Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Sorry, Wayne, but you can't do this and be consistent. This presupposes that the Golden Rule is objectively better. By what standard? You simply have to stand on the territory of OM to make such a statement. It is self-defeating. Saying the Golden Rule is good only proves your own question. (how DO you "accurately read it") Here you are, claiming to be able to read it, yet denying it at the same time. It is either willful ignorance or spiritual blindness.

The golden rule is inherently selfish imo, not that selfishness is a bad thing in and of itself, but at its root the golden rule is saying "base your actions on your imagined wants and needs when you imagine yourself in someone else's shoes" it's all very shaky. I'm here out of selfishness, I want to learn about Christianity and there are people here with a very deep understanding of it, I don't post much these days but I do read a fair amount, when I do post I don't think "what would Wayne, or jlay like me to say?" I post my own thoughts, hopefully, in a manner roughly determined by the board guidelines.

jlay wrote:Ask 1,000 people if they have ever acted against their conscience. A person may be subject to the influence of the conscience. They may also be subject to fleshly temptations, greed, etc. A person can suppress the conscience, just as they can supress these other influences.

May I ask what you mean by suppressing consciousness? Is this something that is done consciously? If someone claims to act against their conscious, what is it that is acting? and how are they aware of this?

jlay wrote:Paul, Pro, Wayne,
We might as well all go and beat our heads on the asphault, as to have a discussion. If this is your genuine perception of reality, then you have no basis by which to ask such questions. And we have no basis to answer. Nothing has meaning.

I recall you mentioning something similar to this in the previous om thread and I still don't get it. If there is no objective truth or meaning I'm going to chat to you here as opposed to hit my head on the pavement, just as with belief in objective meaning you will do the same. If one is in a position to ask questions in the presence of someone who will entertain them that is all that is required, this thread may have no objective meaning but I inject it with meaning as do you and the other posters. To me there is a difference in saying that nothing has meaning and the notion of objective meaning, it seems to me you that you will only entertain objective truth and from your point of view what meaning that I or others project is of little worth, what is of worth is the thought that your current ideas are approaching what you currently consider objective

May I ask what you mean by suppressing consciousness? Is this something that is done consciously? If someone claims to act against their conscious, what is it that is acting? and how are they aware of this?

Suppressing the conscience, not the consciousness.

Proinsias wrote:I recall you mentioning something similar to this in the previous om thread and I still don't get it. If there is no objective truth or meaning I'm going to chat to you here as opposed to hit my head on the pavement,

The context was the objective truth that 2+2=4. If we can't agree on that, then we might be better served to beat our heads against the pavement.

waynepii wrote:You consider whatever act you are evaluating from the perspective of the person(s) the act affects. For example - When I was a child, if I stole Jimmy's toy, my mother would ask me "how would you feel if Jimmy stole your toy? After a while, I found I was asking myself the question whenever I had an impulse to something such as stealing from Jimmy. I still do to this day. I consider this to be one of the best lessons I learned as a child.

You are describing the method. Not why it has value. I know why it has value. It's objectively true. Yet, you use words like, "best," which implies you are grading by a standard, yet you have no grounds by which to state such. If your standard is, "it works for me," my reply is, so what? Why should we care about other's feelings? If there is no inherent value in doing such, it is just your preference.

You consider whatever act you are evaluating from the perspective of the person(s) the act affects.

Why? Why does considering others have more value than only considering one's self? As I said, you are trespassing on OM while denying its existance.

What is your point? If your conscience isn't the OM "talking to you", then how DO you "read" OM?

Wayne, you are reading OM. You just are trying to deny it in the same breath. You spent the paragraph above explaining that you should consider others feelings, which implies that there is some inherent quality that is obvious. Yet you have no basis from your worldview to believe that.

