The Topic of God Has Been Settled!....

[POI]

...According to a theist....

Otseng: Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is regarding God's existence?

For debate:

1) If the skeptic/doubter does not agree with the title of this thread, they are one of the given options in <a) though d)> above, maybe like that of a "flat earther"? Please agree or disagree and explain your given response.

2) What piece of evidence would be the first and/or strongest, in this cumulative string of evidence(s), to support the conclusion that God exists?

*******************

As a side note, I may or may not engage myself with this topic. I'd rather see what everyone else has to say, since I personally feel all such arguments are nothing new. I guess this makes me the 'flat earther', since I remain unconvinced

[Difflugia]

First explain what experiements you did, where the peer reviewed results were published.

Shifting the goal posts already? That was fast. From accusations of blind faith to insistence on outside review in nothing flat!

I have read a few of these

Have any favorites?

and so let's see yours.

I've posted a couple of them here and linked them multiple times.

Produce life from non-life? How about one class of creature becoming another and so evolving?

"I wager you didn’t yourself conduct any experiments" didn't pan out, so you've already retreated to creationist talking points.

Cakes are not living. Living beings are more complex and so understanding them is more demanding. This is obvious.

That was exactly my point. You were trying to equate unsupported supernatural claims and my mom baking a cake. They're not the same. Lots of moms bake cakes. Zero gods exist, let alone create universes.

And no, I judge all accounts the same, tested against what is known to be true.

Pick a lane. Are your judgements based on some sort of evidence or aren't they?

The answer to the first is no. He has explained why the asked for does not occur same as when a child asks their parents for something, a negative answer does not mean the parent is not there. As to the second, I do and I see if frequently in atheists.

Do you know what "Poe's Law" is? Your answer represents the corollary.

Then your exposure to those who do not agree with you is very limited. There are many who taught evolution on a university level as professors who came to see that we did not evolve from a single celled life form. Many.

Of course. Any names? Or did they divulge this to you in secret in fear that their tenure would somehow be revoked, a la Ben Stein's Expelled?

But, the fact that you do not like my evaluation that the problems with the theory are glaring and therefore designated "easy" tells me that an exchange will entail the usual atheistic responses.

Probably. Evidence, data, "please read the actual science," blah, blah, blah.

The idea that an educated person can thoroughly understand a matter and not agree with its conclusion eludes atheists.

No, that someone claiming to be educated can think that something simple has escaped the notice of experts is what eludes me.

It is rather singular as have learned more about Islam than the average American and do not believe a word of it. I know less about Buddism and do not believe a word of it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying you know a lot about the subjects or that you don't need to?

I have heard university professors discuss a paper just published, understanding the whole of the experiment and disagree with the conclusion.

I have, too. The difference is that they typically know exactly what it is that they disagree with. I've also heard university professors acknowledge how the new experiment completely changed their understanding of the topic. I rarely hear something similar from a creationist.

The idea that one can understand what another man believes or thinks and know it is just not matching real life eludes the atheist, in my experience.

That's what you'd like it to be. What's actually baffling to atheists is that people that are otherwise rational in their understanding of science and "real life" can so completely run off the rails when the topic is evolution.

And I will add, I have not met a single atheist who understood the Bible as written. I have asked many of them to explain the Gospel and they could not do that.

Which one? There are eight or so different and mutually incompatible "gospels" in the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, John, genuine Paul, the pastoral epistles, Hebrews, Revelation). I also understand the mutually incompatible "gospels" of several modern forms of Christianity, though none of those matches "the Bible as written."

If you do and can, you would be the first.

If you want to talk to more, find a Unitarian church.

[benchwarmer]

Then your exposure to those who do not agree with you is very limited. There are many who taught evolution on a university level as professors who came to see that we did not evolve from a single celled life form. Many.

Of course. Any names? Or did they divulge this to you in secret in fear that their tenure would somehow be revoked, a la Ben Stein's Expelled?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that our interlocutor went to a university something like this one:

https://www.northwestu.edu/about/faith

i.e. One that requires signing a statement of faith and essentially forces any research or teaching to align with that statement. Actual scientific research data that points in a different direction is ignored or eventually causes the researcher to leave.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mae von H wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 12:06 am
The answer to the first is no. He has explained why the asked for does not occur same as when a child asks their parents for something, a negative answer does not mean the parent is not there. As to the second, I do and I see if frequently in atheists.

(difflugia)Do you know what "Poe's Law" is? Your answer represents the corollary.

Mae used a familiar apologetic argument which is a fallacy (though I don't know whether it is codified as one).



It is known that parents are there, and if they say 'No' the child hears it. Ok, so if they do not reply, it sounds like a refusal.

This is equated with prayers that don't get the result asked for. It is Silence, assumed to be 'No' or maybe 'later'.

But we know our parents are there, we don't know that God is there, so the failure to give the result wanted is equally well explained if there is no god there. Especially, given the unfailing guarantee of the gospels when there seems no reason why something like growing a leg back has no credible reason for god saying 'No', let alone a voice (the Voice in the head) in the head saying why the prayer can't be granted.

