How do thiests reconcile the contradictions for God's existence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No thanks, you can keep you explainations. Anyone that thinks there is the same evidence for evolution as there is for god is not someone i care to have a discussion with.
Albert

The issue is: You stated that you don’t believe unless you have evidence, but you implied that you believed in the nebular theory of planet formation for which there is no evidence, unless of course you can supply some.

Instead of defending your untenable position you chose to refuse to discuss on the basis of a misreading of my post.

I just had my sixth grade grandson read my post and he understood that what I was saying is that you don’t need evidence to believe in the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, dark energy and evolution because they are plausible explanations for the observed facts. And that I believe in God for the same reason; God is a plausible explanation of the observed facts, namely the big bang.

However, I will gladly accept your refusal to discuss as you are probably someone that merely wants to pontificate and I can’t waste time on meaningless discussions. Thank you for bailing out!!!

Yppop
 
Zatzat
Assume nothing, especially without evidence.
Exactly. That’s why the testimony of former Darwinian atheist philosopher Antony Flew is so relevant – he has published a new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, to explain his move from being one of the world’s leading exponents of the pure materialist Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who created the universe.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism:
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“**It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. ** Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

And that’s why AlbertBall’s assumption is invalid:
AlbertBall
Furthermore i would argue the universe being fine tuned for life, is not a valid or reasonable argument
 
Albert

The issue is: You stated that you don’t believe unless you have evidence, but you implied that you believed in the nebular theory of planet formation for which there is no evidence, unless of course you can supply some.

Instead of defending your untenable position you chose to refuse to discuss on the basis of a misreading of my post.

I just had my sixth grade grandson read my post and he understood that what I was saying is that you don’t need evidence to believe in the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, dark energy and evolution because they are plausible explanations for the observed facts. And that I believe in God for the same reason; God is a plausible explanation of the observed facts, namely the big bang.

However, I will gladly accept your refusal to discuss as you are probably someone that merely wants to pontificate and I can’t waste time on meaningless discussions. Thank you for bailing out!!!

Yppop
You are incorrect in your claim there is no evidence for planet formation. I’m can’t be bothered spoon feeding it to you.

Oh and you said… “The bottom line is that** I believe in God as the most plausible explanation **of the known facts - specifically, of creatio ex nihilo as implied by the big bang theory - **with the same philosophical certainty that I believe **that the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, dark energy, evolution (not necessarily Darwinism) are science.”
 
Exactly. That’s why the testimony of former Darwinian atheist philosopher Antony Flew is so relevant – he has published a new book, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, to explain his move from being one of the world’s leading exponents of the pure materialist Darwinian philosophy to belief in the existence of a personal deity who created the universe.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism:
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

“**It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. ** Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

And that’s why AlbertBall’s assumption is invalid:
lol now that is a classic, this dude digging Dawkins for not understanding philosophy, while at the same time making wild claims about biology. A subject he clearly does not understand. I suggest we leave the wishy washy philosophy to people like Antony Flew, and that Antony Flew leave real science, in this case biology to like likes of Dawkins.👍
 
You are incorrect in your claim there is no evidence for planet formation. I’m can’t be bothered spoon feeding it to you.
This kind of response reminds of my youth when most arguments consisted of: “says who?” “Oh, yeh!” “No, it ain’t!” and any number of other inane responses. If you have evidence, spoon feed me otherwise keep your promise not to respond to me.
Oh and you said… “The bottom line is that** I believe in God as the most plausible explanation **of the known facts - specifically, of creatio ex nihilo as implied by the big bang theory - **with the same philosophical certainty that I believe **that the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, dark energy, evolution (not necessarily Darwinism) are science.”
What is this? I know what I said why are you repeating it? Does it have something to do with the mention of evolution? Okay, if that’s your problem let me simplify: I was wrong to include “evolution” in the list of plausible scientific theories for which there is no evidence just a plausible explanation of known facts, the same basis with which I argue the existence of God. So eliminate “evolution” from my statement and deal with the proto-planet hypothesis, continental drift, dark matter, or dark energy and the lack of evidence for these scientific theories. If you had the intellectual courtesy to ask what I meant by “evidence” you may have extracted my meaning from my original response.

YPPOP
 
Where does that say pain relief is forbidden.
It doesn’t. Church officials were not against all pain relief, which appears to be the straw man argument you’ve constructed. They were against relieving pain during birth, because God was believed to have given women that pain in response to Eve’s disobedience. Thus, using anesthesia to relieve pain during birth is to avoid a punishment from God.
The greeks were among the finest soldiers the world has seen.
Some Greeks were fine soldiers. Sure, the Spartans were great, but they made up a small portion of the Greek population. The Athenians, who made up a much larger portion, were pushovers, unless we count the naval battles, I guess.
Everyone has heard of the Spartans, at Thermopylae just 300 Spartan specialist soldiers brought the entire Persian Empire army to a halt.
That depends on what you mean by “just.” Yes, there were “just” 300 spartans, but there were not “just” 300 soldiers. The article on Wikipedia says that there were many other Peloponnesians, such that anywhere from 5200 to 7700 men were fighting, depending on the interpretations of the reports. This force managed to kill 20,000 Persians, though about 3000 of the Greeks fled while Leonidas and his last men held off the Persian army.

