Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    Sorry, you haven't really changed your point? The point is what does Genesis mean and does it contradict with evolution. Saying Genesis says God literally created Adam and Eve through intervention etc. Goes back to your original post that Christians believe life was created perfect.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't understand your point at all. My point is that is says in the bible god created everything as it exists (man and woman) etc. So evolution as a scientific fact contradicts this. You can't then come along retrospectively and so oh well the bible didn't really mean that after all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    That God exists outside of space and time.
    If he created the universe how can he not?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    If he created the universe how can he not?
    The word being "if", which drives back to the fundamental question, where is the evidence this god exists in the first place?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    yes that's my point they gradually change the goalposts the bible was meant to be the word of god so by going against that they are contradicting themselves.
    I mentioned earlier that Christians read Genesis in a way completely in line with evolution, centuries before evolution was discovered.

    Unless you want to argue that changed the goal posts just in case, hundreds of years before?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    I don't understand your point at all. My point is that is says in the bible god created everything as it exists (man and woman) etc. So evolution as a scientific fact contradicts this. You can't then come along retrospectively and so oh well the bible didn't really mean that after all.
    It wasn't said retrospectively. It was said hundreds of years before Darwin.


    It can't be retrospective when it preceded the theory.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    The word being "if", which drives back to the fundamental question, where is the evidence this god exists in the first place?
    That is the fundamental question, which I didn't set out to answer. So "if" such a being exists the argument of him needing a creator doesn't hold place?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    It wasn't said retrospectively. It was said hundreds of years before Darwin.


    It can't be retrospective when it preceded the theory.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    it doesn't matter when it was said either the bible is the word of god or its not you can't pick and choose what to believe in it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I don't see the array of fallacies? He simply gave propositions from which, he argues, entails more propositions.

    If you accept the proposition on causation in the universe, etc.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Propositions based on propositions cannot be proof of one claim. It literary does nothing to invalidate a claim.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    That is the fundamental question, which I didn't set out to answer. So "if" such a being exists the argument of him needing a creator doesn't hold place?
    Here's an easier way to express what you're saying: The explanation is either a contingent thing or a noncontingent i.e. necessary thing. Since a contingent thing cannot explain the phenomenon of contingency, it follows that a noncontingent thing explains contingency. A noncontingent thing is something which contains in itself the full account of its existence, i.e. something that has aseity.

    ok, maybe not so easy
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatima1998)
    aha.. i do...
    world is so complex- everything is well designed and set up perfectly... surely there is someone who did this :yes:


    Might be worth a watch. No disrespect, though, I believe in God too.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    That is the fundamental question, which I didn't set out to answer. So "if" such a being exists the argument of him needing a creator doesn't hold place?
    Even a being that theoretically created the universe could have a creator.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You responded by saying that God is eternal and that he existed before the Big Bang. You did so in a factual manner. So, I ask: where is your proof, since you're so certain as to render what you said into factual truth? Of course, we both know you cannot prove anything, which yet again goes back to my original post. Making unsubstantiated claims is not proof, by the way.
    Your argument against God was if such a being exists who created him. I was referring to the idea of God in itself being the one who created the universe. My apologies if I did in a factual manner (whilst I don't think it was). That's the God we're talking about: the one who made the universe. Why would I need proof to explain what the idea of God is?


    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Erm, is this a deliberate strawman? I never claimed religion is false in itself - I claimed that the idea of a God is false (and hence the subject matter of religion). Religion cannot be false since it actually exists - it can be wrong.
    What was the need to ask whether the Earth was made 6000 years ago as if that were to make a difference to whether God exists or not? I said arguing against religion in an attempt to disprove a deity was pointless unless the debate was to revolve around a specific religion e.g. "Is Christianity A True Religion?"

