This is asinine. Here is a progression of events:Originally posted by novice
I mean Zakath in no uncertain terms basically called Bob a liar! He should retract and apologize since Zakath was obviously in error.
Do you agree?
If not, why?
I think this is why Bob is winning the debate. If Zakath asks a question or makes a point, Bob responds to it. If Bob asks a question or makes a point Zakath either ignores it or says I dunnoOriginally posted by .Ant
Bob's latest post once again shows the fallacy of several of Zakath's arguments.
Is there anything in Zakath's last post that Bob didn't address?
Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Recall Zakath’s post 3a question ZQ12: “Let’s hear the explanation for the physics behind Pastor Enyart’s God as creator and perhaps this atheist will reconsider his disbelieving position.”
Here’s my BA12 summary: “A natural explanation for the universe is limited to natural possibilities; a supernatural Creator is not limited by the laws of the natural universe, and so could bring matter and energy into existence from nothing.” I now add that a supernatural Creator could create from nothing without even a seeming contradiction of natural law. So Zakath, have you reconsidered your atheism since hearing that natural law has no jurisdiction over a supernatural Creator?
We know that whatever the natural law says, it says to those entities which are under the law. Natural law governs only the natural sphere and has no logical jurisdiction over a supernatural Creator. Many atheists believe that all matter could have come from nothing by itself but could not have been created out of nothing by something non-material. Go figure.
Apparent contradictions exist between natural law and natural origins. But Zakath, your question implies that you think there is some challenge in, or an obvious contradiction between, the origin of the natural universe and the existence of a supernatural Creator. I can think of none. If you can identify some conflicts, or even just one, please present such. The following will lead to a question on this:
Institutional science today has a passionate anti-supernatural bias and lacks even a willingness to debate creationism. And most scientists now surveyed respond that they reject God as the explanation for origins, and a large percent are atheist or agnostic. However, before the a priori rejection of a supernatural realm, many brilliant men of science defended creationism as the intellectual solution to the dilemma of existence. My own list of defenders of creationism are fathers of science whom I have catalogued partly from my perusing their original writings in the Encyclopedia Britannica Great Books series, partly from reading their quotes elsewhere, and a few from third-party references.
So here is my own list of fathers of the physical sciences who rejected natural origins:
Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine
Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution
Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method
Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies
William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System
Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators
Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy
George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology
John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory
For those who object that these brilliant men lived prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, consider the following scientific giants all of whom in a time of more open debate, publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator:
Michael Faraday, 1867, Electromagnetism
Gregor Mendel, 1884, Genetics
Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics
Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery
G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture
The many modern scientists and inventors, from the Wright Brothers (aviation) to Werhner von Braun (space exploration), from Raymond Damadian (MRI) to Los Alamos’ John Baumgardner (Terra geophysical simulator), to the 650 voting members with post-graduate scientific degrees at the Creation Research Society, and the above listed fathers of science show that great intellect also sides with the theistic explanation of origins. An atheist who mocks theism for being anti-intellectual is ignorant or worse. On an a priori bias, today’s scientific community dismisses creationism without debate and without even considering the merits of its technical arguments. Institutional science will look for aliens (SETI) and declare intelligent life in outer space if they detect a few prime numbers out there, but it refuses to debate scientists with extensive mathematical evidence for creation in the genetic code.
Medieval academics were intellectually enslaved to the geo-centrism of pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy. They had no justification to shut down debate on heliocentricity, and had only misinterpreted evidence on their side. Today’s institutional science, enslaved by its political correctness, similarly has no justification to shut down creation debate, lacking evidence for its own presupposition that the universe, biological life, or consciousness could arise naturally. If scientific academic debate on creation were permitted today, Zakath being well read might have realized that ZQ12 on creation physics was a non-challenge. Here’s another kicker: you cannot even find the context or the terms in which to frame a serious challenge regarding the physics of creation.