Also, you’re embellishing the situation a bit. The Persians were delayed because Thermopylae was a mountain pass. In fact, the Wiki article says that the battles during the first day of the Battle of Thermopylae took place on an especially narrow segment of the pass. It was said, in fact, that only one chariot could pass through at a time. As you can see, the conditions were such that the Greeks would only have had to fight a single wave of men at a time. This was not 300 men combatting an army of thousands in open plains. This was thousands of men combatting thousands of men by clogging the only exit of the pass known to the Persians.

Considering all this, Greek soldiers were not nearly as impressive as you make them out to be.
What is the exact number of atheists in the world today and what moral laws have been slackened in the CC.
In America, I know that the percentage of atheists and agnostics is around 20% of the population. Granted, the surveyors responsible for this statistic have no clue of what agnosticism is, so this may not be entirely reliable. Regardless, our numbers are rising, and this is undeniable.

Since we’re talking about historical events, I’ll give an old example of slackened moral laws: nobody follows any of the suggestions in Leviticus, for example.

Sorry about the Alexander example. I suppose I misspoke. Regardless, Alexander is said to have paved the way for Christianity by spreading Hellenism. Christianity had a lot of bullies helping it back then.
 
It doesn’t. Church officials were not against all pain relief, which appears to be the straw man argument you’ve constructed. They were against relieving pain during birth, because God was believed to have given women that pain in response to Eve’s disobedience. Thus, using anesthesia to relieve pain during birth is to avoid a punishment from God.
I think you will need to cite a CC document forbidding painrelief during childbirth.
Some Greeks were fine soldiers. Sure, the Spartans were great, but they made up a small portion of the Greek population. The Athenians, who made up a much larger portion, were pushovers, unless we count the naval battles, I guess.
You should read ‘Persian Fire’ as a fun [but accurate] history of the time, from Cyrus the great in the mountains of Persia to the greek spartans and all those guys, it was published just a few years ago. It fades from my mind at this stage.
That depends on what you mean by “just.” Yes, there were “just” 300 spartans, but there were not “just” 300 soldiers. The article on Wikipedia says that there were many other Peloponnesians, such that anywhere from 5200 to 7700 men were fighting, depending on the interpretations of the reports. This force managed to kill 20,000 Persians, though about 3000 of the Greeks fled while Leonidas and his last men held off the Persian army.
Nobody would face the Persians unless the Spartans could be persuaded to fight also. The Spartans held everyone around them in a fun aloof sort of contempt. And they took a lot of persuading. They eventually sent 300 soldiers and the others joined them at that, but I don’t recall there being thousands of others, maybe there was.
Also, you’re embellishing the situation a bit. The Persians were delayed because Thermopylae was a mountain pass. In fact, the Wiki article says that the battles during the first day of the Battle of Thermopylae took place on an especially narrow segment of the pass. It was said, in fact, that only one chariot could pass through at a time. As you can see, the conditions were such that the Greeks would only have had to fight a single wave of men at a time. This was not 300 men combatting an army of thousands in open plains. This was thousands of men combatting thousands of men by clogging the only exit of the pass known to the Persians.

Considering all this, Greek soldiers were not nearly as impressive as you make them out to be.
Thermopylae was a very narrow gap between the sea and a mountain range, the land there has uplifed since that time and the sea is now several kilometers from the mountains. The Spartans thus were very good soldiers as they, the 300 they sent, went to face the entire army of the Persian Empire. The Persian Emperor hmself travelled with this particular army. He had thousands upon thousands of servants slaves attendants with him and all sorts of luxurious portable residences for himself him as well as having a gigantic army. He travelled from Persia far off to the east across all sorts of countries offering them as he approached them the choice of working with him or being annihilated, he grew his army even more this way, from the soldiers and supplies of these other countries. By the time he reached greece he had an enormous mass of an army of people ahead of him.
The Spartans chose, good soldiers they were, the only place they could sensibly face the Persians, Thermopylae. They blocked the pass between mountains and sea with rock, if I remember correctly, and they held the Persians off for three days. Local greek shepherds on the Persian side of the pass showed the Persians how to travel a few routes through the mountains to attack the Spartans from the rear.
In America, I know that the percentage of atheists and agnostics is around 20% of the population. Granted, the surveyors responsible for this statistic have no clue of what agnosticism is, so this may not be entirely reliable. Regardless, our numbers are rising, and this is undeniable.

