[Tj3]

You can't provide OSE for something that doesn't exist that why you won't get any atheist to prove that there isn't a god.

And yet they have faith in their belief that there is no God. That takes more faith than I have. Mine is not a blind faith.

You also can't prove your supernatural hypothesis by disproving a natural one. Any scientific theory has to stand on its own.

You keep coming back to this, and yet I have stated right from the start that all I am trying to show is what can be shown within the limits of science. If you believe what you say, then your strongest argument would some from addressing the points which have been raised, and yet for some reason, you don't want to allow this topic to go to it's logical conclusion from a scientific viewpoint.

As I have been saying prove one instance of the supernatural and I'll concede your points. Every single time I have said this though you have ignored this point so I don't expect anything different this time.

BTW, it may take me a couple of days to get back to any response that you give - see the last link below to find out why.

[inthebox]

Tj3

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?

This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.

[Credendovidis]

The reality is the the belief that there is no God is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

Another nonsensical and invalid remark in respect to what was posted earlier.
You know very well that I never claimed that there is no "God".
It is impossible to prove the negative claim that "God" does not exist.
And despite many requests thereto theists failed so far to prove the MUCH-EASIER-TO-PROVE positive claim that "God" exists.

If you would spend as much energy on "spreading the word" in the way it is intended, you could have "turned" perhaps people towards Christianity.
However your constant negative , aggressive , and deliberate mendacious approach on various Q&A and discussion boards only results in the opposite : turning away people from your personal version of Christianity...

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

.

.

[Credendovidis]

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?

After thousands of years leading to and including Christianity there never was any OSE for the multitude of religious claims.
Since the ever faster development of science we know in a few hundred years millions of times more about nature than religion ever provided over these many thousands of years.

Besides that : those who make claims on the origin of life, on the origin of genetic code, on the origin of proteins that can auto regulate should indeed support their claims.
But that can not be used as argument that any unanswered query on these subjects can be seen as valid OSE for the existence of "God" etc.
For a validation of the existence of "God" the only thing that will do is valid OSE for the existence of "God" , and nothing else.

This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.

What you call "factual science" tries to explain how nature functions with Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) , and does so increasingly successful.
Religious views - what you call the "super natural" - was NEVER and will NEVER be in the domain of that same "factual science", as it is based on BELIEF only.

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

.

.

[inthebox]

What you call "factual science" tries to explain how nature functions with Objective Supporting Evidence (OSE) , and does so increasingly successful.

What I called factual science is in the links I have provided - they can show that proteins autoregulate, or that a cell has gene repair mechanism.

What science has shown are these facts and the increasing complexity of the cell.

What these papars and research show is that evolution [ natural means ] cannot demonstrate any ose as to how these complexities came about in the first place.

Cred, IF you understood the basic biology of gene trascription and translation into proteins, you would be hammering away at the evolutionists as to their OSE for the origin of genetic code, proteins, cell complexity.

Further, IF you take biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, you will demand more OSE as to how these complex systems came about by chance and even billions of years.

If there is no "natural" explanation for these or what TJ3 has given you examples of then these are caused by super natural means.

What is that supernatural means? GOD.

[Credendovidis]

What I called factual science is in the links I have provided - they can show that proteins autoregulate, or that a cell has gene repair mechanism.

You can call whatever you like.
But I am not discussing here queries on evolution. There is a special topic opened for that.

Here in this topic the discussion is about the validity of queries and replies on other issues (I used the list of evolution queries and it's conclusion) being (mis) used as some "proof" of the existence of "God".

Of course the existence of "God" can only be OSE proved by DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God" and by nothing else.

If there is no "natural" explanation for these or what TJ3 has given you examples of then these are caused by super natural means.

You know my answer to this : the existence of "God" can only be OSE proved by direct evidence for the existence of "God" and by nothing else.

You may claim that there are no answers to these queries (although many of these issues were replied to here and repeatedly also on the Internet), but even if you were correct on that, it would only prove that there are no answers to these queries. Not that the conclusions creationists draw from that are correct.

