The fact that we are.
There is no scientific perecedent for something coming from nothing.
And yet everything is here and came from somewhere.
- Status
There is no scientific perecedent for something coming from nothing.
And yet everything is here and came from somewhere.
Another reason I disbelieve evolution.
All of what you describe: the conscience, the ability to make moral decisions, inspiration, empathy, etc…
are traits that humans share. Evolutionary theory cannot account for this.
If a theory purports to explain where we came from but cannot explain why we have all of the traits we have, the theory cannot be correct.
M
minkymurph
Guest
No, it can’t. However, there is no need to believe that every species of flora and fauna in existence today were created at the very outset by God. Therefore, theories in relation to physical and *cosmological *evolution don’t necessarily have to be incorrect and can be accepted.
M
minkymurph
Guest
OK. I believe that, you believe that. An atheist doesn’t believe it’s a fact we are. An argument that is often presented by atheists is; outside the Bible, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?. So, you can’t just answer an atheist by saying, ‘it’s a fact we are.’
In addition, the requirement was 1 000 words in answer to the scenario.
An atheist disbelieves that we are?OK. I believe that, you believe that. An atheist doesn’t believe it’s a fact we are. An argument that is often presented by atheists is; outside the Bible, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?. So, you can’t just answer an atheist by saying, ‘it’s a fact we are.’
In addition, the requirement was 1 000 words in answer to the scenario.
I would think our own existence as well as the physical world around us would be something solidly in the ‘believe’ catagory.
If an atheist wishes to doubt his own existence, then disbelief in God is the least of his problems.
Perhaps I was not clear. When I am saying ‘we are’ I am stating the fact of our existence.
The fact that we exist proves at the very least that there was something greater that brought it about…from nothingness.
Why not?
Do we have evidence to the contrary?
Assuming they are correct.
The fact that it fails tells us the process is not understood.
I suppose one could decide to believe them on the basis that it is the best science has to offer at present. But is it really?
C
chagen44
Guest
DNA
M
minkymurph
Guest
Ah, I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant it in the context of, ‘it’s a fact we were created by God.’An atheist disbelieves that we are?
I would think our own existence as well as the physical world around us would be something solidly in the ‘believe’ catagory.
If an atheist wishes to doubt his own existence, then disbelief in God is the least of his problems.
Perhaps I was not clear. When I am saying ‘we are’ I am stating the fact of our existence.
The fact that we exist proves at the very least that there was something greater that brought it about…from nothingness.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yes, and an atheist would be quite happy to tell you what it is.
Not all science requires belief so it’s not a matter of believing atheists.
We accept lots of things on the basis it’s the best science has to offer at present. Numerous examples from clinical research could be offered to support that view.
Is it really? Well, until some clever scientist comes along in a 1 000, 5 000, 1 000 000 years time, (and who’s to say we still won’t be around?) and throws out everything we accept at present. However, the scenario was to present arguments for the existence of God not using the Bible. Saying atheists are wrong doesn’t answer the question.
This is not a trick question to catch people out. It’s a question I was given when studying for a degree in theology. I know how I answered it. I asked it here as I am interested to see how others would respond for the purpose of presenting solid, sound reasoning and I am confident that others here could present arguments I didn’t think of.
M
minkymurph
Guest
OK. There’s one word. Can you expand a little? The requirement was 1 000 words so you have another 999 words to go.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
- Cosmological arguments. The argument from fine-tuning and the argument that eternal matter or eternal fields are a bad explanation that goes against what we know from science:
- The argument from reason and free will:
Also, link:
quodlibet.net/articles/williams-mind.shtml
Headings:
Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility
Determinism and Rationality
Ground and Consequent
M
minkymurph
Guest
Yep, reason, free will and moral responsibility were some of my arguments. Must look up your link about the cosmological arguments. I didn’t use that.
Another reason I posted this scenario is in my experience, discussing evolution with an an atheist is kind of putting the cart before the horse because no matter what you discuss with an atheist, they always revert back to the, ‘it’s a fact there is no God’ argument., Therefore, attempts to engage in productive discussion with an atheist concerning evolution often prove futile because ‘there is no God’ is their starting point. If discussion reaches the point were the atheist is willing to accept the possibility God exists, the door to God’s relationship with humanity.
Of course that’s the ideal scenario. A reached this point with a friend of mine who is an atheist and we had a long and meaningful discussion until the small hours. However, the next time he was in my house he trotted out the same arguments over and over again despite the fact they had been exhausted and yes; he did come back to the ‘it’s a fact there is no God’ argument.
Sigh! :banghead:
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
When it comes to the mere science of evolution I fully agree with atheists, so there is no point. Of course, we differ on the philosophical implications of the science, but that is a different issue.
I also agree with atheists about an origin of life by natural causes, see the article that I wrote for the evolution website TalkOrigins:
talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Where the atheist position falls flat is that it cannot explain why there is something like nature at all, and it cannot explain the incredibly special laws of nature that are necessary to make evolution possible in the first place (see my link “Cosmological arguments”). And it cannot explain the human mind.
I know. Talk about atheist ‘rationality’. I have had my share of frustrations as well, but so far on the web only. It shows that rational consent is not just a matter of the mind, but also of the will (or as some would say, “of the heart”).
N
Neildown
Guest
Hmmm, that sounds unreliable, because the odds of forming the most simple protein of life in the world by mere chance are even smaller than that. In fact, I will quote my Biology book on this.In relation to my post above, the best I could come up with is:
According to ID the probability of humans evolving from apes is 1 followed by 130 zeros.