But don’t feel inept. The brilliant scientists listed above knew of no apparent contradiction either between natural law and a supernatural creation. And neither do today’s atheist scientists. But just to illustrate that the scientific advance of the last decades has not discovered a scientific or rational contradiction between the laws of physics and a Creator, I will officially ask you this: Zakath, can you identify any apparent contradiction between a supernatural Creator bringing the universe into existence from nothing, and the natural laws of physics?
I predict that Zakath can offer no answer for this question, which silence will belie his post 3a comment that, “The Problem of God as the Creator also essentially begs the question he raises about the violations of the laws of thermodynamics at the Creation. How did Pastor Enyart’s God create matter and energy from nothing?” To show the absurdity of atheists commonly making this non-challenge, I offer these back-to-back questions:
Do many atheists think it is possible that the universe came into existence from nothing?
Do many atheists think it is impossible that the universe came into existence from nothing by an outside Creator?
Zakath, I know you agree that we theists are not infallible, and in this long paragraph, I will address an error theists commonly make regarding the origin of the physical laws. Perhaps this will help you or some other atheist by removing this unnecessary hurdle which many Christians likely have put in front of you. God created the material universe, and the physical laws are simply the inherent properties of that universe, which properties we reduce to words in order to understand the functions of nature. The physical laws do not exist unto themselves, as though you could isolate one or see it with a microscope. Also, these laws are not arbitrary, as though they could have been any different. God could have made matter that exhibited different laws, but then He would have made a different universe. When He created the space and matter that He did, God did not then need to ‘invent’ a law of momentum. Rather, momentum is simply an inherent property of matter relating to mass and velocity, which we then reduce to a description; thus momentum describes the innate behavior of the kind of matter God created. God could have created different subatomic particles, and thus different kinds of atoms. If He had created matter without electrically charged particles, then that matter would have behaved differently. If He had done so, H20 might not exhibit the capillary action that lifts water against gravity to nourish tree tops. If He had made a different kind of water, then it might have behaved like most other compounds which contract when cooled and expand when heated, but then ice would be heavier than liquid water and so lakes would freeze from the bottom up killing all their fish. God comprehended the laws which would come into being, so to speak, attendant to Creation, and so He designed matter in order to achieve the functionality He desired, which functionality is described by those laws. Now here’s the correction of a common Christian error: God created the physical universe, not the physical laws. Some might think this a minor distinction but ignoring it presents an unnecessary stumbling stone to those non-theists like Albert Einstein who think clearly about this, as when he said “God Himself could not have arranged those connections [the physical laws] in any other way than that which factually exists” (Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, 1992, p. 242). Theists assert wrongly when they say that God could have decreed the laws to be otherwise. God is not a magician. Making the laws arbitrary gives unbelievers like Einstein a valid objection to that part of the theist message. For he rightly rejected this sloppy theist notion that God could arbitrarily establish the physical laws. Perhaps this misconception led to Zakath’s non sequitur question about the physics of creation. Perhaps too, Zakath misunderstood my point that the absolute moral standard comes from God’s nature partly because the same misinformed Christians also say that God created the spiritual laws. He did not. They are a reflection of His nature. Thus, they could not be different than they are. Because God is righteous, the spiritual laws uphold righteousness and condemn evil. Many Christians have unwittingly undermined the holiness of God by suggesting that He can be spiritually arbitrary, because He is God. That’s wrong. God could not do evil (anything against the present description of His nature), and remain holy. He remains Holy because He acts consistent with His nature. God did not have to invent the command against kidnapping, nor the prohibition against perjury. Once He created beings made in His likeness, then the moral and spiritual commands followed automatically from His nature, and they are simply the properties of these beings, prohibiting behavior that inflicts harm and leads toward death. By the way, while spiritual and moral laws are absolutes, any symbolic ordinances that God may issue could be arbitrary, such as feast days which may symbolize spiritual truth. Thus God cannot issue righteous laws which defy His holy nature, for example, prohibiting all love and requiring envy. So, God created physical entities and spiritual beings, but He did not create the physical and spiritual laws.
