Creationist Attempts to Prove the Existence of God / Denial of Evolution [merged threads]

[GeddyClaypoolBurton]

I found the following two “proofs” for God on a hristian apologetics site www.gotquestions.org. Please tell me how you would respond to them.

1. There are many extra-biblical evidences that point to a worldwide catastrophe such as a global flood. There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation. Oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world. Cultures in all parts of the world have some form of flood legend. All of these facts and many others are evidence of a global flood.

2. Something exists.
   You do not get something from nothing.
   Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
   Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

[Czarcasm]

1. There is no evidence for a word-wide flood.
   2a. An eternal universe has not been proven to be untrue.
   2b. There is no evidence for a Creator, eternal or otherwise.

edited to add: If they had successfully shown either one of these to be true, it would have been on the front pages of most(if not all) of the newspapers.

[Musicat]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

I found the following two “proofs” for God on a hristian apologetics site www.gotquestions.org. Please tell me how you would respond to them.

1. There are many extra-biblical evidences that point to a worldwide catastrophe such as a global flood. There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation. Oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world. Cultures in all parts of the world have some form of flood legend. All of these facts and many others are evidence of a global flood.

There is copious evidence of flooding and catastrophes many places in the world, but none that points to a universal flood that covers all mountains, and there is no large flood that happened 6000 years ago only. Fossil graveyards, coal deposits, etc., have shown to be laid down not thousands, but millions of years ago.

Mountaintop oceanic deposits have been shown to be caused by plate tectonics. Sea bottoms have been pushed up (and down) and the process has been going on for millions, perhaps billions, of years.

2. Something exists.
   You do not get something from nothing.

The Big Bang Theory disputes this.

Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.

That’s a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. As Pierrre LaPlace once said, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

A metaphysical argument and an illustration of the falacy of the excluded middle.

Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

God’s existence – any god or gods – is ruled out by science, logic and just good common sense.

[GIGObuster]

How I respond? Point them to TalkOrigins.org and check that this old chestnut was already cracked many times before:

An Index to Creationist Claims

Of this the entry on

CG200: Folklore

CG201. There are flood myths from all over the world. 

Is relevant,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

Response:

1. Flood myths are widespread, but they are not all the same myth. They differ in many important aspects, including
   * reasons for the flood. (Most do not give a reason.)
   * who survived. (Almost none have only a family of eight surviving.)
   * what they took with them. (Very few saved samples of all life.)
   * how they survived. (In about half the myths, people escaped to high ground; some flood myths have no survivors.)

   • what they did afterwards. (Few feature any kind of sacrifice after the flood.)

   If the world’s flood myths arose from a common source, then we would expect evidence of common descent. An analysis of their similarities and differences should show either a branching tree such as the evolutionary tree of life, or, if the original biblical myth was preserved unchanged, the differences should be greater the further one gets from Babylon

CC362. Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism.

Response:

Great numbers of fossils in one area indicate great numbers of animals dying in that area (or, in some cases, their bodies being transported there). Usually, this argues against rapid burial, because that many animals are not found together at once in life. A simpler explanation is that animals have died in the area over many years. For example, one mass burial is at the La Brea Tar Pits, which have been trapping animals for thousands of years.

In fact, vast fossil beds are evidence against catastrophic rapid burial. One formation alone (the Karroo Formation in Africa) is estimated to contain 800 billion vertebrate fossils. If that is just 1 percent of the world's fossils, there must be 2100 vertebrate animals per acre, far more than we see today (Schadewald 1982). Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost 100 times more massive than living plant biomass (Poldervaart 1955; Ricklefs 1993).

Mass kills can occur through normal processes. Every year, hundreds of wildebeests drown during river crossings on their annual migration. Their bodies wash up on river banks. Collapse of the stream banks could bury many. Other local catastrophes can also kill many animals at once. 

As for your number 2, other dopers already rook care of it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

My question to someone claiming this is to ask if by “God”, they specifically mean the God of Genesis and if so, why are they discounting the numerous other creation myths and on what basis?

[x-ray_vision]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

Oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

[Candyman74]

Quantum effects definitely allow for the creation of creating something from nothing. Not only might it have happened at the BB, it happens constantly everywhere all the time; particle pairs are being created around you right now. Look up the quantum foam.

[sisu]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

2. Something exists.
   You do not get something from nothing.
   Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
   Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

God is just another word for stuff we don’t know. Saying it is a Christian God is as logical as saying it was a giant turtle etc.

[Revtim]

Evidence of a flood is evidence of a flood, not a god.

Also, even if one part of a book is proven true, that does not prove every statement of the book. The Harry Potter books mention London, and London exists, so does that prove Hogwarts exists?

[Blake]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator.

Was there something before God, or was there nothing before God?

If there was something before God then he is not an “eternal creator”, and thus can not be a source of eternality.

If there was nothing before God, then God came from nothing. Since we already accept that you do not get something from nothing, this proves that God must be nothing.

I love this argument. It neatly disproves the existence of the Christian God using the axiom demanded by the arguer.

[Fear_Itself]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation.

Coal is not evidence of rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation. Coal is formed from the mineralization of vast peat bogs, laid down over millions of years.

[GIGObuster]

@Revtim

Evidence of a flood is evidence of a flood, not a god.

Also, even if one part of a book is proven true, that does not prove every statement of the book. The Harry Potter books mention London, and London exists, so does that prove Hogwarts exists?

I like that point, but I prefer the classics, I always like to say that the evidence says that Troy did exist, but that does not mean that therefore the gods of Olympus are real then.

(Modern archeologists think that several wars and incidents were put together by Homer in a single epic based on the archeology, something that I think also happened with the early bible scriptures)

[Voyager]

Here are a few other responses about the flood.

1. Even assuming an ark with the properties of a Tardis, going from 2 or 7 pairs of each kind to the diversity we see today would require rapid fire evolution unlike anything ever seen. Kind of an odd thing for a group not believing in evolution to require.

2. If you go to a museum like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, you can see examples of pottery from China from before and after the time of the supposed flood. Why would the descendants of Noah who resettled China take up the same style as the dead former inhabitants. They should remember that any prior examples would have been buried under miles of silt.

3. Consider that there were only 3 breeding pairs of humans at the time of the flood. Given the known birth and death rates of ancient man, there was not enough time for there to have been enough humans during the time of Egypt, or the Exodus.

4. We can detect common ancestors through DNA testing, thus the identification of an Adam and Eve (who lived at different times) who were the ancestors of all of us. They lived a lot further back than Noah and his wife. The Flood hypothesis would predict that DNA testing would have found them. It didn’t. so the hypothesis is falsified.

I could go on. The idea fails in so many ways it is funny.

[Sitnam]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation.

How old are the fossils, and how long does it take to make coal?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

I found the following two “proofs” for God on a hristian apologetics site www.gotquestions.org. Please tell me how you would respond to them.

1. There are many extra-biblical evidences that point to a worldwide catastrophe such as a global flood. There are vast fossil graveyards found on every continent and large amounts of coal deposits that would require the rapid covering of vast quantities of vegetation. Oceanic fossils are found upon mountain tops around the world. Cultures in all parts of the world have some form of flood legend. All of these facts and many others are evidence of a global flood.

2. Something exists.
   You do not get something from nothing.
   Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
   Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

As to the first argument, there is not enough water on this planet to cover the world.

As to the second argument, I would say that the complexity of the universe suggests a divine intelligence behind it, but does not prove the existence of that divine intelligence.

[Mosier]

@Musicat

God’s existence – any god or gods – is ruled out by science, logic and just good common sense.

That’s taking the conclusion further than you can actually support. Science and logic don’t rule out the existence of god(s), they just don’t support such. Science can’t even rule out the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.

[Musicat]

@Mosier

…Science and logic don’t rule out the existence of god(s)…

“I have no need of that hypothesis.”

[dorsk188]

@GeddyClaypoolBurton

Something exists.
You do not get something from nothing.
Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
Because the only two sources of eternality are an eternal universe (proven to be untrue) or an eternal Creator, the only logical conclusion is that God exists. Answering the question of God’s existence in the affirmative rules out atheism as a valid belief system.

This argument (First Cause or Kalam Cosmological or whatever name it’s going under these days) is fundamentally flawed and moreover, deceptive. An honest logician would make appropriate caveats like this.

1. The universe exists.
2. Nothing in the universe came from nothing.
3. Since we have no direct and very little indirect experience with how universes begin, we can’t say for sure universes must come from something.
4. Even if we know universes cannot come from nothing, we cannot speak to the nature of the universe’s cause because we simply have no knowledge of it beyond that it created the universe.

It won’t exactly have them cheering in the pews, will it? As for the facts, quantum theory does throw a lot of this into confusing territory. Lawrence Krauss has spoken about the possibility that all the negative energy (gravity, dark energy) may equal all the positive energy (particles, heat, etc.), and thus the net energy of the universe is 0. I can’t begin to speculate (I may have even gotten the kinds of energies wrong here), but if there is net 0 energy, then the universe is essentially a very elaborate nothing.

The creationist argument is very basic Aristotelian logic (with faulty premises to boot). I find that mode of reasoning more persuasive in legal settings than scientific ones, because nature has always been cleverer and weirder than we give it credit, and the next series of discoveries always seems to make fools of every generations’ most strident naysayers.

[Der_Trihs]

@Mosier

That’s taking the conclusion further than you can actually support. Science and logic don’t rule out the existence of god(s), they just don’t support such.

They come as close to ruling them out as they can come to ruling out anything. If it was any other subject people would say that “science and logic rules it out” with little hesitation; it’s for religion that the standard of evidence takes a massive leap upwards. People do that all the time for far less extreme claims, like those of conspiracy theorists - few if any of those are anywhere near as implausible as religion, but they are regularly condemned as illogical and ruled out by science.

If the claims of religions are to be taken seriously, why shouldn’t we take seriously claims that the Moon landings were faked, that a secret Jewish cabal blew up the Twin Towers, that the UN is planning to conquer the US in the name of the New World Order? None of those are anywhere near as implausible as any religion I’ve heard of.

[GeddyClaypoolBurton]

I’m sure that many of you have heard about this before. Ken Ham is a Christian apologist advocating biblical literalism, and in this video clip he attempts to justify how people should choose God over the scientists on the issue of evolution because "evolutionists weren’t there, but God was always there. Have a look:

How Christians Brainwash kids with creationism

Now, I know - as I’m sure everyone here does as well - that this is utter bullshit, but I just want to ask people the best way to logically refute this idea, as opposed to slapping the man upside the head.

1. Isn’t operating under the assumption that the Bible is true extremely biased and unscientific? Isn’t real science without such a priori ideas?
2. How does he know that the Bible is true? It seems to me because the Bible itself says the Bible is true. From his logic, a Muslim could do the same thing with the Koran, right?
3. What would you say to an apologist like this one if they presented you with this argument? (Remember, acting professionally)

NOTE: I know I’ve made several threads about creationism, but for some reason the sheer stupidity of the ideas it presents and its continuing popularity drive me insane, and I lose confidence in myself. I feel that I need other people’s help in order to fully understand how to debunk the movement. Thanks to all who reply.