Evidence for God from Science

Ken God exists...

We would not know what is truly moral without a just God allowing liberty and sending forth something that declares what makes right and what makes wrong because people are lost trying to figure out the standards of right verse wrong in order to justify what they do.

The Ten Commandments serve that purpose:

People like yourself really do not have a problem with these:

1-Honor thy father and thy mother.
2-Thou shall not kill/murder.
3-Thou shall not commit adultery.
4-Thou shall not steal.
5-Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
6-Thou shall not covet your neighbor's wife (or anything that belongs to your neighbor).

It is these you have trouble with:

1-I am the Lord, your God.
2-Thou shall bring no false idols before me and bow down to them nor serve them.
3-Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.
4-Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

You have trouble with God...do not think he exist and spend mucho time convincing yourself as your statments on this here thread shows...

You have the idol of self as your guide to serve for whatever you desire to bow too to justify self actions...

You like to take the name of God and turn it into a vain thing as evidenced by your many comments - you treat God with contempt and as a vain horrible concept.

You have no problem taking a day off from work, however, to honor God on such a day of grace, well, that idea is treated with utter contempt.

Ken, without the first Four commandments, you cannot keep the the other six and thus miss out on discovering that there is objective right and objective wrong that brings goodness into the world. God would be unjust to leave us to our own devices and not to warn us, or show us objective truth, That is what you are missing.

How can you actually find objective truth when denying God who guides us into all truth?

You cannot.

If your wife, children, kin, denied and completely ignored your existence how would that make you feel?

How do you think God feels about you, then?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Ken God exists...

We would not know what is truly moral without a just God allowing liberty and sending forth something that declares what makes right and what makes wrong because people are lost trying to figure out the standards of right verse wrong in order to justify what they do.

So If I understand you correctly, you believe people are unable to decipher right from wrong, and need God to tell us what is right. Is that the position you take? If not, please explain further; if so perhaps you can answer this question for me; How do we know God is right, and the devil is wrong? What method do we employ to verify God's righteousness?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Ken God exists...

We would not know what is truly moral without a just God allowing liberty and sending forth something that declares what makes right and what makes wrong because people are lost trying to figure out the standards of right verse wrong in order to justify what they do.

So If I understand you correctly, you believe people are unable to decipher right from wrong, and need God to tell us what is right. Is that the position you take? If not, please explain further; if so perhaps you can answer this question for me; How do we know God is right, and the devil is wrong? What method do we employ to verify God's righteousness?

Ken

No, but rather God would be unjust for not telling us right from wrong and letting us learn that not to listen to him creates great wrongs.

That's the point...

Think about it...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Ken God exists...

We would not know what is truly moral without a just God allowing liberty and sending forth something that declares what makes right and what makes wrong because people are lost trying to figure out the standards of right verse wrong in order to justify what they do.

So If I understand you correctly, you believe people are unable to decipher right from wrong, and need God to tell us what is right. Is that the position you take? If not, please explain further; if so perhaps you can answer this question for me; How do we know God is right, and the devil is wrong? What method do we employ to verify God's righteousness?

Ken

No, but rather God would be unjust for not telling us right from wrong and letting us learn that not to listen to him creates great wrongs.

That's the point...

Think about it...
-
-
-

So are you saying mankind IS able to judge right from wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?

What is “triangularity”? I’m not familiar with the term.
I don’t see how a triangle could possibly have a nature; triangle is a description of something that does exist. Shapes only exist as a description of something real.

PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

I don’t see how that is possible. Where would these triangularity's exist?

Ken

Ken, what is a triangle?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?

What is “triangularity”? I’m not familiar with the term.
I don’t see how a triangle could possibly have a nature; triangle is a description of something that does exist. Shapes only exist as a description of something real.

PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

I don’t see how that is possible. Where would these triangularity's exist?

Ken

Ken, what is a triangle?

A triangle is a DISCRIPTION of a specific shape

Ken

A triangle is a DESCRIPTION of a specific shape

Ken

LOL, you trying to redefine things now Ken?

Since you seem to be having difficulty grasping a simple question:
A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.

tri·an·gle
ˈtrīˌaNGɡəl/
noun
a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
"an equilateral triangle"

You didn't know that ken?

And since you didn't understand this either:

triangularity: The state or quality of having the shape of a triangle.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?

What is “triangularity”? I’m not familiar with the term.
I don’t see how a triangle could possibly have a nature; triangle is a description of something that does exist. Shapes only exist as a description of something real.

PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

I don’t see how that is possible. Where would these triangularity's exist?

Ken

Abstract things don't have to exist in any particular place. Or do you think the abstract just can't be objective? Abstract means a different thing from subjective.

I think that Ken knows very WELL where this line of thing is leading and he simply doesn't want to go there.

What makes something what it is, is its nature , its essence if you will ( a triangle has 3 sides for example) and since what something IS can NOT be dependent on if that something exists ( a triangle has 3 sides even if there are no triangles in existence) then what we have is the understanding that this essence, this nature ( whatever wording you prefer) is OUTSIDE material existence and as such, immaterial.
In short, Triangularity ( the nature of having 3 sides) is objective and a triangle ( something with 3 sides) is objective.

PaulSacramento wrote:

A triangle is a DESCRIPTION of a specific shape

Ken

LOL, you trying to redefine things now Ken?

Since you seem to be having difficulty grasping a simple question:
A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.

tri·an·gle
ˈtrīˌaNGɡəl/
noun
a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
"an equilateral triangle"

You didn't know that ken?

Sounds like you gave the definition you found in a dictionary. My point is, a triangle is a shape. Shapes describe things that are real. (using your hypothetical) If nothing known to mankind had the shape of a triangle, there would be no such thing as a triangle; the only reason the term “triangle” exists is because there are real things that have that shape, thus mankind chose to give that shape a name. Does this make sense?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

A triangle is a DESCRIPTION of a specific shape

Ken

LOL, you trying to redefine things now Ken?

Since you seem to be having difficulty grasping a simple question:
A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.

tri·an·gle
ˈtrīˌaNGɡəl/
noun
a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
"an equilateral triangle"

You didn't know that ken?

Sounds like you gave the definition you found in a dictionary. My point is, a triangle is a shape. Shapes describe things that are real. (using your hypothetical) If nothing known to mankind had the shape of a triangle, there would be no such thing as a triangle; the only reason the term “triangle” exists is because there are real things that have that shape, thus mankind chose to give that shape a name. Does this make sense?

Ken

So you are saying that the THING ( triangles) existed BEFORE it's nature / essence ( Triangularity) ?
If that is true, why is it a triangle and not a circle ??

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?

What is “triangularity”? I’m not familiar with the term.
I don’t see how a triangle could possibly have a nature; triangle is a description of something that does exist. Shapes only exist as a description of something real.

PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

I don’t see how that is possible. Where would these triangularity's exist?

Ken

Abstract things don't have to exist in any particular place. Or do you think the abstract just can't be objective? Abstract means a different thing from subjective.

I just don't know if abstract things can have a nature. Seems to me in order to have a nature, it must be capable of action


Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

A triangle is a DESCRIPTION of a specific shape

Ken

LOL, you trying to redefine things now Ken?

Since you seem to be having difficulty grasping a simple question:
A triangle is a polygon with three edges and three vertices.

tri·an·gle
ˈtrīˌaNGɡəl/
noun
a plane figure with three straight sides and three angles.
"an equilateral triangle"

You didn't know that ken?

Sounds like you gave the definition you found in a dictionary. My point is, a triangle is a shape. Shapes describe things that are real. (using your hypothetical) If nothing known to mankind had the shape of a triangle, there would be no such thing as a triangle; the only reason the term “triangle” exists is because there are real things that have that shape, thus mankind chose to give that shape a name. Does this make sense?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: So you are saying that the THING ( triangles) existed BEFORE it's nature / essence ( Triangularity) ?

Existed at the same time, and only in the context of something else.

PaulSacramento wrote: If that is true, why is it a triangle and not a circle ??

people decided to name a different shape circle

Perhaps how we are defining nature is different. I see nature as the character of something; perhaps you see it differently.
When you say Triangularity as the nature of a triangle, are triangles the only thing in existence to have this nature? Do each shape have a different nature indistinguishable from anything else in existence? Various people, animals, and anything else seems to be able to have the same nature; is this different for shapes?

If I cut a square piece of wonder bread in half so it has the shape of a triangle, does it take on the nature of a triangle? Or does it have the nature of bread. Nobody will look at a tire, steering wheel, or ring and call it a circle, they will call it what it is and only use the term “circle” to describe them. I get what you are saying, it just doesn’t make sense to me.


Ken

Ken: If nothing known to mankind had the shape of a triangle, there would be no such thing as a triangle;

False. It might be that a thing exists, that we would assign descriptive terms to, but that we are nonetheless unaware of its existence.

Ken: the only reason the term “triangle” exists is because there are real things that have that shape, thus mankind chose to give that shape a name.

True.