Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

TJ3,

Your entire rebuttal consisted of

---

Michaelb, if you are not going to read my posts, then why are you even bothering to post.

I said much more in post #31, for starters and many others.

It is worthy of note that you chose not to actually provide a quote of what I said. That is because it would expose your deception!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

I don't have any alternatives to add, I'm not a scientist, an evolutionist, any kind of "ist", but that doesn't mean that I automatically say that God did it because there isn't any other explanation.

---

You are welcome to your opinion. This was a discussion on what the scientific evidence shows.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Please read the header of this topic :

[B]THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"

---

This is funny - You claim that you want to discuss the validity of the claims, but wish to only do so if no one is allowed to examine the claims.

The claims have been examined Tj3, and they aren't valid proof of the existence of God.

Eeek, sorry, I promised I'd stay out of it.

Okay, back to my corner. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

It is worthy of note that you chose not to actually provide a quote of what I said. That is because it would expose your deception!

---

I quoted you from your post #156 so no deception on my part but regardless. You entire line of thinking is off. Even if we don't have good hypothesis all it means is we don't know that's all it means. It doesn't mean that god did it, it only mean we don't have all the answers it doesn't mean we won't find them later. The only evidence for the supernatural is the supernatural

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Is there is a single atheist on here who can provide any OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God?.
It is only fair that this question now be turned around the other way, now that the evidence for the existence for God has not been refuted.

---

Why should Atheists provide any argument against the existence of "God"??
I am an Atheist, but I - with almost all Atheists - never claimed that "God" does not exist. I just question the existence of "God", and each time I ask for "proof" for the existence of "God" when someone here states that he/she "knows" that "God" exists, there is a deep and dead silence (or someone posts a silly list with irrelevant queries in response).

Besides that : the onus to prove anything is on the claimer, i.e. on the Theist, not on anyone else.
You may BELIEVE and have FAITH in the existence of "God" , but you can not provide OSE for the existence of "God". It is that simple...

And as there never was any OSE for the existence of "God" provided anywhere, at anytime, by anyone, there is nothing to refute by Atheists.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Please read the header of this topic :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

---

********THIS IS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD"********.

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides us with the logic of how we can know of God’s existence:

• Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

• For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

• The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

• The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e. an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

• The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

SOURCE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God

Consequently, we see once again a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.

JoeT

Quote:

---

implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

---

You said it all, implies, not proves.

Tj3,

For me, I think the JEW is evidence enough to believe that God exists AND not only that he exists BUT that the bible is HIS complete Word to us.

Cred,

What you don't understand is that God doesn't have to prove anything to you! I have said earlier I can't prove it. I think what TJ3 has given you has been MORE than food for thought. If you would stop for a few seconds to actually PONDER some of this stuff... maybe something would sink in! ( OK.. maybe not) but what do you gain by insisting on proof? The way I see it, YOU WIN! So? If I could give you proof it would make not one ounce of difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I quoted you from your post #156 so no deception on my part but regardless.

---

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. I was not even responding to you in that post. You may be thinking of #155, but that was not where I responded to you theories and I said much much more - so you are being deceptive. My response to you was, as I pointed out several times before, in #31. Why you chose to go to a completely different post is a matter that only you can know.

So you are being deceptive.

Those who love truth do not need to fear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Why should Atheists provide any argument against the existence of "God" ???

---

I did not say that. I said OSE for their BELIEF that there is no God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are laid down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

Tj3,

For me, I think the JEW is evidence enough to believe that God exists AND not only that he exists BUT that the bible is HIS complete Word to us.

---

Amen!

I have been preparing for a talk that I am giving in two weeks on the evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine, and when I review the evidence once again, it just amazes me how overwhelming the evidence for the Bible is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

I have been preparing for a talk that I am giving in two weeks on the evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine, and when I review the evidence once again, it just amazes me how overwhelming the evidence for the Bible is.

---

... evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine...

The Bible is an entire different topic, including any sort of evidence for that Bible.

What about Objective Supported Evidence (OSE) for the existence of "God" ?

THAT IS THE TOPIC HERE !!!

Once more Tj3 : stay on topic!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

... evidence for the truth of the Bible as the standard for Christian doctrine ...

The Bible is an entire different topic, including any sort of evidence for that Bible.

What about Objective Supported Evidence (OSE) for the existence of "God" ?

THAT IS THE TOPIC HERE !!!

---

Cred,

You alter what you claim to be the topic whenever the truth becomes uncomfortable for you - which is very often

You cry wolf too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. I was not even responding to you in that post. You may be thinking of #155, but that was not where I responded to you theories and I said much much more - so you are being deceptive. My response to you was, as I pointed out several times before, in #31. Why you chose to go to a completely different post is a matter that only you can know.

So you are being deceptive.

Those who love truth do not need to fear it.

---

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. Post #156 is your post which I quoted you responding to me.

Your response in #32 simply shows that you won't except any answer other than the super natural for these events. You don't disprove a single one of the theories I present. You simply say you don't believe that they are possible. Which considering you don't thing any natural solution for anything is possible, how am I not surprised.

You have no proof that any of the theories I presented are not correct. You simply have your repeated ramblings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

THIS IS PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD[/B]
St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent., I, xiii) provides us with the logic of how we can know of God’s existence:

---

St. Thomas Aquinas's "Summa Theologica" is no OSE, but a religious and philosophic work written by a human being.

:rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

You alter what you claim to be the topic whenever the truth becomes uncomfortable for you - which is very often

---

Just read the header Tommy!! Is that text perhaps too difficult for you to understand ?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Let me be more direct. You are outright lying. Post #156 is your post which I quoted you responding to me.

---

I invite anyone to go and check it out.

You have revealed a great deal about yourself by the fact that you willing to deny the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Just read the header Tommy !!! Is that text perhaps too difficult for you to understand ?

---

Maybe you should read it yourself!! :D :D:D:D:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Maybe you should read it yourself!!!!!

---

Ok : it reads : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Even an 8 year old child can understand that header text and the question involved.

Now please reply in the intention of that header text and discuss here accordingly.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Ok : it reads : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

---

Exactly!! So why are you trying to stop people from discussing the Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

:D :D :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Exactly!!!!! So why are you trying to stop people from discussing the Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

---

I never tried to stop any discussion on the existence of "God".
I just do not want you to go off-topic and interfere in this discussion with your evolution queries.

Please tell me WHENEVER WHEREVER have you ever provided Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ? Never I say. Because such Objective Supported Evidence simply does not exist!!

All one can do is BELIEVE in "God's" existence!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I never tried to stop any discussion on the existence of "God".

---

Memory problems, Cred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Memory problems, Cred?

---

No, surely no ! Never had any. But if you can show me wrong please do so !

Please remember : no evolution stuff here : just provide as per the topic Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No, surely no ! Never had any. But if you can show me wrong please do so !

---

Fine, then lets discuss the evidence for God's existence.

Tell me how the first cell came to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Fine, then lets discuss the evidence for God's existence.
Tell me how the first cell came to be.

---

I suggest we keep to the topic : let us remain with discussing Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, instead of discussing just any (Subjective Supported) Evidence for "God's" existence.

One : whatever way that first cell came into being, that can in no way be seen as OSE for the existence of "God".

Two : Of course I personally was not there when that first cell came to be. But science provides increasingly better ideas on how that first cell came to be.

Three : there may be alternative ways in which the first cell came to be.

Four : that we do not know or can provide OSE to the scientific explanation does not mean that your religious based claim is factual. You have to prove that claim. By providing Objective Supported Evidence for your claim, i.e. for "God's" existence.

The question is now : can YOU do that ? Can YOU provide Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence ?

Add-on : please refrain from expanding into posts about evolution, or I will have to report you for going off-topic!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

I suggest we keep to the topic : let us remain with discussing Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, i

---

So you will stop interfering with those who want to discuss the topic?

Good.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you really believed that nature does not provide evidence of God, you would not be so afraid to discuss it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

MACAWS : Macaws are .....

---

----------
Abuse note
----------

Post 308

Topic : Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?
Abuse : continuing topic abuse by Tj3
Argument : the topic is CLEARLY about the existence of "God", not about the evolution queries from Tj3's list.

Even after repeated requests Tj3 refuses to drop the evolution issue, and goes OFF-TOPIC from the real issue at stake : can (evolution) queries and replies to such queries provide OSE for the existence of "God"?

:(

.

.

Cred,

Posting that publicly is a violation of the rules itself, and proof that you are trying to stop discussion of the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Posting that publicly is a violation of the rules itself, and proof that you are trying to stop discussion of the topic.

---

I was not aware of that. It was not intended as such. If so I apologize for that. It was intended after multiple requests thereto as a warning for you and others not to post about evolution here.

No I do not try to stop discussion of the topic. I try to stop the topic you insist to introduce here, which is off-topic in the first place and a violation of the rules.

Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence is an important and interesting issue, and all you so far have tried is to stop it, and replace it with your strawman babble about evolution.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

No I do not try to stop discussion of the topic.

---

The your fingers are typing something other than what you are thinking.

Tj3, if you want to discuss other topics that do not coincide with this one, then start your own thread. Continuiing to argue isn't getting us anywhere. Or do you disagree?

I'm always up for a good debate, but really, this is starting to get ridiculous. Either stick to the topic, start your own topic on your own thread, or leave this thread alone. It's not hard to do.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

Once more I have to ask you : DO NOT REPLY to Tj3's continuing attempt to force this thread off-topic towards his "list" of evolution queries, while the topic used this list only to illustrate the faulty argument Tj3 used to "prove" the existence of "God".

Note also that TJ3 never provided any OSE for the existence of "God".
Note that TJ3 tries everything to go off-topic here, because he knows his arguments fail completely.

This topic is about the validity of claims on the existence of "God".
As there is no OSE proof for that existence this topic is querying the claim that not replying (or incorrect replying) to certain specific queries on (in this case) evolution - how interesting each of them may be - is considered valid evidence for the existence of "God". Note that these questions themselves are not relevant here.
Can you OSE prove the existence of "God" from queries and replies on something entirely different, or is that existence completely in the domain of belief and faith?

I repeat :

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

There is no OSE for the existence of "God". I do not expect there ever will be any OSE for the existence of "God".
You can BELIEVE in "God" , you can have FAITH in "God" . But you can not provide OSE for the existence
Of "God", because there is no such OSE.

The existence of "God" can only be "proved" by OSE for the existence of "God". Not with subjective reasoning.

And no query, no question, no reply - faulty or not - on one issue can provide OSE for a completely different issue , in this specific case in the claimed existence of "God".

.

THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS ON THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD".

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Tj3, if you want to discuss other topics that do not coincide with this one, then start your own thread. Continuiing to argue isn't getting us anywhere. Or do you disagree?

I'm always up for a good debate, but really, this is starting to get ridiculous. Either stick to the topic, start your own topic on your own thread, or leave this thread alone. It's not hard to do.

---

The topic is about the objective evidence for the existence of God, and what I am posting largely comes straight out of the OP. Let me quote a large excerpt from the OP. If Cfred does not like it, then he should not have started the thread. If you don't like it, you do not need to discuss it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In each and every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that each and every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are layed down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Tj3, if you want ...

---

I guess Tommy continues doing so to force this important and interesting topic to be closed by board management - clearly against my request.

Just because he knows that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and that his claims are invalid.

Another proof of Tommies intolerance...

:)

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Just because he knows that there is no such Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence, and that his claims are invalid.

---

If you really believed that you would not be so afraid to discuss the very topic that you started.

You even object to what you yourself posted in the OP!!

Quote:

---

Another proof of Tommies intolerance...

---

I'm not that surprised though, are you Cred?

I give up. Fighting with Tj3 is a losing, frustrating, high blood pressure causing endeavour. Everything said seems to go in one ear and out the other.

Tom, believe what you want, just know that to the majority of people, what you believe is just that, a belief.

It was an interesting topic Cred, sadly I think you are correct, this thread will probably be closed soon.

Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Tom, believe what you want, just know that to the majority of people, what you believe is just that, a belief.

---

It is interesting. The atheists want to discuss belief in God and avoid the objective scientific evidence. The Christians want to discuss what the objective scientific evidence is.

The atheists try to shut down the discussion of the objective scientific evidence and consider that "intolerance".

Cred even objects to quoting from his own OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

If you really believed that you ...

---

This topic is about the issue of Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
Not for some other format , like your Subjective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

If you prefer to discuss that, please open your own topic "Subjective Supported Evidence for "Subjective Supported Evidence for " existence".

You always remain welcome to participate in this topic within the context and intend of that topic.

Add-on : just as you insist others to do within any topic you or other people started...

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

This topic is about the issue of Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

---

So stop interfering with the discussion.