Since we’re talking about historical events, I’ll give an old example of slackened moral laws: nobody follows any of the suggestions in Leviticus, for example.

Sorry about the Alexander example. I suppose I misspoke. Regardless, Alexander is said to have paved the way for Christianity by spreading Hellenism. Christianity had a lot of bullies helping it back then.
You would need the exact number of atheists at the present and also the numbers of atheists going back through your history in order to say you can chart an increase in atheism. You’d prolly need also to survey atheists to make sure individuals are not slipping back into theism, and plot that also.

Alexander did not help Christianity as he never heard of it. He lived over 300 years before Christ. The bullies in early Christianity were the pagan Romans who martyred the Christians relentlessly for centuries.
 
LIving with reality

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe by Rich Deem
godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html

“I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”(1)
  1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)
Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Notes
4.Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
5.Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
16.Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.

That’s why AlbertBall’s assumption is not only invalid but, in the fact of reality, perverse:
AlbertBall: Furthermore i would argue the universe being fine tuned for life, is not a valid or reasonable argument
Perhaps he does not even know that Christ’s Catholic Church built Western civilization as many are discovering.
 
I think you will need to cite a CC document forbidding painrelief during childbirth.
I don’t know if there was a document, it was just a prevalent belief among pastors. Not all actions are documented. For example, one is not required to present a CC doctrine declaring that child molestation is moral to support the claim that some priests have molested children. It’s common knowledge.
You would need the exact number of atheists at the present and also the numbers of atheists going back through your history in order to say you can chart an increase in atheism.
Nonsense–you obviously do not understand how surveys work. When surveying, there is always a sample population whose results are to account for a larger population. In other words, a few thousand people will always be speaking for millions of people. A ‘good’ survey, for example, may only question 10,000 people. So if there are two options on such a survey, such as a negative and affirmative answer to a question, and 1000 people answer in the negative, then the resulting statistic will hold that 10% of the larger population will also answer in the negative. This means that statistics resulting from polls or surveys will always be expressed as percentages, not as “exact numbers.” In fact, the Census is the only kind of survey I know of that is given to everyone in the population it is to account for; all others use small sample populations.

Your request, then, is quite silly, and I will not comply. You may as well tell a teenager that, in order to justify the assertion that his body is growing, he must know the exact number of cells in his body compared to another time period. Bogus.
Alexander did not help Christianity as he never heard of it. He lived over 300 years before Christ. The bullies in early Christianity were the pagan Romans who martyred the Christians relentlessly for centuries.
Between my History teacher and you, I think I’ll trust my History teacher. She’s a Christian too, by the way.
 
I don’t know if there was a document, it was just a prevalent belief among pastors. Not all actions are documented. For example, one is not required to present a CC doctrine declaring that child molestation is moral to support the claim that some priests have molested children. It’s common knowledge.


Sometimes Oreo Oracle, to relay things as being fact you need actual facts. The prophetic tingling in your big toes does not always mean you are right.

You need to tell me which pastor exactly told you this or where exactly you heard it. I will do the research for you if you feel it is beneath you to research your facts.
Nonsense–you obviously do not understand how surveys work. When surveying, there is always a sample population whose results are to account for a larger population. In other words, a few thousand people will always be speaking for millions of people. A ‘good’ survey, for example, may only question 10,000 people. So if there are two options on such a survey, such as a negative and affirmative answer to a question, and 1000 people answer in the negative, then the resulting statistic will hold that 10% of the larger population will also answer in the negative. This means that statistics resulting from polls or surveys will always be expressed as percentages, not as “exact numbers.” In fact, the Census is the only kind of survey I know of that is given to everyone in the population it is to account for; all others use small sample populations.

Your request, then, is quite silly, and I will not comply. You may as well tell a teenager that, in order to justify the assertion that his body is growing, he must know the exact number of cells in his body compared to another time period. Bogus.
The simplist solution therefore is as you say, to consult the census returns for the last, let me see, 50 years. People are asked to indicate their religion, it seems like a good place to find some real facts.
Between my History teacher and you, I think I’ll trust my History teacher. She’s a Christian too, by the way.
Do trust her, but no matter what she says Alexander the Great was born over 300 years before Christianity was invented. Perhaps God prepared the way for Christianity by introducing Hellenism, as He is the only person who could know it would be useful to the Christians 300 years later.
Keep studing and please keep correcting me with the facts.
 
Utter nonsense.
I don’t think you care for any truth that rules out physics and necessarily implicates the existence of God; so i am not going to waste my time showing you facts; since you are happy to apply empirical standards to anything that doesn’t float your boat.

However, let me ask you something. Did you actually formulate and test for the theory of evolution yourself; or are you just relying on second hand knowledge that you just happen to trust or have faith in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top