Wayne, this debate is not fresh or new. It will always end in the same place, and that is people trying to prove that their position has inherent truth, while denying there is any such thing. And round and round we go. Why? Because OM is a giant flashing neon arrow pointing to the Christian God. And my guess is you don't like where that leads.

jlay wrote:

waynepii wrote:You consider whatever act you are evaluating from the perspective of the person(s) the act affects. For example - When I was a child, if I stole Jimmy's toy, my mother would ask me "how would you feel if Jimmy stole your toy? After a while, I found I was asking myself the question whenever I had an impulse to something such as stealing from Jimmy. I still do to this day. I consider this to be one of the best lessons I learned as a child.

You are describing the method. Not why it has value. I know why it has value. It's objectively true. Yet, you use words like, "best," which implies you are grading by a standard, yet you have no grounds by which to state such. If your standard is, "it works for me," my reply is, so what? Why should we care about other's feelings? If there is no inherent value in doing such, it is just your preference.

So you admit the GR is "objectively true". I used "best" to compare the value of the lesson learned (as in I found the GR more valuable than (for instance) don't get your fingers caught under a heavy weight when setting it down (I broke several fingers learning that nugget).

You consider whatever act you are evaluating from the perspective of the person(s) the act affects.

Why? Why does considering others have more value than only considering one's self? As I said, you are trespassing on OM while denying its existance.

I'm not denying the existence of OM, I'm trying to get someone to tell how to tell what it says.

What is your point? If your conscience isn't the OM "talking to you", then how DO you "read" OM?

Wayne, you are reading OM. You just are trying to deny it in the same breath. You spent the paragraph above explaining that you should consider others feelings, which implies that there is some inherent quality that is obvious. Yet you have no basis from your worldview to believe that.

So the GR IS OM?

Wayne, this debate is not fresh or new. It will always end in the same place, and that is people trying to prove that their position has inherent truth, while denying there is any such thing. And round and round we go. Why? Because OM is a giant flashing neon arrow pointing to the Christian God. And my guess is you don't like where that leads.

That OM is a human concept (the GR)? Actually, I'm quite satisfied with that answer.

+

This will be a long post.

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:I'm not imposing my view on anyone, merely attempting to prevent others from imposing their views on everyone else.

Right along, I have been asking for evidence of OM's existence, and, if OM does exist, how do we mortals tell what OM's "verdict" is in any given case. Even if OM exists, if we can't tell what it says using objective means, it is of no value to us. For example, assume there is a 100% infallible method of predicting major disasters (earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc) 1 week in advance. Its existence does us NO GOOD unless we are able to accurately "read" it.

Thanks for clarifying. Regarding your first point, what do you base preventing others from imposing their views on everyone else as the greatest good? So to achieve this you must also do likewise, imposing your views on everyone to prevent others to do so?

How does your motive of moral good really be good when performing the very wrong it seeks to eradicate?

Not at all - let's take an example. Currently, one big issue is gay marriage - some theists wish to impose their anti-gay beliefs on those men & women who desire to marry someone of the same gender. The only limitation "we" wish to "impose" on "you" is to deny you the "right" to prevent a gay couple from getting married.

What makes gay marriage morally right since there is no standard in which to gage it as being morally right? This is a moral equivalency argument. What objective standard are you using to impose that gay marriage is right; by minority rule or majority consent as what makes morally right? How long will these type of rules last?

Next, marriage is an equal covenant contract between a man and a woman, not a right. The state recognizes this contract and then increases your taxes when two entered into the marriage agreement. If marriage was a guaranteed right by the state, then the state could be able to arrange your marriage partner by lottery to enforce this right and penalize you if you do not marry. Is divorce a state right or rather a breach of marriage the contract? Do you really desire the State to make marriage a Right?

Let me review a bit and get back to this…

God is the objective standard – His own moral character is the objective moral standard to judge right/wrong/good/evil. God, thru divine intervention gave to humanity simple set of objective moral standards in order to teach what right and wrong is in order to expose our moral corruptness and our relativistic moral twisting of God’s objective moral standards.

Moral twisting of God’s own moral standards does this, how? - By pitting God’s own moral standards against his own moral standards. We human beings do just that, just as you proved with your gay marriage right ploy. Again, you miss the point because God’s moral standard is found in his ability to keep his word is at stake here. Isaiah 55:11, Genesis 1:28, and Genesis 2:18, 25c is challenged by our moral twisting in an attempt to entrap God that he can’t keep his word.

