A Challenge

[Understand]

For all intents and purposes I will group Atheists and Toothfairy Agnostics together under Atheists because they are essentially the same thing (toothfairy agnostics say that due to the omnipotent properties of god he/she/it could exist but it is so unlikely that it doesn't, that they dont worry about it...like the toothfairy)

There are two issues I would like to bring up, though these are old news to most, it seems like some people need a reminder.

Issue One)

Atheists have a tool in their belt they call the scientific method. The method of reason. One of the most crutial parts of the scientific method is evidence. If Religions try to use the scientific method for God, they fall short in that category.

Issue Two)

Logic. If Religion would like to use this tool of Philosophy then then there are things that the arguers need to remember. Namely, you cannot pick and choose which rules you think are applicable to your arguement. If you decide to use Logic then all of the rules apply, even the ones that defeat your arguement.

Most common rule that is wrongly applied is the rule of proof of existence. Which, put simply, is: it is up to the person to prove that something exists not for the others to prove that this something doesn't exist. Logically this is true for God, Thor, toothfairies, and anything else you care to say exists.

The tool in religions belt is the definition of God. Omnipotence. He could make these things exactly as they are with no evidence of himself if he wanted.

The main reason for my thread is this: In logic, I consider a bad arguement for the side you believe in is worst than a good argument for the opposite side. Which leads me to my Challenge.

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound arguement as to why he exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

Or

If evidence turns up, Admit to there being a god and carry out your life appropriately.

Cheers

 

[DarkMaster24]

Welcome Understand. You've made a very gripping thread and I'm interested to see in how Creationists will respond to this. Unlike most places where you meet their type, these people have some reasoning skills and might give you meaningful feedback. It's kind of late though so it might take a while till one of them responds. Some of them can have semi-intelligent things to say though.

The predicament they're in with your challenge is outside their holy books, there is no evidence for their god, so some of them might put out answers you've allready heard like design indicates Designer, 500+ people saw Jesus reserrected, bible code, anti-scientific attacks, ect.

Nonetheless, I hope you have fun with this site.

 

[BucephalusBB]

The predicament they're in with your challenge is outside their holy books, there is no evidence for their god, so some of them might put out answers you've allready heard like design indicates Designer, 500+ people saw Jesus reserrected, bible code, anti-scientific attacks, ect.

If you accept these evidences or not does not matter, but first you say there is no evidence and then you give us a bunch..

 

[DarkMaster24]

Bball, those are arguements that have been disproven a long time ago. Years ago... I was just showing him the same weak arguements they might throw out at him so he could know what to expect.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Bball, those are arguements that have been disproven a long time ago. Years ago... I was just showing him the same weak arguements they might throw out at him so he could know what to expect.

Nonsense.. You cannot disproof design just as you cannot disproof God. All you can do is counter-evidence.

 

[DarkMaster24]

Are you seriously argueing in favor of Intelligent Design?

That's not scientific, all scientific evidence points to descending from monkeys, not being designed. Don't you think it's remarkable that over 98% of our DNA is similar to that of monkeys? That's compelling evidance right there that we evolved from them.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Are you seriously argueing in favor of Intelligent Design?

Not at all...

That's not scientific, all scientific evidence points to descending from monkeys, not being designed. Don't you think it's remarkable that over 98% of our DNA is similar to that of monkeys? That's compelling evidance right there that we evolved from them.

We are talking about evidence here. When a murder happened and you see a gun next to the body, that is evidence. That doesn't mean that gun killed him though. maybe the gun was even fired in his defence.
But the gun is still evidence.

In my opinion God is created around questions we cannot or couldn't answer. If God is the answer, surelly the questions are evidence.

 

[S-word]

Are you seriously argueing in favor of Intelligent Design?

That's not scientific, all scientific evidence points to descending from monkeys, not being designed. Don't you think it's remarkable that over 98% of our DNA is similar to that of monkeys? That's compelling evidance right there that we evolved from them.

Do you base your argument against creation on the fact that you believe that scientific evidence points to mankind having evolved from monkeys, or rather from the ancient ancestor of all the diverse forms of primates which include monkeys?

Did the space shuttle and its ground controll system and all the infrastructure needed for their formation and continued growth, evolve, or was it all created?

When the creator of all of the above first created the wheel, which is a major component in the creation of the space shuttle, did he envision the space shuttle? Or were the first primitive wheel barrow, the horse drawn wooden wheeled cart, the discovery and art of mining and forging the metals to created iron rims and spring suspensions for the more advanced evolving carts, which, when the required data had been gathered and the necessary infrastructure created, would be seen to have evolved into the first horseless carriage?

Were all these and the billions of creations that led up to the current space shuttle, the result of creation by design, or were each and everyone of those creations, but expressions of the heights to which the mind of the creator had evolved at the time of each creation?

Did you evolve from the singularity which burst forth from the Black Hole and which must one day be condensed back into Great abyss, as the infinitely dense and infinitely hot, infinitesimally small primordial atom, from which this universal body will be resurrected to continue on in its eternal process of evolution? And the fool says, "There is no God."

 

[methylatedghosts]

Can people not see that it could possibly be both?

 

[Seven]

Can people not see that it could possibly be both?

It could, but it takes a bit of imagination to fit god into the equation as creator. All we need to do to accept evolution by natural selection is to follow the evidence and leave our presuppositions behind.

 

[Falvlun]

Can people not see that it could possibly be both?

Yeah. I agree: it could certainly be seen as both. And I don't know why some Creationists refuse to take this stance. (I say some, because there seems to be a strong movement towards the "both" stance).

However, I could see why those not inclined to believe in God would not want to add a Creator. It is a superfluous assumption if natural processes seem to be taking care of things quite nicely.

Basically, the "Both" stance is best for those who want God to remain as the Creator, but do not wish to deny the bulk of scientific evidence in favor of evolution.

It could, but it takes a bit of imagination to fit god into the equation as creator.

I would think the leap of imagination would be believing in a God in the first place; situating it as a Creator is just a natural progression of the original leap.

Remember, evolution doesn't account for the origin of life (abiogenesis covers that...) so you could insert God there. Also, there's no reason why it couldn't have been God that put the natural processes to work in the first place.

 

[painted wolf]

Or you could be a lucky "Animist" and there simply is no line between Creator and the created.

God is as much the process of evolution as it is weather and the Big Bang.

wa:do

 

[Seven]

I would think the leap of imagination would be believing in a God in the first place; situating it as a Creator is just a natural progression of the original leap.

Good point

Remember, evolution doesn't account for the origin of life (abiogenesis covers that...) so you could insert God there.

Inserting god into gaps hasn't worked too well so far.

 

[Kathryn]

As a Christian, here's my take on Intelligent Design "versus" Random Acts of Nothingness - oops, I mean Big Bang, creationism "versus" evolution - whatever catchy phrase of the day applies:

I don't believe, and what rational person would, that the Bible must be taken literally in order to be profoundly TRUE. Besides the most obvious issues - passages must be read in context, the historical setting and author's background and style must be applied, and the fact that there are many different styles of writing in the OT and NT - I think 20th and 21st century man, both Christians and non Christians - often approach this Holy Book from a very one dimensional position.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, but many fundamentalist Christians insist on this approach. Actually, those non Christians refuting the bible also use this approach.

Let's just take the Old Testament as an example. Wow, there's some harsh stuff in there, and some really weird, pretty unbelievable stuff as well. But we've got to consider these texts in the context of other texts and traditions from that same period. Honestly, don't they all sound pretty similar? Lots of Flood stories, harsh sets of laws, etc. We shouldn't read the OT without knowing more about that era's mindset, style of communication, etc. Same applies to the writings in the NT, though they tend to be more understandable to most contemporary readers, because of course, they are closer to our era.

So let's take the Creation story. Hey, my belief is that God is omnipotent. COULD He create the world in seven days? Of course He could. DID He? I don't know. To me, that's not the point of the creation accounts in Genesis. The point is that God created all things. THAT'S the truth that the accounts in Genesis tell me.

"Scientific" beliefs and their ever-developing (and changing) theories don't threaten my Christian faith whatsoever. For instance, the concept of Vestigial Organs (organs that have no contemporary usage in the human body). For many years, this was a major theme of proponents of evolution and was put forth as strong evidence of their theory. As science progressed, that theory was eventually debunked, and now very few evolutionists believe this theory supports evolution. But at one point in history, about a hundred years ago, the argument of vestigial organs convinced many a skeptic of the "truth" of evolutionary theory.

So please forgive me if I am not awed by the scientific theories of the day. Talk about evolution! We can laugh at them now just as so many people scoff at the idea of giants roaming the earth and men marrying angels (though my husband swears he married one! HARHARHAR!).

Then there's the concept of faith. Take the above issue as an example. If I put my faith in man's reasoning...hmmmm, that faith in my opinion is misplaced. I don't doubt that Darwin's intentions were good, or that he was a very intelligent man. Heck, I would have probably really liked the guy, and admired his mind.

But I take the whole of creation - the nearly unbelievable beauty and complexity of this profound universe - and the innate nobility of man - and I have to believe that a Creator with an intelligence so far beyond any man, or group of men, must be in control. Do I see things that I don't understand? Of course. Do some of the elements of this world sicken me? Yes. But our human perspective is limited.

Take my dog as an example. Her perspective is limited, but she sincerely believes in her perspective based on her observations over her lifetime. She knows this: Sometimes her master, whom she loves with all her heart, gets a very serious look on her face and grabs the leash. ALERT, ALERT! Then this beloved Master says, "Come on, Lucy, come get in the car." Sometimes this can be a good thing, but Lucy's radar is up. Warily she gets in the car and OH MY GOSH, WE'RE TURNING THE WRONG WAY, THAT BAD PLACE IS DOWN THIS ROAD, OH NOOOOOOOOO! Why does her BELOVED MASTER take her to this place to be imprisoned, stuck with needles, surrounded by terrible smells, and sometimes actually CUT OPEN? OH THE HORROR OF IT ALL.

Of course you know - Lucy is going to the vet. In my "omnipotent" way - I know what's best for her. I see the full picture, and she doesn't. But Lucy has faith - she knows deep in her heart that I love her dearly. And I do.

 

[emiliano]

For all intents and purposes I will group Atheists and Toothfairy Agnostics together under Atheists because they are essentially the same thing (toothfairy agnostics say that due to the omnipotent properties of god he/she/it could exist but it is so unlikely that it doesn't, that they dont worry about it...like the toothfairy)

There are two issues I would like to bring up, though these are old news to most, it seems like some people need a reminder.

Issue One)

Atheists have a tool in their belt they call the scientific method. The method of reason. One of the most crutial parts of the scientific method is evidence. If Religions try to use the scientific method for God, they fall short in that category.

Issue Two)

Logic. If Religion would like to use this tool of Philosophy then then there are things that the arguers need to remember. Namely, you cannot pick and choose which rules you think are applicable to your arguement. If you decide to use Logic then all of the rules apply, even the ones that defeat your arguement.

Most common rule that is wrongly applied is the rule of proof of existence. Which, put simply, is: it is up to the person to prove that something exists not for the others to prove that this something doesn't exist. Logically this is true for God, Thor, toothfairies, and anything else you care to say exists.

The tool in religions belt is the definition of God. Omnipotence. He could make these things exactly as they are with no evidence of himself if he wanted.

The main reason for my thread is this: In logic, I consider a bad arguement for the side you believe in is worst than a good argument for the opposite side. Which leads me to my Challenge.

Provide evidence to the existence of God, or a sound arguement as to why he exists. or admit to an illogical unproven god.

Or

If evidence turns up, Admit to there being a god and carry out your life appropriately.

Cheers

I see a problem with this OP, Understand. Where did you get this from?

“The tool in religions belt is the definition of God. Omnipotence. He could make these things exactly as they are with no evidence of himself if he wanted”

Christians use the bible to define God and the main one is “God is a spirit” and Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth. Is the tool. Omnipotence is a characteristic of God not the definition. From this we get that unless we become spiritual we will never know God, those that are spiritual can know spiritual truth, we can became spiritual being only with God’s help.

Atheists have a tool in their belt they call the scientific method. The method of reason. One of the most crucial parts of the scientific method is evidence. If Religions try to use the scientific method for God, they fall short in that category.

But religion never uses the scientific method, they use Faith Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. SOOOOOOOO!

 

[Seven]

faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Couldn't have put it better myself

 

[Falvlun]

Inserting god into gaps hasn't worked too well so far.

Agreed.

 

[BucephalusBB]

Random Acts of Nothingness - oops, I mean Big Bang,

Personally I prefer to hear random act of nothingness, so you don't have to oops..
What's wrong with random act of nothingness? I mean, I do not believe it was random, as nothing is, but as I cannot give you the trigger, it is fair enough to call it random if you prefer. Actually, the "acts" does not work either, as we human divide into acts, but real life is more a flow. O and nothingness? Whatever it created, it is the same as your god created. You really want to call that nothing?

Yeah, you're right! It was a good OOPS...

 

[Falvlun]

Let's just take the Old Testament as an example. Wow, there's some harsh stuff in there, and some really weird, pretty unbelievable stuff as well. But we've got to consider these texts in the context of other texts and traditions from that same period. Honestly, don't they all sound pretty similar? Lots of Flood stories, harsh sets of laws, etc. We shouldn't read the OT without knowing more about that era's mindset, style of communication, etc. Same applies to the writings in the NT, though they tend to be more understandable to most contemporary readers, because of course, they are closer to our era.

I understand, and agree with what you are saying. It's not fair to the religious writing, or honest of the critic, to take it out of its historical context.

However, isn't changlessness a characteristic of the Christian God? I don't know about you, but there seems to be a whole lotta changin' going on between the OT and the NT.

Sure, you could claim that it is the cultural lens through which God is perceived that has changed, and not God himself, but does this not cast doubt on everything? Surely, God can control how he is perceived. Why would he want faulty perceptions of himself to be placed in his own holy book?

"Scientific" beliefs and their ever-developing (and changing) theories don't threaten my Christian faith whatsoever. For instance, the concept of Vestigial Organs (organs that have no contemporary usage in the human body). For many years, this was a major theme of proponents of evolution and was put forth as strong evidence of their theory. As science progressed, that theory was eventually debunked, and now very few evolutionists believe this theory supports evolution. But at one point in history, about a hundred years ago, the argument of vestigial organs convinced many a skeptic of the "truth" of evolutionary theory.

Sure, and at one point, people believed that when Moses came down from the mountain he had horns; apparently, it was a miss-translation of the word "shining".
At one point, Christianity defended tooth and nail against the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe, because it contradicted what they thought the Bible taught.
To this day, people still believe that the "mark of the beast" is 666, when it there is far more evidence that it is actually 616.
Additionally, as you yourself point out, there are those who take the Genesis account literally, and those who take it allegorically.

The point being, it is not like tenets of your religion are immune to changing theories. It is not changeless, and even among yourselves, you are not consistent.

At least science has a way of discovering flaws within the body of its "beliefs", and a way of correcting them once they are discovered. Science is not meant to be stagnant; it is meant to be ever evolving, ever discovering. I would think that is preferable to a belief system that is historically antagonistic to change.

Then there's the concept of faith. Take the above issue as an example. If I put my faith in man's reasoning...hmmmm, that faith in my opinion is misplaced. I don't doubt that Darwin's intentions were good, or that he was a very intelligent man. Heck, I would have probably really liked the guy, and admired his mind.

The scientific community's acceptance of evolution has nothing to do with faith in Darwin's "good intentions". It has to do with a large amount of evidence that has been systematically uncovered and scrutinized.

But I take the whole of creation - the nearly unbelievable beauty and complexity of this profound universe - and the innate nobility of man - and I have to believe that a Creator with an intelligence so far beyond any man, or group of men, must be in control.

So you look at creation and see its beauty and complexity and think "A Creator must have done this". Well, should not the Creator be even more beautiful and complex than the creation? If the Creator, in his infinite complexity, was able to "just exist", how much more so should the universe, in its finite complexity, just be able to exist?

 

[Falvlun]

If I put my faith in man's reasoning...hmmmm, that faith in my opinion is misplaced.

I'm sorry, but this line particularly bugged me.

You believe that faith in man's reasoning is misplaced. But in relation to what? Faith placed in the hypothetical desires of a hypothetical God?

Religion is man's reasoning, only in dress up clothes, playing with faulty premises.

Or, to put it less antagonistically, how do you know that religion isn't just another form of "man's reasoning", that he uses to explain that which he can't explain?