you really don't care about the facts of our world you just refuse to go by evidence unlike me.

So what evidence do you have of a single first cause?

abelcainsbrother wrote:And you must go by no evidence the moment you choose atheism because there is no evidence atheism is true and correct.

For me atheism is the default position; it is not something I’ve chosen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yet I just gave you evidence for why not only God but an eternal God is needed also and the Christian God is eternal

No; you never gave me any evidence of any of that stuff; all you do is proclaim something as true, and I’m supposed to take your word for it. However, if you now have evidence that your eternal God created the Universe, I would be more than happy to see it.

ken

It does not matter what anybody says including scientists if you have no evidence behind what you're saying.Your problem is you choose to ignore evidence and the facts of reality and believe things are possible without an uncaused first cause or eternal God despite the lack of evidence. It is you without any evidence to even think it is possible,yet you choose to anyway.You are lying when you say if I have evidence that eternal God created the universe you would believe it because I already gave you evidence and you ignored it. So stop with the intellectual dishonesty.I gave evidence for an eternal God it is you that have no evidence because you don't go by evidence but how you feel. Default positon = no evidence you are right to not believe in God.
It is a fact that things are caused in our world,it is a fact that things that are caused are caused by something else and so there must be an uncaused first cause like an eternal God to be the first cause.This is facts that is evidence that God created the universe.If you disagree it is up to you to give evidence like I have to back up why you disagree,which you cannot do.

Nils: I don't feel that he loves (or hates) or cares about me and that feeling would not change if the only thing I got to know were that he exists. Why did you ask?

Nils, as just an experiment, have you ever tried to contact God or sincerely asked Him to reveal Himself to you? And if you did, did you truly want to know about Him?

abelcainsbrother wrote: It does not matter what anybody says including scientists if you have no evidence behind what you're saying.

No evidence behind what I am saying? What I have been saying was that I don’t know! I’m not the one making the claim; YOU are! I don’t need scientific evidence to admit I don’t have an answer to the questions of the Universe, I would need evidence if I were like you; claiming to have answers. Where are you getting this stuff???

abelcainsbrother wrote:Your problem is you choose to ignore evidence and the facts of reality

Tell you what; provide evidence for once, and see if I ignore it!

abelcainsbrother wrote:and believe things are possible without an uncaused first cause or eternal God despite the lack of evidence.

I didn’t say that; I said you need to show me the evidence if you expect me to believe you

abelcainsbrother wrote:It is you without any evidence to even think it is possible,yet you choose to anyway.You are lying when you say if I have evidence that eternal God created the universe you would believe it because I already gave you evidence and you ignored it

ACB C’mon get real bro! We have been discussing for a long time and I don’t remember you ever providing evidence to back up your claims; all you do is make claims and expect me to take your word for it. Again; if you have evidence that your eternal God created the Universe, provide it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:So stop with the intellectual dishonesty.I gave evidence for an eternal God it is you that have no evidence because you don't go by evidence but how you feel. Default positon = no evidence you are right to not believe in God.
It is a fact that things are caused in our world,it is a fact that things that are caused are caused by something else and so there must be an uncaused first cause like an eternal God to be the first cause.This is facts that is evidence that God created the universe.If you disagree it is up to you to give evidence like I have to back up why you disagree,which you cannot do.

You proclaiming something as a fact does not equal evidence.

Philip wrote:

Nils: I don't feel that he loves (or hates) or cares about me and that feeling would not change if the only thing I got to know were that he exists. Why did you ask?

Nils, as just an experiment, have you ever tried to contact God or sincerely asked Him to reveal Himself to you? And if you did, did you truly want to know about Him?

Philip, this is a difficult question. I have one or two times been asked that question and as a result said to myself: why not try. So I asked God: If you really exist, please give me a sign, but nothing happened.

