[Tj3]

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

[Credendovidis]

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:

.

.

[Tj3]

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

Memory problems, Cred?

[Credendovidis]

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:

.

.

[Tj3]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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:

.

.

[Tj3]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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"?

:(

.

.

[Tj3]

Cred,

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

[Credendovidis]

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:

.

.

[Tj3]

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

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

[Alty]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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".

.

[Tj3]

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Credendovidis]

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...

:)

.

.

[Tj3]

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!!

[Alty]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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:

.

.

[Tj3]

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

So stop interfering with the discussion.