Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 02:13PM

Nick Park wrote: »

The evidence for my statement that there are two major Christian doctrines called Creation and the Fall?

Here is the evidence that those two major doctrines exist and are held by historic Christianity:

1. Creation https://www.ccel.org/creeds/apostles.creed.html The key phrase here is "Maker of heaven and earth."

2. The Fall
"The doctrine of the Fall (which has been part of the traditional Judaco-Christian response to the problem of evil) accepts the reality of evil and suffering, asserts that they have no place in the Creation purposes or ultimate will of the Creator, and attributes them instead to the agency and operation of creatures." (The Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society, edited by Paul Clarke, 2013, page 368)

I don't know why you're asking for evidence that these are both Christian doctrines that have been widely held by churches and Christians for centuries. I think that statement of mine would not be denied by anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the subject.

Going by the standard of evidence above writings from ancient times regarding Norse Gods, Egyptian Gods, Mayan Gods and so on are all equal sources of evidence for the existence of god/gods. What evidence is there that the Christian version of creation supersedes other faiths? I do not think how old documents are relate to how true they are!
Personally I rather look upon them all as myth and legend used to explain that which was out of the limits contemporary understanding at the time!

Safehands · 19-03-2015 02:16PM

Nick Park wrote: »

The evidence for my statement that there are two major Christian doctrines called Creation and the Fall?

No Nick, evidence that creation and the fall happened, have you any?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 02:23PM

Safehands wrote: »

No Nick, evidence that creation and the fall happened, have you any?

Since I haven't presented any argument that the Creation or the Fall did happen, why on earth should I present evidence for them?

Other posters have asserted that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict with science. I have challenged them to produce evidence to that effect, which they have failed to do, and as part of the discussion I described what the doctrines of the Creation and the Fall consist of.

You have made an accusation that I never seem to rely on evidence. Yet, when I challenged you to link to anywhere that I've presented an argument that I could not support by evidence, you have not done so.

Will you now admit that your statement about me never relying on evidence was not addressing any of my posts at all, but was rather a personal slur against me? I'm asking you to back up your assertion or withdraw it and admit that it was untrue.

marienbad · 19-03-2015 02:31PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Since I haven't presented any argument that the Creation or the Fall did happen, why on earth should I present evidence for them?

Other posters have asserted that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict with science. I have challenged them to produce evidence to that effect, which they have failed to do, and as part of the discussion I described what the doctrines of the Creation and the Fall consist of.

You have made an accusation that I never seem to rely on evidence. Yet, when I challenged you to link to anywhere that I've presented an argument that I could not support by evidence, you have not done so.

Will you now admit that your statement about me never relying on evidence was not addressing any of my posts at all, but was rather a personal slur against me? I'm asking you to back up your assertion or withdraw it and admit that it was untrue.

Do you believe the Creation and the Fall did happen ?

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 02:33PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Other posters have asserted that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall conflict with science. I have challenged them to produce evidence to that effect, which they have failed to do, and as part of the discussion I described what the doctrines of the Creation and the Fall consist of.

It is not up to Atheists and Non Believers to prove that Creation Myths are true/false. It is up to believers to prove their beliefs are true if they want to be believed!
A child is born not knowing of a God/Creator, would you get a child to prove the existence of god/creator?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 02:38PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

It is not up to Atheists and Non Believers to prove that Creation Myths are true. It is up to believers to prove their beliefs are true if they want to be believed!
A child is born not knowing of a God/Creator, would you get a child to prove the existence of god/creator?

Sigh, I have nowhere argued that they are true.

I have addressed an argument, made by silverharp, that they conflicted with science.

Why not address what I post? It just looks as if you are trying to save silverharp's blushes by changing the subject.

MaxWig · 19-03-2015 02:40PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

It is not up to Atheists and Non Believers to prove that Creation Myths are true/false. It is up to believers to prove their beliefs are true if they want to be believed!
A child is born not knowing of a God/Creator, would you get a child to prove the existence of god/creator?

It always seems to me that it is those atheists and Catholics who are most uncomfortable in their positions that seek to denigrate the belief of the other.

What difference does it make what Nick believes or not? He is not making any claims (here at least) that creationism or anything else is a fact

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 02:42PM

MaxWig wrote: »

It always seems to me that it is those atheists and Catholics who are most uncomfortable in their positions that seek to denigrate the belief of the other.

What difference does it make what Nick believes or not? He is not making any claims (here at least) that creationism or anything else is a fact

It's obvious what is really happening here. Certain atheist posters are questioning my right to ask posters to provide evidence for the arguments they have presented in this thread.

They question my right to do that, not based on anything that I have posted, but simply because of one fact alone - that I am a Christian.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 02:45PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, I have nowhere argued that they are true.

