Demanding proof of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarloMagnus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Fair enough. That would be another analogy that we could discuss.

But we’ve got to first deal with Regular Atheist’s claim that the better analogy is that of fleas sitting on a turd.

So we just have to establish that it’s a very, very nonsensical atheist flea who’s going to conclude that the turd just randomly was created by floating nitrogen and hydrogen et al particles.

Yes?
Click to expand...
If the atheist flea concluded in somehow that the turd randomly exists, it could be true, it could not be true, same for the claims of the theist flea. Why only the atheist flea is nonsensical?
 
User124 said:
If the atheist flea concluded in somehow that the turd randomly exists, it could be true, it could not be true, same for the claims of the theist flea. Why only the atheist flea is nonsensical?
Click to expand...
Huh?

I thought you just agreed, in the post above that you agreed with me that it is untenable for an atheist flea to conclude that a turd just randomly was created.

Now you’re saying that it’s definitely a possibility that a turd just appeared.

Seriously?
 
User124 said:
Explain why?
Click to expand...
Define ‘Miracle’.
Do you consider it something that defies scientific explanation? - healings for instance.

Or do you consider it something impossible by known laws of physics? - reported bilocation of Saints.

Or is it something that defies odds? - Not talking lottery odds. I am talking odds that my parents would get together at the right time and place for me to be the result. Along with the odds of their parents, and theirs, etc. The odds against me or you being who and what we are that we can be considered miracles, particularly when we know that God knew us in advance.

Detectives in the police know what is needed to believe someone is guilty or innocent.
They can quantify precisely what is needed to prove innocence or guilt in a matter.
I would hope our Atheistic friends would be able to quantify in the same way just what it is they would need to prove God. And I am not talking outright proof positive, I am talking about the individual. What is sufficient evidence for you?
 
eightandsand said:
And as I have written in a previous thread:

This whole conflict between Christianity and Modern Science (Materialism) goes back to the ancient rival cosmological arguments of Epicurus and Aquinas. Everything depends on whether the things of nature are or are not eternal. If they are, Epicurus is right, and nature is self-contained, having no need of a divine source; if they are not, Aquinas is right, and nature is contingent, existing in a state of dependence on the source of its existence, a source outside of nature.
Click to expand...
I did not understand the whole “thou” concept or how it relates to the context of my post, so i cannot speak about it.

However the above quote is flawed in its interpretation of Aquinas.

The success of Aquinas’ argument is not contingent upon proving that the universe is not infinite in duration; but rather the argument is dependent upon proving that the universe is not its own “esse” (existence). that is what makes his argument unique and distinct from the Kalam cosmological argument.

Regardless of whether or not the universe has an infinite past, the universe itself is still a sum total of potential that has become actual at some point in the past.
  1. Every potential being derives its existence from that which was actual.
  2. Since all the events that manifests the universe are at some point only potentially real, it follows that none of the events can logically be said to be the source or cause of the Universes existence as a whole.
  3. The Universe is therefore intrinsically and essentially distinct from that which makes it a reality, regardless of how long it has existed.
  4. Potentiality cannot come out of nothing.
  5. Potentiality must come from a being that is not itself a potential being.
  6. Since all forms of change in principle is the actuality of that which was only potentially real, there has to be a being that is pure-actuality, and therefore it is a being that does not change from one potential state to another.
  7. None of the events in the universe can be defined as pure-actuality, because everything that makes up the universe is changing.
  8. Therefore the universe is not necessarily real, and must have a cause for its actuality; a cause that sustains and manifests the actuality of all physical events, because no physical event is the source of its own reality.
  9. This cause must be timeless and therefore non-physical, and perfectly real; and since natural events can only happen where there is change, and nothing comes from nothing, the cause cannot be natural. But rather it must be in some sense intelligent.
 
PRmerger said:
Huh?

I thought you just agreed, in the post above that you agreed with me that it is untenable for an atheist flea to conclude that a turd just randomly was created.