What is that supernatural means? GOD.

Supernatural refers to something that is "beyond the physical universe".
That there is anything "beyond the physical universe" is a wild claim that never received any OSE as support.
Just as for the existence of the entity you refer to as "God". That OSE support does not exist neither !

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

.

.

[Tj3]

I just react to what you post here so often - to me and a few selected others - by showing your own negative approach.

Ho hum - do you have anything useful to say, or is abuse all you can muster?

The reality is of course that the existence of "God" is something you only can BELIEVE in, and for which there is no OSE !

So all : can we please get back on-topic again ?

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

[Tj3]

Tj3

Why can't the reductionists, the materialists, give us OSE for the origin of life, the origin of genetic code, the origin of proteins that can auto regulate?

This is then all "super natural" - and they chose to remain blind to what factual science shows them.

Good questions - I doubt that any answers will be coming any time soon.

[Tj3]

Another nonsensical and invalid remark in respect to what was posted earlier.
You know very well that I never claimed that there is no "God".

You argue that there is no God until you arer asked to validate that claim then you make comments like this.

It is impossible to prove the negative claim that "God" does not exist.

Exactly. So while we can demonstrate evidence for the xistence of God, so far you and the other athesist are coming up empty with respect to any validation for the belief that there is no God.

And despite many requests thereto theists failed so far to prove the MUCH-EASIER-TO-PROVE positive claim that "God" exists.

Everyone has seen the evidence, but you seem to avoid it.

[Credendovidis]

Ho hum - do you have anything useful to say, or is abuse all you can muster?

And that line is NOT abuse??

:D

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

Ask that question where it belongs : see the board with queries about evolution LINK !

:rolleyes:

You argue that there is no God until you arer asked to validate that claim then you make comments like this

Another deliberate clear Tj3 lie : I NEVER argued that there is no "God".
I say that there is no OSE, no "proof" for the existence of "God".

Tj3 : lying to support "God"!!

:D :D :D :D

.

.

[Tj3]

And that line is NOT abuse??

So, what you are saying Cred, is that you can lie, falsely accuse, use name-calling, and that is not abuse - but dare anyone to even mention it - that is abuse??

I know some cults who would welcome you!

I NEVER argued that there is no "God".
I say that there is no OSE, no "proof" for the existence of "God".

So are you saying that you accept the possibility that God exists?

[Credendovidis]

So, what you are saying Cred .....

Matthew 7:3 : why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

that you can falsely accuse ...

You have repeatedly lied that I posted that "God does not exist". You know that is a lie.
I have replied to every of your similar allegations with a denial similar to this post.
Still you repeat that lie whenever that suits you .

There is no OSE proof for the existence of "God". If "God" exists or not I do not know. All I can see is that theists NEVER have OSE proved the positive claim that "God" exists.

AND THAT IS A FACT !!! : Both that there is no OSE (proof), and that you deliberate lie about this all.

"Lying for Christ" - a new method of "spreading the Word" ? Do they know at the Christian Discernment Resources, the Last Days Bible Conference, and the Signs of Scripture Conference that this is your current approach ?

So are you saying that you accept the possibility that God exists?

Everything is possible. That "God" exists seems to me highly unlikely, but it is possible.
And I note that I also have stated that clearly!!

Note : I saved this post complete with URL : next time you will get the same post!!

:rolleyes: :p :D :p :rolleyes:

.

.

[Tj3]

Matthew 7:3 : why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?

Cred, you are the one pointing fingers. I keep trying to get on to the topic, and you keep trying to distract from it. If you claim otherwise, then get on topic.

You have repeatedly lied that I posted that "God does not exist". You know that is a lie.

Ah Cred, you forget that I have known you on at least three different boards over many many years. Further, everyone has seen your posts on here.

There is no OSE proof for the existence of "God". If "God" exists or not I do not know.

