Evidence for/against YEC

[tuxbox]

Do you agree that in a universe where the laws of conservation of energy didn't apply then energy could logically be created or destroyed? Similarly, in a universe without a law of noncontradiction, two contradictory things could be true.

Those things could be possible, maybe in another universe, just not this one.

These things don't "make sense" in that the are completely at odds with our notions about how reality works. However, if you are postulating a scenario where our reality doesn't exist at all, all bets are off.

Reality not existing makes zero sense as well. I have heard anyone put together a good argument for that scenario.

Well, I would say that I am not aware of any sound, logical arguments for the existence of any gods. It is possible that one exists.

hehe

 

[SpecialFrog]

Do you agree that in a universe where the laws of conservation of energy didn't apply then energy could logically be created or destroyed? Similarly, in a universe without a law of noncontradiction, two contradictory things could be true.

Those things could be possible, maybe in another universe, just not this one.

Indeed. And if you are talking about "absolute nothing" you are inherently not talking about this universe.

These things don't "make sense" in that the are completely at odds with our notions about how reality works. However, if you are postulating a scenario where our reality doesn't exist at all, all bets are off.

Reality not existing makes zero sense as well. I have heard anyone put together a good argument for that scenario.

Agreed, though even if someone made a good argument for that scenario it wouldn't help their cosmological argument.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just an FYI... Again you will not want to understand

But the plurality of "Elohim" is implied in the word " trinity"

Focus. Christians accept a plurality existing as one. ... Trinity.

That is not the same thing at all.

The concept of the "Trinity" refers to "the triune nature of God" - that does not mean there are three, separate entities.

This is a common misunderstanding of this concept.

Elohim, in contrast, refers to a actual multitude of gods - El, his wife Asherah, and their children, including Yahweh.

Clearly, a son cannot be the ultimate god, who created all things, as the Jews - and later Christians - insist.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

As far as cutting-edge physics can currently ascertain, genuine 'nothing' is prohibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainy Principle (happy to expand on this for any honest enquirer), which would tend to render the existence of something a brute fact, with no magic required.

Cosmological arguments are only surpassed in asininity by ontological arguments. And Bernhard.

Please do. I would like to know and I'm pretty sure some of the lurkers would like to know as well.

OK, though I'm going to leave it until morning, because I've just arrived home after two weeks on the road and I'm shattered, and it's really worth treating properly. In my opinion, nobody who fully grasps the uncertainty principle and its implications can come away thinking that a case can be made for the requirement of any sort of creator. God just evaporates before it into the puny, pathetic idea it really is.

 

[tuxbox]

OK, though I'm going to leave it until morning, because I've just arrived home after two weeks on the road and I'm shattered, and it's really worth treating properly. In my opinion, nobody who fully grasps the uncertainty principle and its implications can come away thinking that a case can be made for the requirement of any sort of creator. God just evaporates before it into the puny, pathetic idea it really is.

That sounds awesome and I understand that you need time. Take care.

 

[Dustnite]

Typically, I'm told by creationists or amateur apologists online that we would be stawmanning the cosmological argument by bringing up Kalam instead of other cosmological arguments. However, when pressed on which cosmological argument is the best and strongest it typically leads to a lot of hem hawing and then they bring up Aquinas' Unmoved Mover or Prime Mover: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml

Bernie instead did a completely ass backward Kalam that is false in it's first premise and then proceeds to declare victory. Good job there buddy...

One will have a hell of a time logically proving a creator through philosophical premises and I have no idea how one even moves on to a specific deity from that without special pleading. In the end, you're left with choice: 1) Accept some nebulous creator deity that "pushed" our universe into existence and then left it alone or 2) Don't apply special pleading and say "I don't know" to stuff that applies prior to the event horizon of the big bang.

Again even applying the words "prior" or "before" or "cause" implies that temporal casulaity exists at all before t=0 which not one of us knows that.

