1818 replies to this topic

[sthira]

The real issue between evolution and Theism lies in the source of coding in the DNA.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Prove that "All codes are created by a conscious mind..."? The burden of proof is upon you. Science has a widely accepted and easily replicated idea: evolution.

Also, do you mean DNA is "like a code"? DNA is used for "encoding" and "decoding" "information" so cells may produce appropriate proteins to carry out necessary life functions. Note that we invented the word "code" to describe attributes of DNA. DNA existed before we invented the terms we use to study it. Words are symbols we invoke to convey meaning.

[shadowhawk]

The real issue between evolution and Theism lies in the source of coding in the DNA.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Prove that "All codes are created by a conscious mind..."? The burden of proof is upon you. Science has a widely accepted and easily replicated idea: evolution.

Also, do you mean DNA is "like a code"? DNA is used for "encoding" and "decoding" "information" so cells may produce appropriate proteins to carry out necessary life functions. Note that we invented the word "code" to describe attributes of DNA. DNA existed before we invented the terms we use to study it. Words are symbols we invoke to convey meaning.

We have had a long and heated discussion on “What is an intelligent code?” I don’t want to repeat myself here. Perhaps you would like to look at that discussion. http://www.longecity...de/#entry564639

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk, what do you think of Scientology, or Mormonism?

I am in disagreement with both for different reasons but the topic here is about Christianity. There are some things I like as well. Perhaps you would like to start a new topic on them.

[shadowhawk]

The real issue between evolution and Theism lies in the source of coding in the DNA.
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

As I recall, there was a study with bacteria that demonstrated the acquisition of new genetic information, and not through the uptake of preformed DNA. Premise two, therefore, is false.

We did have a lengthy discussion of Lenski and his long term study of E, Coli. We discussed at several places, I will do a search and see if I can find it. Here is a critique of it. http://www.evolution...evol051051.html

As I recall the only thing that was demonstrated was mutations do take place. Evolution by code, was not demonstrated. I am not arguing change. You have not defeated two and have not shown a new code nor the source of the old one as being mindless. All the E. Coli did was change its food source.

“2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”

Take an old argument showing the watch argument for design by Paley.

1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing language are designed

Tell me this is by blind random chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=qBfuVuelkoY&feature=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpXs8uShFMo

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 November 2013 - 12:00 AM.

[N.T.M.]

As I recall, there was a study with bacteria that demonstrated the acquisition of new genetic information, and not through the uptake of preformed DNA. Premise two, therefore, is false.

We did have a lengthy discussion of Lenski and his long term study of E, Coli. We discussed at several places, I will do a search and see if I can find it. Here is a critique of it. http://www.evolution...evol051051.html

Yes, I remember. Still, though, I have to disagree. The experiment showed how accrued mutations can increase the complexity of an organism (allowing this particular organism to utilize a new food source). The information that lies in the difference is what contradicts the second premise. In other words (final complexity) - (initial complexity) = information that came to exist without a designer. Additionally, theories have been proposed to account for the origin of DNA, and, again, without positing a designer.

Edited by N.T.M., 08 November 2013 - 07:30 AM.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: Yes, I remember. Still, though, I have to disagree. The experiment showed how accrued mutations can increase the complexity of an organism (allowing this particular organism to utilize a new food source). The information that lies in the difference is what contradicts the second premise. In other words (final complexity) - (initial complexity) = information that came to exist without a designer. Additionally, theories have been proposed to account for the origin of DNA, and, again, without positing a designer.

Again, the second premise says:

“2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”

Re- read the citation I gave to you and tell me how you could conclude, “The experiment showed how accrued mutations can increase the complexity of an organism.”

http://www.evolution...evol051051.html

Also read: http://www.biologici...n-or-renovation

Here we read:
“In his paper in Quarterly Review of Biology, Dr. Michael Behe pointed out that E. coli was already capable of using citrate for anaerobic growth (when no oxygen was available). He postulated that a change in gene regulation could turn on citrate transport and permit growth on citrate under aerobic conditions.

After an enormous amount of work, having sequenced the genomes of many clones along the lineages that led to the ability to use citrate, as well as lineages that never did, and testing the phenotypes of identified mutations, Blount et al. have now reported that Behe was largely right. The key innovation was a shift in regulation of the citrate operon, caused by a rearrangement that brought it close to a new promoter. - See more at: http://www.evolution....6v81P6BW.dpuf”

Behe had criticized the Lenski studies noting that these E. Coli already had the ability to digest both kinds of food in their genetic code and natural selection, which I have never doubted and which does not threaten premise two, utilized that part of the code. But, this threatens to get pff the topic into what is a code and I do not want to do that.

You have produced no example or argument that defeats premise 2.

[shadowhawk]

Evolution is an argument for the existence of God on at least two fronts.

The Kalam. Evolution is a long string of cause and effects. We might argue that the Kalam is am argument for God, and Evolution is but an example of it. Nothing we know of in the physical world exists without a cause and therefore is not capable of explaining itself. The physical world is evolving and needs a cause to explain itself.

I might bring up an objection here and that is the infinite regress. Some have argued that an eternal series of cause and effects would solve the problem of the need for a creator beginning.

HILBERTS HOTEL
Here are two short videos that show why an infinite regress (eternal evolution) is impossible.







Next we will further look at the design issue and evolution..

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 November 2013 - 08:12 PM.

[N.T.M.]

Again, the second premise says:

“2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”

Re- read the citation I gave to you and tell me how you could conclude, “The experiment showed how accrued mutations can increase the complexity of an organism.”

I think you're being semantically evasive, but I'll drop it. Instead, I'm curious what your thoughts are about atavisms. You referred to evolution as being something that suggests a designer--or, at the very least, a guider. How, then, do you explain atavistic occurrences such as whales with legs? If it were me, I'd propose that atavisms are just a byproduct of the vehicle God used for creation, the vehicle being evolution. Fair enough, but then why would God select land mammals to become whales instead of something that evolved in the ocean? The latter seems so much more efficient.

[shadowhawk]

Again, the second premise says:

“2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.”

Re- read the citation I gave to you and tell me how you could conclude, “The experiment showed how accrued mutations can increase the complexity of an organism.”

I think you're being semantically evasive, but I'll drop it. Instead, I'm curious what your thoughts are about atavisms. You referred to evolution as being something that suggests a designer--or, at the very least, a guider. How, then, do you explain atavistic occurrences such as whales with legs? If it were me, I'd propose that atavisms are just a byproduct of the vehicle God used for creation, the vehicle being evolution. Fair enough, but then why would God select land mammals to become whales instead of something that evolved in the ocean? The latter seems so much more efficient.

I am mot here trying tp explain why in a gene pool, there are many possibilites of expression such as we find in Dogs and horses or whales for that matter. Just think of the differences and possibilites within these species. I have already said, natural selection selects the most advantageous expression of the possibilities. See the discussions:
Intelligent Design and Science – In or Out? http://www.longecity...ut/#entry537129

My first issue here in Evolution, was “cause,” “movement,” and “change,” as an argument for the necessity of God. The whale fits that nicely, because it cannot explain itself, it changes, and there is not the possibility of an infinite regression of that change. You may wonder why change took the path in the direction it may have, I wonder also, that there is a path and it leads us somewhere, from somewhere.

MY BOOKCASE

I am setting here at my computer, looking at one of my many bookcases. The bookcase is four dimensional, height, width, length and ... time? Why time? Because each part is less than the whole and incomplete. Lets call one end of the bookcase Alpha and the other end Omega, the beginning and the end.

There is a small ball setting at the Alpha (beginning) end of the book case which I roll down the bookcase toward the Omega (end). It is rolling at a certain speed and tales just so much TIME to travel the distance. The fastest the ball can go is the speed of light, never the less it takes time to go from one end to the other. So the reality is height, width, length and because everything is involved in the change, “time.” The entire bookcase, including the ball is involved in some way in time.

In the Big Bang we couldn’t have had the movement of an explosion without space to explode (MOVE) into, so in the first millionth of a second, we had inflation of space so the stuff of reality had some place to expand into. This is the inflationary model. The ball in my illustration lacks something and that allows it to move from Alpha to Omega because at some time it is at Alpha and at another at Omega. It lacks the ability to be at both places at once. The entire Cosmos lacks the ability to explain itself without a cause. That cause must be of a completely different nature than the space/time reality we find ourselves in. Space/time cannot create itself.

Evolution therefore points to the need for a necessary cause, God. Remember in my illustration, I caused the ball to start rolling, but I also am caused, moving, evolving and changing. What set me and my causes into motion? What ultimately caused you?