I have addressed an argument, made by silverharp, that they conflicted with science.

Why not address what I post? It just looks as if you are trying to save silverharp's blushes by changing the subject.

Without being rude could you please point to where I mentioned you arguing that the Christian Creation myths are true. Also pointing out it is not up to Atheists to confirm beliefs/myths for believers!
I was merely commenting on your post and relating it to the common held belief amongst Monotheists that a Creator God created humans and the universe!
I do not to save anyone else from any blushes or to change the subject.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 02:52PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It's obvious what is really happening here. Certain atheist posters are questioning my right to ask posters to provide evidence for the arguments they have presented in this thread.

They question my right to do that, not based on anything that I have posted, but simply because of one fact alone - that I am a Christian.

I come from a viewpoint that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, a god creator being No 1 on many a list!
Atheists/Non Beleivers do not make any claims other then for Theists to provide evidence for their beliefs if they wish to have others believe them or allow them contribute to social policies that effect all of us!
All of our beliefs Believer/Non Believer should stand up to scrutiny now matter how uncomfortable the process if we want to be listened to and beleives! I say all this repectfully!

@Maxwig
The ambiguous nature of some of Nicks posts make it hard to argue them if I do not undertsand from what point he is coming from. It is Nicks choice what he beleives in but also his choice to air them on a forum for open scruitny!

MaxWig · 19-03-2015 03:03PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

@Maxwig
The ambiguous nature of some of Nicks posts make it hard to argue them if I do not undertsand from what point he is coming from. It is Nicks choice what he beleives in but also his choice to air them on a forum for open scruitny!

Sure.

But from what I can see, he chose not to air his belief regarding the following

"Do you believe the Creation and the Fall did happen ?"

So what relevance does it have?

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:04PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I come from a viewpoint that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, a god creator being No 1 on many a list!
Atheists/Non Beleivers do not make any claims other then for Theists to provide evidence for their beliefs if they wish to have others believe them or allow them contribute to social policies that effect all of us!
All of our beliefs Believer/Non Believer should stand up to scrutiny now matter how uncomfortable the process if we want to be listened to!

@Maxwig
The ambiguous nature of some of Nicks posts make it hard to argue them if I do not undertsand from what point he is coming from. It is Nicks choice what he beleives in but also his choice to air them on a forum for open scruitny!

If somebody presents their beliefs as an argument, then that should indeed be open to scrutiny. That should hold true for both atheists and theists alike. Unfortunately some on here don't like atheists having their arguments scrutinised and instead make personal remarks and slurs based, not on what anyone has posted, but simply on the fact that they are a Christian.

If I air a belief on a forum, then that is indeed inviting scrutiny. But that does not justify an inquisition where people quiz me about beliefs that I may or may not hold, have not aired on the forum, and where such scrutiny is simply a deflection tactic to change the subject.

All of us have opinions and beliefs where we have satisfied ourselves that a certain viewpoint is warranted, but where we make no attempt to argue those beliefs to others. This is true in areas of religion, sport, society and many other areas.

If I make an argument in this forum, I am always prepared to produce evidence to support that argument.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 03:05PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, I have nowhere argued that they are true.

I have addressed an argument, made by silverharp, that they conflicted with science.

Why not address what I post? It just looks as if you are trying to save silverharp's blushes by changing the subject.

What now? You have not shown me that there could have a first human that was not a product of its environment . it is absurd to suggest that a deity picked a human , had some kind of conversation with it ( without the use of language) sent it on its away and then got huffy that the human committed some kind of sin.
The fall only makes sense either if Adam was zapped unto existences or is just a general statement about humanity which has no basis in history.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:08PM

silverharp wrote: »

What now? You have not shown me that there could have a first human that was not a product of its environment . it is absurd to suggest that a deity picked a human , had some kind of conversation with it ( without the use of language) sent it on its away and then got huffy that the human committed some kind of sin.
The fall only makes sence either if Adam was zapped unto existences or is just a general statement about humanity which has no basis in history.

You have offered no argument that is not circular.

You start off with the assumption that there is no Creator. Then, based on that assumption, you make further assumptions about what the first humans were like. Then, based on both sets of assumptions, you conclude that the Fall did not happen.

Your argument is internally consistent, as circular arguments often are, but it offers no evidence to anyone who does not share your initial assumption.

robinph · 19-03-2015 03:11PM

Nick Park wrote: »

The evidence for my statement that there are two major Christian doctrines called Creation and the Fall?

So you have essentially been arguing the case that the bible is a book that contains some words, and some people believe those words to be the word of god?

MaxWig · 19-03-2015 03:15PM

robinph wrote: »

So you have essentially been arguing the case that the bible is a book that contains some words, and some people believe those words to be the word of god?

Not sure that's fair.

If someone asks for proof that Catholics have traditionally believed something, is it not fair to point to the bible?

Probably makes no sense to ask for proof of such a thing in the first place.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 03:15PM

Nick Park wrote: »

If somebody presents their beliefs as an argument, then that should indeed be open to scrutiny. That should hold true for both atheists and theists alike. Unfortunately some on here don't like atheists having their arguments scrutinised and instead make personal remarks and slurs based, not on what anyone has posted, but simply on the fact that they are a Christian.

If I air a belief on a forum, then that is indeed inviting scrutiny. But that does not justify an inquisition where people quiz me about beliefs that I may or may not hold, have not aired on the forum, and where such scrutiny is simply a deflection tactic to change the subject.

All of us have opinions and beliefs where we have satisfied ourselves that a certain viewpoint is warranted, but where we make no attempt to argue those beliefs to others. This is true in areas of religion, sport, society and many other areas.

If I make an argument in this forum, I am always prepared to produce evidence to support that argument.

Could not agree more. I would add that many have alot emotionally invested in their beliefs and to have their beliefs placed under scrutiny can sometime seem like a personal attack!
If in the unlikely event released a Creator God came forward and released scientific papers confirming his exsistence and all that was wriiten in religious text was verbatim truth. I would feel a tad embarrassed!

robinph · 19-03-2015 03:21PM

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure that's fair.

If someone asks for proof that Catholics have traditionally believed something, is it not fair to point to the bible?

Probably makes no sense to ask for proof of such a thing in the first place.

I didn't notice anyone questioning that the bible contains stories about creation and the fall though. They were questioning if those stories could be true or not, they were not questioning if the stories had been written.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:22PM

robinph wrote: »

So you have essentially been arguing the case that the bible is a book that contains some words, and some people believe those words to be the word of god?

No, I have been arguing the case that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall are not in conflict with the findings of science. In the process of that discussion I outlined what the doctrines actually consist of.

I have not argued whether those doctrines are true or not. I don't believe the evidence of science has much to say either way or not. Science tells us how things happened. It is silent as to whether someone made those things happen or not.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 03:25PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You have offered no argument that is not circular.

You start off with the assumption that there is no Creator. Then, based on that assumption, you make further assumptions about what the first humans were like. Then, based on both sets of assumptions, you conclude that the Fall did not happen.

Your argument is internally consistent, as circular arguments often are, but it offers no evidence to anyone who does not share your initial assumption.

The assumption is that there is a creator, not that there is no creator. There is no evidence available to prove the assumption a creator set the universe in motion that then lead to the existence of humans!
As I said earlier 99.9% of species that ever existed have gone extinct, I reckon we could be and astronomically small number of Universe that successfully came into existence out of astronomically large number big bangs!

silverharp · 19-03-2015 03:27PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You have offered no argument that is not circular.

You start off with the assumption that there is no Creator. Then, based on that assumption, you make further assumptions about what the first humans were like. Then, based on both sets of assumptions, you conclude that the Fall did not happen.

Your argument is internally consistent, as circular arguments often are, but it offers no evidence to anyone who does not share your initial assumption.

Whether a creator exists or not doesnt have a bearing on this. I look at the evidence that humans came out of a very slow process of evolution 10000 generations is about 200,000 years , so somewhere between 20,000 and 10,000 generations ago humanoids started to resemble what we would describe as being a modern human. I turn to look at a religious document that talks about humans being zapped into existence and rebelling against god. Clearily a literal meaning is impossible even though Christians would have believed it til the 19th or 20th century but have since modified their view.
I now ask what exactly did god do to an individual that had parents and grandparents exactly like itself ,and why did such a god expect the individual to not be influenced by its upbringing and its genetic disposition to violence as would be needed for survival in terms of something even as mundane as tetesteron levels.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 03:29PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I have been arguing the case that the doctrines of Creation and the Fall are not in conflict with the findings of science. In the process of that discussion I outlined what the doctrines actually consist of.

I have not argued whether those doctrines are true or not. I don't believe the evidence of science has much to say either way or not. Science tells us how things happened. It is silent as to whether someone made those things happen or not.

That is not for science to prove or disprove. These questions belong in the realms of the supernatural and religion and for them to prove their beliefs that the universe had a prime mover!

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:30PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

The assumption is that there is a creator, not that there is no creator. There is no evidence available to prove the assumption a creator set the universe in motion that then lead to the existence of humans!
As I said earlier 99.9% of species that ever existed have gone extinct, I reckon we could be and astronomically small number of Universe that successfully came into existence out of astronomically large number big bangs!

No, the assumption in silverharp's argument is that there is no Creator.

Of course, if someone posits an argument on here that assumes there is a Creator, then you are certainly free to challenge that assumption.

If you want to make a general argument that there is no Creator then feel free to do so, but please don't quote me as if I had made any such argument.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:32PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

That is not for science to prove or disprove. These questions belong in the realms of the supernatural and religion and for them to prove their beliefs that the universe had a prime mover!

I couldn't agree more. I don't think it is within the power of science to prove or disprove most religious claims. That is why I have never bothered advancing any such arguments in this thread.

I confined myself to responding to silverharp's argument that the doctrines of the Creation and the Fall were somehow in conflict with science.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 03:36PM

silverharp wrote: »

Whether a creator exists or not doesnt have a bearing on this. I look at the evidence that humans came out of a very slow process of evolution 10000 generations is about 200,000 years , so somewhere between 20,000 and 10,000 generations ago humanoids started to resemble what we would describe as being a modern human. I turn to look at a religious document that talks about humans being zapped into existence and rebelling against god. Clearily a literal meaning is impossible even though Christians would have believed it til the 19th or 20th century but have since modified their view.
I now ask what exactly did god do to an individual that had parents and grandparents exactly like itself ,and why did such a god expect the individual to not be influenced by its upbringing and its genetic disposition to violence as would be needed for survival in terms of something even as mundane as tetesteron levels.

It has already been pointed out that many Christians, including St Augustine, viewed the Creation story as non-literal long before the 19th or 20th Century.

It's bad enough presenting a circular argument without having strawmen dancing in the circle.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 03:44PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It has already been pointed out that many Christians, including St Augustine, viewed the Creation story as non-literal long before the 19th or 20th Century.

It's bad enough presenting a circular argument without having strawmen dancing in the circle.

Can you deal with my substantive point instead of nitpicking .

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 03:49PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, the assumption in silverharp's argument is that there is no Creator.

Of course, if someone posits an argument on here that assumes there is a Creator, then you are certainly free to challenge that assumption.

If you want to make a general argument that there is no Creator then feel free to do so, but please don't quote me as if I had made any such argument.

I fail to see what assumptions were made by silverharp as the belief in a creators existence is a matter for believers to prove. I cannot see how my quoting you had any sinister undertones other than me challenging the use of the word assumption.

jaffusmax · 19-03-2015 03:52PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I don't think it is within the power of science to prove or disprove most religious claims. That is why I have never bothered advancing any such arguments in this thread.

I confined myself to responding to silverharp's argument that the doctrines of the Creation and the Fall were somehow in conflict with science.

Science cannot prove anything that is not provable. Religion is faith based with no scientifically provable components.

Nick Park · 19-03-2015 04:00PM

jaffusmax wrote: »

I fail to see what assumptions were made by silverharp as the belief in a creators existence is a matter for believers to prove. I cannot see how my quoting you had any sinister undertones other than me challenging the use of the word assumption.

Sigh, this is a matter of simple logic.

1. silverharp presents an argument that the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall are in conflict with the findings of science.

2. However, his/her argument is only valid if you start off by assuming that Christianity is false anyway.

3. Then silverharp uses the argument that Christian doctrines are in conflict with science to 'put them in a bucket' of arguments to discredit Christianity and prove it to be false.

That is what is known as a circular argument, you can only prove your conclusion by using your conclusion as a starting premise.

It is saying, "If A is true, then B is also true, and therefore B proves A to be true."

Some Christians use similar arguments too, as when they argue that the Bible is true, but their argument for the truth of the Bible is that the Bible says that it is true.

Now, I have no problem in silverharp choosing to think Christianity is false. We all have the right to make our own faith statements.

But if silverharp tries to present a circular argument as if it should somehow have merit when debating with others who don't share his/her assumptions then it is perfectly in order for me to point out its circularity.

silverharp · 19-03-2015 04:09PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, this is a matter of simple logic.

1. silverharp presents an argument that the Christian doctrines of Creation and the Fall are in conflict with the findings of science.

2. However, his/her argument is only valid if you start off by assuming that Christianity is false anyway.

3. Then silverharp uses the argument that Christian doctrines are in conflict with science to 'put them in a bucket' of arguments to discredit Christianity and prove it to be false.

That is what is known as a circular argument, you can only prove your conclusion by using your conclusion as a starting premise.

It is saying, "If A is true, then B is also true, and therefore B proves A to be true."

Some Christians use similar arguments too, as when they argue that the Bible is true, but their argument for the truth of the Bible is that the Bible says that it is true.

Now, I have no problem in silverharp choosing to think Christianity is false. We all have the right to make our own faith statements.

But if silverharp tries to present a circular argument as if it should somehow have merit when debating with others who don't share his/her assumptions then it is perfectly in order for me to point out its circularity.

Its not circular I am asking you how the first human could have been innocent . ? Its not a circular question , its a biological one. And secondly your opinion on a god that creates an experiment where the subject was at a disadvantage.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments