+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    We've all seen various arguments for our universe's origin, both from the emotionally-driven side, and also from the side which is devoted to a systematic, knowledge-based structure, known as science.

    I've found that any of the arguments that seem authentic, IOW, the ones that I've found that ring clearly and loudly, and remain very appealing to my reality, come from congruent and structured scientific observation and vigorously tested truth involving various discoveries within the realm of the universe that we live in. The one we call our reality.

    I started this thread in order to allow any of the emotionally-biased believers, or anyone else, for that matter, to lay out their personal proposals as to why their beliefs about the god of the Christian bible, or their beliefs of another "creator" in some other belief system, is the "Prime Mover" behind a "Big Bang," or any other possible scenario of creation.

    And since our human bodies must continually deal with the "here and now," and our minds mostly deal with the past and the future, this is an outstanding place to discuss where we came from as fellow travelers in our universe, and possibly just where the entirety of creation is going.

    And if you have another "entity" or system of a creator of this reality in mind, here is the place in which you may stretch out your postulation of just what this might be......with your proofs in hand.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by GHOST DOG View Post
    We've all seen various arguments for our universe's origin, both from the emotionally-driven side, and also from the side which is devoted to a systematic, knowledge-based structure, known as science.

    I've found that any of the arguments that seem authentic, IOW, the ones that I've found that ring clearly and loudly, and remain very appealing to my reality, come from congruent and structured scientific observation and vigorously tested truth involving various discoveries within the realm of the universe that we live in. The one we call our reality.

    I started this thread in order to allow any of the emotionally-biased believers, or anyone else, for that matter, to lay out their personal proposals as to why their beliefs about the god of the Christian bible, or their beliefs of another "creator" in some other belief system, is the "Prime Mover" behind a "Big Bang," or any other possible scenario of creation.

    And since our human bodies must continually deal with the "here and now," and our minds mostly deal with the past and the future, this is an outstanding place to discuss where we came from as fellow travelers in our universe, and possibly just where the entirety of creation is going.

    And if you have another "entity" or system of a creator of this reality in mind, here is the place in which you may stretch out your postulation of just what this might be......with your proofs in hand.
    It is unlikely you'll get any takers. The thread is loaded with bias.

    "emotionally driven side"

    "emotionally biased believes"

    "proofs in hand"

    Then, there is this gem.

    "the ones that I've found that ring clearly and loudly, and remain very appealing to my reality, come from congruent and structured scientific observation and vigorously tested truth involving various discoveries within the realm of the universe that we live in. The one we call our reality."

    Obviously anyone who doesn't adhere to "scientific observation and vigorously tested truth" is unfit.

    It's a believer unfriendly thread. Only atheist will reply.
    Last edited by Cnance; 12-08-2012 at 12:24 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    The atheist philosopher presented the most basic argument against God any years ago. His "Theology And Falsification" became a ki nd of standard used by atheists to challenge theists. However, he abandoned his atheism in later years and decided there actualy is a creator.

    If you make a claim in theology, said Flew in early years, it is meaningful only if it excludes certain things. His example, if you claim the earth is a globe, that excludes the possibility that it is flat.

    However, if you make the claim that God is love, then a number of arguments appear that challenge that statement, making it suspect. Why war? Why needless suffering? Why are i n nocents killed, etc. The argument for God's love must then be shown to exclude those or at least show why it is love for God to allow those things.

    Basically, the idea is to ask believers to explain their "truth' in the face of conflicting data. The big argument presented by theists is the free will defense. Why does God allow suffering? because we have free will. God allows us to make poor choices.

    This argument, however, does n't require existence of a God. We make choices, as a result we suffer. This does not require existence of a God.

    If one believes in God, one must offer meaningful definitions that makes it theoretically possible for such a being to be so described with few contradictions.

    For the theist, Flew argued for the "burden of proof" as is used in English Common Law. In English Commo n Law, there is the presumption of innocence, which is also a part of Old testament law(Isaih 54:17) and the right to face your accuser(Isaiah 50:8).

    This creates a Biblical parallel. If there is the need for a burden of proof, then we see the ancient prophet isaiah estalishing this as a basis of law.

    Notice in OT law, if one is accused, there must be at least two witnesses for every accusation(Deuteronomy 19).

    The "burden of proof" concept, therefore, is a Biblical concept as well as a scientific concept. One who argues for a Biblical God is required not only by logic and science, but by his own standard of belief, to offer proof for the authority of that belief.