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 November 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[DukeNukem]

In the Big Bang we couldn’t have had the movement of an explosion without space to explode (MOVE) into...

Not correct. The Big Bang didn't explode into anything at all. The Big Bang was an expansion of space itself. (At least you're ahead of a large percentage of Christians who don't believe the Big Bang happened at all. They're even more primitive and misled in their thinking!)

It's fundamental mistakes like this, Shadowhawk, that lead you astray with your assumptions, or your belief in assumptions that simply do not obey science.

[shadowhawk]

In the Big Bang we couldn’t have had the movement of an explosion without space to explode (MOVE) into...

Not correct. The Big Bang didn't explode into anything at all. The Big Bang was an expansion of space itself. ( SH. Did I say it wasn't? ) (At least you're ahead of a large percentage of Christians who don't believe the Big Bang happened at all. They're even more primitive and misled in their thinking!)

It's fundamental mistakes like this, Shadowhawk, that lead you astray with your assumptions, or your belief in assumptions that simply do not obey science.

You have no disagreement from me, inflation was a part of the explosion itself. I said as much. Which came first, space or the stuff exploding into it? Frankly I don’t think you have a clue. It had to have some place to explode into. The beginning of “space time.” Tell me, how you can have an explosion without space for it to explode into? Which came first? I want to hear this “fundamental Mistake. http://en.wikipedia....ion_(cosmology)

It may be irreducibly complex! More evidence for God? Are you going to argue that?

It was the beginning. You are not a retard, if you do not believe in the Big Bang. Are atheists who do not believe in it, “primitive”? This is nothing more than bigotry and name calling.

But you are not a “primitive,” and you know the explosion took place before there was space and I want to learn how? Not that it matters at all to the points I have been making. Given the topic, and discussion, what is your point?

Remember, you are the guy who wrote:
“With the Big Bang, why would a god bother??? Why not create a steady-state universe, rather than one with all of this big bang nonsense? And why would a god bother with evolution, instead of snapping a finger to make all life (as described in the Bible)? You do believe in evolution, I hope? If not, well, then truly you are not worth further humoring.” http://www.longecity..._60#entry620642

I noticed you did not say one thing about my thesis so far, that evolution can be used as an argument for God's existence. Do you believe in the Big Bang Nonsense , as you called it? Please humor me as I asked you to before... http://www.longecity..._60#entry621010

OBEY GOD, SCIENCE. How do we know? An Atheist told us so. And the evidence? We are not primitive science can prove atheism..

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 November 2013 - 01:14 AM.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Evolution has as a basic element change of a certain thing into another. That is only part of the story but it is one if the pillar facts and no matter what the other issues, change is a big aspect of evolution. . It does not involve infinite change and we have seen the impossibility of an infinite regress, because, sooner or later we end up with the singularity of the Big Bang.

Little children are famous for asking an endless series of questions, “why,” and for anyone who has sought to answer them it seems endless. A similar question is, “what caused this?” Again the questions seem endless. For us living in this “space/time,” cosmos of cause and effect it ultimately ends with the Big Bang. The Big Bang also has all the marks of cause and effect itself and like everything else is not capable of explaining itself. This is the Yellow Brick Road, made up of questions that eventfully lead us to God. Most people stop asking questions way to soon.

What is a “Necessary being?" Here is a definition. “A being possesses a property by necessity if there is no possible world in which that being could exist without having that property. A property that is possessed by necessity is also said to be an essence of the object that possesses it since its presence is essential to that object” God is a necessary being. He is not caused by anything else nor does He need a cause. God cannot be like the cosmos, needing a cause and therefore He can set things into motion. Follow the yellow brick road and it will lead you to the necessity of a necessary cause. Evolution is one way of showing that.

Edited by shadowhawk, 13 November 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[johnross47]

I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.

[sthira]

I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.

Yours is my reaction, too. Although it's fun and interesting to engage in spiritual discussions that involve honest cosmological speculation. Open curiosity and inquiry is refreshing. But here, as is so often the case, we find outdated dogma. Many extremists -- particularly evangelistic, born again, and atheist converts -- tend to bunker down into shrill fantasy fighting rather than addressing basic concerns.

[shadowhawk]

johnross 47:
“I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.”

You haven’t put forth one argument.

