The existence of the universe requires a god

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 136 here:
EarthScienceguy wrote: ...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...
For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true and factual.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #101

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #99]
Right so all this boils down to you have a personal belief that a dead person has never been resurrected, that's all this has been about?

We all have beliefs, we can't debate beliefs because they are simply beliefs, are we now done with this then? can we move on?
Sure ... it is very clear that you are not going to provide even one example of a confirmed ressurection which would instantly disprove my statement/claim/belief that it has never happened. So no point in beating that dead horse further. But take a comment of yours from another thread (How Crazy does Evolution Seem, post 62):

"Now I don't "claim" that the there were no ancestors but I do argue that such a claim is consistent with the evidence, and one is being reasonable to rergard the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of generations that just somehow never ever every got fossilized as rather a stretch."

What if I reworded this (with a few typo corrections) to refer to dead people coming back to life:

"Now I don't "claim" that there were no dead people who came back to life, but I do argue that such a claim is consistent with the evidence, and one is being reasonable to regard the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of generations that just somehow never ever ever confirmed a single case of a human resurrection as rather a stretch."

How is this argument any different from my position that out of billions of humans who have lifed, not one confirmed case of a resurrection has appeared? It is the same line of reasoning, but you reject it in one case and use it in another when it supports your own claims.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #102

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:20 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #99]
Right so all this boils down to you have a personal belief that a dead person has never been resurrected, that's all this has been about?

We all have beliefs, we can't debate beliefs because they are simply beliefs, are we now done with this then? can we move on?
Sure ... it is very clear that you are not going to provide even one example of a confirmed ressurection which would instantly disprove my statement/claim/belief that it has never happened. So no point in beating that dead horse further.
This is not true, I could only disprove your claim (that is get you to admit you are wrong) if we had an agreed objective set of criteria by which we could evaluate evidence, even define what is evidence. We do not have that. Whatever I might argue or present to you can be rejected for any number of reasons. This is why it is pointless. The truth of what I'd argue depends upon what I believe and if I believe things that you do not then we can never agree.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:20 am But take a comment of yours from another thread (How Cracy does Evolution Seem, post 62):

"Now I don't "claim" that the there were no ancestors but I do argue that such a claim is consistent with the evidence, and one is being reasonable to rergard the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of generations that just somehow never ever every got fossilized as rather a stretch."

What if I reworded this (with a few typo corrections) to refer to dead people coming back to life:

"Now I don't "claim" that there were no dead people who came back to life, but I do argue that such a claim is consistent with the evidence, and one is being reasonable to regard the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of generations that just somehow never ever ever confirmed a single case of a human resurrection as rather a stretch."

How is this argument any different from my position that out of billions of humans who have lifed, not one confirmed case of a resurrection has appeared? It is the same line of reasoning, but you reject it in one case and use it in another when it supports your own claims.
Well there is an important difference. In the former (my statement) we have a clear understanding of what evidence means, it means the fossil record, this is what the evolutionist tells us, that is their definition of evidence and I use that definition to undermine their claim.

In the latter (your statement) we have no clear agreement of what evidence means, what is it that could be regarded as evidence for a resurrection.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #103

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #102]
The truth of what I'd argue depends upon what I believe and if I believe things that you do not then we can never agree.
You seem to want to have it both ways ... personal beliefs are not good in one case but are the foundation for a debate in the other. My belief that a resurrection has never happened is based on two simple observations which you can't seem to refute with an example.

1) There are no independently confirmed cases (prove me wrong with an example).

2) It is not physiologically possible (short of a "miracle", which is not within the realm of science ... that is for another section of the forum).
Well there is an important difference. In the former (my statement) we have a clear understanding of what evidence means, it means the fossil record, this is what the evolutionist tells us, that is their definition of evidence and I use that definition to undermine their claim.

In the latter (your statement) we have no clear agreement of what evidence means, what is it that could be regarded as evidence for a resurrection.
Easy ... the existence of a living person who was once actually dead would be solid and irrefutable evidence for a resurrection. We have no such evidence in modern times where confirmation would be much easier (again, prove me wrong with an example), so we're left with the possibility that this happened in more ancient times when communication technology was very limited. So to believe, for example, the biblical resurrection story you have to simply believe it on faith and that the oral descriptions (by people writing decades after the supposed event) are true.

But this still does not address the biological problems with a truly dead human being coming back to life. You have to rely on a miracle in that case (suspension of the rules of biology), which moves the debate out of the Science and Religion section.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #104

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:09 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #102]
The truth of what I'd argue depends upon what I believe and if I believe things that you do not then we can never agree.
You seem to want to have it both ways ... personal beliefs are not good in one case but are the foundation for a debate in the other. My belief that a resurrection has never happened is based on two simple observations which you can't seem to refute with an example.

1) There are no independently confirmed cases (prove me wrong with an example). [How does one decide if something is "confirmed"? is my word sufficient?]

2) It is not physiologically possible (short of a "miracle", which is not within the realm of science [What do you mean? what is this condition "within the realm of science"?] ... that is for another section of the forum). [Might it be non-physiologically possible then?]
Well there is an important difference. In the former (my statement) we have a clear understanding of what evidence means, it means the fossil record, this is what the evolutionist tells us, that is their definition of evidence and I use that definition to undermine their claim.

In the latter (your statement) we have no clear agreement of what evidence means, what is it that could be regarded as evidence for a resurrection.
Easy ... the existence of a living person who was once actually dead would be solid and irrefutable evidence for a resurrection. [No it would not, how could you show that a living person was dead at some earlier time?]

We have no such evidence in modern times where confirmation would be much easier (again, prove me wrong with an example [I just explained that I logically cannot prove you wrong when do not share the same initial premises]), so we're left with the possibility that this happened in more ancient times when communication technology was very limited. So to believe, for example, the biblical resurrection story you have to simply believe it on faith and that the oral descriptions (by people writing decades after the supposed event) are true.

But this still does not address the biological problems with a truly dead human being coming back to life. You have to rely on a miracle in that case (suspension of the rules of biology), which moves the debate out of the Science and Religion section.

[Well yes, if "miracles" are accepted as a possibility then that address material based objections]
My responses are embedded in red.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #105

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #104]
How does one decide if something is "confirmed"? is my word sufficient?
No ... you'd need more than that for an event as extraordinary and unlikely as a human resurrection. Second or third hand writings from decades after the fact are too far removed to qualify as confirmation in my book. Besides Jesus' claimed resurrection, there are these:

* Resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17–22)
* Resurrection of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
* Resurrection of the man thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20)
* Resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)
* Resurrection of the young man at Nain (Luke 7:14)
* Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38–44)
* Resurrection of unknown saints during the crucifixion (Matt 27:52–53)
* Resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:1-6)
* Resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
* Resurrection of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
* Resurrection of the Church (i.e., Rapture, 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:23)
* Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:7–11)
* Resurrection of OT Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 20:4)
* Resurrection of the Wicked (Revelation 20:5)

(from https://www.petergoeman.com/full-list-o ... the-bible/)

Resurrection seems to be a pretty common event back in those times (2000 - 3000 years ago, ballpark), but evidently stopped at some point well before modern times. The "rapture" is predicted to be a massive resurrection event in the future. Reincarnation is part of other religions where the dead person comes back to life in another body. There is also little reason to believe that happens, from a biological perspective as well as lack of reliable evidence. Resurrections and reincarnation are just too at odds with biology for me to believe that they can happen.
What do you mean? what is this condition "within the realm of science"?
Miracles and magic and the like are not part of science. By definition these are things that are not explainable by scientific or natural laws, but they sure are convenient for explanations of things that science has yet to find answers for.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #106

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:26 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #104]
How does one decide if something is "confirmed"? is my word sufficient?
No ... you'd need more than that for an event as extraordinary and unlikely as a human resurrection. Second or third hand writings from decades after the fact are too far removed to qualify as confirmation in my book.
The question was rhetorical, of course I don't rely on others to decide for me what is and is not evidence or sufficient to be treated as evidence. I've spent a life time studying many subjects including the sciences and mathematics, I am educated enough to be able to decide for myself what is and is not evidence for something, that's what an education should do for someone, enable them to survive and function in the big wide world without having to always rely on others to decide things for them.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:26 pm Besides Jesus' claimed resurrection, there are these:

* Resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17–22)
* Resurrection of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
* Resurrection of the man thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20)
* Resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)
* Resurrection of the young man at Nain (Luke 7:14)
* Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38–44)
* Resurrection of unknown saints during the crucifixion (Matt 27:52–53)
* Resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:1-6)
* Resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
* Resurrection of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
* Resurrection of the Church (i.e., Rapture, 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:23)
* Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:7–11)
* Resurrection of OT Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 20:4)
* Resurrection of the Wicked (Revelation 20:5)

(from https://www.petergoeman.com/full-list-o ... the-bible/)

Resurrection seems to be a pretty common event back in those times (2000 - 3000 years ago, ballpark), but evidently stopped at some point well before modern times. The "rapture" is predicted to be a massive resurrection event in the future. Reincarnation is part of other religions where the dead person comes back to life in another body. There is also little reason to believe that happens, from a biological perspective as well as lack of reliable evidence. Resurrections and reincarnation are just too at odds with biology for me to believe that they can happen.
What do you mean? what is this condition "within the realm of science"?
Miracles and magic and the like are not part of science. By definition these are things that are not explainable by scientific or natural laws, but they sure are convenient for explanations of things that science has yet to find answers for.
Well science has limitations when it comes to explaining the world around us, relying on science as the only basis for explanations is unwise.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3100 times
Been thanked: 1688 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #107

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:49 pm Well science has limitations when it comes to explaining the world around us, relying on science as the only basis for explanations is unwise.
So the only logical thing to do is fall back on superstition, magic and miracles.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #108

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:43 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:49 pm Well science has limitations when it comes to explaining the world around us, relying on science as the only basis for explanations is unwise.
So the only logical thing to do is fall back on superstition, magic and miracles.
Read my signature.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1982
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 367 times
Been thanked: 886 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #109

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #108]
Read my signature.
"When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The problem with Sir Arthur Connon Doyle's quote is that "whatever remains" could be one thing, or many things. If many options remain after eliminating the impossible it does not follow that all of them are the truth, because you're left with the entire category of "not impossible" (inprobable to some degree but not impossible, positively the truth, and everything in between). You've still not arrived at the truth in this case until you can eliminate all of these other options.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #110

Post by William »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:22 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #108]
Read my signature.
"When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The problem with Sir Arthur Connon Doyle's quote is that "whatever remains" could be one thing, or many things. If many options remain after eliminating the impossible it does not follow that all of them are the truth, because you're left with the entire category of "not impossible" (inprobable to some degree but not impossible, positively the truth, and everything in between). You've still not arrived at the truth in this case until you can eliminate all of these other options.
It is not really a 'problem.'

What remains can be sufficiently categorized as 'nothing sensible is off the table' whereas the materialist has decided that the idea the universe was created mindfully, is 'nonsense' and does not deserve a place at the table.

They have thus eliminated that possibility by behaving as if it is an impossibility... without explaining why that should be the case.

They cannot explain, because it is impossible to explain.

As such, this type of declaration is unsupported opinion which requires being ignored as relevant, sensible argument.

Post Reply