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Okay, at least now you're explaining your debating skills. I literally said "read Genesis 5 and 11" - which gives proof to the point that, in Christianity, the Earth is 6000 years old. As an ADDED BONUS, I said, there are further nonsensical claims in the Bible. Capisci?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, being bombarded with the "Earth is flat" Bible statements, I thought you could be a little more clear. I read it, could you explain how it shows this?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Yes. Take a gander at the world, think about the delicate design behind all organisms. I find it difficult to believe that we merely came into existence out of nothing, there must have been a creator behind everything. Furthermore, religion provides people with stability and a set of guidelines which influence their moral decisions, theses guideline which many societies acknowledge are mostly beneficial to all of us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Even a being that theoretically created the universe could have a creator.
    Possibly, but doesn't need to. Doesn't provide any leverage to the argument though since the main point is if God 1 was made by God 2 then God 2 was made by God 3 and if God 3 was made by... etc.

    In your case, God 1 can be created by God 2 and it can stop there. Cause isn't needed beyond.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Possibly, but doesn't need to. Doesn't provide any leverage to the argument though since the main point is if God 1 was made by God 2 then God 2 was made by God 3 and if God 3 was made by... etc.

    In your case, God 1 can be created by God 2 and it can stop there. Cause isn't needed beyond.
    And that very argument can be applied to God: there doesn't need to be one to explain the universe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karl pilkington)
    it doesn't matter when it was said either the bible is the word of god or its not you can't pick and choose what to believe in it
    You've raised topics that are way more subtle than you let off. The bible can be the inspired word of God and Genesis could have been poetic. The two aren't mutual, unless you have in mind a very specific idea of what it is to be the word of God.

    You have to account for the fact (as I keep stressing) that Christianity in its nature, has progressive revelation. This will also have an effect on how you see the word of God.

    If we talk simply. History shows that Christianity has not back peddled with evolution.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Your argument against God was if such a being exists who created him. I was referring to the idea of God in itself being the one who created the universe. My apologies if I did in a factual manner (whilst I don't think it was). That's the God we're talking about: the one who made the universe. Why would I need proof to explain what the idea of God is?



    What was the need to ask whether the Earth was made 6000 years ago as if that were to make a difference to whether God exists or not? I said arguing against religion in an attempt to disprove a deity was pointless unless the debate was to revolve around a specific religion e.g. "Is Christianity A True Religion?"



    Well, being bombarded with the "Earth is flat" Bible statements, I thought you could be a little more clear. I read it, could you explain how it shows this?
    That wasn't my argument against God - proof of existence is. That was simply a counter-question to the other poster. And you're missing the point: I asked for proof that God, firstly, exists and, secondly, that he created the universe. I didn't ask proof for the idea of God himself. Your answer to the first has consistently been a conditional (or s distorted version of it) - that is not proof.

    It was an example among the countless examples (on the basis that most religious people base their beliefs on the books). Once again, that was referring to my First point that the "Holy" books are wrong and whatnot. It was simply to counterclaim the "If the Bible says so, it's true for me". I'm not sure why you took this out of proportion.

    They were just two quotes lol. Explain what? The claim that the Earth is 6000 yrs old?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    Propositions based on propositions cannot be proof of one claim. It literary does nothing to invalidate a claim.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You would have to substantiate and argue that the proportion is true. If you have good reason to accept one or two propositions, it may follow that a claim is true.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    Here's an easier way to express what you're saying: The explanation is either a contingent thing or a noncontingent i.e. necessary thing. Since a contingent thing cannot explain the phenomenon of contingency, it follows that a noncontingent thing explains contingency. A noncontingent thing is something which contains in itself the full account of its existence, i.e. something that has aseity.

    ok, maybe not so easy
    Either we accept that the Universe has an explanation, and I can't think of another explanation other than God, or the universe is a brute fact and has no explanation!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    You would have to substantiate and argue that the proportion is true. If you have good reason to accept one or two propositions, it may follow that a claim is true.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, exactly - that's what he was unable to do throughout. The proposition behind his argument is that God is eternal and created the universe. He has given nothing to corroborate this.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 24, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.