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

[fredonly]

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.

[Mae von H]

Now it’s an interesting challenge because I wager you didn’t yourself conduct any experiments establishing your position on evolution. You simply believed what others told you. Yet you ask me if I did.Do you see two different measures here?

I have. Interestingly, this topic just came up again. Would you like to do some experiments establishing evolution?

First explain what experiements you did, where the peer reviewed results were published. I have read a few of these and so let's see yours. Produce life from non-life? How about one class of creature becoming another and so evolving?

In science you only need the outcome. If your Mom brought in a cake, you wouldn’t say she didn’t bake it (even though she says she did) because you weren’t in the kitchen. What you demand of God or other's reports of Him, you don’t demand in your own life.

If the only claims made for God involved baking cakes, I might be tempted to believe them. If my mom claimed that she brought somebody back from the dead, I'd ask for a little more evidence and, as long as we're projecting, I'd wager you would, too. I assert that you're affording stories about God more credibility than you would others.

Cakes are not living. Living beings are more complex and so understanding them is more demanding. This is obvious. And no, I judge all accounts the same, tested against what is known to be true.

Again, working in science has been a tremendous asset in understanding God.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I don’t refuse the obvious. When God is asked and the asked for occurs, the logical conclusion is He had a hand in it. You allow yourself to consider something totally out of the initial step.

If you ask and the asked for doesn't occur, is the logical conclusion that there's no god? Do you know what confirmation bias is?

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.

I know because when I challenge the science (easy), they just get mad and call me names. Some send a link. But They cannot defend their view. They swallowed the view and don’t or can’t think about the holes.

I've never met someone that was a creationist, but also understood the science behind evolution. If what you're saying is true and you have a legitimate challenge to evolution, you'd be the first. The fact that you think that such a challenge would be "easy" suggests to me that you don't.

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. 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. The idea that an educated person can thoroughly understand a matter and not agree with its conclusion eludes atheists. 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 have heard university professors discuss a paper just published, understanding the whole of the experiment and disagree with the conclusion. 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.

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

[Mae von H]

[Replying to 1213 in post #34]

You’re treading into unpleasant territory. They don’t know and only have insults or someone else’s run around answer to give. It will not be cordial. Just so you know. The kindest answer you can expect is “some mechanism did it way back when.” Essentially, “we don’t know but we believe it anyway.”

Lady, I don't need you to speak in front of me or predict what I'm going to say.

And I don't need to tell me not to do so. The pattern is so obvious it is hard to miss.

All I did was concede the point about Abiogenesis, but point out (correctly) that it is irrelevant to the fact that the evidence for evolution refuted Genesis and even if there is a god, the Bible, shown incorrect on the evidence, does not tell us which one that is.

Nah. I have heard the arguments and it is just not so. But it is common for your team to claim it is so without being able to present the arguments. Just a link, if one is lucky, so someone else can explain what they think for them.

Atheism (based on agnosticism) concedes without much interest the possibility of a creator, BUT the existence of a hypothesis (1)means that 'God' is not the default.

Ah, so do you personally conceded the possibility of a Creator and if you have no interest in the subject, why are you here talking to those who know Him? Me thinks the atheist doth protest over much.

I suggest that you learn what you are talking about before you presume to speak for us. Or about us.

too late. Already talked to countless evolutionists and the pattern is unmistakeable and examined the subject as well. The exchange always, without exception, goes the same way. Yawn!

[Mae von H]

That is fine but the same evidence leads atheists to disbelieve that God exists. ...

It is weird how can it be so, when there is nothing in nature that indicates that life could begin spontaneously from non organic material.

Atheists ignore that question. I’ve asked them. Their view requires restricting scientific inquiry as some questions one may NOT ask. That’s one of them. Ask it and risk an onslaught of insulting rejoinders.

We do? First I've heard of atheists ignoring this question.

We don't know how life began, but given every creature alive is made up of the basic atoms that are the building blocks of all matter, it seems clear there was some mechanism for it to happen. Whether a god forced the basic atoms into self replicating molecules, a pink fairy did it, three mad invisible unicorns did it, or it was just a natural mechanism requiring some unknown as yet process we simply don't know.

I find it quite silly that you can claim atheists ignore this question. I've just proven this wrong. I'm not ignoring it. Not having a definitive answer is a far cry from ignoring it. "I don't know" is perfectly valid and much better that making something up (like a god) and declaring that to be true.

Having no answer and being satisfied with having no answer IS ignoring the question. "We simply don't know" is ignoring the question and that has been true for going on a few centuries now. They have tried to answer it but cannot, so it is only ignored now since all, 100% of the experiments failed to demonstrate this.

[benchwarmer]

First, sorry for the length everyone. I need to start choosing a core set to things to go after, but sometimes I can't help myself.

I work in science and we do not reinvent the wheel every generation but instead stand on the shoulders of those who did. No one publishes papers on the reality of gravity. Knowing it functions doesn’t require hours of research same as we don’t keep discovering penicillin. It is called the advancement of knowledge.

As usual, we seem to not be understanding each other

I didn't ask if you understood the concepts of gravity and happily respect it's nature in day to day living.

What I'm asking is in relation to the difference between belief and knowledge.

I personally believe in the concepts taught in science class about gravity. I don't have to do any further research on my own if I'm happy with my belief.

However, I don't personally know all the details about how gravity works beyond what science I have read on the subject. I have not done any research
on it myself. In other words, if scientists manage to come up with a new theory of how gravity is actually working, then I will happily take on that
new belief as long as it comports with my reality.

As for no one publishing papers on gravity a quick google search will dispel that:
https://www.nature.com/subjects/general ... avity/srep

If you know all the details about gravity, I'm sure many of the above paper authors would love your feedback for peer review.

Now it’s an interesting challenge because I wager you didn’t yourself conduct any experiments establishing your position on evolution. You simply believed what others told you. Yet you ask me if I did.Do you see two different measures here?

No, because we are talking about 2 completely different things as usual.

You are correct. I did not conduct any experiments around evolution. In fact, I hated biology in school. However, I have researched the subject to
some extent and my beliefs are based on that reading I have done. I believe the current theory of evolution (in broad terms since I'm no evolutionary
biologist) is correct. I will be happy to update my beliefs on the matter if newer science on the matter emerges and it is properly peer reviewed.

Notice carefully I have not said I know the theory of evolution is correct. Do you see the difference?

This is what I was asking you about gravity. Unless you are a gravity researcher, most of your beliefs about gravity (like mine for evolution)
have come from (hopefully) peer reviewed science and in the case of gravity - lived experience of falling down

Feel free to convince me that you know all the details about gravity instead of just believing.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about blind faith here. I'm talking about informed belief - based on understanding the scientific method, how the
peer review proces works, and the power of verifiable, observable evidence.

Perhaps this God is the one that pushes objects around in a way that appears to be gravity

No, He made the natural world to function under laws. Your suggestion is the view that everyone but christians had which prevented everyone else from advancing. Only christians thought the was a LAW Giver and so the natural world functioned under law, not luck.

I think what I was talking about completely sailed overhead.

This also sounds like you think only Christians found science and natural laws (this is wildly funny knowing how some Christians - not necessarily you - view the world).
For someone who is continually going on about working in science, you seem to have a lack of understanding of the history of it.

While wikipedia is certianly not the best source, this article should give some things to look into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

My point again is that you likely don't actually know the intricate mechanisms of how gravity is working, yet you seem to claim you do rather than just
having an informed belief about it.

I realize I may appear to be splitting hairs here, but we have to be careful in debate so that we are clear what we mean.

I know I just saw a ball fall to the ground. I observed it. I believe it was the effect of gravity (attraction of large bodies of matter with other matter). I don't believe it was fairies, gods, invisible goblins, or anything else. I don't know this beyond all doubt, but I'm reasonably confident in my belief (99.99999% confident, but if we scientifically observed 'gravity fairies' then science would change and so would my beliefs).

But it won’t because there’s a law giver and that’s a law.

Are you saying no new knowledge about gravity will be found? I refer you again to the many papers above on just this subject.

Ummm, no. How many children have asked Santa for a toy and then got that exact toy on Christmas morning?

Since they are taught to write Santa and Mom “delivers” those letters, it’s not even close.

How is it "not even close"? It's exactly the same.

Person A asks B for C.
C appears.
Therefore B made C appear.

That, in a nutshell is your logic. This is of course flawed. To see how these are exactly the same insert "Child/You" for A, "Santa/God" for B, and
"toy/healing" for C.