Thus, the analogy fails, like all these attempts to use analogy as evidence.

[Difflugia]

Mae used a familiar apologetic argument which is a fallacy (though I don't know whether it is codified as one).

It is known that parents are there, and if they say 'No' the child hears it. Ok, so if they do not reply, it sounds like a refusal.

This is equated with prayers that don't get the result asked for. It is Silence, assumed to be 'No' or maybe 'later'.

I'd call it equivocation. A lot of apologetic arguments rely on versions of this. Possible/probable, historical reliability of gospel accounts vs. other historical documents, and hypothesis/theory immediately come to mind.

[TRANSPONDER]

Mae used a familiar apologetic argument which is a fallacy (though I don't know whether it is codified as one).

It is known that parents are there, and if they say 'No' the child hears it. Ok, so if they do not reply, it sounds like a refusal.

This is equated with prayers that don't get the result asked for. It is Silence, assumed to be 'No' or maybe 'later'.

I'd call it equivocation. A lot of apologetic arguments rely on versions of this. Possible/probable, historical reliability of gospel accounts vs. other historical documents, and hypothesis/theory immediately come to mind.

I'd see it as the usual faithbased fallacy - assuming as a given that which is being questioned.

If a god is not assumed as the default explanation, then the data is better explained as 'no God there'. If the God is assumed as a given, it is only necessary to find excuses for why there seems to be unfathomable lack of response.

[1213]

If non-organic material would have the ability to form life spontaneously, why are we not seeing it happening everyday in nature?

Because the environment has changed dramatically. Among the many differences, an important one is that the prebiotic world was obviously sterile (devoid of all life, including microorganisms). We know that amino acids can be produced spontaneously, but we don't find this occurring today in nature. Today's environment doesn't seem suitable for this, but even if it did occur today, microorganisms would consume it.

So, it should happen, if we make a sterile room?

[Mae von H]

By “satisfied” I mean you don’t have to have an answer as to how and yet completely believe. It is noteworthy as the search has been in with zero results since Darwin.

Continually believe what?

I said "I don't know", what's to believe? Are you not familiar with open questions?

You continue to believe in evolution, what else? I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason from no one spontaneously although there is zero evidence for this and all the evidence leads that life comes only from life.

For some reason you seem to want to redefine things to your own position and ignore what people are telling you. I have no belief in how life started. End of discussion. You don't get to impose other peoples beliefs on them because it suits your narrative.

For some reason you cannot follow the thread and refuse to accept parts that you do not like. You do not like that feeding yourself untruths, for example, all of which you openly and willfully chose to do, you eventually believe them.

I know how God created life. He told us so.

Can I assume here you are talking about the written words in the Bible? I also assume you are talking about the creation story in Genesis? Please correct me if wrong.

For some reason you seem to want to redefine things to your own position and ignore what people are telling you. I will repeat the words I wrote so you can see who you redefined what I wrote ignoring the exact word. "HE TOLD US SO." Do you see a personal "me" in there?

Are you aware that there are two conflicting stories of how it happened right there in Genesis? Are you also aware (being a science aware person) that both accounts don't comport with modern science or even simple logic? I'm sure you do, but have some apologetics for it.

You will need to point out where the science discredits this. What usually happens in evolutionists claim it is so but it isn't really the case. And no, there are not two different account in Genesis. There is one account in general and one in details. I will be generous and point out that science and Genesis agree and here is where.

The universe is older than the sun and earth, being made earlier. The earth is older than the life on the earth. Plants are older than animal life. Animals are older than man. What is your version?

Or maybe God spoke from the clouds to you and that's how you know? I certainly never heard that broadcast.

Interesting because I was reading in the Bible last night a verse really popped up at me regarding you...that is, that you have never heard his voice. That is what I said earlier, not that you never believed. I suspect you believed as strongly or stonger than some in the church where you went. But you never had a personal relationship with Him. You never heard his voice.

To answer your question, he answers my questions but adding to what is written in The Book composed by others who heard Him speak.

[fredonly]

You continue to believe in evolution, what else? I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason from no one spontaneously although there is zero evidence for this and all the evidence leads that life comes only from life.

Actually, there is strong evidence life came from non-life: there was no life on earth for millions of years, but eventually - there was life.

How can we explain this evidence? Since you're a theist, let's entertain two broad possibilities:

1) nature did it - somehow, but we don't know specifically how.

2) God did it. again, we don't know how - not just because it's magic, but we also don't know exactly what he created. He could have created self-replicating molecules, intact unicellular organisms, or even fully skunks and kittens. Or he may have simply created a universe in which abiogenesis would occur naturally.

The God hypothesis doesn't answer any more questions than the nature hypothesis, but worse- it's an enormous ad hoc assumption that such a being even exists. It's undisputed that nature exists. So clearly, nature is the best available explanation.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #45]

We might have reached the end of the exchange as your posts are becoming the usually atheist ridicule and jeering when the atheist is faced with points that cannot be answered from that position. It becomes too disjointed and unpleasant. You equate the LAW of gravity with the theory of evolution such that one must research the LAW of gravity before one can state it is so.

You are unaware that the progress of science in Europe was singular in human history. You think it is not so but it cannot really be denied unless one is unaware of the advancement of scientific knowledge in the Christian west and why it happened there and no where else (the advancement, not that man knew nothing elsewhere.) This has been thoroughly researched as to why and the conclusion was (from atheists) that the belief in a Law Giver enabled men to believe that there was a law in nature.

I did start to listen to the clip but the author is already so biased against christians and so biased in favor of himself, it was obvious that this was not a truthful rendering of events. It was interesting that while he thinks he is highly intelligent and asking questions, he sees the Bible and says the book is too difficult to understand. He is likely unaware that uneducated men have read it and understood it, but he admits it is too difficult for him to understand. That is a blindness.

Secondly, he is obviously an adult and yet decides on his own to render the Being worshiped in church by a word those people never used. I know why he decided to call the God his parents worshipped (referred to as "Lord" by them) Yahweh. It is easier to use a word that no one where ever used and it is still not common because using a "name" puts God Almighty in the category of Thor, Zeus, Shiva, and the rest of the imaginary deities. He cannot bring himself to use "God," the word used by those in the church. It is mentally easier to reject one of many imagined deities than "God Almighty." This indicates a denial of the truth and twisting of the descriptions to fit that denial.

The point you mention that you claim I do not understand you, fault being all on my side which is easier for you, is on the choices you made that resulted in you no longer believing. Maybe the easiest way to get you to understand, which you do not, is to ask you if your friends started looking for and finding "information" that accused you of a crime. They talked to various people and read various pieces (all of which were untrue from people who wanted to discredit you) and after feeding themselves this misinformation, they told you that they did not choose the final conclusion that you are a criminal. It was not their choice to believe that, it was the only reasonable answer. Would you accept that the loss of the relationship and the accusations against you were OK because your friends had no choice? That is what you did.

And the pieces you read that lead you to reject the faith, while I do not know the particulars, I have read some of these kinds of works and saw immediately the same twisting of information combined with biased towards a pre-chosen endpoint. It is similar to the clip. They cannot present their side without radical bias combined with some jeering. It is a very interesting point. Atheists presenting their side have great difficulty choosing unbiased words. They simply cannot be fair and impartial in their presentation of material aimed as discrediting God and the believers and their faith. It gets tiresome.

In any case, you need to make your posts shorter and stick to one topic. But the scientific training I have and the lack of such training on your side makes interaction difficult. As I said, I pursue truth and you want all options on the table all the time. Gravity cannot be accepted unless personally explored as though science ignores what what done centuries ago on the subject. It is difficult to go forward.

[Mae von H]

You continue to believe in evolution, what else? I will insert "evolution" so you can follow. You continue to believe the position of evolution that life started for no reason from no one spontaneously although there is zero evidence for this and all the evidence leads that life comes only from life.

Actually, there is strong evidence life came from non-life: there was no life on earth for millions of years, but eventually - there was life.

That fact that there is life now and there was no life before is no evidence of any kind at all, let alone strong. Strong evidence is producing life in a lab. Been tried countless times but no joy. Never been done. Thinking that because there is life that life came from non-life is evidence is like seeing a dead body and saying murder was done without requiring any other factors. Person dead, so murder occurred. That they died of natural causes or an accident is not on the table. That is what you are doing.

How can we explain this evidence?

Please stop calling life "evidence."

Since you're a theist, let's entertain two broad possibilities:

1) nature did it - somehow, but we don't know specifically how.

2) God did it. again, we don't know how - not just because it's magic, but we also don't know exactly what he created. He could have created self-replicating molecules, intact unicellular organisms, or even fully skunks and kittens. Or he may have simply created a universe in which abiogenesis would occur naturally.

What can one say? Nature CANNOT create life. All processes of nature that were are still there. If do not see a process we (they) would very much like to see and have tried for 100s of years to see and do not see, it is not there.

God said how he did it. Why is this difficult to understand? You say we don't know how and I saw we do.

The God hypothesis doesn't answer any more questions than the nature hypothesis, but worse- it's an enormous ad hoc assumption that such a being even exists. It's undisputed that nature exists. So clearly, nature is the best available explanation.

What? Life comes from life. That is what we observe. Nature is not life. Nature is not at option at all if we go by what we can observe (science.) If we reject science and decide that we WANT life to come from non-life, a leap of totally blind faith, that anything is on the table. God told us how He did it. The God hypothesis fits what we observe in science and He even explained it such that the explanation fits as well. Do you want to know the explanation?

God spoke and energy was released. Now modern science tells us that life is made up of energy. Einstein said that matter (life as well) is a persistent dillusion. It fits perfectly in with what we know.