The third option is to the plug your ears and just believe whatever you want, which wouldn't normally be a problem except most of the elected officials in my country actually have that mindset... A senator from my state claimed that we didn't have to worry about nuclear waste because "the earth is only 6000 years old"



Now if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will... (She's still in office btw)

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Typically, I'm told by creationists or amateur apologists online that we would be stawmanning the cosmological argument by bringing up Kalam instead of other cosmological arguments. However, when pressed on which cosmological argument is the best and strongest it typically leads to a lot of hem hawing and then they bring up Aquinas' Unmoved Mover or Prime Mover: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/motion.shtml

Bernie instead did a completely ass backward Kalam that is false in it's first premise and then proceeds to declare victory. Good job there buddy...

One will have a hell of a time logically proving a creator through philosophical premises and I have no idea how one even moves on to a specific deity from that without special pleading. In the end, you're left with choice: 1) Accept some nebulous creator deity that "pushed" our universe into existence and then left it alone or 2) Don't apply special pleading and say "I don't know" to stuff that applies prior to the event horizon of the big bang.

Again even applying the words "prior" or "before" or "cause" implies that temporal casulaity exists at all before t=0 which not one of us knows that.

The third option is to the plug your ears and just believe whatever you want, which wouldn't normally be a problem except most of the elected officials in my country actually have that mindset... A senator from my state claimed that we didn't have to worry about nuclear waste because "the earth is only 6000 years old"



Now if that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will... (She's still in office btw)

I don't pay attention to politics much, but good god...I hope things aren't as bad here in Florida

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Trinity. Three persons.. Separate persons. One essence.

Your rebuttal to trinity = no clue on Christian viewpoint.

Given I was brought up Catholic, and Catholicism developed the concept, and was the major form of Christianity for more than a thousand years before Protestantism, I think I have a better understanding of it than yourself.

The Trinity[/i] 1:4:7 [A.D. 408])"]All the Catholic interpreters of the divine books of the Old and New Testaments whom I have been able to read, who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity

Not three persons/gods - as you claim - but one.

The Trinity represents three aspects of God.

Stick to YEC questions please.

What about the rest of what I wrote? Isn't that relevant, given that it undermines your claim of the Bible being the "Word of God" - the Christian one in the NT, which is based on Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, from the Tanakh (OT)? And thus, undermines your belief in/claims for YEC?

El is the real God that created everything, which renders the Bible, its, and your claims false.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[JRChadwick]

You might have been an atheist, but you obviously never understood evolution. Being an atheist doesn't make you necessarily smart.

You say they get the trinity "wrong." Maybe to you, but that is just one of the aspects of the bible of which there are multiple interpretations.

 

[Visaki]

Don't give me the whole " I used to be catholic" thing. I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Does that count? Not for you guys so don't expect your authority to be considered relevant. It isn't. Get over it.

I get that from all the atheists " I used to be Christian " blah blah, blah, then completely get trinity wrong. Right you used to be Christian.. And? Now your not.

You seem to have missed that Dragan Glas didn't argue that his interpretation is correct because he used to be a catholic but he quoted the most important christian theologian of all times to back his interpretation. You on the other hand have only given your personal interpretation thus far.

Though Bernhard does seem to confirm the accusations of some that (at least some) christians are polytheists.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No your claims undermine nothing. You believe they do... I understand. We all base are arguments on such belief.

Again just because you arbitrarily drop YEC in your verbatim does not equal a question that I need to answer. Try another.

I did ask you questions - you haven't answered them, just dismissed them as if I'd made statements.

And has been pointed out to you by SpecialFrog, conversations between people are not rigid - they don't subsist of questions/answers.

You're insisting that I ask questions rather than your inferring that any statement could be interpreted as a question.

So let me repeat what I said ...

The Canaanite god, El, and his wife, Asherah, ruled over everything. They had children - including Yahweh, the god of the Israelites. Any son or daughter cannot be the creator of everything. El is the real God that created everything, which renders the Bible, its, and your claims false.

... and my questions to you:

1) What about the rest of what I wrote?
2) Isn't that relevant, given that it undermines your claim of the Bible being the "Word of God" - the Christian one in the NT, which is based on Yahweh, the god of the Israelites, from the Tanakh (OT)?
3) And thus, undermines your belief in/claims for YEC?
4) What have you to say about that?