Now enter homosexuality and its attempts to have God bow in submission to human will by use of the ‘if God love’ moral equivalency argument, etc, which seeks to prove God unable to keep his word. What does a just God do who permits choice because he is just? Answer: Hold one to account for the infraction of tempting and testing him – his love and patience. So, as Paul writes in Romans 1:28, he gives them over to a morally twisting – debased mind. How fair is that to a person? Granting them what they desire more than honor God’s word (Genesis 1:28, Genesis 2:18, 25c) and honor how he designed our mortal nature?

God will hold them to account for such twisting and for such people, heaven will not be their eternal home (Isaiah 26:10c). They do get what they desire in exchange for their soul, fair is fair. No unfairness with God is there? Transgress the moral standards of God who is a moral being – he’ll give you enough quail until you vomit, and he will always be in your face trying to save you from the sin of tempting and testing God as well as from where it leads and the heart ache/woe it causes (Aids, STD’s, etc)

In essence, it is human beings shoving their fist in God’s eye, demanding that their way is the best moral way and God better agree, or else they can’t love him or will not believe in him. No, that will not happen as God spoke this in Isaiah 45:22, 23, 24, 25c. He is true to his word and twist not what he says as we do to force God to act contrary to his own objective moral standards.

Lastly, the main reason why the gay marriage issues is even an issue at all is that gay marriage is really not about love or marriage but rather a political stratagem. Its goal is about financially devastating ministers, churches that refuse to marry a gay couple through the courts. It is about empowering the radical left to destroy Christianity in order to set up the left’s own socialist order and mores’.

To reach this goal, you manipulate people’s heart strings and use people like yourself for a nefarious purposes to attack principles found in the bible, such as God’s love, against ideas about love. As soon as the existing Christian social order is destroyed and brought into submission, the radical left will be rid of idealist like yourself as well as gays, etc, as proven by the historical record of communist and socialist fascist ideology in how it treats its allied dupes/pawns.

This is established in communist and socialist handbooks that teach how to bash the main stream social system into submission so socialism (No boarders) can come to power and rule by absolute governmental power. It’s all about power and going after Churches, ministries, privet Christians who refuse to marry gay couples, to sue them blind. It is to acquire financial power for the left at the expense other human beings, raping them financially, illegal robbery made legal thru the courts to destroy others in various ways and means. That is the radical lefts goal and the small print bottom line of the gay marriage rights issue.

Therefore, how will you be found when you will someday stand before God being judged by his own moral standards and you can no longer twist your way out of being found guilty of tempting and testing God, Waynepii?

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:Regarding your second point, first there is one true God. Romans 1:20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25c brings this out as well points out the first objective wrong – denial of God’s existence. Therefore, the objective standard is God himself. God originally designed human beings to be moral beings as we do have a sense of right and wrong.

All that your cites prove is that Paul believed there was only one true god (although how accurately they reflect Paul's actual intent could be argued).

My response: 2 Peter 3:15, 16, 17, 18c

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:When the moral compass is knocked out, what would it take to reset it?

Basically, everyone should be treated equally (aka the "Golden Rule").

God’s moral objective standard is to show no partiality, favoritism, in judgment. If you do not Love God, the love for others will remain arbitrary and fickle. The radical left and militant atheists hate Christianity - God, yet they love, but since they hate they do not treat equally in all cases do they? Such love is morally flawed.

We cannot even love God unless he loves first – he demonstrated that love by sending Christ Jesus to expose our twisting wrapped nature and awaken us to it by what happened during the 24 hours prior facing death on the cross. He paid the price exposing how and what people think about God and exposed how we treat those who live by God’s Objective moral standards. Jesus was good and humanity slew goodness as it does every day by use of twisted moral relativism to justify actions, political ideology, etc.

Do you love God Waynpii? How arbitrary is your love for other people? In fact do you really understand what the word ‘love’ means?

The golden rule alone without the part about God’s love and our loving God only produces what Paul wrote in Romans 7:19c as proven by the human historical record.

