"Tommies intolerance?" tee hee hee.. well you have been so TOLERANT I can just imagine how FRUSTRATED you must feel. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
|
"Tommies intolerance?" tee hee hee.. well you have been so TOLERANT I can just imagine how FRUSTRATED you must feel. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You do realize that I'm not an atheist, don't you Tom?
I'm a Deist, look up the definition. I do believe in God, I also believe in science, and I have common sense, logic that tells me that an entire universe created by God, well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, therefore it must not be true.
I don't have the answers, and I'm not willing to accept an answer made by default because we haven't figured everything out yet. That's what you are doing, assigning God to everything that doesn't have an explanation yet.
Maybe it will turn out you're right, but until someone says "I have evidence that God created all of this" and I see the evidence is fact, well, until then, your evidence is nothing but your belief.
Once again Cred, I apologize for straying of the topic.
I will be removing my subscription to this thread, that way I won't be tempted to come back.
Good luck gentlemen.
You already stated that you are not discussing the issue regarding the objective scientific evidence, so I am not referring to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
The Objective Supported Evidence referred to here, is not about any of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.
My request was and still is : is there any Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?
Is any other Objective Supported Evidence (for other issues) Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence?
No more evolution please, Tommy.
No more first cell please , Tommy.
Just Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence only...
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
.
.
Exactly - so stop interfering with the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
What do you have to fear? If you are right, the discussion would show it. If not, then - oh I see why you keep interfering.
Those who love truth do not need to fear the truth.
You refuse to stay on topic Tommy, with your evolution babble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The discussion is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .
May be you do not understand the concept of Objective Supported Evidence , as you keep trying to use (Objective?) Supported Evidence for one thing as Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .
It simply does not work that way.
---
By the way : I just see that Obama crossed the 50% line and is the next US President : CONGRATULATIONS : GOOD CHOICE !!!
.
:) :) :) :) :) :)
.
.
I am not the one who keeps bringing up evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
So stop interfering with the discussion.Quote:
The discussion is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .
Let's get back to the topic. Here is an excerpt from the OP:
============================
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 only one 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 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 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 above 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 around 33 degrees. 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.
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 cannot 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.
========================
So the challenge by Cred is for evolutionists to answer these questions - can they?
Or will Cred try to shut down the discussion once again out of fear that the answers do not exist.
Please read the header of this topic :
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.
Note that Tj3 shows his intolerance by preferring to get this topic closed by Board Management instead.
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".
.
What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existence?
I don't know if you are addressing me or someone else, but I'll take a stab at your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
Yes, it does prove his existence to YOU. Who else matters when it comes to your relationship with God? What would you care if nobody else believed you, you know your truth; and after you've spoken with God, why would you care what others thought or believed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Then stop trying to interfere with the discussion of the topic.
===========================
If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only one 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.
SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?
(Source: OP)
===========================
Yes even though that was not the approach addressed in the OP, but before we go that far, we need to ask how you validated that the source that was speaking to you was in fact God? Because just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God. The Bible warns of deceiving spirits.Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
I agree. If it IS God, then what you feel you have been told MUST line up with the word of God. Course this is off the topic and Cred really doesn't like us to stray... he gets "intolerant" when we do that... :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Wait so in the story where god tells Abraham to kill his son and Abraham goes to do it.
Was that lining up with the word of god or should Abraham not listened.
And what about all the people that say god told them to kill their children in modern times, do you considor that proof that god still speaks to people today?
First of all concerning Abraham, God spoke directly to him and he knew it was God. There was no written Word of God in his day and Abraham actually heard from God many times. He KNEW God, he TRUSTED him. The Lord came to him and told him his wife Sara was going to have a baby at the ripe old age of 90 something. In the natural it IS impossible but it happened. He also said that through Isaac he would make a great nation. God proved himself to be faithful to Abraham and when God told him to offer up Isaac he did just that. God was testing him and please note... God did NOT make him offer up his son. It was a test. God provided a ram for the sacrifice... not Isaac. He just wanted to see how much Abraham trusted him.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
My point on God speaking to us now is this, everything he wants us to know is in the Word of God. Sometimes men will say they have felt the Lord tell them or lead them this way or that BUT if that IS the case... whatever way they feel the Lord is directing them... it CAN NOT go against the Written Word or it is NOT GOD. God is NOT telling anyone to kill their kids that is just ridiculous to even suggest.
GOD told George W. Bush to go kill Arabs. The American public agreed to do that with him. Their kids are dying because of it. Is that not ridiculous to even suggest? That you send your kids to be killed because GOD spoke to Dubya?
Mag,
Michaelb was talking about killing your OWN kids.. not a war. I don't want to get into the war thing and George Bush. War is totally different. AND NO ONE sent their kids off to KILL ARABS because President Bush heard God say so.
Even if it was a test, why would someone agree to kill their own child, and why would a God that is the creator of all, the father of all, a good, kind, loving God, even ask for someone to prove their devotion to him in such a way?
This is why I don't believe in the bible, if that is the God that I'm supposed to follow, then no thank you.
Off topic again. I can't stop coming back, I did hit unsubscribe but then I decided to see what was going on and again I'm drawn back in.
I do apologize, but it's hard to stay on topic when no one else does.
Where in the bible does it say god won't test you? If you do hear voices how do you know the original people that said they heard god actually heard the real god and not some spirit that was trying to drive them away from one of the older better known gods?
Now I agree that god isn't telling anyone to kill their kids however that's because I don't think some higher being is talking to anyone.
I still have to ask when you add up all of the evidence for the god of the bible. If you had heard these stories today without hearing them all your life would you really believe they were true stories? Say similar stories that come out of Africa or Asia that have just as much evidence do you dismiss those out right or do you believe those as well?
Altenweg,
Everyone is off topic.. don't worry about it.
Yeah I know, people always want to question God it is part of our nature. God can't go back on his Word and Abraham understood that. God had already made a promise that he would make Isaac a great nation. If he would have killed Isaac, this couldn't have happened. There are lots of reasons God put this in his Word. One of them is that it is a perfect picture of God sacrificing HIS OWN son for us.
As usual that is incorrect. The OP is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence . So any argument on the claimed existence of "God" is fine with me, and is welcome to be posted here.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
As the focus of this topic is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence (and not for queries on evolution), I object to discussions and arguments on views on evolution, how interesting such dabates may be (and I invite anyone who is interested in such debates on evolution to start his or her own topic).
The basic topic query here is : can claimed OSE for anything else than the existence of "God" be used to claim OSE for the existence of "God" ?
Tj3 has a point where he stated : "... we need to ask how you validated that the source that was speaking to you was in fact God? Beacuse just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God... "
Indeed , but not only that . Before you worry about validating the source, you should make sure that your premise is correct : is there any Objective Supported Evidence that "God" exist in the first place ?
:)
.
.
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 actual 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".
.
God does test you. But I said he won't go outside of his WORD. We are to follow the laws of the Land and if the "voice" you hear says otherwise... it isn't God. Take a man that has a wife and 4 kids.. he has NO JOB.. he is NOTt supporting THEM but he thinks he hears the voice of God tell him to go preach the gospel in a third world county... it isn't GOD because God expects the man to take care of his family FIRST. Those are some examples. God won't tell us to do something contrary to his Word.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Michael, yes I believe the stories in the Word of God. They aren't just stories, they have meaning and when you dive into them, it is amazing. There just is NO WAY the book wasn't inspired of God.
Almost all stories have meaning when you look into them that's what makes them good stories. Most stories even have a bit of truth in them too. It makes them more interesting. If you can relate to them.
That's why when Plato spoke of Atlantis he used places that the locals knew about in order to describe it's location yet he made it out of reach for people of his day to go looking for it. He also put a moral lesson in the story. That's why the story of Atlantis still endures today not because it's true but because it's a good story.
You mean : I BELIEVE that God does test you...Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
There is no OSE that "God" exists. You BELIEVE that.
There is no OSE that "God" - if "God" exists - tests you. You BELIEVE that.
:)
.
.
Cred,
no.. I said it right the first time... :)
Michael,
It is MORE than just meaning.. there are pictures and types of hidden truths in the Old Testament revealed in the New. Cred, is going to kick me out of here if I don't stop changing his topic. Sorry Cred.
It seems that empirical deduction isn't sufficient; somehow it's not supportive enough. Since God isn't a being constructed of matter I can't place God in your hand as “self-evidence” of his existence. Previously stated was for life (matter) there must be a “first mover” or a “first cause;” something to create that matter, something to move it. All of which is like the allegorical story of the Watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
The contemplative Watch is convinced there is no Watchmaker. How does he know this? Well, he asked to hear the Maker's tic; wanting to hear if the Maker's works sounds like a Makers tic. Silence; he got no response. The Watch asked to see the Maker's time to check the accuracy of the Maker. Still in the dark, he got no response. Of course the Watchmaker could only laugh, knowing the Watch wasn't given ears. But, rather the Watch had superior workings, the rhythm of which was self evidentiary proof of the Maker's expertise. Likewise, the Watch wasn't given eyes, only sweeping hands across a face. He couldn't see the correctness of the Maker. Thus with this subjective reasoning the Watch concluded he made himself.
The "first cause" means that matter can't produce matter. Thus, a being, living in the natural world, must have been created by a being not of the natural world. God, a supernatural being created man.
St. Augustine said, “But God cannot be said to have measure, lest He should seem to be spoken of as limited. Yet He is not immoderate by whom measure is bestowed upon all things, so that they may in any measure exist. Nor again ought God to be called measured, as if He received measure from any one. But if we say that He is the highest measure, by chance we say something; if indeed in speaking of the highest measure we mean the highest good. For every measure in so far as it is a measure is good; whence nothing can be called measured, modest, modified, without praise, although in another sense we use measure for limit, and speak of no measure where there is no limit, which is sometimes said with praise as when it is said: "And of His kingdom there shall be no limit." Luke 1:33 For it might also be said, "There shall be no measure," so that measure might be used in the sense of limit; for He who reigns in no measure, assuredly does not reign at all.”
JoeT
Cred started with one topic and wants to change it so that he can control what we can and cannot talk about. He has no control over the board, though he likes to think he does, so I abide by the rules of the board, not Cred's rules which vary by whim. The last board that I was on where he was, he tried controlling it, and when people would not go along with what he said, he hacked the board by adding code to his message to make it impossible to continue any discussion where we did not obey his rules. He called it "closing the thread". That is one reason that he is no longer on that board.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.
Like are we forgetting that energy can not be created or destroyed. So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang. So if energy exists forever we don't need god to exist forever and be the first mover because energy was always there.
Now if you want to say your god is energy that's fine with me. I even agree that energy exists. However that doesn't prove the bible god.
God is not a thing. If God is the first cause of everything else existing, then by definition, nothing else coulod have existed forever. That is not logical.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Two problems with that comment:Quote:
Like are we forgetting that energy can not be created or destroyed.
1) It is not true. Energy can be created and destroyed. What you are probably thing of is the fact that the overall constant of mass and energy throughout the universe remains a constant. Energy however can be chnaged into mass, and mass into energy.
2) This law does not say that mass and energy existed eternally into the past, only that under natural physical laws, energy/mass remain constant into the future.
Conclusion is not warranted for the reason given in #2 above.Quote:
So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang.
If god is the first cause yes but as I have stated and you have stated it is still an "if". However the our observation don't lead us to that line of thinking. I can't even say your right about god not being a thing, I was thinking you were right because god is a human concept not a real thing but a human concept is still a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Two problems with that comment:
1) It is not true. Energy can be created and destroyed. What you are probably thing of is the fact that the overall constant of mass and energy throughout the universe remains a constant. Energy however can be chnaged into mass, and mass into energy.
2) This law does not say that mass and energy existed eternally into the past, only that under natural physical laws, energy/mass remain constant into the future.
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2. If you want I'll dig up some links on this but I don't think I need to I'm sure my point on this one.
Now I know there are certain times when our basic physical laws don't work anymore. However we have no evidence of energy not always existing and since at this point in our technology all we can do is speculate what conditions were like before the big bang. I'm going with that energy has always existed since there is no evidence to the contrary. Which I fully admit it is speculation based on our limited technology, however as I have said anyone who says anything about the conditions before the big bang is speculating and is not proof of anything.
Indeed Joe. As stated many times before on this board I have no problem with what people BELIEVE.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
But the moment anyone here claims that what he/she BELIEVES and/or "KNOWS" is fact/factual, like that "God" exists, and/or that "God" can do this or that and/or has this or that and/or is this or that, it is for me the moment to ask for Objective Supported Evidence for these wild claims.
And as long as such OSE is north forthcoming such claim remains invalid.
Only OSE for the existence of "God" provides validity for the existence of "God".
Nothing else will be. That is why the claim of "God" is called BELIEF !!
:)
.
.
That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Is your lying an example of your - what I call - LYING FOR "GOD" ?
Is that perhaps the new way of operation of the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference?? May be I should let them know that...
:D :D :D :D :D
Till next time : I'm going to a Mensa meeting tonight !
:)
.
.
I don't even really have problem when someone claims to know something and they really don't. What I have a problems with is when people try to regulate what they know without evidence as collective knowledge. Such as when they try to teach ID in science classes.
Which is precisely the point, God was, God is and God will be eternal.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Everything in nature, everything of matter must be traced to back to a creator. Matter cannot make matter, nor can chemical reaction breathe awareness into protoplasmic life.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
You personally may not need God to exist forever, nevertheless he does.
The change in entropy across the universe is constantly increasing, energy tends to form a homogeneous state throughout; what's known as heat death. This process is irreversible without the input of energy from the outside. And in an expanding universe entropy increases to the maximum possible reducing the available energy, more rapid in an expanding universe than one in a constant state. Since energy is continually decreasing in the universe it's logical that it must have started at its maximum when the universe was created. Hence, a creator, not of matter must have created energy as well as the universe. (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
My God (And your God, whether you chose to recognize him) did as shown above create energy as well as all that is seen in nature. Again, I submit that all matter (including the living) is created and that science has not shown first cause/motion, universal perfection and order in the known world. Furthermore, a creator who exists outside of matter is necessary for the creation of matter and thus is real and supernatural.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
JoeT
No, you don’t have this quit right. The first Law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation. That is, the change in energy is equal the amount added (or ducted) less the amount lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
This can be expressed as:
E = Eq – Ew
Where E is the total energy increased, Eq is the energy added and Ew is the energy lost to work. Thus all the energy is conserved either in the system or is used for work.
Joe T
Your right I defined the law of conservation of energy which leads into the first law of thermodynamics.
Regardless of what you call it. Energy can't be created or destroyed. Point remains.
That is exactly what we were discussing when Cred so rudely kept trying to change from the topic of the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
No, it can be changed to mass.Quote:
First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
You just destroyed your argument. Do you understand thus equation? Let me explain it to you:Quote:
Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2.
ENERGY = MASS times the SPEED OF LIGHT squared.
If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 AM. |