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

[Mae von H]

No, that’s science, Scientists gave up trying to create gold from non-gold. They saw that it cannot be done. That’s the mind searching for truth not the mind insisting a preselected position MUST be true.

This pretty much seals it for me. Your continued lack of knowledge in the domain of science while at the same time deriding others for not understanding science renders pretty much all your responses invalid or at least suspect until proven otherwise.

Can gold be created from other elements?
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/0 ... -elements/

It seems your limited understanding of science boils down to "take what agrees with my position and toss anything that doesn't". That's about as unscientific as it gets.

Live long and prosper

[TRANSPONDER]

That seems to be it, then The topic has been settled and the Christiann/Biblical apologetics side has nothing, being sown
a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Do any other Bible apologists have anything but denial to counter the evident win for atheism?

[benchwarmer]

That seems to be it, then The topic has been settled and the Christiann/Biblical apologetics side has nothing, being sown
a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Do any other Bible apologists have anything but denial to counter the evident win for atheism?

For me it's not about a win for atheism, but a win for the truth. Multiple times now our interlocuter has made claims with no support and then were later shown that they were in fact wrong.

Claimed atheists ignore the question on how life started: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=22017
Proven wrong by atheists on this board and links to open research on this very topic.

Claimed there are no papers on 'the reality of gravity': viewtopic.php?p=1144065#p1144065
Proven wrong with links to papers on gravity research.

Claimed I have a belief position on how life started because of my beliefs based on the scientific theory of evolution: viewtopic.php?p=1144226#p1144226
Proven wrong by my own words on my own position and the fact that the scientific TOE has no position on how life started, only how it evolves.

Claimed scientists gave up on trying to produce gold from non-gold: viewtopic.php?p=1144288#p1144288
Proven wrong by link to article explaining the high level process. The article links to a paper from 1941 when it was actually done (so it's even been around for quite a while!)

Claimed Hindus don't pray for healing: viewtopic.php?p=1144065#p1144065
Proven wrong by an article explaining which incarnation of Vishnu is the healer and how adherents behave.

That's just in this thread alone and the ones I can remember.

I'm completely fine if people disagree with me and support their position with facts (including scripture if relevant to prove what's actually written). I think what some people don't realize is that a debate forum like this is not meant to change the minds of the debaters involved. It's primarily (at least in my opinion) a platform to influence those others following along and a chance for everyone (including me) to maybe learn new things.

If one can't support their claims, they should probably be careful making them.

[TRANSPONDER]

That seems to be it, then The topic has been settled and the Christiann/Biblical apologetics side has nothing, being sown
a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Do any other Bible apologists have anything but denial to counter the evident win for atheism?

For me it's not about a win for atheism, but a win for the truth. Multiple times now our interlocuter has made claims with no support and then were later shown that they were in fact wrong.

Claimed atheists ignore the question on how life started: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=22017
Proven wrong by atheists on this board and links to open research on this very topic.

Claimed there are no papers on 'the reality of gravity': viewtopic.php?p=1144065#p1144065
Proven wrong with links to papers on gravity research.

Claimed I have a belief position on how life started because of my beliefs based on the scientific theory of evolution: viewtopic.php?p=1144226#p1144226
Proven wrong by my own words on my own position and the fact that the scientific TOE has no position on how life started, only how it evolves.

Claimed scientists gave up on trying to produce gold from non-gold: viewtopic.php?p=1144288#p1144288
Proven wrong by link to article explaining the high level process. The article links to a paper from 1941 when it was actually done (so it's even been around for quite a while!)

Claimed Hindus don't pray for healing: viewtopic.php?p=1144065#p1144065
Proven wrong by an article explaining which incarnation of Vishnu is the healer and how adherents behave.

That's just in this thread alone and the ones I can remember.

I'm completely fine if people disagree with me and support their position with facts (including scripture if relevant to prove what's actually written). I think what some people don't realize is that a debate forum like this is not meant to change the minds of the debaters involved. It's primarily (at least in my opinion) a platform to influence those others following along and a chance for everyone (including me) to maybe learn new things.

If one can't support their claims, they should probably be careful making them.

Indeed. The truth matters more than winning for atheism. It just so happens that almost nothing in the Bible is true. At most a polemical twisting of real events. In that respect, the truth validates the atheist position. If it was not the case, I would not be here saying that it did. I might repeat that I think on internal evidence that there was a real Jesus. This is based on evidence, not a desire for atheism to conceded nothing.

[fredonly]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

Shall I, too, attack you personally as atheists do? I repeatedly said we DO know how God created life. Why is this so difficult for you to read and remember?

You’re claim that “we” know how God created life is your personal belief. That’s false if “we” is meant to include me. My personal belief is that there is no God.

I listed 2 objective facts that both of us should be able to accept:
1. earth was devoid of life for millions of years.
2. Subsequently, life existed on earth.