    If I say you have "blasphemed", I must offer proof that such blasphemy was intention ally committed, and that there was a God whom you have blasphemed. If no proof is given, then I must suffer the penalty I would have sought for you.(Deut. 19). This is the same principle of Matthew 7:1, if I woud judge, I must be sure to realize that I am judged by my own judgement.

    if you argue "for" God, therefore, you must be sure to understand that evwen the Biblical God for which you argue will demand a burden of proof from you, just as an atheist. While this does not prove the existence of the Biblical God, it offers a standard by which both believer and non-believer can offer conclusions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    if we take my above statements, we may realize that Israel's law was not for proof of God's existence, but for a process by which individuals could be accused and judged while at the same time being protected from their accusers. For israel, obedience to such laws demanded the foundation of a God who expected the accused to be protected as if it were divine(isaiah 54:17) with the right to fully challenge their accuser on every point(Isaiah 50:8) with at least two credible witnesses to confirm any accusation.

    You will notice a similar position in all 50 states, in regard to their constitution, with North Carolina perhaps being the most directly stated. That is, justice is expected "under God", without need for proof of such a God. The law itself is to be honored as if given directly from a divine and all powerful being. No accusation can prevail against the accused without proof offered by the one harmed.

    This brings up the consideration of God as protector of each person, and not as being the power represented by the state. If God exists, then justice demands that the state prove its right and power to punish as executor of that will.

    The argument of the accused and of the theist is that, in law, God is a 'given" as protector of the innocent. In fact, by law, one can conclude that each individual stands before God, under protection of God, apart from the state. Those who act as judges, including the jury, must act as though they represent a power higher than any power of man. This is basically stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self evident..."

    That is, a kind of a priori acceptance that every individual has the right to be justified in his/her actions against the power of men.

    If you hold, that "we are God" or that "we become God", you must also hold logically that "God" is not represented collectively as the power to condemn individuals for actions that harm no one. If "I am God", then it is a necessity to presume innocence of all those accused. You are not an i ndividual servant of the collective condem nation of men, but a free agent before the law, empowered to judge in favor of the accused if no evidence of wrongdoing against another is proven.

    It is interestin g that the foundation for israelite law was that God is not proven by law, but accepted as the proper strandard of innocence before the law, which then would lead to Paul's arguments about Jesus as the one who paid the full penalty for law.

  5. #5
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Using Flew as an argument for anything other then an example of the sad metal decline of an older person is ridiculous.

    Those who claim god for anything...are under the burden of proof. Proof for the existence of any supernatural being, the requirement that anything required supernatural intervention and the proof that anything came to be through supernatural intervention.

    Not know how something came about is not proof, nor is it positive support for that position. As history has shown, events and former mysteries attributed to supernatural intervention or creation have been proved via natural causes.

    Origin of the Universe is just one more supernatural claim well on it's way to be explained via natural causes.
    Last edited by LogicallyYours; 12-08-2012 at 06:28 AM.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    Using Flew as an argument for anything other then an example of the sad metal decline of an older person is ridiculous.
    Straw man argument. The same man who presented the "burden of proof" argument shows why he now rejects it as sufficient argument agai nst God. To argue for sad mental decline, you would have to prove sad mental decline, so the burden of proof is on you.

    Those who claim god for anything...are under the burden of proof. Proof for the existence of any supernatural being, the requirement that anything required supernatural intervention and the proof that anything came to be through supernatural intervention.
    This is the point of law, and why jefferson wrote a bout "self evident truth" in the Declaration of Independence. Is there any power higher than law? If not, then law must be decided and proven to be just according to its own authority. If so, then the United Statws should not exist as a government. It exists independently because of force, and for no other reason. If you argue that the Declaration of independence justifies the use of force, then you argue that God is justified by force, and further that law itself can o nly be rightly challenged by force.

    Foundational to US law is the concept of "due process", which comes from a ncient English Common law, and means that any person has the right to challenge the statwe in public, regarding the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and the public must show sufficient reason for such deprivation. If the public holds itself as justification, then mob rule is sufficient justification which again offers no justification for US government except force successfully applied. This means that any attempt i use to defend myself by application of force, even deadly force, is fully justifiable, and is not subject to criminal trial even if I fail.

    Either we hold a priori that individual rights transcend mob rule, or we must find some justification for the power of majorities to accuse when no harm is done. We are left with the self evident truths provided by Jefferson. This does not require proof of God. It merely requires that we accept a consistent and complete truth that rises above human reason and Godel's theorem gives us sufficient reason for that.

    Not know how something came about is not proof, nor is it positive support for that position. As history has shown, events and former mysteries attributed to supernatural intervention or creation have been proved via natural causes.
    Of course, which uis why science must follow Occam's razor in determination of truth. But in matters of law, there must be a standard of truth that transcends proof scientifically. That standard is the presumption of innocence. if you cannot prove it, it cannot be accepted. Si8nce it is already shown that such standads come ancie ntly from Bi blical law, it is only necesary to show that such concepts are useful for justice, and are consistent with ancient concepts of God.

