Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:B.W. for as long as we have been discussing back and fourth over the years, do you really believe would insult your wife? That was not my intention; I thought you knew me better than that. RickD was right; you asked me a loaded question and I responded with the textbook/dictionary example of a loaded question hoping you would see the fallacy in the question you asked; apparently you did not. When considering the debating experience you have, I assumed you would recognize a loaded question when presented with one and would recognize the point I was making; obviously I was wrong. Again I can assure you it was not my intention to offend you or insult your wife.

You also said I posted “disdain” for Christianity. Would you mind pointing out what I said that you see as distain for Christianity?

Ken

Thank you Ken for clarifying that but cannot you see that it is not wise to bring someone's wife.

For example, it would have been better to say something to me like,' BW do you hate non-Christians?' and been more effective.

Next to point out disdain, well, after years of posting here Ken, there is too many. Basically these come in insinuations for example concerning your support of moral subjectivism. Your opinions you express and insinuate about God and the bible.

Examples follow these frames:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 99#p208799

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

Scroll thru this one too

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 10#p208610

You may not see the disdain but it is there...

Then things like this over the years:

Kenny wrote:I know it is. I just believe it is abundant out of ignorance. My point is, people can worship what-ever they want! That's why I asked; does the Sun exist? Does Nature exist? Suppose someone only worshipped a Golden Calf as God; wouldn't it be foolish to be agnostic when you are looking right at the statute?

Besides, Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a completely different question.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 24#p153124

Ken, in the mod archives we have about 144 pages of the history of your postings that page number increases with each post of yours. There are some doozies too but no need to post these, the other mods can look through the 144 pages and find more proofs too.

Subtle and not so subtle comments you have made over the years is why I say the evidence is very good that you hold some sort of disdain for Christianity.

Now let me answer if, I hate non-Christians and the answer is a resounding - No.

I care about their eternal home. Out of God's love, I will shock and tell it like it is o warn them. Love that does not warn, is not love. Love like that, that does not warn is merely subjective love and worthless.

However, there is evidence on this forum that you show disdain towards Christians here and what we believe as well as your claim recently of your moral superiority as superior to all. That is disdain isn't it...

The Christians here on this forum tell you that we do not think of ourselves as moral superior and that all are in need of salvation which is far different than your recorded documented insinuations...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:B.W. for as long as we have been discussing back and fourth over the years, do you really believe would insult your wife? That was not my intention; I thought you knew me better than that. RickD was right; you asked me a loaded question and I responded with the textbook/dictionary example of a loaded question hoping you would see the fallacy in the question you asked; apparently you did not. When considering the debating experience you have, I assumed you would recognize a loaded question when presented with one and would recognize the point I was making; obviously I was wrong. Again I can assure you it was not my intention to offend you or insult your wife.

You also said I posted “disdain” for Christianity. Would you mind pointing out what I said that you see as distain for Christianity?

Ken

Thank you Ken for clarifying that but cannot you see that it is not wise to bring someone's wife.

For example, it would have been better to say something to me like,' BW do you hate non-Christians?' and been more effective.

Next to point out disdain, well, after years of posting here Ken, there is too many. Basically these come in insinuations for example concerning your support of moral subjectivism. Your opinions you express and insinuate about God and the bible.

Examples follow these frames:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 99#p208799

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

Scroll thru this one too

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 10#p208610

You may not see the disdain but it is there...

Then things like this over the years:

Kenny wrote:I know it is. I just believe it is abundant out of ignorance. My point is, people can worship what-ever they want! That's why I asked; does the Sun exist? Does Nature exist? Suppose someone only worshipped a Golden Calf as God; wouldn't it be foolish to be agnostic when you are looking right at the statute?

Besides, Atheism and Theism is about what you believe, Agnostic is about what you know; a completely different question.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 24#p153124

Ken, in the mod archives we have about 144 pages of the history of your postings that page number increases with each post of yours. There are some doozies too but no need to post these, the other mods can look through the 144 pages and find more proofs too.

Subtle and not so subtle comments you have made over the years is why I say the evidence is very good that you hold some sort of disdain for Christianity.

Now let me answer if, I hate non-Christians and the answer is a resounding - No.

I care about their eternal home. Out of God's love, I will shock and tell it like it is o warn them. Love that does not warn, is not love. Love like that, that does not warn is merely subjective love and worthless.

However, there is evidence on this forum that you show disdain towards Christians here and what we believe as well as your claim recently of your moral superiority as superior to all. That is disdain isn't it...