Now you’re saying that it’s definitely a possibility that a turd just appeared.

Seriously?
Click to expand...
You asked that question, and I said yes :

“Just wondering, User, if you could at least acknowledge the sense in my conclusion above.”

I acknowledged the conclusion you had, but it doesn’t mean I agreed with it, for that reason I answered your second question. Why you posted a second question if both had the same meaning? 🤷
vz71 said:
Define ‘Miracle’.
Do you consider it something that defies scientific explanation? - healings for instance.

Or do you consider it something impossible by known laws of physics? - reported bilocation of Saints.

Or is it something that defies odds? - Not talking lottery odds. I am talking odds that my parents would get together at the right time and place for me to be the result. Along with the odds of their parents, and theirs, etc. The odds against me or you being who and what we are that we can be considered miracles, particularly when we know that God knew us in advance.

Detectives in the police know what is needed to believe someone is guilty or innocent.
They can quantify precisely what is needed to prove innocence or guilt in a matter.
I would hope our Atheistic friends would be able to quantify in the same way just what it is they would need to prove God. And I am not talking outright proof positive, I am talking about the individual. What is sufficient evidence for you?
Click to expand...
Not having a current scientific explanation for a certain mystery doesn’t make that mysterious thing a miracle.

I can’t say what kind of evidences I want, unless I look on a particular miracle more deeply.
Each case is different.
 
User124 said:
You asked that question, and I said yes :

“Just wondering, User, if you could at least acknowledge the sense in my conclusion above.”

I acknowledged the conclusion you had, but it doesn’t mean I agreed with it, for that reason I answered your second question. Why you posted a second question if both had the same meaning? 🤷
Click to expand...
You left out the part about “the sense”.

So you are not in agreement then, that it’s a sensible statement to say: it’s ridiculous for an atheist flea to proclaim, “A turd just can randomly appear.”

:whacky:

I have to say that I cannot dialogue with someone who won’t acknowledge something as simple as the above.

It speaks to a lack of intellectual integrity.

So I just want to be clear: you think it’s perfectly sane and logical for, in this analogy, an atheist flea to hold the position that a turd can just randomly be created by itself.

Yes?
 
PRmerger said:
You left out the part about “the sense”.

So you are not in agreement then, that it’s a sensible statement to say: it’s ridiculous for an atheist flea to proclaim, “A turd just can randomly appear.”

:whacky:

I have to say that I cannot dialogue with someone who won’t acknowledge something as simple as the above.

It speaks to a lack of intellectual integrity.

So I just want to be clear: you think it’s perfectly sane and logical for, in this analogy, an atheist flea to hold the position that a turd can just randomly be created by itself.

Yes?
Click to expand...
"I have to say that I cannot dialogue with someone who won’t acknowledge something as simple as the above.

It speaks to a lack of intellectual integrity."

Does this include what the theist flea claimed as well? Both the atheist and the theist flea were claiming something without actual proof, I didn’t judge any of the theist or the atheist flea claims to be non sense, I don’t know which one is right.

As for your question, I think it’s possible for the claims of the atheist flea to be true, the atheist flea only needs to present evidences for it’s claims, same for the theist flea.
 
User124 said:
"I have to say that I cannot dialogue with someone who won’t acknowledge something as simple as the above.

It speaks to a lack of intellectual integrity."

Does this include what the theist flea claimed as well? Both the atheist and the theist flea were claiming something without actual proof, I didn’t judge any of the theist or the atheist flea claims to be non sense, I don’t know which one is right.

As for your question, I think it’s possible for the claims of the atheist flea to be true, the flea only needs to present evidences for it’s claims, same for the theist flea.
Click to expand...
I respectfully say: I’m not going to answer your question, User, until you answer mine.

It’s like pulling teeth, this one. 😦

Do you hold it to be an untenable position for the atheist flea, as the analogy goes, to declare, “This turd could have appeared out of no where!”