The problem is, was I really "sincere", did I really want an answer "truly"? I thought of course that if there is a God, it would be good to know that, but on the other hand I didn't believe that there is any God, so I certainly didn't expect any answer. You may say that I wasn't sincere or wanted it truly and that is true in some way but how could I be when I don't believe and don't have any desire that God exists. (But I don't have a desire that he doesn't exist either).

Regarding the last sentence I may as well comment the remark that some of you will make: "I don't believe you. I think that you desire that God doesn't exist and that's why you are blinded and don't see the truth". In some way it is true that I desire that God doesn't exist and that is because I, like many, am a bit lazy intellectually. My worldview is materialistic and it I will take some effort to realign it with a knowledge that God exists. There are lots of problematic questions with a belief in Christianity, questions that partly are reasons why I don't believe in God. So if I had to change my mind I had to tackle that.

But honestly, this is not a big issue. I am quite certain that the day I decided not to believe, it wasn't a big deal, just a small decision that it seemed to be more rational not to believe (referring to Occam's razor). I certainly didn't have any deep desire or hope that there is no God, I was Christian up to that day.

Nils

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote: 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.


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

abelcainsbrother wrote:You are wrong right off the bat by claiming not all things are caused in our universe and world because they are.

So…. because you said it, that makes it true; right? Got it!!!

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Again; because you said it; that makes it true; right? (if nothing else, at least you are consistent)

abelcainsbrother wrote: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.

Tell you what; instead of just saying stuff and insisting I take you at your word, why don’t cha provide a link or something that backs up your claims? That way I’m liable to take you a little bit more seriously.

abelcainsbrother wrote: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

I suspect you are confusing me with someone else. I’m not the one claiming no first cause at all, I’m the one who claimed that the same logic used to claim a single first cause, can also be used to claim multiple first causes.

abelcainsbrother wrote:.this is because you really don't care about the facts of our world you just refuse to go by evidence unlike me.

So what evidence do you have of a single first cause?

abelcainsbrother wrote:And you must go by no evidence the moment you choose atheism because there is no evidence atheism is true and correct.

For me atheism is the default position; it is not something I’ve chosen.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yet I just gave you evidence for why not only God but an eternal God is needed also and the Christian God is eternal

No; you never gave me any evidence of any of that stuff; all you do is proclaim something as true, and I’m supposed to take your word for it. However, if you now have evidence that your eternal God created the Universe, I would be more than happy to see it.

ken

I already gave you evidence and you chock it up to me just declaring something is true and then expecting you to just believe it.You don't go by evidence though and when I give it to you what you really want is proof God did it and not evidence.If you don't know that things are caused in our world and things that are caused are caused by something else then you are just denying reality.

This is why I have challenged you before to make a list of things in our world that do not apply to these facts and you never did.Because this is what I did in order to see the fact that an uncaused first cause is a must when it comes to our world and universe. This is not just "God of the gaps" like you imply this is accepting the facts so that I can determine who is telling the truth and who is'nt.

There is a difference between proof and evidence and you don't go by evidence as an atheist because there is no evidence atheism is the correct world view and you chose to accept it anyway. I cannot think like you.I go by evidence to determine who is telling the truth and who is'nt.But if you make a list of things in our world where these facts I presented to you do not apply then you could point it out,but you cannot.And since you don't go by evidence you cannot tell who is telling you the truth and who is'nt and don't really care. Just a bold,prideful denial of the facts of our world and universe.Based on the evidence I have presented it is evidence for not all gods but an eternal God like the Christian God and not some created god that people have believed in and still do.So this narrows it down to only eternal God's that people believe in.So we can rule out many gods that man has believed are gods.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I think that we Christians need a whole new strategy when it comes to dealing with atheists.We do not need to try to convince atheists God is real to atheists but instead we should work on trying to teach atheists to go by evidence in order to get to the truth of any issue and that is how important it is to go by evidence in order to determine the truth of a matter.

Because atheists don't realize how much atheism hinders a person from going by evidence.I know this will sound offensive to atheists because it can be like an insult to you personally when your wold view is chalkenged just like with religions.It is the same for atheists.But atheism hinders a person from going by evidence to determine the truth.