However, as it’s a common misconception in the ID world evolutionists think humans came from apes, this statistic is flawed. That’s statistics for you!
The best I could come up with in relation to pink cats is:
The mathematical probability of a cat doing exactly as it pleases is 305/366.
I got bored after researching this after approximately 4 minutes. :yawn:
Therefore, you could argue I have not examined all the evidence which renders my research invalid.
"Let’s make it easy on ourselves and assume that the only amino acids in the mixture are the 17 types needed to make this particular protein. In fact, there are about 20 amino acids that are a part of the chemistry of life, but adding more amino acid types would significantly reduce our chance of forming ribonuclease. So, in order to make the outcome more likely, we will restrict ourselves to using only the 17 different types of amino acids that make up this molecule. Making this assumption, we can say that the possibility of forming a protein that has “Lys” as its first amino acid is 1 in 17. Those aren’t bad odds at all. However, the chance of forming a protein with “Lys” as its first amino acid and “Glu” as its second amino acid is 1 in 17 times 1 in 17, or 1 in 289…
“…If you were to complete this calculation, you would find that the odds for making this protein by chance from a mixture of the proper amino acids is approximately 1 in 10150 [a 1 followed by 152 zeros]…” - Dr. Jay Wile, *Exploring Creation with Biology, 2nd Edition *, pp. 151.
Lol, well at least we have a rough estimate there xD.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
This is misleading. Evolution does not work by mere chance. And according to widespread consensus among scientists, life did not start with amino acids, but with RNA.
S
samiam1611
Guest
As an atheist, I can honestly say that many things about the world are probably unexplainable by science, so either God did it, or we’ll just have to content ourselves with never knowing. (Unless time travel is invented.) So unfortunately I do fall flat on this. However, I don’t think it’s irrational to say that I don’t know! On the other hand, I see “God did it” as a perfect example of the “God of the Gaps.” It’s not irrational, but it certainly is fanciful! It’s a cop out. If we said “God did it” for many other things, science may not have bothered investigating these things, and then we would not have the knowledge that we do have.
There are many many many reasons I see fit to reject the notion of any sort of deity, but I won’t deny that if someone is not content not knowing the origin of the universe and that sort of thing, “God did it” is not utterly irrational.
I may be the exception to the atheists you have talked to before bc I will not state it’s a fact God does not exist. I don’t think it’s provable. Evolution is though, at least to my satisfaction, as well as the scientific community (and some of you).
Um, yes it can be correct. Just bc it hasn’t explained EVERYTHING doesn’t mean the things it has explained are wrong.
Well no, it’s not proof. It’s just an example of how apes could have turned into humans, the more and more they stood up, the more their posture would change you know. Which is why there are species in between us, like neanderthals.
Don’t you think that shows though, that we have a common ancestor?
Well maybe not, but it puts serious doubt on literal interpretations of the story. God didn’t fashion humans from dust or breathe life into them from His nostrils. If God had anything to do with our creation, it was in making primates evolve into humans. And in making primates from Euarchontoglires and Euarchontoglires from Eutheria and Eutheria from Mammalia and Mammalia from Chordata and Chordata from Animalia. We have so much in common with other mammals, it again, just seems so obvious. My dog has lungs, kidneys, a liver, a heart, ears, 2 eyes, which are above her nose which is above her mouth, just like us. We have a common ancestor in dogs too, if you go back far enough. Why else would we be so similar?
Evolution just makes sense when you observe reality.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
In my cosmological article I show clearly why positing God as the originator of nature is not a “God-of-the-Gaps” argument:
home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm
(Heading: A God of the Gaps?)
Positing a soul as part of the human mind is not a “God-of-the-Gaps” argument either since, if free will is necessary for rationality (and I maintain it is), it cannot be explained by a material principle *) and thus falls outside science. Then no amount of scientific research can address the issue. There is no gap in the scientific explanation: science cannot explain the human mind, period.
ID arguments are “God-of-the-Gaps” arguments, yes.
*) physical nature is either deterministic or, on the sub-microscopic level, ruled by quantum indeterminism. Neither allows for true free choice.
S
samiam1611
Guest
Oops, my bad for not clicking on your link. You said you agreed with evolution so I didn’t bother clicking on it… I didn’t mean the soul thing is an example of God of the gaps. I meant literal interpreations of Adam and Eve. and to a lesser extent ID.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
I agree. Having dogs (my wife and I have two) can teach you quite a bit about evolution . . . also in terms of character traits and “personality”. Our dogs are so different in that respect.My dog has lungs, kidneys, a liver, a heart, ears, 2 eyes, which are above her nose which is above her mouth, just like us. We have a common ancestor in dogs too, if you go back far enough. Why else would we be so similar?
N
Neildown
Guest
This is going on about the theory of abiogenesis. “In order for abiogenesis to work, proteins need to be able to form from random chemical reactions. Without this happening life could never appear because proteins are such a fundamental component of the chemical reactions that make life possible.” According to atheists evolution did happen by chance, which is what I am combating mainly, with ID on the sidelines, as ID just seems kind of queer to me.
If God had the capabilities to just put our world into existence why would He make everything evolve over time? The Holy Spirit didn’t, by some evolutionary process, conceive Jesus in Mary’s womb. Nor did the blind, sick, and lame heal through some time-consuming process generated by Jesus’ touch.
- Status