And merely saying "No" is not enough - provide evidence other than just your opinion.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Don't give me the whole " I used to be catholic" thing. I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Does that count? Not for you guys so don't expect your authority to be considered relevant. It isn't. Get over it.

I get that from all the atheists " I used to be Christian " blah blah, blah, then completely get trinity wrong. Right you used to be Christian.. And? Now your not.

You seem to have missed that Dragan Glas didn't argue that his interpretation is correct because he used to be a catholic but he quoted the most important christian theologian of all times to back his interpretation. You on the other hand have only given your personal interpretation thus far.

Though Bernhard does seem to confirm the accusations of some that (at least some) christians are polytheists.

Thank you, Visaki.

Bernhard, as noted, you gave your opinion, without citing any evidence.

In contrast, I didn't give my opinion - I cited Augustine, who is - indeed - arguably the greatest Christian theologian of all time.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Then let Augustine be the bet theologian in your opinion.

I said three persons one essence. Augustine said three persons one essence, majority of Christians claims three persons one essence

I cannot help if you do not understand Augustine's quote.

And really with that since you truly have no clue what you are talking about. And cannot even ask on topic questions about your own thread.

So goodbye dragan glas.

Augustine did not say that - re-read what he said:

The Trinity[/i] 1:4:7 [A.D. 408])"]All the Catholic interpreters of the divine books of the Old and New Testaments whom I have been able to read, who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity

And your claim that I can't ask on-topic questions is false.

I asked you to provide evidence to counter my points regarding the fact that Yahweh is not the ultimate god, but a minor god and son of the real ultimate god, El - which clearly undercuts YEC.

You have nothing in answer to my points, and now appear to be seeking a means of withdrawing from this discussion.

So, let's recap - you have failed to provide evidence:

1) for the existence of any god(s), in the first instance;
2) for the Christian god, in particular;
3) (a) that the Bible is the "word" of any god, (b) let alone the Christian one;
4) that the Bible claims that the Earth is ~6000 years old;
5) and now you fail to respond to the evidence that El is the ultimate god, not Yahweh, since the latter is only his son and one of many other children-gods/goddesses of El;
6) and, finally, you misrepresent what Augustine clearly states about the Trinity.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Does that count? Not for you guys so don't expect your authority to be considered relevant. It isn't. Get over it.

I could possibly accept that you once classified yourself under one of the definitions of 'atheist', but you've never accepted evolution, because you don't actuially understand it, as has been beautifully demonstrated with all the bollocks you've talked about it, Mr 'I'm a scientist'.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I used to be an atheist and an evolutionist. Does that count? Not for you guys so don't expect your authority to be considered relevant. It isn't. Get over it.

I could possibly accept that you once classified yourself under one of the definitions of 'atheist', but you've never accepted evolution, because you don't actuially understand it, as has been beautifully demonstrated with all the bollocks you've talked about it, Mr 'I'm a scientist'.

:lol:

I always find it hilarious when creationists claim they once accepted evolution, while making statements like "show me a hippo giving birth to a monkey." That statement alone exposes that you did not accept evolution, but perhaps some straw man version of it. That is like me saying I used to be a Christian until I read the bible, where it stated Jesus made a boat to save ten of every animal from a lake of fire.

 

[Dustnite]

I like how we're arguing over whether Bernie's imaginary friend has split personality or is Michael Keaton from Multiplicity

 

[Dustnite]

I like how there is no relevant questions. Makes it super simple.

To be expected though... An atheist/evolutionist focusing on one specific topic is apparently a mammoth task.

But try to ask relevant questions to thread topic.

Statements don't get responses.
Relevant questions will.

Thank you

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, do you agree that if no global flood happened then a literal interpretation of everything in the Bible is clearly untrue?

 

[SpecialFrog]

No the entire bible is not meant to be taken literally. The flood yes, literal flood.

How do you know which bits are meant to be taken literally?
How did plant life survive the flood?
Without plant life surviving, how did herbivores survive post-flood?
How did eight people repopulate the world fast enough to build the tower of Babel a mere century after the alleged flood?

 

[Dustnite]

No the entire bible is not meant to be taken literally. The flood yes, literal flood.