I know for a fact that my Mom and Dad brought gifts "from Santa". I saw the presents under the bed the week before. I was crushed

People of all cultures and religions pray to their favorite dieties and witness what appear to be miraculous healings. Are you saying now that all these gods are real based on this?

You’re making that up. They don’t, How many obvious healings did your church see?

Which part do you think I'm making up? That people of other religions pray? Surely that's not in debate or you need to study other religions.

People claim to be healed of this or that all the time in church settings. It is funny though that you insert "obvious healings". Those do
seem to be completely lacking anywhere. No one ever walked out of a wheelchair in my church though it wasn't for a lack of trying.

Plenty of people loved to claim God healed them of this or that though. Coincidentally none of these things are the type of things anyone else
can verify. i.e. no limbs grew back, no blind saw, no lame walked, etc.

If a dead person rises and walks around, definately.

Definitely what? I will agree that something happened, but claiming this or that god did it is pure guess work unless you observe this or that god actually doing it.

You don’t work in science I take it.

Wrong. Nice try though. I'm an engineer in a semiconductor company. I'll let you now decide if that is 'real' science.

In science we don’t generate a hypothesis, test it, find out it is true and decide it’s not true because we didn’t see the atoms or cells actually do what was postulated, we just saw the outcome. In science you only need the outcome. If your Mom brought in a cake, you wouldn’t say she didn’t bake it (even though she says she did) because you weren’t in the kitchen. What you demand of God or other's reports of Him, you don’t demand in your own life.

I'm hoping your scientific rigor doesn't end with "it's true because we saw the outcome we wanted". If so, I might have to ask if you actually work in science.

Generally if the data matches your hypothesis, you can certainly be more confident the hypothesis is correct. However, it my not be complete or you may have gotten lucky.

That's what peer review and the need for others to reproduce your results is for. Surely I shouldn't have to explain this.

Same as someone lame who suddenly walks. Is there any other logical conclusion?

Yes. The logical conclusion is that something happened to cause this 'miracle'. Jumping to your favorite deity is NOT logical given we have no observable evidence of any gods (if we did religion wouldn't be religion, it would be science).

Again, working in science has been a tremendous asset in understanding God. I don’t refuse the obvious. When God is asked and the asked for occurs, the logical conclusion is He had a hand in it. You allow yourself to consider something totally out of the initial step.

See discussion above. It is not logical, simply possible. You sidestepped Santa and other gods in this logic, but somehow your god is 'obvious'. Hmmmm...

Agreed! People recover for unknown reasons all the time. Maybe it was Vishnu. If someone prayed to Vishnu right before it happened would you convert on the spot? Be honest.

He doesn’t do that and adherents don’t say he does. You need to limit your answers to the beliefs of those who know about Hinduism. They don’t say that.

I suggest a few simple google searches before claiming knowledge like this. Feel free to take this up with these people:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rel ... 205237.cms

Bolding mine.

Lord Dhanvantri is one of the most popular manifestations of Lord Vishnu. Lord Dhanvantri emanated from the milky ocean when the gods and demons churned it in pursuit of the immortal nectar. Lord Dhanvantri is considered the Father of Ayurveda medicine. He is the ultimate healer and the most benevolent Lord who removes all fears and diseases from the face of humanity. Chanting some of the most powerful mantras of Lord Dhanvantri will help alleviate the sufferings of humans and promote happiness and prosperity

Now, WHAT you read and believed that spoke against the faith was your choice you admit.

No, please read my replies more carefully.

I admitted that I choose what to read. My whole argument has been we don't choose our beliefs. I can't believe that's not clear by now.

Now I was premed so took a great deal of biology etc courses. And I’ve read quite a bit on evolution and also the various arguments against the belief in God. We could discuss this on a different thread. But I’ve found that one needs to think and educate oneself deeper than the evolutionary theory to come to the truth. If one reads only the atheist one, of course one becomes an atheist and one is not innocent of that outcome.

You seem to be conflating multiple things here.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory on the evolution of life and has zero mention of gods in it. It also has zero mention of how life started.

What are you talking about "the atheist one"? The atheist one what? Theory of Evolution? I've never heard of that. Link to paper please.

And then there’s the untrained atheist who blindly believes all they read that agrees with their chosen position. They avoid the highly trained scientists who reject the tenets of evolution. This is very common among atheists. I know because when I challenge the science (easy), they just get mad and call me names. Some send a link. But They cannot defend their view. They swallowed the view and don’t or can’t think about the holes.

Wait. Let me get this straight. You don't believe the current science on the theory of evolution? All this talk about science this and science that
and you don't accept the overwhelming mountain of data for it?

If I understand you correctly, since you are in the science field, you better start publishing then so your "correct" view can be peer reviewed. You may have a Nobel in your future!

At this point your argument is with evolutionary biologists not me. I'll side with massive consensus of the biologists until your peer reviewed research
overturns the field. At that point you will definitely win me over. See, I'm not religious, I'm happy to update my beliefs based on solid research,
data, and the consensus of experts in the field. Let me know when your paper goes up. Would love to read it even if I may not understand it all.

Your position is no one ever believes lies? How do scams work? And you think i on ever rejects truth? Really? How come people disagree?

You really seem to have a hard time determining my actual position. No, that is not my position. My position is that people don't purposely
(in general) choose to believe in what they already believe is a lie.

Example: I believe the statement "Santa is real" is a lie. I don't then turn around and express "Santa is real" thereby
choosing what I already believe to be a lie as my truth.

In other words, people believe what they think is true. It may not actually be true, but as far as they can tell it is.

Though you and I disagree, I don't think you are just purposely choosing to disagree with me because you choose to believe in lies.

And I don’t think you’re purposely disagreeing with me because you refuse to believe the truth.

So you do understand me then? I'm confused about your confusion

I think everyone believes they are choosing the truth. It may not be the actual truth, but I like to think most people are not simply choosing to believe what they believe are lies just for giggles.

It’s but at all uncommon to hear people say that they just something wasn’t true but believed and acted on it anyway and now regret ignoring their gut feeling. So no, people sometimes suspect they’re believing a lie.

And? I said above "most people" not "all people".

If you are trained in science then surely you've heard of a hypothesis? If you saw 'something' (clearly flying pigs are really not working for you) you had never seen before, how do you process it? God did it? Maybe there is a natural explanation? Remember your science training. Does God show up in any science textbooks (reputable ones anyways)?

Science does not pursue known lies. You need to deal with this.

What are you talking about? I ask you a direct question and now you are telling me to "deal with this". Deal with what?

Please answer this simple question I asked above.

How do you deal with something you haven't seen before?

[benchwarmer]

Having no answer and being satisfied with having no answer IS ignoring the question.

Who claimed to be satisfied with having no answer (I assume you actually meant saying "I don't know")? Wasn't me. Link and quote please.

I don't know how the first replicating molecule was formed. I would love an answer. I would really love it if experts in the field could reproduce it. Or, in your case, show evidence for your God, then evidence He did it. Maybe He just put the right 'laws' in place as you say and things happened from there. The jury is out. Doesn't mean we are all ignoring the question.

[Mae von H]

Having no answer and being satisfied with having no answer IS ignoring the question.

Who claimed to be satisfied with having no answer (I assume you actually meant saying "I don't know")? Wasn't me. Link and quote please.

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.

I don't know how the first replicating molecule was formed. I would love an answer. I would really love it if experts in the field could reproduce it.

Replication is set-up such that this will never be found. Life on earth always proceeds from life..always.

Or, in your case, show evidence for your God, then evidence He did it. Maybe He just put the right 'laws' in place as you say and things happened from there. The jury is out. Doesn't mean we are all ignoring the question.

He did put the laws in place. The scientific evidence shows that life can only proceed from life. There are no stages observed from non-life to life or even singled-cell life to double cell life forms. There are no two cells life forms nor three cell life forms.

Having hope but no answer after over 100 years of research and still believing it is ignoring the question. All those who believe in evolution do so you’re not alone.

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

[Mae von H]

@Benchwarmer

Dear B

I know there’s a prominent branch of Christianity that insists anyone who later changes their mind was never a believer. Oddly enough, it actually means NO ONE can know if they’re “saved” until the end of their lives because if they abandon the faith, they were never in it. The theology is to assure Heaven but really makes it the most unsure.

Anyway, I deviate, but I understand why you assumed I’m of this kind. I am not, I see in scripture and life that men and women change their minds. This means they were real christians same as they were really married or really working in their jobs. They changed their minds in the commitment.

It would help to put a link to the post you replky to, however I get the gist.

It is again a fair point. There is a sect that has a 'once saved always saved' dfogma which doesn't make sense as it means Jack the ripper will get to heaven if he was Saved when he was a kid, and you see this well enough.

Besides which, 'anyone who leaves was never a real Christian' os a notorious apologetic that has done the users no credit.

I guess they have to do it because they deny that no 'Real Christian' once convinced can ever give up God -belief. Even I suppose if they just become an irreligious theist.

It’s a theology that promises Heaven no matter what. Means they shut down logical thought and the disregard the reasons Jesus gave for that course.

I suppose (which is why I none is at all) this derives from the discussion about doubt and question. Which is ok so long as it served to firm up the Faith by setting doubts and explaining questions, but (in many an anecdote) it was far from ok if the pre digested and regurgitated apologetic tripe was not swallowed (1) (and to any who are revolted by the analogy, that's how it makes me feel to see the mealy - mouthed hogwash that is spewed out just to suppress all serious doubt). This is quite different from doubt and question that placed credible conviction ahead of bias confirmation and when convincing answers were not forthcoming, stepped away. This is not ok and doctrinally (if not in practical ways) is supposed to incur penaties.

(1) and since I'm overdoing mustwatch videos here is one (even if a bit long) showing how doubts and questions by a believer (despite attempts to squash them with feeble apologetics and aggression) could not stop this former believer deconverting as did his brother, independently.

I will watch it when I can. I rarely watch clips here as I prefer real exchange but for you, I’ll do so.

Let’s see where the thinking goes off…

[/quote]

[TRANSPONDER]

@Benchwarmer

Dear B

I know there’s a prominent branch of Christianity that insists anyone who later changes their mind was never a believer. Oddly enough, it actually means NO ONE can know if they’re “saved” until the end of their lives because if they abandon the faith, they were never in it. The theology is to assure Heaven but really makes it the most unsure.

Anyway, I deviate, but I understand why you assumed I’m of this kind. I am not, I see in scripture and life that men and women change their minds. This means they were real christians same as they were really married or really working in their jobs. They changed their minds in the commitment.

It would help to put a link to the post you reply to, however I get the gist.

It is again a fair point. There is a sect that has a 'once saved always saved' dogma which doesn't make sense as it means Jack the ripper will get to heaven if he was Saved when he was a kid, and you see this well enough.

Besides which, 'anyone who leaves was never a real Christian' os a notorious apologetic that has done the users no credit.

I guess they have to do it because they deny that no 'Real Christian' once convinced can ever give up God -belief. Even I suppose if they just become an irreligious theist.

It’s a theology that promises Heaven no matter what. Means they shut down logical thought and the disregard the reasons Jesus gave for that course.

Yes. Well, apart from what the Bible claims Jesus said (which I don't buy, even if one conceded there are some good talking -points in what the gospel -writers put down) I simply don't see the 'always saved' doctrine as tenable. Nor in fact the 'Never a real trump..sorry..never a real Christian' apologetic. It seems they cannot accept the idea that anyone having come to 'know' Jesusgod could even change their mind. I could post another video (again) where former theists express their disgust at this accusation that they were never Real Christians. But I'll wait to see your reaction to the video. I'll be fascinated to see where you think the reasoning process was wrong...if you do.

I suppose (which is why I none is at all) this derives from the discussion about doubt and question. Which is ok so long as it served to firm up the Faith by setting doubts and explaining questions, but (in many an anecdote) it was far from ok if the pre digested and regurgitated apologetic tripe was not swallowed (1) (and to any who are revolted by the analogy, that's how it makes me feel to see the mealy - mouthed hogwash that is spewed out just to suppress all serious doubt). This is quite different from doubt and question that placed credible conviction ahead of bias confirmation and when convincing answers were not forthcoming, stepped away. This is not ok and doctrinally (if not in practical ways) is supposed to incur penaties.

(1) and since I'm overdoing mustwatch videos here is one (even if a bit long) showing how doubts and questions by a believer (despite attempts to squash them with feeble apologetics and aggression) could not stop this former believer deconverting as did his brother, independently.

I will watch it when I can. I rarely watch clips here as I prefer real exchange but for you, I’ll do so.

Let’s see where the thinking goes off…

[/quote]

[benchwarmer]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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