Jump to content


Photo

"no Evidence" For God Or Creation, The Atheist Claims?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
74 replies to this topic

#1 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 June 2011 - 01:49 AM

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

Thanks for reading.

#2 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 05 June 2011 - 04:53 AM

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

Thanks for reading.

View Post

but that means i would have to repent of my sin. and God is real.

you can tell them this and they will argue around it. sadly

#3 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 June 2011 - 01:43 PM

but that means i would have to repent of my sin. and God is real.

you can tell them this and they will argue around it. sadly

View Post



Sad but very true!

#4 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 05 June 2011 - 05:36 PM

Logical proof of evidence for God and creation. (And a universe full of it.)

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?

(Hint: The answer to the above is "yes", because the genetic code and DNA as potential evidence for anything else would be 100% falsified, when we have objective proof that God is/was its author.)

Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.

Note that ALL evidence, either for "naturalism" or "creationism" is in a POTENTIAL state, until the objective proof is in, as to which "suspect" is responsible.

...This is why it's logically impossible to claim that we do NOT have a mountain of evidence for God and creation; this is why ALL OF CREATION is evidence for God.

Further, unless you can provide another example of a code that was NOT created by an intelligent being under the definition provided, we have 100% inference that the genetic code and DNA was created by an intelligent being. And 0% inference that it was a result of naturalistic, mindless, Godless causation.

Note that this is in NO WAY begging the question, or a circular argument, because we're assuming based on logic that *both* naturalism and creationism are theoretical possibilities. And that all of creation is evidence (in a required "potential" state), until the objective proof is in.

Thanks for reading.

View Post



Well said, Goldliger.

This has always been part of my argument. The evidence for God is overwhelming. There is no escaping the obvious because, if atheist's really gave it some serious thought, it's the only reality we know of. It's the only experience any of us can lay claim to that things like code, language etc. have ALWAYS had an intelligent source behind it, ALWAYS!

The only reality and experience we know of, as well, is that anything made had a maker. There are NO exceptions! Nobody sees a chair in the middle of a forest and thinks it was the result of the wind knocking branches off the trees. Why don't we? Because it's been our experience with REALITY. Therefore atheists must SHOW us the contrary with the same type of REALITY how non living matter came to life somehow someway. Instead we get Fantasy, Imaginations, Ideas and Stories of how there is somehow a reality that none of us has ever seen or experienced for ourselves.

Complexity with design and/or purpose are the signatures of the obvious that there MUST have been an intelligent source behind it for it's the only reality we've ever known and experienced.

#5 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 06 June 2011 - 01:42 AM

If i may,

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?


Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.


Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)


No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.
For there to be proof you need to outline what that proof would have to be. We could show that no signals are being sent to DNA but the theist could say that the signals are different.

Question to atheist # 3: Aside from the genetic code and DNA, can you name a SINGLE code (that meets the following definition), that was NOT designed by an intelligent being?

...Definition of CODE for our purposes above: Sequential, *meaningful* information is encoded (DNA) and decoded (RNA). Such as English. Binary code. Morse code. Etc.


The problem is the term meaningful. We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men

#6 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 06 June 2011 - 01:55 AM

If i may,
Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.
No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.
For there to be proof you need to outline what that proof would have to be. We could show that no signals are being sent to DNA but the theist could say that the signals are different.
The problem is the term meaningful. We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men

View Post


1. We've just provided evidence.

2. The question of "which God" is a different question entirely. This is where we start looking at corroborating evidence. Such things as flying pasta and pink unicorns are arbitrary ideas, and without corroborating evidence. The God of the Bible is not an arbitrary idea by any stretch. There is a reason you see billions of believers in the God of the Bible throughout history (and religions that essentially try to copy Christianity by applying *some* of its truth), and none truly for flying meals.

3. "Meaningful" in this case simply means "provides instructional value" - which DNA provides.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 June 2011 - 02:26 AM

1. We've just provided evidence.

2. The question of "which God" is a different question entirely. This is where we start looking at corroborating evidence. Such things as flying pasta and pink unicorns are arbitrary ideas, and without corroborating evidence. The God of the Bible is not an arbitrary idea by any stretch. There is a reason you see billions of believers in the God of the Bible throughout history (and religions that essentially try to copy Christianity by applying *some* of its truth), and none truly for flying meals.

