[classyT]

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.

[Credendovidis]

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...

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.

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 ?

:)

.

.

[Credendovidis]

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".

.

[classyT]

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?

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.

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.

[michealb]

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.

[Credendovidis]

God does test you....

You mean : I BELIEVE that God does test you...

There is no OSE that "God" exists. You BELIEVE that.
There is no OSE that "God" - if "God" exists - tests you. You BELIEVE that.

:)

.

.

[classyT]

Cred,

no.. I said it right the first time... :)

[classyT]

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.

[JoeT777]

Objective Supported Evidence

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.

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

[Tj3]

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.

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.

[michealb]

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.

[Tj3]

Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.

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.

Like are we forgetting that energy can not be created or destroyed.

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.

So all of the energy out there has always been there even before the big bang.

Conclusion is not warranted for the reason given in #2 above.

[michealb]

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.

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.

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.

[Credendovidis]

It seems that empirical deduction isn’t sufficient; somehow it’s not supportive enough.

Indeed Joe. As stated many times before on this board I have no problem with what people BELIEVE.

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 !!

:)

.

.

[Credendovidis]

Cred started with one topic and wants to change it so that he can control what we can and cannot talk about.

That is a lie, and you know it!! The current discussion is precisely accordingly to what was stated in the topic starting question.

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 !

:)

.
.

[michealb]

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.

[JoeT777]

Your argument that god must be the first mover is wrong because if god can exist forever than something else can exist for ever.

Which is precisely the point, God was, God is and God will be eternal.

Like are we forgetting that energy cannot 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.

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.

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)

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.

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.


JoeT

[JoeT777]

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.

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.

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

[michealb]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

That is exactly what we were discussing when Cred so rudely kept trying to change from the topic of the thread.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.

No, it can be changed to mass.

Matter is still energy, it's potential energy but it's still energy you know the whole E=MC2.

You just destroyed your argument. Do you understand thus equation? Let me explain it to you:

ENERGY = MASS times the SPEED OF LIGHT squared.

If mass were energy, then it would be E=M.