You just proved my point. No matter how often, on how many boards, and by how many people proof is posted from many different angles, you avoid the evidence like the plague. If one was open to any possibility, they would be so staunchly opposed to even acknowledging the proof.

All I can see is that theists NEVER have OSE proved the positive claim that "God" exists.

Now you arew back to saying that you cannot "see" the evidence :D :D

AND THAT IS A FACT !!! : Both that there is no OSE (proof), and that you deliberate lie about this all.

Shall I post it again?

[Credendovidis]

Tj3 :

Whatever reasons Christians have to keep high standards for moral and ethics is irrelevant.
The proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

I wonder why...

:rolleyes: :p :D :p :rolleyes:

.

.

[Tj3]

[

Tj3 :

As I stated : the proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

Ho hum - facts made up by the Cred Institute no doubt, where research on the west pointing compass is underway by engineers who got their licences in high school :p

[classyT]

And that line is NOT abuse ???

:D



.

.

Cred,

PLEASE don't tell me you are the type that can dish it out but can't take it... read your own posts!

[asking]

So do any of you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God?

I'm not aware of any. I don't understand either why you all keep saying that Cred says there is no God. I don't hear him saying that at all. I won't speak for him, but I don't believe in God BECAUSE I know of no evidence for His existence. Those are two different things.
1. Is there objective evidence for something?
2. Based on no evidence, do you choose to believe anyway or not?

Cred says there is no objective evidence and invites others to offer some in case he is not aware of it. I think he really wants to engage you about the nature of evidence, what is evidence and what is not. But that's a scientific way of thinking that is contrary to religious belief (in my opinion), which is not evidence based.
Cred does not appear to me to be saying that he knows there is no God. No one could say that.

There is no objective evidence for a lot of things. For example, there is no objective evidence for ghosts, but it's clear from this list that a lot of people nonetheless believe ghosts are real. Likewise, there is no objective evidence for the existence of a human "mind," yet many people believe it is a real entity separate from the body--hence the "mind body connection." There can't be a connection between two things if they aren't two things.

So for God, there can be no evidence and yet you can still choose to believe. Likewise, it's legitimate for someone else to choose not to believe BECAUSE there is no evidence "proving" God's existence.

In contrast, there IS objective evidence for the existence of polar bears, an international financial crisis, kidneys that clean blood, and millions of other things. These are matters that we can see, measure, feel, etc. God and the mind are not.

[Tj3]

So do any of you believe there is objective evidence for the existence of God?

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 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 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.

[asking]

For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God.

Thanks Tj3!

For now, I'm going to ignore the specifics, cool as they are, because I don't understand your central argument.

How does the lack of explanation for one thing provide proof of something else?

Would you say that if I don't know where my husband was last night, that's proof he was unfaithful? Just because I don't know something about him doesn't mean I default to a single alternate explanation.

Would you say that if I don't know why my washing machine won't start, that's proof that it's broken (as opposed to, say, that the power is off in my house)? Or is it proof that God doesn't want me to wash clothes today? I'm being silly, but you get what I'm saying, I hope.

How is your argument different from these arguments?

[Tj3]

For now, I'm going to ignore the specifics, cool as they are, because I don't understand your central argument.

How does the lack of explanation for one thing provide proof of something else?

First it is not the lack of an explanation for something else. It is the fact that there is no feasible way in which a event could happen. For example, if I showed out a MacIntosh computer, and asked you if it was feasible for it to have come about through sexual reproduction between two other M<ac computers, you would say that it is not feasible. Therefore, we need to look at the remaining alternatives. It is not the failure to have an explanation - it is the fact that one or more approaches cannot possible happen.

It is a standard scientific approach - when you observe something, it might happen by a number of different ways. So you look at each one from a scie3ntific perspective, testing where possible, in an effort to determine which is correct. Once all possible alternatives but one are eliminated, then that which remains is accepted.

This is how most planets outside our solar system are found. It is how many phenomena in outer space are explained. Though in these cases, the criteria used to determine the final explanation is usually not quite as stringent as what I am using.