3. "Meaningful" in this case simply means "provides instructional value" - which DNA provides.

View Post


1. Perhaps giving examples would be more constructive rather than a one-liner ;)

2. Arguementum ad populum won't really help in this case, perhaps talk about the historical evidences of Jesus

3. True :(

#8 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 06 June 2011 - 02:44 AM

If i may,
We are the ones that give things meaning. There were these random pulsars that were originally thought to be meaningful signals but little green men.

View Post


This is like the common "snowflake" argument that evolutionists like to use despite the incredible difference there is behind something that is basically symetrical or binary, with something that requires an enormously complicated decoder. You could argue that complicated code consists of these "simpler" constructs, but to get there would require more than simply rinsing around in primordial slush.

Genetic codes were hardly meaningless until "we" came along. A code such as that has just as much "meaning" with or without an interpreter. It just becomes "meaningless" in the sense that it no longer serves a purpose without a decoder. The code itself remains meaningful as long as decoding the code produces a consistant meaning.

Cells lack the kind of thinking capacity that would be required to decode a language. The intelligence required to do that must have come externally. Intelligence doesn't just splash together in a pond.

#9 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:48 AM

1. Perhaps giving examples would be more constructive rather than a one-liner :P

2. Arguementum ad populum won't really help in this case, perhaps talk about the historical evidences of Jesus

3. True :D

View Post



1. The genetic code was already a given example of evidence.

2. Historical evidence is the type of corroborating evidence I was referring to. I simply meant that it's corroborating such as this, that is the reason so many believe. The fact that so many believe was not cited as corroborating evidence.

3. :)

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 June 2011 - 08:52 AM

1. The genetic code was already a given example of evidence.

2. Historical evidence is the type of corroborating evidence I was referring to. I simply meant that it's corroborating such as this, that is the reason so many believe. The fact that so many believe was not cited as corroborating evidence.

3. :D

View Post


I think what zendra is getting at is even if there is evidence of a designer, (of which I agree there are countless examples), how do we know it was the Christian God who did it? As he said, (tongue in cheek I assume), it could be the flying spaghetti monster etc... This is similar to my stance on the subject, whilst I do not deny the existance of a higher power due to complexity in life and intelligence required for such complexity, I do realise that there must be an assumption made as to WHO this higher power is. This is where faith comes in, (which is fine :) ), I personally prefer to take a neutral stance, (though I do lean towards Christianity since I was a Presbyterian), hence theistic agnostic :P

Thats cool, just sounded very similar to an arguementum ad populum, evo's are picked up on here for it, it would be hypocritical not to impose the same standards.

So what historical evidence do you have that you have mentioned? Not because I am skeptical, because I am interested.

#11 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 07 June 2011 - 07:54 PM

I think what zendra is getting at is even if there is evidence of a designer, (of which I agree there are countless examples), how do we know it was the Christian God who did it? As he said, (tongue in cheek I assume), it could be the flying spaghetti monster etc... This is similar to my stance on the subject, whilst I do not deny the existance of a higher power due to complexity in life and intelligence required for such complexity, I do realise that there must be an assumption made as to WHO this higher power is. This is where faith comes in, (which is fine smile.gif  ), I personally prefer to take a neutral stance, (though I do lean towards Christianity since I was a Presbyterian), hence theistic agnostic biggrin.gif


You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.

#12 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 June 2011 - 11:05 PM

You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.

View Post


If you need to know who this inteligent designer is, there is overwhelming evidence it is the God of the Bible. See my sister site BibleEvidences.com.

#13 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 08 June 2011 - 02:14 AM

QUOTE(zendra @ Jun 7 2011, 08:54 PM)
You summed it up great thanks. I was also hopng to note that the question said "If the statement is true" but I feel goldliger is now saying something more like 'given the statement is true'.
*



If you need to know who this inteligent designer is, there is overwhelming evidence it is the God of the Bible. See my sister site BibleEvidences.com.


I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway. I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 June 2011 - 05:26 AM

I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway.  I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

View Post


Ummm its directly related to your post...

You said I summed up your post great, and in it I talked about how we are unsure of WHO the designer is...

Hence evidence of WHO the designer is, is directly related to your post of which you already claimed I accurately summed up....

#15 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 08 June 2011 - 06:46 PM

Ummm its directly related to your post...

You said I summed up your post great, and in it I talked about how we are unsure of WHO the designer is...


Not you, Fred williams

#16 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 08 June 2011 - 07:48 PM

I dont see how thats related to my post but anyway.  I trust that you have come to this conclusion after researching through other biblical texts for other religions, at the least?

View Post


Yes, to some degree. See chapter on that page entitled 'Other Religions'.

How are things in ChristChurch? We have a building out there that was heavily damaged by the earthquake.

Fred

#17 zendra

zendra

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 17
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Christchurch

Posted 09 June 2011 - 03:39 AM

How are things in ChristChurch? We have a building out there that was heavily damaged by the earthquake.


It depend who you ask, personally the only real inconvenience is having to share my school which actually makes it easier to study( due to the edited school hours).My cousin however has an automatic closing door due to a tilt in the house. What building are you talking about,they differ as well.

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 June 2011 - 04:40 AM

If i may,

View Post

Certainly…

Question to atheist # 1: If the statement is true, "God created the genetic code and DNA to create life", would the genetic code and DNA be evidence for God? ...If your answer is "no", how and why would it NOT be valid evidence of God (while noting that if God created the genetic code, nothing else did)?


Well if you've already established that a god did create it( which i assume you were able to prove) then yes it is evidence. The problem is that we dont know that it did, perhaps you feel you know and if you could provide evidence that would be great.

View Post


Actually, God Himself established His creation. But, having said that; given that Jesus is who He said He is, and has done what He said He did, and the eye witnesses are who they said they were, and saw what they said they did; that alone is enough evidence that God did what He said he did.

Further, this is in fact a far larger problem for the atheists because they are basing all their hope that absolutely nothing happens (i.e. we came from nothing, and are going to nothing); and they have absolutely NO evidence to support their claim. Therefore, the atheist is in for a bigger surprise if something DOES happen!



Question to atheist # 2: Do you have 100% objective proof that God *didn't* create the genetic code and DNA to create life? If "yes", please provide your proof with zero speculative language.

(Hint: No such proof exists.)


No offence but theres also no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create it either, or Thor, or Ra, etc.

View Post

Bad analogy , because your conclusion does not follow the premises (non sequitur). There are many-many eyewitnesses for the actions of Jesus Christ (for example); and there are absolutely NO eyewitnesses for anything that has to do with your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster” (or an orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…).

DO you have ANY eye witnesses for your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses that will testify to the actions of your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?
DO you have ANY eye witnesses who were willing to die horrendous and torturous deaths instead of recanting their eyewitnesses testimonies supporting your fictitious “flying spaghetti monster”?

Here’s the thing Zendra: your tired and rehashed atheistic argument that attempts to analogously reconcile a “flying spaghetti monster” with the personage of God, fails because it is illogical (just like the orbiting tea pot, or spotted geese on Mars etc…). Whenever the atheist has no real refutation, they trot out the flying spaghetti monster argument.

#19 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 June 2011 - 08:14 AM

It depend who you ask, personally the only real inconvenience is having to share my school which actually makes it easier to study( due to the edited school hours).My cousin however has an automatic closing door due to a tilt in the house. What building are you talking about,they differ as well.

View Post


I work for a company called Trimble (we build asset-tracking GPS systems for heavy highyway equipment, among other things). Our office there is in the Riccarton suburb. They got hit pretty bad.

Fred

#20 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 09 June 2011 - 07:11 PM

The evidence for God is all around us but unfortunately we are living in a time where over 200 years of antiGod philosophy and science have brainwashed everyone into thinking that there is no God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users