Does Anybody Think They Actually Have Evidence for the Existence of God?

Resonse: And a lack of intelligence is not knowing.

 

god of the gaps fallacy, leading to infinite regression. (who created the creator)

 

Ridiculous. Even if I doubt your claim, it is still your claim. You made it. You could also believe that ufos abducted you, and I could say "I do not believe you". Would it still be my job to provide the evidence that you were abducted?

 

Accusing other people of having an "inability to understand simple basic english"? In the same post as you make the suggestion that the word "lack" is a synonym to the word "not"?

 

The various versions of the Bible have some funny verses. To get the full effect of the message you have to use the specified versions:

1 Samuel 20:30 NLT

Job 5:2 (CEV)

Job 17:3-5 (MSG)

Job 18:3 (NLT)

Job 26:3 (NLT)

Psalm 32:9 (CEV)

Psalm 73:22 (CEV)

Proverbs 1:22 (CEV)

Proverbs 10:33 (CEV)

And this one is especially appropriate in this thread:

Proverbs 14:22 (MSG)

 

Oops, brain fart number two! Ha ha~ I have to admit I am not at my most clear minded when I post here (usually sometime between 3 to 6 am). In addition I am always in a hurry when writing replies. Anyway here is the reply I wrote a few hours ago when insomnia held me in its clutches;

I wondered why I was agreeing with GFP because we so often disagree. So sorry, that happens when the forum server is so jerky and slow that I am afraid I am going to lose my reply so I just copy right off the page without using the correct method (reply with quote). I then paste the copy on my word processor (usually while the server is still locked up). THEN I use the 'quick reply' function to paste it online. If I am not careful a direct copy has the words 'originally quoted by' ; then the name of the member that is replying and the member they are replying to, thus the mix up. Patience is not one of my virtues, so again sorry, I detest when someone misquotes me, but not so much when its an accident! Oh, I almost forgot, thanks for correcting my mistake~

reva

 

Why would an atemporal creator need a creator? Eternality begets no IR. The KCA expands on that comment. Of course most atheists avoid debating the KCA like it’s the plague. For good reason, it has not been defeated for centuries. I have watched several debates with both participants being over qualified (the theist and atheist (God) skeptic. Honestly I haven’t witnessed one debate won by the skeptics. However I feel as if most of the ontological/cosmological arguments successfully rebut the OT’s claims, not to mention the many other evidences for the existence of an intelligent designer or what we define* as God.

* There are several definitions and ‘applications’ of God. I explained what the commonly accepted versions were earlier in this thread.


reva

 

THE KCA has been defeated so many times. Why beat a dead horse?

 

Let me further explain the Kalām cosmological argument

the first premise falls apart quick: 1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

For every unit of positive energy in the universe, there is one negative unit of energy. When you put all the units of energy in the universe together you get nothing.

The Universe was created out of nothing, and w/o cause. We are on the ultimate free lunch and we can thank gravity for this.

KCA quickly and easily defeated.

 

I see nothing wrong with coining ones own definitions IF AND ONLY IF there is a very obvious disclaimer stating the fact, i.e. For example I often create new words or actually an abbreviation for a set of words such as ; GID meaning (God the Intelligent Designer). I always post notice that it’s my word. Self created definitions are even more risky and are an invitation to breed confusion which do the direct opposite of what good debate should accomplish, which is to communicate an idea successfully.

A relevant quote and comment;

“The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all.” In the quote Godel was speaking about the ‘language’ of math and other disciplines. Logician K Godel was an early 20th century genius theist and master logician. Some say his contributions, ie the 'incompleteness theorem' were on par with Einstein's theory of relativity & Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (Quantum Physics).

reva

 

What no examples of the defeated KCA? Ha ha ~ The KCAs main premises form a valid categorical syllogism, being such it's impossible to ‘defeat’ , yes I posted a bit of a strawman statement, however it was true. I haven’t seen in writing or heard a debate where the KCA was proved wrong or invalid etc. There have been probably thousands of challenges though.

Reva

 

It hasn't been "defeated" because the premises have no evidence either way and are therefore (until evidence can be found) ultimately just a matter of opinion.

Thus, it is not defeated, but it can be comprehensively DISMISSED by anyone who disagrees with those opinions.

 

Response: You made the folish claim that a newborn can create a checkerboad pattern. You did. Not me. Thus according to your own logic, the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Your obvious ducking and dodging clearly shows that you have no logical evidene for the claim, thus sopprting the evidence that God exist.

 

Response: Point being?

 

Response: Yet everything I presented is shown to be valid, so if a beatdown is being right, then I'm guilty of it.

 

why would the universe need a creator? Who's avoiding debating the KCA? I'm happy to point out that 2 of it's premises are assumed, and a god of the gaps fallacy is it's conclusion. And of course it's been defeated.

 

I think god must be actively hiding proof of his existence

 

Nothing you have presented has been valid.

You simply use your own definitions or the god of the gaps. Neither is valid.

 

MIssed this eh?

 

NOTICE TO ALL:

This forum has rules against flamebait and personal attacks. Please ensure that your posts comply with these rules, and the spirit of 'respectful debate' specified by the forum's Mission Statement.

Stick to discussing the topic, not baiting and attacking other forum members.

thank you.

Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

Still so certain. Even if this argument worked to establish that there were some "designer" (which it does not), it still would not automatically establish that the "designer" in question was Allah(God).

Returning to the argument itself, though, you fail to explain anything. Why do you insist that chance cannot originate order or intelligence? Why so certain? It also makes no sense to insist that natural selection is "based on chance" simply because there isn't some mind in charge of it. Natural selection acts on chance, but the process itself is not chance. Chance comes in where there are biological mutations, changes in the natural environment, etc. Natural selection is the natural consequence of these and other such changes acting upon a living population - the changes mean a change in selection pressure, so that what made a creature better able to survive before may well become a disadvantage, and likewise a former disadvantage may become advantageous.

For example, say you have a body of water in which a group of marine hermit crabs is trapped. These little creatures are accustomed to ocean water, but now they're isolated from the ocean and the water in their lake begins to change. That change in the water becomes a selection pressure - as the water loses salt and becomes more fresh, the hermit crabs will either adapt or perish. Eventually, if the right mutations and natural conditions are in place, natural selection will give us a freshwater hermit crab:

http://www.hermitcrabshome.com/freshwater-hermit-crabs/
Of all the freshwater hermit crabs, the Clibanarius fonticola has been described as the true freshwater hermit crabs. All the species of the Clibanarius fonticola live in the empty shells of the snail Clithon corona as their hermitage.
...
These true freshwater hermit crabs have been recorded in distant locations around the world. The first source, published in 1990, records their presence in a freshwater pool on Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu of Southwestern tropical Pacific. (See http://www.jstor.org/pss/1548413 ). (McLaughlin & Murray, 1990).The Wikipedia, however records the freshwater hermit crab species near the village of Matevulu, in a true freshwater spring, filled by water from adjacent springs. This place is also near an abandoned airstrip. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarius_fonticola ). It is unclear whether the two places are the same or not. Whatever the case, both the native lands of the freshwater hermit crabs are mysterious enough. An interesting point to note is that the rare pool is recorded to be in the coastal region. The magical confluence of the freshwater springs and the adjacent ocean has made this pool the only pool in the world where freshwater hermit crabs live.

These extremely rare little freshwater hermits have many ocean relatives, a number of which are available in the pet trade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarius

So, how did a relative of all those ocean hermits end up in freshwater? I gave you a selection scenario already. These hermits are capable of living in water with a significantly lower salt content than that of the ocean, though the other Clibanarius varieties, such as Clibanarius tricolor, do still eventually die if left in freshwater. They haven't been put under the same selection pressure - they're ocean species, adapted only to that environment, yet they are close relatives of those freshwater hermits. Would you say that they were separately created by your Designer? Would you say that some divine intelligence was needed for natural selection to weed out the more salt-dependent members of Clibanarius fonticola's ancestors in that pool?

 

This forum server is getting to me! I prepared a response to RS and tried to post it, then got the message that the token had expired which made the said reply disappear.

That POed me to no end. Anyway I have personal business and will reply to your (RS) reply in a few hours after I write another reply and after I do a virus scan and tune up~
reva

 

Point being that I believe the word "lack" is not, in fact, a synonym for the word "not". I used to be self-employed and had my own employees. Now, I am no longer self-employed, and so I lack employees. Since I lack employees, is that the same thing as saying that I am not an employee? Of course not.

 

Response: You've been provided with an example that creation originating from chance causes disorder, as evident by the fact it is not possible to throw a bucket of paint on the wall and create a simple face painting. Since you yourself cannot prove otherwise, your own argument only supports the obvious fact that creation originating from chance causes disorder. Thus the pattern and order in the universe can only have originated from intelligent design. In other words, God. The name "Allah" is simply the name given to God, thus proving that Allah exist.

As for natural selection, you yourself still does not acknowledge that the process of natural selection originated from intelligence. Therefore, it stems from chance and since creation originating from chance causes disorder, then that proves that natural selection is false.

 

Response: But saying that you lack employees is the same as saying you do not have employees. So the terms are synonymous.The meaning of many words can change in certain context and be used synonymously, as shown .