[jlisenbe]

Nah. For me it's more of a proposition that speaking the truth is important.

[paraclete]

I'll use a classic Bible quote "what is truth"

[jlisenbe]

If you can't answer that, then you're in trouble. I say that tongue in cheek since I believe you know the answer, Clete.

Another classic Bible quote is John 17:17.

[talaniman]

I'll use a classic Bible quote "what is truth"

Whatever you believe it to be whether true or not.

[paraclete]

not so Tal

[talaniman]

Of course it's so Clete or why would humans be fighting over the political correctness of one God?

[waltero]

go back to your Bible class and leave the quotes there, that way we can move from a religious discussion to a political one

Sorry, the two go hand in hand.

The State has to be subordinate to the individual. Your job as an individual is to embody the Social structure, but also to serve as it's eyes and its mouth.

Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".

[jlisenbe]

Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".

That is certainly a valid observation. One might ask where we get our political ethics from if not from religion.

[paraclete]

Of course it's so Clete or why would humans be fighting over the political correctness of one God?

to say there is one God is not a matter of political correctness Tal, it is a matter of truth. There is no evidence to the contrary

[Athos]

to say there is one God is not a matter of political correctness Tal, it is a matter of truth. There is no evidence to the contrary

What is the evidence FOR one God?

(Saying there is no evidence to the contrary - that there is not one God - brings up that pesky proving a negative again. But don't go off on a tanget with that. Just deal with the first question - thank you).

[paraclete]

What is the evidence FOR one God?

(Saying there is no evidence to the contrary - that there is not one God - brings up that pesky proving a negative again. But don't go off on a tanget with that. Just deal with the first question - thank you).

I don't see evidence for more than one

There is certainly evidence for the one and only

get down off that high horse before you fall down

[Athos]

I don't see evidence for more than one

There is certainly evidence for the one and only

get down off that high horse before you fall down

You were asked what is your evidence? Your answer is "There is certainly evidence...."

Here's you chance to state the evidence.

[paraclete]

Ok Athos, it is all set down in my book, Revival ~ a different perspective. Here's the short version, in 1978 I saw the face of the Lord in the face of another man, since that time I have had many experiences that confirm the existence of God

[Athos]

Ok Athos, it is all set down in my book, Revival ~ a different perspective. Here's the short version, in 1978 I saw the face of the Lord in the face of another man, since that time I have had many experiences that confirm the existence of God

Good for you, but that's not evidence. Experience that can be checked and verified is evidence.

[waltero]

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the rising of the sun, not simply because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else properly.”

@Athos, What do you hope to gain? The knowledge of the existence of GOD???
Look at the attitude of the first fellow on the Cross (the two men that were crucified with Christ), was essentially akin to many people’s response today: “If you get me out of my dilemma, I’ll believe in you. If you get me off this cross, I’ll become your follower. I have a problem, I have a dilemma, I have a felt need. Deal with my felt need, and I will follow you. Save yourself and save us.” That’s pretty routine. That’s normal. “What’s God ever done for me? He does something for me, I’ll do something for him. Why should I believe in him?

You most likely won't be getting any sign from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
It does sound so foolish doesn't it...I know, I know, lets make God into a fetus and we will Crucify him,,,that's Got to be totally believable.

I'm saying that the Bible is totally unbelievable and sounds so foolish, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

Carry on.

[Athos]

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the rising of the sun, not simply because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else properly.”

@Athos, What do you hope to gain? The knowledge of the existence of GOD???
Look at the attitude of the first fellow on the Cross (the two men that were crucified with Christ), was essentially akin to many people’s response today: “If you get me out of my dilemma, I’ll believe in you. If you get me off this cross, I’ll become your follower. I have a problem, I have a dilemma, I have a felt need. Deal with my felt need, and I will follow you. Save yourself and save us.” That’s pretty routine. That’s normal. “What’s God ever done for me? He does something for me, I’ll do something for him. Why should I believe in him?

You most likely won't be getting any sign from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
It does sound so foolish doesn't it...I know, I know, lets make God into a fetus and we will Crucify him,,,that's Got to be totally believable.

I'm saying that the Bible is totally unbelievable and sounds so foolish, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

Carry on.

Apparently, you have failed to read the original post by paraclete - #109. He brought up the question of evidence of God. I responded to it.

However, you rushed in and wrote several paragraphs not one of which provided any legitimate reply to the question being discussed. You certainly have enthusiasm but it goes nowhere when you fail to address the topic at hand.

It's also not helpful when you suggest I should "step out in faith before demanding Evidence". Are you always so quick to criticize? Then there is what appears to be your contradictory first paragraph - offering DNA as evidence (your statement by itself is not evidence) followed by CS Lewis offering the non-evidence of a metaphor.

The rest of your post is not relevant to the discussion of evidence so I will not discuss it further.

I encourage you to read these posts more carefully.

Carry on.

[jlisenbe]

Evidence for God.

1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.
2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.
3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)
5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.
6. The second law of thermodynamics.
7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.

Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

[Athos]

Evidence for God.

For someone who thrives on accusing others not knowing what evidence means, your post is remarkable for its glaring LACK of evidence.

None of your reasons are even remotely evidence. Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same, variously expressed.

More specifically:

1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.

The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.

2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.

Not even close to evidence.

3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.

Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.

4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)

Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.

5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.

Oh, please. Faith is the literal opposite of evidence.

6. The second law of thermodynamics.

So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.

7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)

Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.

8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.

See #4. and #1, 2, and 7.

Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”

Not only is none of this evidence, Dr. Jastrow is wrong and exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field. See what I bolded. If ever an oxymoron - spiritual forces described as a scientifically proven fact - this takes the cake.

By the way, his first line is correct and is the opposite of your #1. Which is correct?

[jlisenbe]

Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same

Completely absurd comment

The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.

For which there is no known natural cause. Absolutely, positively none.

3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.

Which is exactly the point. It is taught virtually everywhere with remarkable consistency. It clearly indicates a moral code imprinted on the heart and mind of man.

4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.) Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.

That's because you don't know the data. The force of gravity, for instance, is incredibly finely tuned to an astonishing level.

The evidence for the resurrection is amazingly substantial.

6. The second law of thermodynamics.

So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.

It means the universe had a start, which is to say a cause. As I said earlier, there is no known natural cause. BTW, to say the universe is "slowing down" is not accurate. The rate of expansion for the universe is actually believed to be increasing, not decreasing.

7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)

Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.

Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself. No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment.

Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory. So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance. I suppose you would say you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night???

"(5) Cosmological constant(which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Since the logically-possible range of strengths of some forces is potentially infinite, to get a handle on the precision of fine-tuning, theorists often think in terms of the range of force strengths, with gravity the weakest, and the strong nuclear force the strongest. The strong nuclear force is 1040 times stronger than gravity, that is, ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity. Think of that range as represented by a ruler stretching across the entire observable universe, about 15 billion light years. If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 1034 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets."

https://www.discovery.org/a/fine-tuning-parameters/

[waltero]

DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.

https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.html
https://notashamedofthegospel.com/ap...hat%20DNA%20is.
This will change nothing. If God himself was to present you with all the evidence in the world (already in Effect) you still could not accept him....same as if God was to reveal himself to you...you will not accept it, you can not accept it. The evidence you seek is the new Creation that comes with being Born again. Die to self and believe in the living Word. It is the word of GOD that brought all things into being.  

Why so much emphasis on the Word?  
When people talk, they lay lines on each other, do a lot of role playing, sidestep, shilly-shally and engage in all manner of vagueness and innuendo. We do this and expect others to do it, yet at the same time we profess to long for the plain truth, for people to say what they mean, simple as that. Such hypocrisy is a human universal. 
Matthew 12:37 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Get into the Word of GOD and believe, speak, live...Speak the living word and bring the living God within yourself.
People went around healing others just by speaking the word of God, they didn't believe, or know the name, they simply spoke...Power in the word.