This is because atheists admit that they have no evidence that atheism is true.And this is the case with only atheists as far as I know. But the moment a person chooses a world view like atheism where there is no evidence it is true it causes the person to go on how they feel instead of evidence.Atheists accept atheism and then are told you don't need any evidence and so any person who accepts this kind if thinking starts to go on how they feel rather than evidence.

There is something wrong with somebody that asks for proof God exists but then has accepted a world view they know has no evidence,muchless proof it is the correct choice to make. The only way to determine truth and facts is to go by evidence though and so atheists are not going on evidence but how they feel about a god instead.

So that all they can do is come up with reasons for not believing in a god but it is not based on evidence but how they feel towards gods. We cannot reach people with evidence for God with atheists thinking like this because they are not going by evidence but how they feel. So instead of providing evidence for God our focus should be on teaching atheists the importance of going by evidence to determine what is true or not because until they choose to go by evidence and let the evidence take them where it will lead to and be willing to change their mind and admit they are wrong evidence will not be convincing to them.

We should only provide evidence to ake a point that we can but not to convince them God is real.

Also for fellow Christians there is a cause for this kind of thinking in our world and I believe it has to do with the teaching of evolution as true science.The theory of evolution has hurt the way we do science and so we need to do everything we can to defeat evolution once and for all.Now Christians have done tried everything else except the Gap Theory when it comes to evolution and it has not worked and so if we really do desire to defeat evolution we must change what we have been doing and we must use the Gap Theory to do it.Let's just try it knowing that no creation interpretation is a salvation issue.If you are a Christian who rejects evolution I want to challenge you to stop using the creation interpretation you have been using and use the Gap Theory instead when dealing with evolutionists and I believe you will see and realize how much more effective it is over the one you have been using. Just try it for some time and I think you'll see how effective it is against evolution.

Well, it is enough to write once we atheists do not need evidence, or should go by evidence, instead of repeating it a dozen times in different phrasing. We get the point.

Besides I disagree we atheists do not have any evidence and/or proof for our case. Though it probably will be evidence/proof you are not willing to accept because it is in contradiction with your belief.

RickD 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.

I think you mean blind faith.

We don't believe God is eternal because of blind faith. We believe God is eternal because of logic.

See Aquinas' Five ways, for example.

Yes, fate/faith, silly mistake, haven't seen that.

Logic and truth are not necessarily the same. You cannot deduct truth from what seems to be logical statements. To accept those statements as truth needs faith.
To accept something just because someone said so needs blind faith.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Sorry, but I still believe Atheists (especially those who take a positive position that God doesn't exist) are wilfully ignorant. I'd also include those weaker forms who simply do not acknowledge God. This wilful ignorance also extends to Atheists frequenting forums like this and I'd include yourself in that. To be clear, I believe your heart is set against God for some reason, which leads you to desire God to not exist. For I see evidence for God, is plain and obvious, His invisible attributes (goodness, love, beauty, order, power, aseity and like) are clearly visible around us.

Perhaps the reason you believe atheists are willfully ignorant is because you insist on looking at the world from your Christian point of view. Perhaps if you were to look at things from the Atheists point of view, you might see things differently. Just as it you would consider it absurd if a Hindu said Christians were willfully ignorant because they don’t see the Hindu concept of God as he does, the Atheist would see your claims of willfully ignorant the same way

Kurieuo wrote: Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Tell me, if someone told you the Sun didn't exist, what would you say of such a person except that they are in denial, being foolish or wilfully ignorant of such? God is just as clear to me as the Sun. How else can I then understand those who deny His existence as anything other than something like being in denial, foolish or wilfully ignorant?

Everybody agrees on Sun; the same can’t be said of the countless concepts of God. You can’t compare the two.

Ken

The key to understanding is to understand the other one's viewpoint. One cannot progress in dicussion as long as one tries to interprete that other viewpoints whithin one's own worldview. One cannot mingle atheistic viewpoints in a theistic worldview, and v.v.. It won't work.

You have to 'feel' that 'other side' in order to understand it.

Kurieuo wrote: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.

In human history their have been many occasions we 'spread the Word of God' to the 'native unknowing'. More recent the IS that killed people if they weren't muslim. And some secular regimes were as bad.
But, it indeed, this is off topic.

My point should have been that it are the theists that are the denials. They are so immersed in their 'feeling' (of the existence) of God that they are blind to see otherwise. It's like being blinded when looking at the sun, unable to see anymore what the sun really is.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I already gave you evidence and you chock it up to me just declaring something is true and then expecting you to just believe it.

I guess we have a different concept of what constitutes evidence huh?

abelcainsbrother wrote:You don't go by evidence though and when I give it to you what you really want is proof God did it and not evidence.

Actually I was looking for a link to a scientific website or something other than your word to back up your claim.

abelcainsbrother wrote:If you don't know that things are caused in our world and things that are caused are caused by something else then you are just denying reality.

C’mon bro! You went a little further than claiming “things are caused in our world, and things that are caused are caused by something else”. If that was the extent of your claims, I would not be arguing with you.

abelcainsbrother wrote:This is why I have challenged you before to make a list of things in our world that do not apply to these facts and you never did.

As I said before, Just because I don’t know of “X” happening doesn’t mean it has never happened.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Because this is what I did in order to see the fact that an uncaused first cause is a must when it comes to our world and universe. This is not just "God of the gaps" like you imply this is accepting the facts so that I can determine who is telling the truth and who isn't.

As I mentioned to you in a previous debate, mankind only knows of 4% of the Universe; that means 96% we have no clue about. To claim God who exist outside the Universe (including that 96% we have no clue about) is responsible for the Universe, to me it makes just as much sense to assume somewhere in the 96% that we have no clue about could be responsible. Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not claiming this is true, I’m just not going to accept that your claim is true. I’m perfectly willing to admit I don’t know

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is a difference between proof and evidence and you don't go by evidence as an atheist because there is no evidence atheism is the correct world view

Atheism a world view? According to my understanding, a world view is a comprehensive philosophy of life encompassing a wide range of beliefs on mortality methodology, and so forth.
Atheism is a philosophical position pertaining to ONE particular belief; the belief in God. While it may or may not be a part of ones world view, or perhaps even have an effect on ones world view in a variety of ways, Atheism is definitely insufficient in and of itself to be considered a world view.
A point of comparison; a person might be a communist concerning the issue of economics, but communism isn’t their worldview, just their position on a specific topic. It is an aspect of their world view.

abelcainsbrother wrote:and you chose to accept it anyway. I cannot think like you.I go by evidence to determine who is telling the truth and who is'nt.But if you make a list of things in our world where these facts I presented to you do not apply then you could point it out,but you cannot.

IOW if I can’t come up with an alternative explanation, I should accept yours? No thank you.

abelcainsbrother wrote:And since you don't go by evidence you cannot tell who is telling you the truth and who is'nt and don't really care.

No, I go by evidence; just not by what YOU call evidence. My standard of evidence is MUCH different than yours.

Justhuman wrote:

RickD 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.

I think you mean blind faith.

We don't believe God is eternal because of blind faith. We believe God is eternal because of logic.

See Aquinas' Five ways, for example.

Yes, fate/faith, silly mistake, haven't seen that.

Logic and truth are not necessarily the same. You cannot deduct truth from what seems to be logical statements. To accept those statements as truth needs faith.
To accept something just because someone said so needs blind faith.

You seem to have the same problem that Kenny has. You need to understand what you're arguing against, before you argue against it.

Saying that those that believe in Aquinas' 5 ways, believe because of blind faith, shows you have no idea what you're arguing against. If you can't be honest enough to make an attempt to understand the other side's argument, you're just wasting our time.