Sthira:
“Yours is my reaction, too. Although it's fun and interesting to engage in spiritual discussions that involve honest cosmological speculation. Open curiosity and inquiry is refreshing. But here, as is so often the case, we find outdated dogma. Many extremists -- particularly evangelistic, born again, and atheist converts -- tend to bunker down into shrill fantasy fighting rather than addressing basic concerns.”

Maybe this will help you guys. How many times have I heard this from you? Off topic.

http://www.youtube.c...hhJAGjBIEw#t=42

Edited by shadowhawk, 13 November 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[johnross47]

johnross 47:
“I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.”

You haven’t put forth one argument.

Sthira:
“Yours is my reaction, too. Although it's fun and interesting to engage in spiritual discussions that involve honest cosmological speculation. Open curiosity and inquiry is refreshing. But here, as is so often the case, we find outdated dogma. Many extremists -- particularly evangelistic, born again, and atheist converts -- tend to bunker down into shrill fantasy fighting rather than addressing basic concerns.”

Maybe this will help you guys. How many times have I heard this from you? Off topic.

http://www.youtube.c...hhJAGjBIEw#t=42

I've put many logical points here.....you never address them....you either post another link or a short irrelevant insult. If you produced your objections to my posts in your own words and in the form of a proper logical discussion, I would treat you with more respect.

[johnross47]

I long ago got bored arguing with a stream of unattributed quotes and misapplied misunderstood ideas from, as usual, again, unattributed sources. If you strip out the abuse there is nothing left that is original to the poster.

Yours is my reaction, too. Although it's fun and interesting to engage in spiritual discussions that involve honest cosmological speculation. Open curiosity and inquiry is refreshing. But here, as is so often the case, we find outdated dogma. Many extremists -- particularly evangelistic, born again, and atheist converts -- tend to bunker down into shrill fantasy fighting rather than addressing basic concerns.

I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions. I do find the mental gymnastics of believers fascinating. From a psychological point of view, the mental gyrations of intelligent and educated believers tell us a lot about how the mind works, and the evolution of gods, from the completely understandable primitive forms to the modern versions, tells us a lot about the history of human understanding and culture. When Shadowhawk's favourite unattributed quote-source, (WC Craig)makes that jump from the highly evolved logical/semantic-trick structure of his arguments, to his belief, via nothing more than waving his arms and appealing to what seems to him most reasonable, he tells us a great deal more about human nature than about the nature of the universe. When his formidable reputation as a debater and logician comes up against reality, he resolves the cognitive dissonance by coming down on the side of the irrational. I wish I was in a position to run studies on this.

Edited by johnross47, 14 November 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[sthira]

I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions.

And we never will "know" until god, if god exists, flies down out of the skies and announces Here I am.

Ponder what might happen if, say, a modern Jesus Christ -- some ragtag dredlocked hippie performing stunts, maybe levitating, making dramatic speeches about I Am Who Am -- how would he be accepted by sophists like Shadowhawk? What would it take for god to prove hirself to us?

What I don't understand is the shame associated with the simple fact that we don't know if god exists or not. Do humble puja and repeat ten thousand times: we don't know. What's wrong with ignorance? Amazing things exist within this universe of which we're ignorant. Why then is ignorance of illogical, supernatural entities so shameful to religious people who must prove their gods exist or else all be damned?

We may speculate why true believers keep humping fake gods on us -- ethnic land conflicts, financial interests, political fucking around, power grasping -- but sincere seekers -- renunciants -- fall upon faith and do not claim to know stuff they don't know.

[johnross47]

I don't believe in any of the proposed gods. i have never seen a sound argument for accepting any of the god propositions.

And we never will "know" until god, if god exists, flies down out of the skies and announces Here I am.

Ponder what might happen if, say, a modern Jesus Christ -- some ragtag dredlocked hippie performing stunts, maybe levitating, making dramatic speeches about I Am Who Am -- how would he be accepted by sophists like Shadowhawk? What would it take for god to prove hirself to us?

What I don't understand is the shame associated with the simple fact that we don't know if god exists or not. Do humble puja and repeat ten thousand times: we don't know. What's wrong with ignorance? Amazing things exist within this universe of which we're ignorant. Why then is ignorance of illogical, supernatural entities so shameful to religious people who must prove their gods exist or else all be damned?
Learning how to know what you don't know, about any subject, is possibly the most important single fact you can acquire. Once you know that, you know where to begin and can start to formulate meaningful questions. Trying to determine the characteristics of a being whose existence is dubious, is massively futile, and to then go on to try and use those supposed features as evidence for the being's existence is preposterous, but that is where much of this sort of conversation seems to finish up.