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:Next, If one refuses to accurately read – they remain lost in the proverbial woods and up the creek without that canoe and that paddle people tell you about.

By "accurately read", I assume you mean "accurately read OM"? If that is what you meant, how DO you "accurately read it" (that's been my question all along)? I get the feeling (from you and others in previous threads on the subject) that the reading is internal, along the lines of "listen to your conscience". The conscience is subject to past experiences, what you learned from parents, teachers (both secular and religious), peers, etc. That is about as subjective as it gets, it's hardly objective.

What I mean by accurately read is understanding that God is a moral being who adheres to his own objective moral character. That He in turn gave some of his standards to humanity through divine intervention in order to expose what is truly sin in our lives: how we morally twist things that tempt and test God in a manner that forces him to bow to human whim and overweening pride. That, we who were given the ability to reason and think, would come to our senses at seeing our sin and return to Him of our own free volition to be restored/transformed to a new newness of life. Human beings are not that just as our history proves.

Again your answers demonstrate much of this moral twisting…
-
-
-

jlay wrote:

May I ask what you mean by suppressing consciousness? Is this something that is done consciously? If someone claims to act against their conscious, what is it that is acting? and how are they aware of this?

Suppressing the conscience, not the consciousness.

Apologies, having a little difficulty separating them out as as evident from the misreading. Will think on it.

jlay wrote:The context was the objective truth that 2+2=4. If we can't agree on that, then we might be better served to beat our heads against the pavement.

I don't think we can. Putting aside the notion of 2+2=4 it would appear that you see no value whatsoever in conversing with anyone who does not hold to your view of knowable objective truths, you equate these interactions with serious bodily harm. Is there any room at all for the possibility that 2+2=4 is not an objective truth?
Life without certainty in objective truth goes along just fine, I can still work with figures all day. My job basically involves helping people turn £1+£1 into more than £2. I'm not sure the economy is objective truth but strange things happen to 1+1=2 when you factor in time - that's how I became a parent as one plus one ended up as three.

Proinsias wrote:I don't think we can. Putting aside the notion of 2+2=4 it would appear that you see no value whatsoever in conversing with anyone who does not hold to your view of knowable objective truths, you equate these interactions with serious bodily harm. Is there any room at all for the possibility that 2+2=4 is not an objective truth?
Life without certainty in objective truth goes along just fine, I can still work with figures all day. My job basically involves helping people turn £1+£1 into more than £2. I'm not sure the economy is objective truth but strange things happen to 1+1=2 when you factor in time - that's how I became a parent as one plus one ended up as three.

You don't think this is a silly response to what he had to say?

On the one hand, atheists tend to say they have all the facts, all the knowledge, and all the evidence. And then here, you say that a basic assumption that virtually every human being has ever made (2+2=4) should have some room for the possibility that it is not an objective truth. If that has some room, why don't we have exponentially more room for complex scientific theories that depend on hundreds of thousands or even millions of such simple 'truths' plus inconceivably large amounts of data with room for interpretation and plenty of ideas that need to be assumed without data?

I suppose my biggest issue with it is that if you can't even assume definitions (and 2+2=4 could easily be considered a definition), then what is the point in discussing any of this stuff? Are the definitions of the words I'm using definitive objectively? If not, then am I even communicating with you, or am I just typing in characters that you use as you see fit to whatever end you desire? Seems like a good 'welcome to the internet, here's a basic philosophy course' requirement should be established.

Perhaps beating heads into the ground was too light a statement. I'd consider doing that while selling all my possessions, retreating to the woods, and feeling like one of the last sane people in the world...

Proinsias wrote:...Life without certainty in objective truth goes along just fine, I can still work with figures all day. My job basically involves helping people turn £1+£1 into more than £2. I'm not sure the economy is objective truth but strange things happen to 1+1=2 when you factor in time - that's how I became a parent as one plus one ended up as three.

Questions:

Pros, does our mortal physical life cease?

Yes or No...

Matter of fact, did your great-great-great grand father's physical mortal life cease?