Originally posted by August
< Bob is winning the debate.>
I wish he were. IMO he is doing a terrible job.
1)His "absolute right - wrong " argument does appear to be circular.
Yes, I would consider that the beginning of an argument.Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Forget that Bob explained what the absolute moral standard address the fact that it is RIDICULOUS.
No One has addressed this doosy yet.
1. God exists because we have an absolute moral standard
2. The absolute moral standard is Gods righteousness.
How can you theists live with this circular statement ?
If I said to you “UFO’s exist because they leave an unknown trail in the sky”.. what is the unknown trail ?.. “it is the trail their spaceships leave”.. would you consider that an argument at all ?
No, it proves the Big Bang didn't happen.Originally posted by August
2)In his latest post he says that God cannot violate physical laws, and then later seems to argue that the structure of the solar system violates physical laws, and this somehow proves that God exists.
It's not a gap argument - it's a contradiction between science and evolution.Originally posted by August
Jesus violated several physical laws, and then said that we could do even greater works.
Besides, the solar system argument is just another "gap in science" example.
August, that's stupid. None of the above are alternatives, as they all assume God exists.Originally posted by August
3) But the origin of the universe does not represent a "gap", but a lack of foundation for natural science. There is a fourth alternative to add to Enyart's three. Whenever something that is impossible seems to happen, one should always consider the possibility that it didn't happen at all. Even if it did occur as a supernatural event, God didn't necessarily do it. It would be hard to find a motivation. One could argue easily that Satan did it. Jesus called him the "ruler of this world" and "the prince of this world", and also said, "My kingdom is not of this world". Satan shows up in the Book of Job controlling every earthling except Job.
Another theory is that the children of God created the universe as an act of rebellion against God, because in his consistent love He could not favor some above others (Plato's World of the Same). By utilizing bodies separated from one another, they could make distinctions and establish hierarchies (World of the Different).
Originally posted by August
)IMO, Enyart is on dangerous ground when he ties the validity of Christianity to Jesus's resurrection. That was only a historical event. The validity of Christianity comes through direct experience of the living Christ, in the present instant. (I am the first to admit that I can't prove this.) You can find evidence for miracles in many places, if you look for it. In the book, "MY SIX CONVICTS - A Psycholist's Three Years in Fort Leavenworth", by Donald P. Wilson, we find a prisoner named Hadad who performed many "supernatural" tricks, including lying dead in a morgue locker for three days and then sitting up on the autopsy table and walking away. ALl of this in the presence of doctors and psychologist.
1 Corinthians 15:12-19
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
No, God has free will. Evil is defined as anti-God.Originally posted by Flake
So god, being evil free, doesnt have free will? Its an oldie but a goodie.
You got it. Me and you.Originally posted by Flake
So, who created evil?
(Hint: The answer is closer than you realise)
Interesting that god would allow an anti-god situation, but as you say we have free will...Originally posted by .Ant
No, God has free will. Evil is defined as anti-God.
Originally posted by .Ant
You got it. Me and you.
This is called a "house of cards". Facts not in evidence, yet assumed to be true by the story teller, rest on each other. As for number two, your "strong" evidence, even if conscience suggests an absolute standard (it doesn't), it's no more evidence of a God then it is of creation by aliens, or a magic pink unicorn. I never understand why you guys make this so hard on yourselves. Why is "faith" not a good enough answer for you to respond with? Why is it that twisting science to meet your needs has become a better, more effective tactic then simply saying "I believe because I have faith"?Originally posted by .Ant
Yes, I would consider that the beginning of an argument.
The argument is not circular. This is Bob's argument:
1. One piece of evidence for God's existence is the absolute moral standard.
2. One (strong) piece of evidence for the absolute moral standard is the human conscience.
BTW, the absolute moral standard is God.
Another room in the crumbling house of cards.No, it proves the Big Bang didn't happen.