We may speculate why true believers keep humping fake gods on us -- ethnic land conflicts, financial interests, political fucking around, power grasping -- but sincere seekers -- renunciants -- fall upon faith and do not claim to know stuff they don't know.

[DukeNukem]

What I don't understand is the shame associated with the simple fact that we don't know if god exists or not. Do humble puja and repeat ten thousand times: we don't know. What's wrong with ignorance? Amazing things exist within this universe of which we're ignorant. Why then is ignorance of illogical, supernatural entities so shameful to religious people who must prove their gods exist or else all be damned?

Quite simply, gods don't make any logical sense whatsoever. And, there's a total lack of evidence.

We all know that religions are all clearly bogus and made up by humans, so they can all be easily dismissed.

If gods were real, the universe and our planet would be a very very different place. One true god, for example, who loves worship (a petty ego-driven requirement!), would certainly have made himself known worldwide, rather than allowing so many other fake belief systems to arise -- how unfair is that!

Science continues to close the gaps on the mysteries of our universe, in each case showing no gods are needed to explain things. There are few gaps left for gods to claim dominion. They like sardines in a small room now, fighting over a few remaining choice morsels, like the origin of the Big Bang.

But most of all, gods need to explain from whence they themselves came?

[sthira]

Learning how to know what you don't know, about any subject, is possibly the most important single fact you can acquire. Once you know that, you know where to begin and can start to formulate meaningful questions. Trying to determine the characteristics of a being whose existence is dubious, is massively futile, and to then go on to try and use those supposed features as evidence for the being's existence is preposterous, but that is where much of this sort of conversation seems to finish up.

This is the better conversation to have, imho, rather than rehashing ad nauseum the same ole religio-shiz. We created mean, grandfatherly bearded sky god(s) and then dismantled them centuries ago. As Nietzsche wrote "...not everyone has gotten the news..."

Yet the story is still open because we're stuck within the confines of natural law and human reasoning. Like in a straight jacket. Logic takes us only so far to a point; from its limits we create tools to expand past human capacities and into impossible to predict unknowns.

To follow along with you: we know that we don't know if god exists. We also know we don't know if other dimensions exist beyond these in which we're encased. We don't know what happens beyond the speed of light, for example, but we calculate that time and space "cease to exist." Past the speed of light is completely irrational to us -- like god -- but that doesn't necessarily mean new realities or dimensions cannot unfold past our reasoned limits. But until we have evidence of "more" than what's in this universe then it's faith and the wild ass speculation of scifi. Cosmology is fun! It's a pity that religiosity infects it in the pop arena.

[shadowhawk]

The above several posts are off topic, so I answered them elsewhere rather than let them derail the topic. If interested see:
http://www.longecity...es/#entry623623

[johnross47]

The above several posts are off topic, so I answered them elsewhere rather than let them derail the topic. If interested see:
http://www.longecity...es/#entry623623

Once again you demonstrate your inability to deal with anything other than competitive quoting. The last few posts all dealt calmly and rationally with the problem of the possibility of evidence for any sort of religion, but you just declare it to be off topic. Why not answer these poster's points? They deal directly with the subject. Could you explain to us why we are mistaken, in your own words and not just another video of someone else or a plagerised page from some book or website.

[sthira]

I had to follow threads that announced this conversation is off topic to see how shadowhawk answered. Viz:

And we never will "know" until god, if god exists, flies down out of the skies and announces Here I am. (SH: You “know,” we never will know! Unless God comes down. We are getting close)

Do tell us how "we are getting close" God is coming soon? Do you have direct communication with the Almighty? Is He giving you a voice?