Is physical mortal death certian?
-
-
-

I don't think we can. Putting aside the notion of 2+2=4 it would appear that you see no value whatsoever in conversing with anyone who does not hold to your view of knowable objective truths, you equate these interactions with serious bodily harm.

Come now pros, this is a bit of a stretch.

The fact is that life goes along fine, because atheist and deniers of OM are more than happy to stand on the ground of OM when it suits them. If someone sticks a gun in your face, you won't hear them saying, oh well, que sera sera.

Yes Marcus it is silly. That's the frustrating part. The alternative is to conceed to those objective truths, and quite frankly, that is not a foot they want in the door. The effects to their worldview would be devestating. So, better to be silly, and better to make absurd analogies. I mean that response really is comical.

One must understand that in these type of discussion people have the philosophical Tree in the Quad mentality and use counter arguments to it. Just as several are so doing here in this thread:

Tree in the Quad

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

'Dear sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the Quad
And that is why the tree
Continues to be
Since observed by, your faithfully God

By Ronald Knox /// Bishop Berkeley

Quote from this Link

Looks like Pros and Waynpii are stuck on this idea…

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

For them, in my opinion, math, science, cannot exist unless there is a human being around to used and create these. Therefore, math cannot be used to prove objective truth or science, since after all, if mankind did not exist – math science would not either.

Much like this rephrase of Berkeley:

There was a Pros and Waynpii who said, 'I
Must think it exceedingly odd
If we finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

So, this needs to be answered for them…until then response will be meet with – if man never was then nothing else can either – phraseologies.

Atheist for all their touting and chest beating about being superiorly open minded are not opened minded about God’s existence; therefore for them, man was not created because there was no man before to witness the event.

One needs to view that math – science are tools for human beings to use to discern the workings of God in a discernable way. If human beings did not exist, this earth and entire universe would continue on without us.

We do physically exist and can measure and discern God’s finger prints by use of physics, math, science, biology, etc, however the truth that Paul wrote about in Romans 1:20, 21c remain objectively true in the use of these very things to become dissuaded of God existence as well of their own finite existence.

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

'Dear sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the Quad
And that is why the tree
Continues to be
Since observed by, your faithfully God

By Bishop Berkeley
-
-
-

MarcusOfLycia wrote:You don't think this is a silly response to what he had to say?

On the one hand, atheists tend to say they have all the facts, all the knowledge, and all the evidence. And then here, you say that a basic assumption that virtually every human being has ever made (2+2=4) should have some room for the possibility that it is not an objective truth. If that has some room, why don't we have exponentially more room for complex scientific theories that depend on hundreds of thousands or even millions of such simple 'truths' plus inconceivably large amounts of data with room for interpretation and plenty of ideas that need to be assumed without data?

I suppose my biggest issue with it is that if you can't even assume definitions (and 2+2=4 could easily be considered a definition), then what is the point in discussing any of this stuff? Are the definitions of the words I'm using definitive objectively? If not, then am I even communicating with you, or am I just typing in characters that you use as you see fit to whatever end you desire? Seems like a good 'welcome to the internet, here's a basic philosophy course' requirement should be established.

Perhaps beating heads into the ground was too light a statement. I'd consider doing that while selling all my possessions, retreating to the woods, and feeling like one of the last sane people in the world...

I'm not an atheist, I don't have all the facts, I don't have all the evidence. I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm just rather intrigued by the certainty you have in your opinions. Yes let us leave some room that objectively we could be very wrong with scientific theories which stand on each others shoulders all the way down to a base of philosophy. Let us also leave a little room for the objective/subjective divide to be a man made one.

I can happily work with 2+2=4 or the rough definitions of the words you are posting but there seems to be a need that if using these terms is not plugging directly into objective reality then why do it. Why not? Is there some great need to retreat from life if it has no apparent solid objective grounding?