Yes, or no?
 
PRmerger said:
I respectfully say: I’m not going to answer your question, User, until you answer mine.

It’s like pulling teeth, this one. 😦

Do you hold it to be an untenable position for the atheist flea, as the analogy goes, to declare, “This turd could have appeared out of no where!”

Yes, or no?
Click to expand...
Maybe the flea could be right.
 
User124 said:
Maybe.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see, then.

There are many atheists that I’ve been in dialogue with who are true seekers, and will go wherever the truth leads.

They will acknowledge truth wherever they find it.

I wish to be in dialogue with those folks.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
User124 said:
I can’t say what kind of evidences I want, unless I look on a particular miracle more deeply.
Each case is different.
Click to expand...
There are documented cases of each miracle type I listed.
Please do look more deeply at them.

I pray you discover what exactly you are looking for, and find it.
 
ReapReason said:
I did not understand the whole “thou” concept or how it relates to the context of my post, so i cannot speak about it.

However the above quote is flawed in its interpretation of Aquinas.

The success of Aquinas’ argument is not contingent upon proving that the universe is not infinite in duration; but rather the argument is dependent upon proving that the universe is not its own “esse” (existence). that is what makes his argument unique and distinct from the Kalam cosmological argument.

Regardless of whether or not the universe has an infinite past, the universe itself is still a sum total of potential that has become actual at some point in the past.
  1. Every potential being derives its existence from that which was actual.
  2. Since all the events that manifests the universe are at some point only potentially real, it follows that none of the events can logically be said to be the source or cause of the Universes existence as a whole.
  3. The Universe is therefore intrinsically and essentially distinct from that which makes it a reality, regardless of how long it has existed.
  4. Potentiality cannot come out of nothing.
  5. Potentiality must come from a being that is not itself a potential being.
  6. Since all forms of change in principle is the actuality of that which was only potentially real, there has to be a being that is pure-actuality, and therefore it is a being that does not change from one potential state to another.
  7. None of the events in the universe can be defined as pure-actuality, because everything that makes up the universe is changing.
  8. Therefore the universe is not necessarily real, and must have a cause for its actuality; a cause that sustains and manifests the actuality of all physical events, because no physical event is the source of its own reality.
  9. This cause must be timeless and therefore non-physical, and perfectly real; and since natural events can only happen where there is change, and nothing comes from nothing, the cause cannot be natural. But rather it must be in some sense intelligent.
Click to expand...
The eternality of the universe does not follow from the truth that nothing cannot be a cause or source.

Nothing in nature comes to be from nothing. We see around us that things in nature really do exist. These things are not, however, eternal; we see that they come into being and pass away. Therefore, there must be some source outside of nature that is eternal. That source is called God.

Another way of looking at it is that since the universe could exist or not exist (that is to say it is contingent) its existence must have a cause. And that cause cannot simply be another contingent thing, it must be something which exists by necessity, that is, it must be something which must exist. Even if the universe has always existed, it still owes that existence to Aristotle’s Uncaused Cause. Now, some (like Bertrand Russell) argue that there is a self-contradiction in the “first cause” argument for God’s existence, in that one of the premises is that everything needs a cause but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. But the answer to Russell’s straw man is simple: The argument does not use the premise “Everything needs a cause.” Instead, it says that everything in motion needs a cause. God is the Unmoved Mover.
 
John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

NOTE: You may or may not consider this a proof
 
pgnat1 said:
John 20:29

Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

NOTE: You may or may not consider this a proof
Click to expand...
Why would anybody consider this a proof?
 
ReapReason said:
It does not seem that you read my post.
Click to expand...
Do you gree with astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic:

“The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion…The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen.”

Science recognizes the fact that the universe operates by uniform laws of nature. In your opinion, were these laws self generated?

As most know, every cell in the human body possesses a very detailed instruction code that programs a cell’s behavior. Do you believe that code to be self generated; no programmer needed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top