[johnross47]

I remember arguing with a college chaplain once; when I professed disbelief he started trying to persuade me by going through all the classical ' proofs' of god's existence. As I pointed out that each in turn had been discarded because it was invalid, he just acknowledged the failure and
glided on to the next. Then he was deeply offended when I expressed surprise that a "man of god and seeker after truth" should try to convince me with arguments he knew to be wrong. Again, it's all in the psychology. True believers are major practitioners of voluntary confirmation bias. Shadowhawk probably actually genuinely believes he has answered my points but in fact he has never even gone as far as to admit their existence. There are two in particular I would like to see his own answer to.
1. In a "proof" further back he says as one of his premises that the universe has a cause and that cause is god......does not accept that putting your desired conclusion in the argument as one of the premises, without any evidence for the validity of the premise, is completely wrong?
Can the explain how you make the leap from the conclusion that the universe has a cause to the unlinked belief that therefore there is god.
These are relevant questions because Christianity depends on there being a god for Jesus to be the son of.

[sthira]

1. In a "proof" further back he says as one of his premises that the universe has a cause and that cause is god......does not accept that putting your desired conclusion in the argument as one of the premises, without any evidence for the validity of the premise, is completely wrong?

That's why I expressed surprise that shadowhawk teaches logic at university. He would HATE me if I sat in his class. I'd get a juicy fat F haha..

But the point is no one can answer these questions. They're in humanity's future, and they're for science to carefully unravel. I don't blame anyone for needing religious faith. This is a hard, cruel world with many ongoing tragedies. If god-belief helps, then great! Kudos! Just don't attempt to argue truth merits to speculative claims that've been passed down through generations of confused people. We're all confused! If god exists he loves beetles (thousands of species of beetles) and he loves confusion.

Can the explain how you make the leap from the conclusion that the universe has a cause to the unlinked belief that therefore there is god. These are relevant questions because Christianity depends on there being a god for Jesus to be the son of.

No one can explain that leap. We pat poor shadowhawk on his head and give him the sad news that he's just like all the rest of us poor schmucks: clueless.

[shadowhawk]

Sthira
"Do tell us how "we are getting close" God is coming soon? Do you have direct communication with the Almighty? Is He giving you a voice? "

Johnross47
"I remember arguing with a college chaplain once; when I professed disbelief he started trying to persuade me by going through all the classical ' proofs' of god's existence. As I pointed out that each in turn had been discarded because it was invalid, he just acknowledged the failure and
glided on to the next. Then he was deeply offended when I expressed surprise that a "man of god and seeker after truth" should try to convince me with arguments he knew to be wrong. Again, it's all in the psychology. True believers are major practitioners of voluntary confirmation bias. Shadowhawk probably actually genuinely believes he has answered my points but in fact he has never even gone as far as to admit their existence. There are two in particular I would like to see his own answer to."

Off topic: Here is your answer: User agreed guidelines for the forum.

http://www.longecity...es/#entry623817

johnross47: 1. In a "proof" further back he says as one of his premises that the universe has a cause and that cause is god......does not accept that putting your desired conclusion in the argument as one of the premises, without any evidence for the validity of the premise, is completely wrong?
Can the explain how you make the leap from the conclusion that the universe has a cause to the unlinked belief that therefore there is god.
These are relevant questions because Christianity depends on there being a god for Jesus to be the son of.

This has already been answered.
“Premise 2

What, then, about premise 2? Is it more plausibly true than false? Although premise 2 might appear at first to be controversial, what’s really awkward for the atheist is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. (Two statements are logically equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together.) So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the contingency argument? He typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Since, on atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact. But that is logically equivalent to saying this:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2: if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what Christians understand God to be.”

I am in the middle of the evolution argument so I will stay on track. When I get done, tell me what is wrong with 2.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47

Here is where I discussed with you before premise 2. It seems you are asking the same thing over and over and acting as if I nor anyone else would answer you.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry619845

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF TOPIC DISCUSSION.

1. EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN DESIRE.
Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God
forever.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422


2. KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

3. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063
The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619676
3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

4. EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845

1. Kalam argument used with cause and effect Evolution as evIdence for God.
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
2.E-coli proof of evolution???
http://www.longecity..._60#entry621845
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622255
3.PALEY’S old watch argument for design.
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622077
1) The element common to both watches and life is: Both are preceded by a language (plan) before they are built

2) The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language

3) All language comes from a mind

4) Therefore all things containing language are designed

4. HILBERTS HOTEL

http://www.longecity..._90#entry622260

5. MY BOOKCASE AND THE MOVING BALL.
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/66118-is-there-evidence-for-christianity/page__st__90#entry622414

6. BIG BANG
http://www.longecity..._90#entry622862