The Christians here on this forum tell you that we do not think of ourselves as moral superior and that all are in need of salvation which is far different than your recorded documented insinuations...
-
-
-

I looked over the links you provided and obviously I don't see how they could be seen as "distain" for Christianity, I just see them as examples of answering questions; Obviously you do see it as distain. I guess it's all subjective, you see offense where I do not. I don't know if there were any way I could answer some of these questions in a way that you do not see as offensive unless I agree with what they say. Anyway, thanks for pointing out to me what you find offensive, and thanks for answering my question.

Ken

Kenny wrote:...I looked over the links you provided and obviously I don't see how they could be seen as "distain" for Christianity, I just see them as examples of answering questions; Obviously you do see it as distain. I guess it's all subjective, you see offense where I do not. I don't know if there were any way I could answer some of these questions in a way that you do not see as offensive unless I agree with what they say. Anyway, thanks for pointing out to me what you find offensive, and thanks for answering my question.

Ken

No problem Ken and sorry for the misunderstanding too on my part.

One needs objective morality granted from God to know what is wrong verses what is right, Subjectivity can never grant that.

Try reading all of Romans chapter Seven and you will get the point. The law came to expose sin - why we all miss the mark and make life a mess. There is 'God' who reveals objective truth to us so we can come to him and change. He grants grace not legalism because all religious and secular legalism and rituals cannot save because these just drive one crazy.

There is an old Jewish phrase that translated as - Let's Go Up to Jerusalem - the idea was that we live life going uphill so one reaches a place above the pitfalls in life learning who God is as he guides our way - up. Most choose not to travel and instead choose to live in the valley and shadows always going down.

None are perfectly right or can do perfectly right and that is why we need a savior- Jesus Christ - God come in human form to save us from ourselves. People mock the need for someone like Jesus who died in their place on their behalf to give them another chance in life. Some claim this is a cruel.

However, if you were US Marine and saw your friend toss himself upon a grenade taking the full impact of the blast saving you and those around you, people don't think that is cruel or stupid or unnecessary. Yet, that Is what the Lord did for us. Think about it...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:...I looked over the links you provided and obviously I don't see how they could be seen as "distain" for Christianity, I just see them as examples of answering questions; Obviously you do see it as distain. I guess it's all subjective, you see offense where I do not. I don't know if there were any way I could answer some of these questions in a way that you do not see as offensive unless I agree with what they say. Anyway, thanks for pointing out to me what you find offensive, and thanks for answering my question.

Ken

No problem Ken and sorry for the misunderstanding too on my part.

One needs objective morality granted from God to know what is wrong verses what is right, Subjectivity can never grant that.

I can imagine someone of a different faith than your own saying;

One needs objective morality granted from Deity X (A Deity that you do not recognize) to know what is wrong verses what is right, subjectivity can never grant that.

So at the end of the day you have 2 theists both claiming morality is objective, except you say your Deity is right and his is wrong, and he says his Deity is right and yours is wrong; and the two of you will go back and forth each claiming you are right and neither can prove themselves right and the other wrong because the belief is based upon faith and the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth, because the same faith you have that your Deity is right and his is wrong is the exact same faith he has that his deity is right and yours is wrong. That's the problem with objective morality.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:...I looked over the links you provided and obviously I don't see how they could be seen as "distain" for Christianity, I just see them as examples of answering questions; Obviously you do see it as distain. I guess it's all subjective, you see offense where I do not. I don't know if there were any way I could answer some of these questions in a way that you do not see as offensive unless I agree with what they say. Anyway, thanks for pointing out to me what you find offensive, and thanks for answering my question.

Ken

No problem Ken and sorry for the misunderstanding too on my part.

One needs objective morality granted from God to know what is wrong verses what is right, Subjectivity can never grant that.

I can imagine someone of a different faith than your own saying;

One needs objective morality granted from Deity X (A Deity that you do not recognize) to know what is wrong verses what is right, subjectivity can never grant that.

So at the end of the day you have 2 theists both claiming morality is objective, except you say your Deity is right and his is wrong, and he says his Deity is right and yours is wrong; and the two of you will go back and forth each claiming you are right and neither can prove themselves right and the other wrong because the belief is based upon faith and the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth, because the same faith you have that your Deity is right and his is wrong is the exact same faith he has that his deity is right and yours is wrong. That's the problem with objective morality.

Ken

All these discussions we've had over the years on the nature of God and how it makes no sense to speak of different gods. And you STILL come up with a gem like that?

I'm sure you're a nice guy kenny but you claim you require evidence to change your mind and yet you were presented, on multiple occasions, why the argument that there are different gods is a nonsensical one. Yet you still advance it every chance you get. It is just pointless with you.

Kenny wrote:...I can imagine someone of a different faith than your own saying;

One needs objective morality granted from Deity X (A Deity that you do not recognize) to know what is wrong verses what is right, subjectivity can never grant that.

So at the end of the day you have 2 theists both claiming morality is objective, except you say your Deity is right and his is wrong, and he says his Deity is right and yours is wrong; and the two of you will go back and forth each claiming you are right and neither can prove themselves right and the other wrong because the belief is based upon faith and the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth, because the same faith you have that your Deity is right and his is wrong is the exact same faith he has that his deity is right and yours is wrong. That's the problem with objective morality.

Ken

The opposing gods issue has nothing to do with objective morality.

Objective truth exist. You will age and then die. In fact, that's a fact filled truth none of us can escape.

Objective truth exist then so does objective morality and reality of the need for the true deity to define it by objective truth. Truth is, Kenny, the world is messed up and filled with petty people doing stupid things. So the diety who will deal with that issue by his hand alone can expose sin and deal with it.

All other pseudo deities demand you do it all on your own to fix sin' stupidity. Truth is, that cannot work because the human race screws all things up so doing religious works to make yourself fitting for God is impossible.

However the true and only deity will come and do the work himself, in our place, on our behalf because we cannot save ourselves from our own sin and stupidity.

John 14:6, "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." NKJV

All world religions, except Christianity, is based all on a human work method to earn salvation in some manner. Christianity does not, it relies on God alone who did the work of salvation for us.

Just the uniqueness of the Christian message is enough of a sign showing the right direction. The other religious system all say trust in man and what you do. Christianity says trust God and what He did...

You have boxed yourself in a corner Kenny so two different followers is not valid but however it does point out the human flaw of human pride of having to be right at all cost just to earn a place in nothingness after one dies.


-
-
-

Kenny wrote:...I can imagine someone of a different faith than your own saying;

One needs objective morality granted from Deity X (A Deity that you do not recognize) to know what is wrong verses what is right, subjectivity can never grant that.

So at the end of the day you have 2 theists both claiming morality is objective, except you say your Deity is right and his is wrong, and he says his Deity is right and yours is wrong; and the two of you will go back and forth each claiming you are right and neither can prove themselves right and the other wrong because the belief is based upon faith and the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth, because the same faith you have that your Deity is right and his is wrong is the exact same faith he has that his deity is right and yours is wrong. That's the problem with objective morality.

Ken

B. W. wrote: The opposing gods issue has nothing to do with objective morality.

Actually my point was not about the opposing God, but about the guy who believes objective morality is determined by the opposing God. When everybody brings their own separate moral base to the table, isn't that an example of subjective morality?

B. W. wrote: Objective truth exist then so does objective morality and reality of the need for the true deity to define it by objective truth.-

What good is having the true Deity define objective truth if nobody listens? If the objective truth/morality is ignored and everybody initiates their own version of truth/morality, isn’t that equal to subjective morality?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:...I can imagine someone of a different faith than your own saying;

One needs objective morality granted from Deity X (A Deity that you do not recognize) to know what is wrong verses what is right, subjectivity can never grant that.

So at the end of the day you have 2 theists both claiming morality is objective, except you say your Deity is right and his is wrong, and he says his Deity is right and yours is wrong; and the two of you will go back and forth each claiming you are right and neither can prove themselves right and the other wrong because the belief is based upon faith and the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth, because the same faith you have that your Deity is right and his is wrong is the exact same faith he has that his deity is right and yours is wrong. That's the problem with objective morality.

Ken

B. W. wrote: The opposing gods issue has nothing to do with objective morality.

Actually my point was not about the opposing God, but about the guy who believes objective morality is determined by the opposing God. When everybody brings their own separate moral base to the table, isn't that an example of subjective morality?

B. W. wrote: Objective truth exist then so does objective morality and reality of the need for the true deity to define it by objective truth.-

What good is having the true Deity define objective truth if nobody listens? If the objective truth/morality is ignored and everybody initiates their own version of truth/morality, isn’t that equal to subjective morality?

Ken

Watch to find your answer:


-
-
-