Then I proposed two metaphysical hypotheses that account for both facts:
1. nature did it, but we don’t know how
2. God did it, but we don’t know how

Hypothesis 1 follows from the premise God does not exist; Hypothesis 2 follows from the premise that God exists. You claim "we know how" - but that depends on an additional premise: that God revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. I’ll revise the hypotheses to accommodate your belief:

1) nature did it, but we don’t know how
2) God did it
• a. But we don’t know how
• b. And the Bible tells us how

And you obviously embrace 2b. Yes, 2b isn’t parallel to Hypothesis 1, but this is only because you’ve added that 2nd premise. We only know how life began if it is assumed a God exists and that he revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. Try to understand that I don’t believe a God exists. Adding that second premise (which still depends on the premise God exists) doesn't undercut Hypothesis 1, nor does it imply God's existence is any more likely.

You can, of course, choose nature but it’s a faith choice. There is no science behind you.

My belief in metaphysical naturalism is an Inference to Best Explanation. Everything in the world is natural; there's no direct evidence of a supernatural; science has been wildly successful. It's not "faith" to believe something that is rationally justified.

My belief in abiogenesis is, indeed, not based on scientific proof. But it IS entailed by metaphysical naturalism.

[Mae von H]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

Shall I, too, attack you personally as atheists do? I repeatedly said we DO know how God created life. Why is this so difficult for you to read and remember?

You’re claim that “we” know how God created life is your personal belief. That’s false if “we” is meant to include me. My personal belief is that there is no God.

I listed 2 objective facts that both of us should be able to accept:
1. earth was devoid of life for millions of years.
2. Subsequently, life existed on earth.

Then I proposed two metaphysical hypotheses that account for both facts:
1. nature did it, but we don’t know how
2. God did it, but we don’t know how

Hypothesis 1 follows from the premise God does not exist; Hypothesis 2 follows from the premise that God exists. You claim "we know how" - but that depends on an additional premise: that God revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. I’ll revise the hypotheses to accommodate your belief:

1) nature did it, but we don’t know how
2) God did it
• a. But we don’t know how
• b. And the Bible tells us how

And you obviously embrace 2b. Yes, 2b isn’t parallel to Hypothesis 1, but this is only because you’ve added that 2nd premise. We only know how life began if it is assumed a God exists and that he revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. Try to understand that I don’t believe a God exists. Adding that second premise (which still depends on the premise God exists) doesn't undercut Hypothesis 1, nor does it imply God's existence is any more likely.

You can, of course, choose nature but it’s a faith choice. There is no science behind you.

My belief in metaphysical naturalism is an Inference to Best Explanation. Everything in the world is natural; there's no direct evidence of a supernatural; science has been wildly successful. It's not "faith" to believe something that is rationally justified.

My belief in abiogenesis is, indeed, not based on scientific proof. But it IS entailed by metaphysical naturalism.

That’s your personal choice to believe. You can only believe it’s the Best Explanation answer as the state of the world was never such that this could have naturally occurred and it’s been tried and no experiment ever demonstrated how. You do admit it’s from naturalism which is a belief system so this we agree upon.

I wish you wouldn’t try to characterize what I think as you’re inaccurate. My position is actually the Best Fit both from the natural as well as the personal. I’ll repeat. Reality is really energy. When God speaks, energy is released. It fits. Nature cannot produce the personal. Nature has no morals. God has both.

[TRANSPONDER]

Its difficult when you purposely ignore explanations and accept a “we have no idea how” as an explanation.

"We have no idea how" is true for both hypotheses. You don't seem to understand the difference between metaphysical analysis and scientific analysis.

Shall I, too, attack you personally as atheists do? I repeatedly said we DO know how God created life. Why is this so difficult for you to read and remember?

You’re claim that “we” know how God created life is your personal belief. That’s false if “we” is meant to include me. My personal belief is that there is no God.

I listed 2 objective facts that both of us should be able to accept:
1. earth was devoid of life for millions of years.
2. Subsequently, life existed on earth.

Then I proposed two metaphysical hypotheses that account for both facts:
1. nature did it, but we don’t know how
2. God did it, but we don’t know how

Hypothesis 1 follows from the premise God does not exist; Hypothesis 2 follows from the premise that God exists. You claim "we know how" - but that depends on an additional premise: that God revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. I’ll revise the hypotheses to accommodate your belief:

1) nature did it, but we don’t know how
2) God did it
• a. But we don’t know how
• b. And the Bible tells us how

And you obviously embrace 2b. Yes, 2b isn’t parallel to Hypothesis 1, but this is only because you’ve added that 2nd premise. We only know how life began if it is assumed a God exists and that he revealed truths about the natural history of the world to some author, a few thousand years ago. Try to understand that I don’t believe a God exists. Adding that second premise (which still depends on the premise God exists) doesn't undercut Hypothesis 1, nor does it imply God's existence is any more likely.

You can, of course, choose nature but it’s a faith choice. There is no science behind you.

My belief in metaphysical naturalism is an Inference to Best Explanation. Everything in the world is natural; there's no direct evidence of a supernatural; science has been wildly successful. It's not "faith" to believe something that is rationally justified.

