• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheist Asks A Christian, Kent Hovind Where Did God Come From??

VanceMack said:
Not at all a distraction...its an offering of equal burden of proof.
Click to expand...
Equal burden of proof for what though? Those questions apply whether you're proposing a sentient creator or not. Scientific ideas about the origins of the universe aren't beliefs presented to oppose religious or theological faith, they are entirely separate.

VanceMack said:
Lets be honest...people only ask the :where did God come from?" question in order to mock and ridicule those of faith. When the shoe is on the other foot...those same people become very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
I said it was a bad question, but that it was also a bad answer in the context of Kent Hovind's established beliefs. I wasn't challenging you or your faith, only Hovind and his (and the OP suggestion that it was in any way a good answer).
 
grip said:
The supreme being is neither male nor female in form but rather formless energy. The psychological head of God (Jesus) is male in character but considers all humans as equals in every way that's important.
Click to expand...

OK*

eyerollgif.gif
 
HonestJoe said:
Equal burden of proof for what though? Those questions apply whether you're proposing a sentient creator or not. Scientific ideas about the origins of the universe aren't beliefs presented to oppose religious or theological faith, they are entirely separate.

I said it was a bad question, but that it was also a bad answer in the context of Kent Hovind's established beliefs. I wasn't challenging you or your faith, only Hovind and his (and the OP suggestion that it was in any way a good answer).
Click to expand...
Yes...they are separate...but the burden of proof is the same. The correct answer re the origin of God or the origin of the Big Bang is the same.

We dont know.

Ive seen things. Ive experienced things. I know things that reinforce my faith. I believe in God.

I also believe in science. They are not mutually exclusive. there is no reason to be arrogant re our faith. Its OK to not know...and we dont know.
 
VanceMack said:
Yes...they are separate...but the burden of proof is the same. The correct answer re the origin of God or the origin of the Big Bang is the same.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the Big Bang, I said origins of the universe. The "Big Bang" is just one (misnamed) part of one hypothesis for how the universe came to be.

Questions about the origin of the universe and the origins of (a specific) God are not comparable because we know the universe exists. Asking about the origins of the universe is about seeking direct facts. Asking about the origins of a proposed God about establishing an internally consistent hypothesis for that claim.

VanceMack said:
Ive seen things. Ive experienced things. I know things that reinforce my faith. I believe in God.
Click to expand...
If you experience and/or know things that would be evidence. That is distinct from faith.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
He never answered the question:

Where Did God Come From?​

He simply asserted that (his) God preceded time, space and matter - as most who agree with him simply believe it to be.
Click to expand...
That is basically saying that the question is invalid because it fails to accept that God always was, so did not have to come from anywhere.

It's a fundamental point of disagreement which cannot be resolved.
 
The Mark said:
That is basically saying that the question is invalid because it fails to accept that God always was, so did not have to come from anywhere.

It's a fundamental point of disagreement which cannot be resolved.
Click to expand...

Does it make any sense for an alleged God to have ‘always’ existed with nothing at all to ‘lord over’?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It makes no sense to spend hundreds of days messing with a great flood when it would take only a week (or so) to destroy and recreate everything. ;)
Click to expand...
Gog being God, could do it in an instant. It seems like God went through a lot of extra steps.
 
HonestJoe said:
I never mentioned the Big Bang, I said origins of the universe. The "Big Bang" is just one (misnamed) part of one hypothesis for how the universe came to be.

Questions about the origin of the universe and the origins of (a specific) God are not comparable because we know the universe exists. Asking about the origins of the universe is about seeking direct facts. Asking about the origins of a proposed God about establishing an internally consistent hypothesis for that claim.

If you experience and/or know things that would be evidence. That is distinct from faith.
Click to expand...
I know what I have seen...and to me it reinforces my testimony.
 
VanceMack said:
I know what I have seen...and to me it reinforces my testimony.
Click to expand...
And that is fine in itself. It still has nothing to do with objective evidence for the various scientific ideas, hypotheses and theories around the origins and nature of the universe. These are not opposites.
 
HonestJoe said:
And that is fine in itself. It still has nothing to do with objective evidence for the various scientific ideas, hypotheses and theories around the origins and nature of the universe. These are not opposites.
Click to expand...
Foundation-ally, they are still all predicated on the same thing. Faith. The Big Bang theory is just that. In order to accept the BBT as an origin theory you have to start with the impossible...something just always existed.

Same as God.
 
VanceMack said:
Foundation-ally, they are still all predicated on the same thing. Faith. The Big Bang theory is just that. In order to accept the BBT as an origin theory you have to start with the impossible...something just always existed.

Same as God.
Click to expand...

Yet, you accept that (your?) God has always existed, yet not anything else (which you then declare to be impossible).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet, you accept that (your?) God has always existed, yet not anything else (which you then declare to be impossible).
Click to expand...
Are you saying you LITERALLY cant follow a conversation? or did you just jump into a conversation at the wrong point?
 
VanceMack said:
Foundation-ally, they are still all predicated on the same thing. Faith.
Click to expand...
Nobody (seriously) presents the Big Bang Theory as some unquestionable fact that anyone who questions it is an evil sinner or something that should guide our societies and laws though. It is one of a set of ideas, hypotheses and theories based on observation and assessment of objective evidence. as further evidence is discovered and new ideas proposed, those hypotheses and theories are updated, built-upon, changed or even replaced.

VanceMack said:
Same as God.
Click to expand...
"God" isn't a scientific theory, it isn't even a hypothesis - believers can't even agree on what it actually means. It isn't based on objective evidence and isn't open to change or correcting in the face of additional evidence.

Some people (especially lay-people with socio-political motives, including theistic ones) may well behave in a faith-like manner towards various scientific concepts but they're just wrong. Faith has no place in science (other than a topic of study under psychology ;) ).

Also, please look up the difference between a "scientific theory" and "theory" as it is commonly used.
 
VanceMack said:
Lets be honest...people only ask the :where did God come from?" question in order to mock and ridicule those of faith.
Click to expand...
No. You’re not being honest.

That question is typically only asked when a theist (usually a Christian) is mocking and ridiculing an atheist with the proclamation that “god HAS to exist because something can’t come from nothing.”

That is what’s honest.
 
HonestJoe said:
Nobody (seriously) presents the Big Bang Theory as some unquestionable fact that anyone who questions it is an evil sinner or something that should guide our societies and laws though. It is one of a set of ideas, hypotheses and theories based on observation and assessment of objective evidence. as further evidence is discovered and new ideas proposed, those hypotheses and theories are updated, built-upon, changed or even replaced.

"God" isn't a scientific theory, it isn't even a hypothesis - believers can't even agree on what it actually means. It isn't based on objective evidence and isn't open to change or correcting in the face of additional evidence.

Some people (especially lay-people with socio-political motives, including theistic ones) may well behave in a faith-like manner towards various scientific concepts but they're just wrong. Faith has no place in science (other than a topic of study under psychology ;) ).

Also, please look up the difference between a "scientific theory" and "theory" as it is commonly used.
Click to expand...
Not sure why this is so hard for you to follow.

Faith in God is required since (while we may see evidence of His existense) we have not as of yet seen God.
Faith in the Origins theory of the big bang requires faith, since no one can answer where the materials and energy source required for the big bang came from.
 
Dragonfly said:
No. You’re not being honest.

That question is typically only asked when a theist (usually a Christian) is mocking and ridiculing an atheist with the proclamation that “god HAS to exist because something can’t come from nothing.”

That is what’s honest.
Click to expand...
Come now. You spend much of your time on this site creating threads specifically meant to attack religion and religious faith. And sure...some religious people act the same way you do. But...dont you feel like a ginormous hypocrite whining about the 'theists'?

And all Im pointing out is that the EXACT smae thing applies to those that proclaim their belief in the BBT.
All the materials for the big bang HAD to exist because something can’t come from nothing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom