Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by skwalker1964 Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:39 pm

snowyflake wrote:
What kind of burning bush was it God spoke through, and I wonder if the fumes affected Moses in any way, did he not drop something on the way down ?

Coca? He 'dropped' a 'tablet'......do you suppose Moses was on drugs and we just didn't get it for 5000 years? That would change the accepted interpretation of the OT significantly, I would think.

I'm no expert, but don't you 'drop' acid?

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:44 pm

I'm no expert, but don't you 'drop' acid?

Are you suggesting Moses dropped acid? It's possible I suppose. He was hallucinating around that bush for months carving up the 10 commandments. He had to eat something and perhaps the leaves in the mountains contained hallucinogens. Who knows for sure?

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:45 pm

Moses was a Shaman, all Shaman took mind altering substances to access the spirit world, he went up to a mountain inhaled some weed and got his instructions. We must try and put ourselves into the mystic and mythic mindset of our primitive ancestors, they sincerely believed in spirits, deities et al, it was the only thing that made sense of nature and human nature.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 28, 2013 5:33 pm

NOW we're getting there ..........

(It's all in the mind, you know.)

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/flyaway.html

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:06 pm

http://www.thegreatillusion.com/flyaway.html

Sounds like polyglide wrote it......calls for a barf icon, I'm afraid. Smile

by Guest Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:16 pm

snowyflake wrote:
The question of when in our evolution did God reveal himself…

I'll put it to Rock… to answer this question please.

I cannot. YHVH Elohim can and does.

Hebrew Bible

And Elohim said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

So Elohim created man in his own image, in the image of Elohim created he him, male and female created he them. And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Then Elohim said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you, and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”, and it was so.

And Elohim saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.¹

Genesis 1:26-31

יום, yôm: a day, as the warm hours, whether literally, as in sunrise to sunset or one sunset to the next sunset, or figuratively, as in a space of time defined by an associated term; age; always; continually; continuance; daily; each: today; forever; everlasting; evermore; perpetually; presently; season; awhile; full year; yearly.

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 28, 2013 7:43 pm

I've been trying to decide why the arguments in this thread feel so familiar, and I guess it's because when the United Nations Security Council met in the immediate aftermath of WW2, the Russian delegation automatically voted "Nyet!" to any proposal put forward by the USA. Whatever it was!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

by Shirina Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:08 pm

They believe in microevolution but can never say when God first made himself known to humans. They bypass the question altogether.

There's a very good reason why they avoid the question - or else refer immediately to the Bible itself as Rock did. It's because there is a massive gap between the emergence of modern homosapiens and the writing of the Bible. Unless you're one of those nutjob young earth creationists, it is pretty clear based on archaeological evidence that humanity has been around for at least 100,000 years, but the Bible has only been around for 5,000 years at the longest. Christianity itself, as a major world religion, has been around for less than 2,000 years - and it wasn't even the first religion. The first major religion was Hindusim which is several thousand years older than either Christianity or Judaism.

Thus, for some bizarre and inexplicable reason, the Abrahamic God stood passively by for literally thousands of centuries as humanity slogged about in survival mode, even coming dangerously close to extinction at one point. There were no holy books, no grand pronouncements from the heavens, no angelic visitations, and no guides to a moral life. For thousands of centuries this continued as humanity suffered from disease, biological flaws in the human body, natural disasters, and tribal warfare.

Then, for some equally bizarre and inexplicable reason, God suddenly decides its time to inspire illiterate Bronze Age shepherds in the Middle East to reveal the presence of God with a vague book that even now is difficult to read. But does God reveal himself to everyone? Do prophets and miracles appear globally - in China, in India, in North and South America? Does he reveal himself to the Dogon tribe in Mali or the Aboriginees in Australia? No ... God picks the Hebrews and ONLY the Hebrews and keeps himself secret from everyone but this one tribe. Even more time goes by as Judaism slowly gains traction against paganism ... and even then, it takes a blood sacrifice before Christianity is born not more than 1800 years ago.

Historically, it makes utterly no sense.

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:22 pm

thus, I can not answer for “us”, I can only answer for me.

I cannot. YHVH Elohim can and does.

It seems you cannot answer for you, despite your claim.

Back to....the Bible is true because it says it is true.

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:26 pm

יום, yôm: a day, as the warm hours, whether literally, as in sunrise to sunset or one sunset to the next sunset, or figuratively, as in a space of time defined by an associated term; age; always; continually, continuance: daily: each: today; forever; everlasting; evermore; perpetually; presently; season; awhile; full year; yearly.

Being a Biblical literalist must be fun when a day can mean a day, a year or eternity ?

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:29 pm

What ever happened to goals and the truth,

We didn't like the truth and changed our goals, goodbye reason...hello immortality.

by Tosh Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:40 pm

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I can understand why change is resisted by our elders, if you start dismantling the past before a certain generation is dead then you are effectively rubbing out their story while they are still living it.

We are the sum of our experiences, and we don't like much of what we have experienced being replaced, we need them to identify who we are.

Slow change is just respecting our elders.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:27 pm

Please note that I am not a plural, i.e., I am not “we”; thus, I can not answer for “us”, I can only answer for me.

No one said you were a plural. You are a fundamentalist believer by your own admission. Polyglide is a believer as well. So my question was directed at the 2 believers who post on this forum. No one asked you to answer for polyglide. Polyglide is quite incapable of answering for himself.

I cannot. YHVH Elohim can and does.

You cannot because you don't know. And God doesn't answer it either. When did God reveal himself to humans?. Was it during the Cro Magnon, Homo neanderthalis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis development before Homo sapiens? Earlier? Or later?

You believe in evolution Rock. You have said so on many occasions. At what point in our evolution, does God decide to show himself? You are suggesting at the very beginning of the world? Or the very beginning of Homo sapiens? In which case, you cannot agree with evolution. Are you a young earth creationist then? The world, according to the bible is 6-7000 years old. The fossil record begs to differ.

Polyglide has also said he believes in evolution so I shall await his answer, too. I am interested in how the human believer mind squares the scientific facts with biblical belief.

by Guest Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:05 pm

When did God reveal himself to humans?

The sixth yôm,¹ Genesis 1:26-31, a time known to YHVH Elohim, a time not known to me.

יום, yôm: a day, as the warm hours, whether literally, as in sunrise to sunset or one sunset to the next sunset, or figuratively, as in a space of time defined by an associated term; age; always; continually; continuance; daily; each: today; forever; everlasting; evermore; perpetually; presently; season; awhile; full year; yearly.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:16 pm

I cannot answer for anyone but me; thus, the other person’s name that you’ve mentioned, a person whose thoughts and actions I do not direct, has been omitted in the above

By not putting his name in your post you have drawn attention to him. Why don't you just ignore that part of my post instead of drawing attention to something you are implying you don't want to draw attention to? If you wish to make a point, Rock, just make it instead of going the long way around the barn. No one asked you to answer for polyglide. You may answer for yourself.

You do not know. I do not know. YHVH Elohim, eternal and omniscient, knows.

God isn't telling. He likes to keep secrets and hides himself in his office like an inept manager.

YHVH Elohim answers it in his word, Genesis 1:26-31. I know not to whom you refer when you write “God.”

Semantics. Smile

The sixth yôm,1 Genesis 1:26-31, a time known to YHVH Elohim, a time not known to me.

Then you believe that the world began with God creating man in his image about 6000 years ago. In spite of the evidence to the contrary and in spite of your assertion that microevolution is true but macroevolution is not. Kindly explain homo neanderthalis for me please. Did God invent him? Was he a prototype? Or did he not exist at all as far as you are concerned?

by oftenwrong Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:53 pm

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#WFpT78Fj18h1ryV3.99

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:31 am

Point #1: I do not believe that the world began with the creation of man, ha adama. Existence begins at b’r’shythe, as Elohim “bara’s”, from nothing, existence into existence, including but not limited to (a) space-time, (b) matter-energy, (c) weak force, (d) strong force, (e), electromagnetic force, (f) gravitational force, (g), all laws of science, (h) ideas, (i) concepts, (j) instincts, and (k) emotions.

Point #2: Anyone who knows the duration of yôm is a better “knower” than me. Is yôm a twelve hour Earth-day (as opposed to a “twelve hour” Neptunian day, i.e., the average duration of one half a Neptune rotation), is yôm a twenty-four hour Earth-day (as opposed to a “twenty-four hour” Neptunian day, i.e., the duration of a full Neptune rotation), is yôm an era, is yôm one point five billion years, or is yôm some time frame beyond my logical understanding? I wasn’t at b’r’shythe with a calendar and a stopwatch, neither of which existed at b’r’shythe.

Six thousand years? Sounds like you’re “peeping” the conference notes of that confab where folks held a heated debate about how many angels can dance on the tip of a straight pin, or some such nonsense.

Point #3: No evidence to the contrary exists insofar as b’r’shythe is concerned.

Point #4 In my cognizant lifetime up to right now, I have yet to state as fact that macro-evolution is “not” true.

Point #5: Within relatively recent years, I have stated numerous times here and elsewhere that macro-evolution (a) is unproven, (b) is unprovable, (c) is implausible, and (d) given the hippo to orca and the light-sensitive to eye hypotheses, “makes no sense to me” (Curtis Mayfield).

Point #6: During my adult lifetime, domestic dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, have been rightly reclassified as a subspecies of the grey wolf, Canis lupus. Domestic dogs are an example of observable micro-evolution; thus, given this and other observable examples of micro-evolution, including “Darwin’s” finches, micro-evolution (a) is provable through observation, and (b) has been and is proven through observation.

Point #7: I cannot explain Neanderthals to anyone. Three most underused words in the English language: “I don’t know.”

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:35 am

But there are also unknown unknowns.

Yep, and believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy.

They explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God). This makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as I can substitute the word "God" with "Leprachauns" given that such a creature is also an unknown.

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:44 am

Point #5: Within relatively recent years, I have stated numerous times here and elsewhere that macro-evolution (a) is unproven, (b) is unprovable, (c) is implausible, and (d) given the hippo to orca and the light-sensitive to eye hypotheses, “makes no sense to me” (Curtis Mayfield).

It makes no sense to you because you're making the same mistake most Christian apologists make. The vast majority of species evolved independently of each other; there is no reason to look for hippos to turn into orcas. Essentially, you're looking for an elephant in a bread box. A primate, for instance, is not going to evolve fins and gills since primates do not spend time living in water. Remember that evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life, thus it is unreasonable to expect a hippo to change into an orca as that would cause hippos to go extinct. It's the same nonsensical argument that many Creationists make: "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" This would assume that all creatures of the earth would, if given enough time, eventually evolve into humans given that humans are the apex creature at this point in history.

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Point #5: Within relatively recent years, I have stated numerous times here and elsewhere that macro-evolution (a) is unproven, (b) is unprovable, (c) is implausible, and (d) given the hippo to orca and the light-sensitive to eye hypotheses, “makes no sense to me” (Curtis Mayfield).

Shirina wrote:
It makes no sense to you because you're making the same mistake most Christian apologists make.

It “makes no sense to me” because, given the hippo to orca and the light-sensitive to eye hypotheses, it’s nonsensical to me.

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:52 am

It “makes no sense to me” because it’s nonsensical to me.

Yep, and I'm taking it a step further and telling you why.

by Guest Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:57 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
It “makes no sense to me” because, given the hippo to orca and the light-sensitive to eye hypotheses, it’s nonsensical to me.

Shirina wrote:
Yep, and I'm taking it a step further and telling you why.

Are you omniscient?

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:26 am

Texas,

Fish and other lifeforms can live 20,000 feet under the sea with 8 tons per sq inch pressure, enough pressure to crush a human into pulp. Now I suggest this evolutionary adaptation is far more difficult to grasp than numerous hippo variations that over 30,40,50 million years evolve into an orca.

Nature has provided us with many examples of life adapting and evolving under the most extreme environmental pressures, but you want to restrict this process within some quasi species boundary, now that doesn't make sense to me.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:02 pm

Tosh, surely you have realised by now nothing makes any sense to you, how can it when one is senseless.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:05 pm

Tosh, surely you have realised by now nothing makes any sense to you, how can it when one is senseless.

polyglide, you are so thick that any insult from you is a badge of honour.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:32 pm

Tosh, I did not realise you were intelligent enough to know what a badge was.

When you grow out of your juvanile state you will begin to realise the differenec between intelligence on one hand and total ignorance on the other, as a start I can assist you in making , by considered deduction that you are a prime example of ignorance.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:44 pm

When you grow out of your juvanile state you will begin to realise the differenec between intelligence on one hand and total ignorance on the other, as a start I can assist you in making , by considered deduction that you are a prime example of ignorance.

I am not the one who is telling the global scientific consensus that they are wrong, without any scientific objection.

That is backward not just ignorant.

by polyglide Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:46 pm

I believe it is better to believe what you can actually see than what some crackpot scientist says.
The world is not the centre of the universe.

by Tosh Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:49 pm

I believe it is better to believe what you can actually see than what some crackpot scientist says.

You cannot see God.

Next patient, move along now, nothing more going on here.

by Shirina Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:06 pm

crackpot scientist

You mean like those who promote "creation science?"

by snowyflake Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:13 pm

Three most underused words in the English language: “I don’t know.”

I know that God doesn't exist.

by trevorw2539 Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:27 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Three most underused words in the English language: “I don’t know.”

I know that God doesn't exist.

You only know that there is no current evidence of any 'God/Supreme Being'.

Your belief holds more credence than that of those who believe there is a 'God', but it is still only a belief. If, in your opinion, it's a fact, prove it.

Science cannot tell us whether there is a 'God/Supreme Being' because we have no idea what is a 'God/Supreme being'. Only what our human minds conjure up.

Oh. Why am I bothering. confused

It's bedtime

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:31 am

Shirina wrote:
But there are also unknown unknowns.
Yep, and believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy.

They explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God). This makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as I can substitute the word "God" with "Leprachauns" given that such a creature is also an unknown.

Atheism is a belief; thus, atheists are believers. Accordingly, given that “believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and “[they] explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown”, then atheists “absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and atheists “explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes [atheists’] explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown.”

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 4:40 am

then atheists “absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and atheists “explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”

What part of "atheist" seems to escape you?

by snowyflake Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:42 am

To know that requires omniscience.

To 'know' that God exists requires omniscience. Are you omniscient?

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:00 am

To know “that God doesn't exist” requires omniscience.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 7:12 am

Shirina wrote:
But there are also unknown unknowns.
Yep, and believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy.

They explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God). This makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as I can substitute the word "God" with "Leprachauns" given that such a creature is also an unknown.

Shirina wrote:
What part of "atheist" seems to escape you?

No part of “atheist” escapes my understanding. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and an atheist is one who believes that God does not exist; thus, atheists are believers. Accordingly, given that “believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and “[they] explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown”, then atheists “absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and atheists “explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes [atheists’] explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown.”

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:09 am

No part of “atheist” escapes my understanding. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and an atheist is one who believes that God does not exist; thus, atheists are believers.

No, Rock, the world doesn't work like that. Atheists, by definition, are non-believers. I know what you're trying to do, but it isn't going to work. I'm not exactly an amateur, you know.

Oh, and ... nice dodge of Snowy's question.

by trevorw2539 Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:41 am

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

by Guest Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:41 pm

Shirina wrote:
Yep, and believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy.

They explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God). This makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as I can substitute the word "God" with "Leprachauns" given that such a creature is also an unknown.

Shirina wrote:
What part of "atheist" seems to escape you?

RockOnBrother wrote:
No part of “atheist” escapes my understanding. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, and an atheist is one who believes that God does not exist; thus, atheists are believers. Accordingly, given that “believers absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and “[they] explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes their explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown”, then atheists “absolutely LOVE this fallacy” and atheists “explain one unknown (the origin of the universe) with another unknown (God)”, and “[this] makes [atheists’] explanation and/or answer utterly meaningless as [you] can substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Leprechauns’ given that such a creature is also an unknown.”

Shirina wrote:
No, Rock, the world doesn't work like that. Atheists, by definition, are non-believers. I know what you're trying to do, but it isn't going to work. I'm not exactly an amateur, you know.

atheist

athe•ist noun \ˈā-thē-ist\

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity.”

by Shirina Tue Apr 30, 2013 2:15 pm

By definition, an atheist is “one who believes that there is no deity.”

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

An atheist disbelieves, therefore, we are non-believers.

We can play on this merry-go-round all day long.

by Sponsored content