[classyT]

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 ....

:)

.

.

"Tommies intolerance?" tee hee hee.. well you have been so TOLERANT I can just imagine how FRUSTRATED you must feel. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Alty]

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.

[Tj3]

You do realize that I'm not an atheist, don't you Tom?

You already stated that you are not discussing the issue regarding the objective scientific evidence, so I am not referring to you.

[Credendovidis]

So stop interfering with the discussion.

The Objective Supported Evidence referred to here, is not about any of your claims.
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:

.

.

[Tj3]

It is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence.

Exactly - so stop interfering with the discussion.

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.

[Credendovidis]

Exactly - so stop interfering with the discussion.

You refuse to stay on topic Tommy, with your evolution babble.
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 !!!

.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

.

.

[Tj3]

You refuse to stay on topic Tommy, with your evolution babble.

I am not the one who keeps bringing up evolution.

The discussion is about Objective Supported Evidence for "God's" existence .

So stop interfering with the discussion.

[Tj3]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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".

.

[magprob]

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existence?

[TexasParent]

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existance?

I don't know if you are addressing me or someone else, but I'll take a stab at your question.

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?

[Tj3]

Please read the header of this topic :

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

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)
===========================

[Tj3]

What if GOD has talked to you? Is that reason enough to prove his existance?

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.

[classyT]

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? Beacuse just because somebody spoke to you does not mean that it is God. The Bible warns of deceiving spirits.

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.

[michealb]

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?

[classyT]

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.

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.

[magprob]

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?

[classyT]

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.

[Alty]

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.

[michealb]

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?