| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| proof of God part two. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 19 2009, 04:22 AM (248 Views) | |
| the breeze | May 19 2009, 04:22 AM Post #1 |
the breeze
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsGeneral Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God by Rich Deem IntroductionIs the universe designed? "Improbable things happen all the time" is the mantra of the atheist. It is certainly possible for improbable things to happen. However, it is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained in order for stars and galaxies to exist. Rich Deem Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. In order to keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included. However, you can click the links to the full-length articles for the details. Evidence for design? The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup. The Big BangThe Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe. Excess quarksQuarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. One would expect the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. However, miraculously, quarks outnumbered antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining small excess of quarks eventually made up all the matter that exists in the universe. Large, just right-sized universeEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:26 AM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief.' No, it did not. It made up straw man arguments about atheism. You can't build an argument on deception. And it promised evidence for God. And failed at that. "Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe." IOW, you can't provide the evidence. What you're going to do is claim by analogy is your indirect evidence. "The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be." Waiting for the evidence.... |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 06:36 AM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Where are the strawmen? All I read was sound reasoning that you failed to address. So why not admit you have nothing to refute the article with rather than throw out the strawman garbage. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 06:48 AM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Where are the strawmen?" Read my comments in Part 1. "All I read was sound reasoning that you failed to address." Read my comments to part 1. "So why not admit you have nothing to refute the article with rather than throw out the strawman garbage." The man argues straw men, as I pointed out in comments to part 1. Straw man arguments are deceptions. You cannnot construct a reasonable argument on deceptions. Mike, if you're going to play hear no see no speak no evil, you';ve lost, because then you'rethe one not addressing arguments. |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 07:02 AM Post #5 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually Chris, I believe the straw man fallacy is one where a distorted version of another's view is used and then argued against. So let me see if you agree with this definition: a·the·ist (th-st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 08:41 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
"Actually Chris, I believe the straw man fallacy is one where a distorted version of another's view is used and then argued against." Correct. And in part 1 I exposed at least two such straw men. You're counter argument to date is you don't see my argument. Straw man #1: "Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin." Why? "Atheism = lack faith in God. That says nothing about them otherwise." Straw man #2: "Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no 'beliefs.'" Why? "As a skeptic I believe, for example, in natural (moral) law and natural rights. " See, Mike, it's easy to do. Make an assertion, and back it up. But let's take your dictionary definition: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." I fit under disbelief, nonbelief--I choose not to believe neither that God exists or doesn't exist. I'm a nonbeliever. I neither accept nor deny. Yes, there are atheists, so-called, who deny the existence of God--I would challenge them to prove their assertion the same as I challenge you yours. But back to breeze's pasted proof. Again, your definition: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." How does even your definition imply "Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin." Your definition doesn't. It implies nothing at all about what an atheist believes. How does even your definition imply "Most skeptics...like to think that they have no 'beliefs.'" Your definition doesn't. It implies nothing at all about what an atheist believes. Therefore, on the basis of even your definition, breeze's pasted author's argument rests upon two straw men. Straw men are misrepresentations, deceptions. They are false. You can't base an argument on false premises and call it reasonable. |
|
|
| Mike | May 19 2009, 06:49 PM Post #7 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
OK, for the sake of the argument, both you and Bruce used straw man fallacies. Now back to my question. Can you or can you not, with certainty, refute what Bruce posted? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 19 2009, 08:35 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
Damn it, Mike, will you for once back up your accusations! You constantly make accusations I am using straw men or playing semantic games, but you never point out where. What straw man have I argued? When you challenged where I saw straw men, I carefully pointed out the exact words, and took the time to explain. And then all you've got to come back with is a false accusation? If you can't show it, stop making false accusations. It lacks any sense of argumentation ethics. For another, Bruce didn't do anything except paste. He himself contributes nothing. I refuted what he posted in two ways. One, I showed the argument based on straw men. Two, I showed the argument has yet to show any evidence for the existence of God. The author promises, but has yet to deliver. What was pasted is thus not an argument. It's a diversion, a dissembling. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:41 AM Jul 14