I don't think you'd be the first to sell off your possessions - I recall Jesus mentioning giving your stuff away to be a better course of action but you could sell stuff and then give away the money you possess, as I imagine money may still be considered a possession. The history of most religions is littered with people giving up possessions, retreating to nature and under the impression that hardly anyone else gets it. I'd consider it a more fruitful course of action than banging your head on the sidewalk, people often seek out hermits and marvel at their insight - less common is people seeking out those who spend their time hitting their skulls on the tarmac.

B. W. wrote:Pros, does our mortal physical life cease?

It may well do. Saying that all dead things were once alive does not mean that all that is alive will die, I'll admit it seems likely. If I were a betting man......

B. W. wrote:Matter of fact, did your great-great-great grand father's physical mortal life cease?

I have no idea who they were but imagine they were pronounced dead a long time ago.

B. W. wrote:Is physical mortal death certian?

no

jlay wrote:The fact is that life goes along fine, because atheist and deniers of OM are more than happy to stand on the ground of OM when it suits them. If someone sticks a gun in your face, you won't hear them saying, oh well, que sera sera.

People get upset, therefore God exists? Really?

Is someone sticking a gun in your face really life going along fine in your opinion? It seems a little like your philosophy has a monopoly on the human condition. Are they borrowing from OM or are you lending out your opinion?

B. W. wrote:One must understand that in these type of discussion people have the philosophical Tree in the Quad mentality and use counter arguments to it. Just as several are so doing here in this thread:

Tree in the Quad

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

'Dear sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the Quad
And that is why the tree
Continues to be
Since observed by, your faithfully God

By Ronald Knox /// Bishop Berkeley

Quote from this Link

Looks like Pros and Waynpii are stuck on this idea…

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

For them, in my opinion, math, science, cannot exist unless there is a human being around to used and create these. Therefore, math cannot be used to prove objective truth or science, since after all, if mankind did not exist – math science would not either.

Much like this rephrase of Berkeley:

There was a Pros and Waynpii who said, 'I
Must think it exceedingly odd
If we finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

So, this needs to be answered for them…until then response will be meet with – if man never was then nothing else can either – phraseologies.

Atheist for all their touting and chest beating about being superiorly open minded are not opened minded about God’s existence; therefore for them, man was not created because there was no man before to witness the event.

One needs to view that math – science are tools for human beings to use to discern the workings of God in a discernable way. If human beings did not exist, this earth and entire universe would continue on without us.

We do physically exist and can measure and discern God’s finger prints by use of physics, math, science, biology, etc, however the truth that Paul wrote about in Romans 1:20, 21c remain objectively true in the use of these very things to become dissuaded of God existence as well of their own finite existence.

There was a young man who said, 'God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that the tree
Continues to be when no one's about in the Quad'

'Dear sir, your astonishment’s odd
I am always about in the Quad
And that is why the tree
Continues to be
Since observed by, your faithfully God

By Bishop Berkeley
-
-
-

It seems that in short your answer to the age old question of roughly "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is "yes".

Proinsias wrote: I can happily work with 2+2=4 or the rough definitions of the words you are posting but there seems to be a need that if using these terms is not plugging directly into objective reality then why do it. Why not? Is there some great need to retreat from life if it has no apparent solid objective grounding?

Better question: Is there some great need to retreat [FROM SOCIETY] if it [does not agree with 2+2=4] (or any other basic solid objective grounding).

My answer is, yes. I'd rather live outside of a contagiously stupid society and venture into it on occasion than allow it to have any significant intellectual influence over me.

But isn't all this quite off topic? What is achieved if you can prove that 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4. What is the purpose of any of this discussion? Just seems really silly to me.

However, suppose your right and 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4. I should probably give up on all mathematics then, since if the basic number theory concepts aren't reliable, neither are the high level concepts. In that case, I should give up on physics, because physics is, fundamentally, applied mathematics based on observation. And if that's the case, I'd probably lean towards giving up on chemistry, biology, and eventually social sciences, too, not to mention logic and philosophy.

Have we progressed in this discussion now, with that established?

Proinsias wrote:It seems that in short your answer to the age old question of roughly "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is "yes".

More accurate would be "If a tree exists and no one is around to see it, does the tree exist?" That is as close to tautology as you could make a statement without actually doing it.