    AND, si nce the Bible is only concerned with law and prioper social conduct, science is not applicable in such concepts, due to Godel's theorem.

    Origin of the Universe is just one more supernatural claim well on it's way to be explained via natural causes.
    No doubt, but law is a horse of a different color. Ev en assuming we discover universal origins of natural cause, we must still hold to the principle of presumption of innocence, of the right of the individual to rise above collective power of law.

  7. #7
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    Straw man argument. The same man who presented the "burden of proof" argument shows why he now rejects it as sufficient argument agai nst God. To argue for sad mental decline, you would have to prove sad mental decline, so the burden of proof is on you.
    There are many who have pointed to Flew's mental decline in his last years.

    This is the point of law, and why jefferson wrote a bout "self evident truth" in the Declaration of Independence. Is there any power higher than law? If not, then law must be decided and proven to be just according to its own authority. If so, then the United Statws should not exist as a government. It exists independently because of force, and for no other reason. If you argue that the Declaration of independence justifies the use of force, then you argue that God is justified by force, and further that law itself can o nly be rightly challenged by force.
    Nonsequitur. The Declaration of Independence is REAL.

    Foundational to US law is the concept of "due process", which comes from a ncient English Common law, and means that any person has the right to challenge the statwe in public, regarding the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and the public must show sufficient reason for such deprivation. If the public holds itself as justification, then mob rule is sufficient justification which again offers no justification for US government except force successfully applied. This means that any attempt i use to defend myself by application of force, even deadly force, is fully justifiable, and is not subject to criminal trial even if I fail.

    Either we hold a priori that individual rights transcend mob rule, or we must find some justification for the power of majorities to accuse when no harm is done. We are left with the self evident truths provided by Jefferson. This does not require proof of God. It merely requires that we accept a consistent and complete truth that rises above human reason and Godel's theorem gives us sufficient reason for that.
    Same.



    Of course, which uis why science must follow Occam's razor in determination of truth. But in matters of law, there must be a standard of truth that transcends proof scientifically. That standard is the presumption of innocence. if you cannot prove it, it cannot be accepted. Si8nce it is already shown that such standads come ancie ntly from Bi blical law, it is only necesary to show that such concepts are useful for justice, and are consistent with ancient concepts of God.
    Bullshit. "since it is already shown that such standards come from biblical law..."...BULSHIT. Where did "Biblical Law" co-op their "standards" from?

    AND, si nce the Bible is only concerned with law and prioper social conduct, science is not applicable in such concepts, due to Godel's theorem.
    Well, you didn't need Godel to figure that out. Science deals in the Natural. Period.

    No doubt, but law is a horse of a different color. Ev en assuming we discover universal origins of natural cause, we must still hold to the principle of presumption of innocence, of the right of the individual to rise above collective power of law.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, and completely ignore both history, logic and Occam's Razor because someone needs to feel warm and fuzzy.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
    There are many who have pointed to Flew's mental decline in his last years.
    That proves nothing. Hos last presented arguments in his book titled "There Is A God" are quite logical and rationally presented, though by his own ad mission he doesn't offer proof.



    Nonsequitur. The Declaration of Independence is REAL.
    It is a real piece of paper or parchment that declares the "self evident truth" of a creator. Therefore, the content of the parchment is most important, the parchment itself is not. The content is the basis of US law. Therefore, your argument is false.



    Same.
    To demonstrate that, you would have to prove that we can demo nstrate complete a nd co nsisten truth via logic, which is mathematically not possible. if you could, then you could declare that law can be complete and co nsistent by methods of logic, which you cannot.





    Bullshit. "since it is already shown that such standards come from biblical law..."...BULSHIT. Where did "Biblical Law" co-op their "standards" from?
    Obviously from human logic and reason. Therefore, the same argument applied to "God' biblically will be consistent with logic as derived in US constitutional law. Law does not require proof of God, o nly of truth, and since truth transcends theoremhood, it is necesary to demand proof of guilt or innocence outside majority rule.



    Well, you didn't need Godel to figure that out. Science deals in the Natural. Period.
    Obviously, which is why law stands outside the necessary limitatio ns of Occam. Law is a form of self reference, a pro cess by which we judge ourselves, golden rule and all that. Therefore, a standard of truth must exist that transcends the purely natural.

    No doubt, but law is a horse of a different color. Ev en assuming we discover universal origins of natural cause, we must still hold to the principle of presumption of innocence, of the right of the individual to rise above collective power of law.[/quote]

    Yes, and completely ignore both history, logic and Occam's Razor because someone needs to feel warm and fuzzy.
    You would have to prove that. As I pointed out, Occam ca n only be applied to the study of physical phenomena outside the capacity for self reference, of which law model. If you can prove that the human concept of guilt and innocence, of law itself as a regulatory force, is subject to purely physical pheno mena, then you can declare the state as absolute. But you can't do that. Therwefore, there always must exist a standard of truth beyond proof, a nd therefore subject to challenge under law.