My belief in abiogenesis is, indeed, not based on scientific proof. But it IS entailed by metaphysical naturalism.

That’s your personal choice to believe. You can only believe it’s the Best Explanation answer as the state of the world was never such that this could have naturally occurred and it’s been tried and no experiment ever demonstrated how. You do admit it’s from naturalism which is a belief system so this we agree upon.

I wish you wouldn’t try to characterize what I think as you’re inaccurate. My position is actually the Best Fit both from the natural as well as the personal. I’ll repeat. Reality is really energy. When God speaks, energy is released. It fits. Nature cannot produce the personal. Nature has no morals. God has both.

This is a flawed,illogical and indeed unscientific method of thinking. It is much more 'leap of faith' thinking. It is of course special pleading or double standard orother kinds of Faithbased bias.

Particularly here, the appeal to the gap for a god 'Life'. Apart from how (I know because I've seen it) theists would shift the goalposts if Life ever was created in a Laboratory, it doesn't tell us which god might have created Life. What is the actual argument is what is in the Bible, which is the 6 -day creation and that is wrong, unless one denied science. The leap to 'science can't create Life' is an excuse and evasion from the real argument - science disproves the Bible.

It's the same with the rather more diffuse matter is energy, when God speaks, energy is released is little more than magic wand -waving with a vague link to a science fact. Even if that argument carried any weight, it still wouldn't tell us which god it was.

Bible apologists constantly make this error - they assume that there is only ever one god,religion and Holy Book under discussion. The real argument is \Bible validity, but religious apologists will constantly revert to these last - ditch gaps for a god which are actually irrelevant to the real discussion as well as being, of course illogical as the burden of proof is on those who claim a god diddit rather than science to prove it didn't.

[fredonly]

the world was never such that this could have naturally occurred

There is no rational basis for such a claim.

it’s been tried and no experiment ever demonstrated how.

Argument from ignorance. There's a great deal we don't understand about the natural world; that doesn't imply there exists something unnatural.

Reality is really energy.

What gives you this idea? Is it part of your belief system? The most fundamental aspect of physical reality that we're currently aware of is quantum fields. Quantum fields are not identical to energy.

Nature cannot produce the personal.

Of course it can, and has. Humans are thinking beings, each with individual points of view and we distinguish between our internal (personal) processes (perceptions, thoughts, feelings) and the external world.

Nature has no morals.

Humans have evolved morality.

Your objections all show that you have a poor understanding of naturalism. But even if you are right that naturalism is false, that doesn't make the Bible credible- there is no rational basis to believe what the Bible says about the natural history of the world.

[Clownboat]

I’ll repeat. Reality is really energy.

Neato! Thanks for repeating it. What is the purpose of saying this? Sorry if I failed to follow along.

When God speaks, energy is released.

Which god concept (I assume you are talking about a god concept) are you referring to and how can you know that energy is released when this god concepts speaks?

It fits. Nature cannot produce the personal.

Spending time in nature simplifies our lives, reminding us of the beauty in simplicity and encouraging us to slow down and appreciate the present moment. Nature unveils the interconnectedness of all living things, instilling humility and expanding our awareness of our place in the world. These are personal.

Nature has no morals.

Why would you expect nature to have morals?
na·ture
/ˈnāCHər/
noun
1.
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

God has both.

Which god concept are you referring to that has morals and how do you know about these morals?
It seems you are making personal faith based claims which would be meaningless in debate, but I don't want to jump the gun.

[TRANSPONDER]

I get eh idea 'reality is energy'. Energy is made of particles (which seem mostly made of nothing in rotation, or perhaps position one to another,giving the impression of a solid area. I might rather say that reality is physics. But again, to vaguely relate that to a god (name ones' preferred) speaking things into existence is like pointing to nuclear fission as evidence for diverse magical beings waving wands and granting wishes. There is no valid connection.

The point about the origins of Life (or indeed the Cosmos) are valid questions, bu they are not evidence for a god and never were. Similarly the valid point that 'nature has no morals' is not an argument for a divine being handing down ethics through a notoriously immoral(or at least, unhelpful) old book but is actually support for the idea that morals are a human construct, like art and music, and as valid in practical was as they are., and not of course immutable. Even religion has had to 'immute' its' morals despite alarming efforts to make slavery look ok, because we have to pay taxes and that is a kind of Slavery, isn't it? (no it isn't, no more than living in the world is being enslaved by it).

It's a funny kind of double standard (which comes about through the illogic of faithbased thinking) that the lack of morals in Nature means there has to a god handing down morals, when a lack of morality in the Bible (which is always denied or excused) does not mean the god islacking on the morals it was supposed to have given us.

No, God is hidden, mysterious, cannot intervene or even handed the world over to Satan, or whatever excuse they can think up when we need none of those excuses when we have the simple answer - morals evolved, and are still evolving, and religious morals grudgingly evolving along with it, while always trying to pull back.