[Credendovidis]

Keep singing that chorus - maybe it will help drown out the facts.

Facts? You mean these claims you posted ?
The claim that "God" exists was NEVER accompanied by any feasible answers regarding factual support, nor by any OSE.

:D

I asked only for a natural explanation - have another look. Perhaps you are trying to point to evolution because you know evolution has no answers, and you are trying to avoid that fact that there is no other answer either.

You can ask whatever you like. I have no problems with your questions.
I have a problem with your conclusion!!

Read this line from my original post: "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."

Interesting response from someone who posts lie after lie after lie (and get caught time and time again)...

Next to that : your "list" contains queries to some views on evolution. I have no problem with that, but leave it to evolutionists to answer these on the evolution board.
I have a problem with your wild conclusion that your list "proves" the existence of "God".
That is illogical, pseudo-scientific nonsense.

So far, this has been your primary response. If there are answers, post them here and now.

This is the Religious Discussions board, not the Evolution board.
Your list of queries are to be replied to on the Evolution board.

This topic on this board is about the CONCLUSION you draw from your "list". A CONCLUSION that is illogical, pseudo-scientific, and nonsensical.

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

[Tj3]

Cred,

I see that you have no answers, and all you are interested in is time wasters.

Should you ever come up with answers, and choose to discuss respectfully, I am interested.

I do not, however, have time to waste with someone who clearly does not wish to engage in a mature respectful discussion of the issues.

[Credendovidis]

I see that you have no answers, and all you are interested in is time wasters.

I have answers. But I will not post them here, because they are off-topic.
You claim to have "proof" for the existence of "God", but you fail to provide that "proof"!

Your repeated attempt to debate your queries on evolution instead of the topic itself is actually the only real time wasting here, but it allows me to show all here your rejectable mode of operation !
Next to that : your "list" has nothing to do with "proof" for the existence of "God"!!

Should you ever come up with answers, and choose to discuss respectfully, I am interested.

I will not. At least not here. Try the Evolution board. And about respectful discussions :
Since when is YOUR repeated lying respectfully? Matthew 7:3!!

I do not, however, have time to waste with someone who clearly does not wish to engage in a mature respectful discussion of the issues.

Oh, my "engagement" here is mature, respectful, and to the point.
And MY responses do not contain lies.

Note : this topic on this board is not about the items on your "list" of Evolution queries.
This topic is about the CONCLUSION you draw from your "list". A CONCLUSION that is illogical, pseudo-scientific, and nonsensical.

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God"!!

The only acceptable "proof" for the existence of "God" is OSE for the existence of "God" !!!

THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE "PROOF" FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" IS OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

Anything else is based on BELIEF !

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

.

.

[Tj3]

I have answers. But I will not post them here, because they are off-topic.

You started the thread here, now you refuse to answer (as you have on two boards now), but rather post abuse and false accusations. As I said, when you are serious about a respectful mature discussion, let me know.

[inthebox]

See Cred , God answered my prayers, you continue to question His existence.

There is our OSE !:D

[JoeT777]

Below I repost a list by Tom, one of the posters on this board who argued that this list shows proof for "God's" existence. Although I am tolerant towards any belief a person can have, I draw a clear line between what a person BELIEVES and what is covered by OSE.

Another point is that support queries for one specific view do not mean that - even without any OSE for another view - that other view is automatically "factual". Each claim has to be OSE proved on it's own merits.

I have a link to another Q&A board to show that this list is a "true" copy, but I am not allowed to post that link here. If you want the URL PM me, and I will forward you the link.

Here is Toms list of claims :

"Blindness is no excuse".

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.

"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists", Toms stated. But that is of course nonsense. Who decides if there was no other possible mean? Even if at this moment we do not know such mean, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God". Again : who decides if there was no natural answer? Even if at this moment we do not know such answer, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted".
There is a saying : A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer ....

A list on evolution queries is no OSE for "God's" existence. Why not post direct OSE for "God's" existence? The answer is simple : because such evidence does not exist. You can only BELIEVE in "God's" existence.

Whatever you can post on queries on whatever subject, it will never be OSE for "God's" existence. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be.

Any comments ?

:)

.

.

Let’s see if I understand your question; you want objective evidence (a scientific measure) to prove the existence of God? So, you want to measure God through science? You want somebody to pickup and place God, (a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being) in your hands for proof?

Let me know when you get an answer!

JoeT

[michealb]

Why not anything that powerful should be able to be measured. I'm only half that powerful and I can be measured.

By the way the reason I say only half is because it's impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent.

[Tj3]

Why not anything that powerful should be able to be measured. I'm only half that powerful and I can be measured.

You can only fantasize about being half as powerful as God.

By the way the reason I say only half is because it's impossible to be omniscient and omnipotent.

Really? And your proof that there is no omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere is the universe is? Show us the OSE!

[Credendovidis]

Let’s see if I understand your question; you want objective evidence (a scientific measure) to prove the existence of God? So, you want to measure God through science? You want somebody to pickup and place God, (a spiritual, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being) in your hands for proof?
Let me know when you get an answer!JoeT

How are you doing, Joe ?

No : I do not need the answer to that. I just query Tommy Smith's wild claim that he can provide proof for the existence of "God" with some questions about the evolution.
Note that I have no problems with these queries , but with Tommies conclusion, and with his claim that what he BELIEVES is factual !
He simply can not provide (OSE) proof for the existence of "God" , but fails to admit that...

:D :rolleyes: :p ;) :rolleyes: :D

.

.

[Tj3]

How are you doing, Joe ?
No : I do not need the answer to that. I just query Tommy Smith's wild claim that he can provide proof for the existence of "God" with some questions about the evolution.
Note that I have no problems with these queries , but with Tommies conclusion, and with his claim that what he BELIEVES is factual !
He simply can not provide (OSE) proof for the existence of "God" , but fails to admit that ....

Cred,

Denial does not make the proof any less valid. You claim that you have answers, but you refuse to provide them :D

Tom

[Credendovidis]

Denial does not make the proof any less valid.

No denial does not do that. I note that as you so far failed to provide any real OSE for the existence of "God" it is nothing but a claim that you just BELIEVE in!! So there is no valid proof from your side.

You claim that you have answers, but you refuse to provide them

I do not claim anything (that's just another one of your lies).
I refuse on a religious discussion board to discuss your queries on evolution. Because these queries have nothing to do with the topic here.
The topic is about your CLAIMED evidence for the existence of "God" for which you so far failed to provide any OSE, notwithstanding all the hot air you are blowing into the topic...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

[michealb]

Really? And your proof that there is no omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere is the universe is? Show us the OSE!

Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it your not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

There for logic proves that there can not be a omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere. You can't be both because they contradict each other. I know the whole story about god being beyond our logic and comprehension and what not. However until he proves of that I'm going with logic. Also even several bible stories point out that the god of the bible is not omniscient or omnipotent by not knowing things (Adam and the apple, The devil plotting against him, Abraham being willing to kill his child, children making fun of him when he was a bald man and many many others.)

[Tj3]

No denial does not do that. I note that as you so far failed to provide any real OSE for the existence of "God" it is nothing but a claim that you just BELIEVE in !!! So there is no valid proof from your side.

Keep claiming it, Cred, and maybe someday you will actually convince yourself to BELIEVE that there is no OSE for God!

[Tj3]

Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it your not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

You are simply playing wordgames. Just like the silly questions that atheists used to use - how may angels can dance on the head of a pin, or can God make a rock so heavy that he can't move it.

Just silly word games.

[Credendovidis]

Keep claiming it, Cred, and maybe someday you will actually convince yourself to BELIEVE that there is no OSE for God!

"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists", Toms stated.
Your words, Tommy. Not mine ! Your own wild hot air claims, unsupported by any OSE.