  9. #9
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by doojie View Post
    That proves nothing. Hos last presented arguments in his book titled "There Is A God" are quite logical and rationally presented, though by his own ad mission he doesn't offer proof.





    It is a real piece of paper or parchment that declares the "self evident truth" of a creator. Therefore, the content of the parchment is most important, the parchment itself is not. The content is the basis of US law. Therefore, your argument is false.





    To demonstrate that, you would have to prove that we can demo nstrate complete a nd co nsisten truth via logic, which is mathematically not possible. if you could, then you could declare that law can be complete and co nsistent by methods of logic, which you cannot.







    Obviously from human logic and reason. Therefore, the same argument applied to "God' biblically will be consistent with logic as derived in US constitutional law. Law does not require proof of God, o nly of truth, and since truth transcends theoremhood, it is necesary to demand proof of guilt or innocence outside majority rule.





    Obviously, which is why law stands outside the necessary limitatio ns of Occam. Law is a form of self reference, a pro cess by which we judge ourselves, golden rule and all that. Therefore, a standard of truth must exist that transcends the purely natural.

    No doubt, but law is a horse of a different color. Ev en assuming we discover universal origins of natural cause, we must still hold to the principle of presumption of innocence, of the right of the individual to rise above collective power of law.

    You would have to prove that. As I pointed out, Occam ca n only be applied to the study of physical phenomena outside the capacity for self reference, of which law model. If you can prove that the human concept of guilt and innocence, of law itself as a regulatory force, is subject to purely physical pheno mena, then you can declare the state as absolute. But you can't do that. Therwefore, there always must exist a standard of truth beyond proof, a nd therefore subject to challenge under law.[/QUOTE]

    Well crafted crap is still, crap.

    You're entire position is based on presupposition. Your claims of what can be attributed, or held to a supernatural being are completely with our validity or merit. That is, of course, unless you have proof of ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL.

    ...And, as I am sure you are well aware of, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof....something that is missing.

    Nice bit of circular-reasoning, though.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    It is unlikely you'll get any takers. The thread is loaded with bias.

    "emotionally driven side"

    "emotionally biased believes"
    No bias here, Cnance. My invitation was extended rather cordially to ALL beliefs.

    And there is absolutely nothing wrong with emotions, if one doesn't allow them to cloud one's thinking...

    "proofs in hand"
    That would mean the impetus behind your beliefs.

    Then, there is this gem.
    "the ones that I've found that ring clearly and loudly, and remain very appealing to my reality, come from congruent and structured scientific observation and vigorously tested truth involving various discoveries within the realm of the universe that we live in. The one we call our reality."
    Obviously anyone who doesn't adhere to "scientific observation and vigorously tested truth" is unfit.
    Are your reading comprehension issues still giving you "fits," Cnance?

    I'm only stating the points that I've found to satisfy my thinking.

    Just where in my quoted statement do I condemn any other type of answers?
    Last edited by GHOST DOG; 12-08-2012 at 09:20 AM.
    Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run these are the only people who count... Robert Heinlein

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,333

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Well crafted crap is still, crap.
    IOW, the best you have is ad hominem.

    You're entire position is based on presupposition. Your claims of what can be attributed, or held to a supernatural being are completely with our validity or merit.
    I' ve never stated the necessity of a supernatural being. I merely stated that occam can only apply to physical aws in which "mind" is not apparent. Since the argume nts applied to buirden of proof under law are co nsistwent with an cie nt Bi blical teachings, it is o nly necessary to show co nsistency. As for presupposition, you presuppose there is no God, and state that without evidence. I have not offered to prove God, only that certain arguments are limited.
    That is, of course, unless you have proof of ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL.

    ...And, as I am sure you are well aware of, extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary proof....something that is missing.

    Nice bit of circular-reasoning, though.
    All reasonin g at bottom is tautological, therefore circular. The necessity of proof regardi ng free will woud have to eliminate free will in order to validate Occam in matters of law. Can't be done.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Which Argument Is The "Best" Argument For Creation

    Quote Originally Posted by iamwil View Post
    best argument both for and against creation is....

    the end justifies the means....
    reminds me of the less known....... "the means IS the end" !? : :crazy1: :judges: :smurf:
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-03-2016, 10:43 AM
  2. Is there really even an argument FOR creationism?
    By bibleman in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 01:44 PM
  3. MLM v. Religion argument
    By LadyRedd515 in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 04:19 AM
  4. Debt Elimination and the "No Money Lent" argument
    By rockyrojas88 in forum Internet Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-16-2010, 06:22 AM
  5. Comprehensive argument against Barack Obama
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 10:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •