Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

...BUT we do know what he MUST BE to be God.

you do?

bbyrd009 wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:

...BUT we do know what he MUST BE to be God.

you do?

Those who KNOW what MUST BE are the ones who take exception to my comments
on their nominal status as thr infallible ones.

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:

...BUT we do know what he MUST BE to be God.

you do?

Those who KNOW what MUST BE are the ones who take exception to my comments
on their nominal status as the infallible ones.

ergo, their joints have been separated from their marrow, and they are revealed to someone with eyes, right? Just like we are, surely

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:

...BUT we do know what he MUST BE to be God.

you do?

Those who KNOW what MUST BE are the ones who take exception to my comments
on their nominal status as the infallible ones.

ergo, their joints have been separated from their marrow, and they are revealed to someone with eyes, right? Just like we are, surely

I dunno, too obscure for me. Prease exprain? No idea what you mean.

Audie: I absolutely did not assert that is an answer to your q. It had nothing whatever to
do with you. Or your qustions. I wrote that to theo, in response to something he said about the flood. You jumped in, mocking me and demanding answers about something utterly irrelevant.

Here's the sequence per above:

Philip: So, let's again try to pin you down, once AGAIN: Do you or do you not believe the universe's origin required/necessitated a thinking, intelligent and purposeful Source that was also eternal?

Audie's Response: You still refuse to respond to my request that you say what was incorrect in my post to theo, or even acknowledge that I asked.

Audie: Kinda hard to pin you down, aint it?

I asked you to explain what time is, several, ah, "times". Your whole
cosmo doesnt come to much unless time is understood. Zero response on that. What a surprise. Of course you havent a clue what time is.

So, Audie, you were asked a direct questions so as to cut through all of the nonsense back and forth - and I've asked these several times. And your response above has nothing to do with my questions, because your answer is merely more questions - I see that as a dodge. BTW, to make sure, I HAVE answered your question about what I think about time. So, why couldn't you just answer my direct questions. Whatever I think of time has nothing at all to do with what I simply asked as to what you actually believe about the key parameters necessary for whatever is the source of the universe. I just don't see why you can't answer.

I did not previously see this portion of your post on the 26th:

Audie: Now you are lying about me. What the hell is wrong with you?

The immediately above falsely asserts that a deliberate attempt was made to lie about something you said. EVERYONE here has seen you dodge my direct questions about this issue of what you believe about the parameters necessary for the originating source(s). And my questions have been very simple ones. Your responses are a lawyers slight of hand of misdirect - and not very clever ones at that. Your constant playing the "victim" card has now grown very old. You have got to be about the only one here so thin-skinned you can't handle the intense back and forth without attacking the person with such venom. The mods here have probably cut you more slack than anyone on this forum. So instead of answering, you resort to accusations of lying???!!!

Now, I'm putting on my mod hat. Audie, you have repeatedly accused people here of lying about you, trying to bully you, etc. - and not a few times, these were mods. You will NOT keep that up! You are not going to falsely accuse people of lying - especially not mods. Next time and every time you falsely accuse with your nasty little side, your post will be deleted - or WORSE! It is one thing to correct a perceived misrepresentation of a position you might hold, even if you are upset, but you've crossed a line here, and that will now stop! You've been warned!

Wow. Philip...my post was to show you the contingencies when using Big bang and other science terms and how they could mean different things between different individuals especially if some are using it generally while others may not...nothing i have written is really off by any chart. Whether you agree to it or not is your own problem. You can't say singularity happened or anything happened and then not honor what that entails. It's not scifi its just what we know. And it's only scary if don't read about it and hear it from others but it's not scary to me at all.

Frankly I am amazed that you can accept big bang but not what it really means. That it's a surprise to you if I mentioned that the singularity had to be without space or time and nothing around it for it to be there. But it's the standard model and you agree to it when you say big bang happened. Because that's what it means.

The thing about space-time is just that whether you agree or not.
And coming to your argument, yeah exactly...we don't know what really happened....inserting God into it doesn't really help anyone see things your way...so be my guest and carry that on.

By the way. It's good that you have put your mod hat on. Kindly also moderate your own assertions that you repeatedly make regarding my faith. Seriously? you have to turn everything I post into me and the Bible and my faith? Everytime? You are so disgusted with my position that you have to comment and use accusatory words?

I simply remarked on the problems of what you were discussing and how it's not simple at all. You can't use the terms and then not know what they actually mean. That is absurd...and in return I am facing inquisition with a verdict...to Neo, the Bible is trash....end of story.

I respect the scriptures Phil...I atleast can respect what it says for what it says...I don't have to ignore what it says and push what I believe into it to make it better sounding as to what I think happened.

But It seems like it's your method of engaging stuff. When you take the Bible you read into it what you think happened and when you use science you do the same, you accept theories but not their consequences. You don't take any of these two completely for what they are, only parts you think you should.

Neo, I sincerely do not want to insult you - and yet, making observations based upon what you say does just that. But you just clearly doubt so much of Scripture, that I just don't see how you believe whatever parts you do, nor how you know the difference. But it is disturbing to me to see you go on about the "God of the Gaps" stuff.

Really, there is a necessary gap between ALL things that once did not exist, that were not derivative of some prior thing. And this could not happen without some eternal, supremely powerful, SuperIntelligence. And that is true, regardless of whatever processes came into existence. It matters not one bit whether created things were hyper-programmed with immense specificity, whether they were micro managed, minimally so, or whatever. ALL things require a prior thing. And God's prerogative determined how all of that worked, how it was or wasn't "supervised" or whatever. Again, SCIENCE is inadequate to explain these first things, because they previously did not exist. And IF physical things pre-existed the Big Bang, the problem one faces is somewhere, at some point, there were FIRST non-derivative things that physically came into existence via instant creation, of which previously did not exist. So, there is a logical and necessary GAP betwixt the things that once did not exist and them coming into existence. Evolution explains none of that. Nor, ultimately does the Big Bang, Singularity, whatever issues with time, all that. Science simply cannot make assessments (beyond mere speculation) of once non-existent/non-physical things and their appearance - and THAT change represents - yes, a gap - of an inexplicable occurrence that cannot be explained by the physical, nor deduced by analysis that is only capable of assessing PHYSICAL things, processes and their results. And whatever first came into existence - WHENEVER it FIRST appeared - is only explained by an eternal, supremely powerful Super Intelligence!

Philp, thank you for your response. I will reply a little later as off to work now.

I must say it does not matter what it is the big bang,evolution,the weather,clouds,cars,buildings,houses,cups,plates,spoons,forks,planets,stars,chairs,computers,cell phones,photons,electrons,rainbows,tv's,radio's,clothes,guitar,banjo,a song,music,sound,time,light,darkness,etc it does not matter what it is I could fill up this whole page with example after example.All things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,all things are willed into existence and there can be no infinite regression.Based on these facts of our observable universe and world God who is eternal had to have been the cause,we cannot say these facts apply to things outside our universe/world and especially God and where he is outside our world/universe.

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:

Audie wrote:

bbyrd009 wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:

...BUT we do know what he MUST BE to be God.

you do?

Those who KNOW what MUST BE are the ones who take exception to my comments
on their nominal status as the infallible ones.

ergo, their joints have been separated from their marrow, and they are revealed to someone with eyes, right? Just like we are, surely

I dunno, too obscure for me. Prease exprain? No idea what you mean.

sorry; my meaning is that "Those who KNOW what MUST BE" are, therefore, outing themselves to you, their joints are divided from their etcetc, they have been filleted by Scripture, revealed to you, so that you may see, yes? Precisely as you will quickly come to see me, the more i prattle on.

"Those who say they know do not yet know as they ought to know."

Audie's post has been deleted, per the new moderator policies recently enacted. If she wishes to argue her position with any or all of the mods, per what she has just been specifically warned about- accusing a mod (me) of deliberately lying about something she has said, then she is perfectly free to take this issue up with us PRIVATELY. If people desire to correct a perceived misrepresentation of their views or statements, that is certainly allowed. But what will NOT be allowed are anger-fueled, mean-spirited, unnecessary accusations that someone (especially a moderator) has lied. Mods will no longer discuss warnings PUBLICLY (see below). And ANYONE desiring to weigh in on someone's treatment is equally free to contact any and all mods PRIVATELY!

NOTE - per recently updated moderating policy:

Perhaps the most important aspect of the new moderating policy:

There will be absolutely NO further continued PUBLIC arguing (past a warning, in a thread) over ANY aspect of what a poster has been warned about! Again, while a warned poster cannot continue a PUBLIC discussion over their warning, they CAN engage moderators privately, to argue or lobby their contentions and views concerning their warning. It is important to emphasize this new addition to policy is NOT designed to censor or temper the civil discussion of ideas and beliefs, no matter how extreme they might be - as long as they do not violate other aspects of our moderating policy.

Please carefully read over the updated Board Guidelines & Moderating Policy.

So who is (me)?

Byblos: So who is (me)?

Me.

Philip wrote:

Byblos: So who is (me)?

Me.

Catch ya on the flip side

Now only two things are better than milkshakes and malts
And one is dancin' like the dickens to the West Texas Waltz
And the other is somethin', but really it's nothin'
To speak of it's somethin' to do

If you've done it before, you'll be doin' it some more
Just as soon as the dancin' is through

Philip wrote:Really, there is a necessary gap between ALL things that once did not exist, that were not derivative of some prior thing. And this could not happen without some eternal, supremely powerful, SuperIntelligence. And that is true, regardless of whatever processes came into existence.

I think your principles are right, but some of your derivations, which you present as axiomatic, are not necessarily so. The question of why there should be something rather than nothing is valid, but the answer is not necessarily as obviously as you present. Do "all things require a prior thing"? Possibly, but not necessarily. Is that "prior thing" necessarily "eternal, supremely powerful, superintelligent"? By what reasoning? You are perfectly correct that things "before" Science or rationality cannot be explained in scientific or rational terms, but that does not mean that they can "only" be explained by "an eternal, supremely powerful Super Intelligence". As it happens, I think that of the various philosophical speculations, an understanding of "God" is the most appealing to me, as it is to you, but I think we should acknowledge that other explanations are no less possible.