All you can do is BELIEVE that ! But you can not OSE support a single iota of that claim!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

[michealb]

Really silly word games is that the best you can come up with. I don't care if you make up new words to describe god but it would help your case if you at least made the definition of that word logical. I mean wouldn't you be less likely to believe me if I said I saw a one legged man with two legs than if I had said I saw a one legged man. Also it's very hypocritical of you to say god is the logical conclusion and later discount logic as silly.

Also as far as your two other questions.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Infinite numbers. Angels are an abstract a thought there for there is no limit to how many thoughts can fit on the head of a pin because of course thoughts aren't physical.
As to if I can make a rock so heavy not even I could lift it?
No, however this does not mean I'm not omnipotent. It just means I can only do things based in logic. Since I am omnipotent I have the most power. If I create a rock that I couldn't lift it, it would be in sense be more powerful than me and since I am the most powerful the rock can not be more powerful than me logically.

Here are a few questions for you, not my own though.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus

[Tj3]

Really silly word games is that the best you can come up with.

Well it is. I would hope that no adult would seriously use such a silly argument, unless it was meant as a joke - because, to be honest, I find it hard to believe that anyone would seriously propose such an argument.

I note that I was more than willing to use purely scientific evidence and the scientific method, and atheists appear to avoid it, and other atheists simple try to use abusive attacks (i.e. Cred). I wonder why:D Are the facts not good enough?

[michealb]

Really you say god is two things that it logically can't be when your whole argument was that god was a logical solution and your going to call me childish and silly when I call you on it. Really?! I mean it's god you can make up any solution you want for the problem and it can't be proven or disproven. So you have tons of options here and you went with silly and childish. I'm sure some bible thumping web site has at least a half decent response to the problem if you can't think of one on your own.

[JoeT777]

JoeT consequently,

Okay if someone or something is omniscient it knows what it would be doing two days from now. In order for the being to be omnipotent it would have to be able to change what it was doing two days from now. However if it changes what it was doing proving it is omnipotent it disproves that it is omniscient because it should have know that it was going to do something different if it was omniscient. There for if you are omniscient you can't be omnipotent because you can't change it and if you can change it you’re not omniscient because you didn't know what was going to happen.

Therefore logic proves that there cannot be a omniscient and omnipotent being anywhere. You can't be both because they contradict each other. I know the whole story about god being beyond our logic and comprehension and what not. However until he proves of that I'm going with logic. Also even several bible stories point out that the god of the bible is not omniscient or omnipotent by not knowing things (Adam and the apple, The devil plotting against him, Abraham being willing to kill his child, children making fun of him when he was a bald man and many many others.)

While explaining God’s omnipotence it is not enough to say that God can do all things that are possible; rather the definition must be expanded to say, for God all things are possible. Therefore, logic dictates that an omniscient God can change his mind since “No word shall be impossible with God“ (Luke 1:37 ), (Cf. Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3) Furthermore, that God is omniscient doesn’t depend on His omnipotence, rather God’s omniscience is part of his omnipotence (all powerful, by definition must include all knowing). (Cf. Summa I Q VIII a.2). Thus, it’s easy to imagine scenarios explaining why an omnipotent God may have changed His mind – or to have appeared to change His mind.

Consequently, we see a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient. Wouldn’t you think, that in the same way we scratch a temporal itch with temporal things, we would scratch a spiritual itch spiritually?

JoeT

[Tj3]

Really you say god is two things that it logically can't be

Like I said - with all due respect, I cannot really believe that anyone over the age of 10 would think such an argument was logical.

Get real.

BTW, as for your other word game:

------------
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus
------------

Keep in mind that if God did indeed remove all evil, that no one including you is without sin, therefore God would have to destroy everyone that exists. Instead God is longsuffering and merciful. And you think that somehow you have the right to judge God for showing mercy?

Now, can we get off the silly word games and have a serious discussion on the questions at hand (that you now appear to be avoiding).