Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:From your history of posting, yes.
Now, I grant you that you have a basic understanding of what I like to call "sunday school theology" or "movie/tv theology".

Do you believe it is possible to understand what Christians believe, and still reject it?

Ken

Of course.
Understanding does not equal agreeing.

After all of our conversations if you believe I don’t understand the concept of eternal, rational, judgment, and all that other stuff you mentioned; there is nothing I can say to you now to convince you otherwise.

Ken, you asked me this:

Do you believe it is possible to understand what Christians believe, and still reject it?

And my reply was this:

Of course.
Understanding does not equal agreeing.

Kenny wrote: Actually when I mentioned God while speaking to you, I was referring to your concept of God; the God of the bible.

Mallz wrote: Why would you do that? I wasn't asking for that.

It seems to make sense that if we are going to talk about God, we should at least talk about a God that at least one of us believe in. However, if you wish to talk about Allah, Odin, or some other God neither of us believes in, I’m open to that as well.

Kenny wrote: Don’t get me wrong; I do understand your position, as a Christian it makes perfect sense to see eternity and all that exists as evidence of God. But as an atheist..... well let me put it this way.
If I believed in Santa Clause, and I defined Santa as a man who makes toys in the North Pole for little kids, the very existence of toys would be evidence of Santa to me, but it would not be to you.
If you believe in God, and you defined God as someone eternal who created all that exist, the very existence of eternity and all that exist would be evidence of God to you, but it would not be for me.

Mallz wrote: You don't understand my position, nor even get a glimpse of my worldview.

Did I make a mistake by assuming you worship the God of the Bible?

Mallz wrote: You put it backwards, I follow the evidence which reveals God (I wasn't Christian first).

And how is that different than my assumption that you currently worship the God of the Bible?

Mallz wrote: Your analogy of Santa Clause shows further you don't understand.

My analogy of Santa Clause was not about you, it was about me. I was trying to get you to see things from my perspective.

Mallz wrote: Nor do I see God how you try and describe.

I didn’t describe God. I just referenced the God of the Bible. The Bible describes this God, not me.

Mallz wrote: I was trying to get you to stop conceptualizing God as 'the big guy in the sky,'

Whaassup with this “big guy in the sky” thing you keep bringing up? All I said was “the God of the Bible”, and you seem to presuppose I’m thinking of some big guy in the sky! Where are you getting this stuff???

Mallz wrote: so you actually could start to understand what I believe.

If you want me to understand what you believe, all you have to do is tell me what you believe, and we can go from there.

Mallz wrote: yet you resist and keep pulling form your preconceptions and fantasies and attribute that to what I believe.
And if that's all you needed to get evidence for belief of Santa, than I'd pity you. The fact you try to correlate that with God and my understanding of God continues to show you can't get beyond God being 'some dude in the sky', thinking that He's some being or the biggest one.

Whoa, whoa, slow-down pork chop! Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually wrote. All I did was make the assumption that because you claim to be Christian, that you worship the God described in the Bible, and you took that little bit of info and just ran with it! I never described the God of the bible, I never claimed he is some big guy in the sky, and I never presupposed the details of what you believe, it sounds like you're getting a little ahead of yourself here; slow down chief!

Mallz wrote: From my position, God could be the multiverse. You see the irony in that?

Umm….No I don’t.

Mallz wrote: As I said before, I care more about the reality of God than the identity of (yes after having the reality known, the identity follows as equally important). It's not that something eternal=YHWH. No, not at all. I care more about something from nothing vs something from something. Basics in life origins science. The something that everything comes from = God. Not, engery=eternal=God. Energy shows evidence of eternal something.

Okay; now that you’ve described what you care about, if you want to have a discussion about God, you need to describe the God you believe in; or as I mentioned before, if you wish to discuss a God neither of us believe in, I’m open to that as well.

Kenny wrote:So you believe in the physical energy detectable and studied by science known to convert to matter, then there is another type of energy undetectable or studied by science that is responsible for all that exists? If this is correct I must ask why label the one not studied by science “energy”? If it isn’t physical or studied by science, why give it the same name of something that is?
However if I have misunderstood you, please explain where I’ve gone wrong.

Mallz wrote: Where did you get the 'another type of energy undetectable..' from? There are many forms of energy... How can I explain further?

[/quote]
So do you believe God is non intelligent, studied, measured, and analyzed by science like energy is?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

However if I were to try this experiment now, the God I would make a case for would be similar to the one you worship, except he wouldn’t involve himself in human affairs. Sorta like planting a seed and just watching it grow without interference on his part. A God that chooses to remain hidden without any contact with his creation would make more sense to me.

Because you don't believe in free will?

No; because I DO believe in freewill.

ken

So, because you believe in free will, you believe that IF a god exits that he would NOT involve himself in things that would effect free will, yes?

No. I was asked to make a case for God. I stated if he did exist it would probably be one that does not involve himself in the affairs of mankind, and chooses to remain hidden. I chose this type of God because I see no evidence of God’s existence.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:From your history of posting, yes.
Now, I grant you that you have a basic understanding of what I like to call "sunday school theology" or "movie/tv theology".

Do you believe it is possible to understand what Christians believe, and still reject it?

Ken

Of course.
Understanding does not equal agreeing.

After all of our conversations if you believe I don’t understand the concept of eternal, rational, judgment, and all that other stuff you mentioned; there is nothing I can say to you now to convince you otherwise.

Ken, you asked me this:

Do you believe it is possible to understand what Christians believe, and still reject it?

And my reply was this:

Of course.
Understanding does not equal agreeing.

You also said that I lack an understanding of what Christians believe. You then described what christians believe as the belief that

*God is Eternal
*God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, All loving, the creator of all that exists.
*That belief in God is rational and reasonable.
*The Jesus Christ is Son of God, has the same nature as God, that He died and was resurrected and will come again.
*The wicked and those that reject Christ will be judged.

5 very simple points, very easy to understand; but you are apparently under the impression that I don’t understand those 5 points you mentioned.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:However if I were to try this experiment now, the God I would make a case for would be similar to the one you worship, except he wouldn’t involve himself in human affairs. Sorta like planting a seed and just watching it grow without interference on his part. A God that chooses to remain hidden without any contact with his creation would make more sense to me.

And, doesn't that scenario you present here make more sense than everything just randomly happening like magic to fall into place? That from a state of nothingness and/or chaos something stable and intelligible is had like us and what we experience came to be? Reject Christianity if you feel you must - you can only be honest with your thoughts.

If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right? Of course this wouldn't prevent dishonest people from creating a different version of God via their imagination; that does want to do all of those things, and of course they would claim God speaks through them thus giving them the power of speaking for God etc. etc..... but then that is a different topic.

To be clear, I didn't say God doesn't want to be known, however, we're working with your "it makes better sense" that God chooses to remain hidden. What you are advocating here is something like an Aristotelian God, akin to what Antony Flew ended up believing. Such is very different from God as found in Judaism and Christianity.

And why would you say that if such a God exists you should just live as an atheist? There is an irony to your words, for it is such that would make one dishonest. If it is more rational (indeed I think it is) and/or makes better sense to believe in God, however far removed you might think God is, then why live as an Atheist? What does such even mean anyway? You'd be far more honest with yourself to just admit you believe in God, however think all religions are wrong because as you see matters it seems God doesn't give a damn.

Based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all because they all contradict,this includes atheism also inwhich there are no gods. Now if there are no gods as atheists suppose then the atheists must start out with nothing,not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to cause and create the universe and everything in it and so the atheist is forced to accept nothing as a cause for the universe and everything in it.

And this goes against the facts and the reality of our world.I want to see any atheist demonstrate nothing causing something to come into existence.I have been challenging atheists for proof and evidence for an experiment that can prove this and yet not one ever has.This makes atheism the least possible true world view out of all of the other world views that believe in gods that could cause and create things in our world,so we can rule out many gods that people have believed in that do not have the ability to cause and create things in our universe.

However the religions that do believe in gods capable of causing and creating things in our universe and world are all distant gods that do not care about man,gods that do not give a damn,and who did not visit us in our world and did nothing about the sin in our life that all religions acknowledge that we have and yet they are all distant gods that do not care about man and do not care if man sins or not,so that if you went to their afterlife it would be no different than this world we now live in full of evil and sin.I could not choose to believe in an Unholy god,over Jesus Christ.

Only YHWH the God of the biblee gave a damn and actually came to live amongst us in human form just as we are in the person of Jesus Christ and he willingly laid his life down paying the ultimate sacrifice for man to be righteous in God's sight and so that we can be saved and he made salvation so easy that it actually seems too easy if you compared it to religion.

Because all other religions give you laws to live by,rituals and they demand that you live up to a standard in order to make it in the after life,but these are all unholy gods that did nothing about man's sin and just overlooks it because man might do some good things too and do not give a damn. Did I really say that? I usually never use that kind of language.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:However if I were to try this experiment now, the God I would make a case for would be similar to the one you worship, except he wouldn’t involve himself in human affairs. Sorta like planting a seed and just watching it grow without interference on his part. A God that chooses to remain hidden without any contact with his creation would make more sense to me.

And, doesn't that scenario you present here make more sense than everything just randomly happening like magic to fall into place? That from a state of nothingness and/or chaos something stable and intelligible is had like us and what we experience came to be? Reject Christianity if you feel you must - you can only be honest with your thoughts.

If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right? Of course this wouldn't prevent dishonest people from creating a different version of God via their imagination; that does want to do all of those things, and of course they would claim God speaks through them thus giving them the power of speaking for God etc. etc..... but then that is a different topic.

Kurieuo wrote: And why would you say that if such a God exists you should just live as an atheist?

Because there would be no way of knowing God exists.

Kurieuo wrote: There is an irony to your words, for it is such that would make one dishonest.

How?

Kurieuo wrote: If it is more rational (indeed I think it is) and/or makes better sense to believe in God, however far removed you might think God is, then why live as an Atheist? What does such even mean anyway?

Exactly! If you have no idea of what or who God is, how would living like a theist be any different than living like an atheist?

I think Atheists live like Theists anyhow, since much of their accepted framework is born out of Judeo-Christian precepts.

But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Kurieuo wrote:I think Atheists live like Theists anyhow, since much of their accepted framework is born out of Judeo-Christian precepts.

Except for that "worshiping God" thing you guys are known to do.

Kurieuo wrote:But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Well; you wouldn't be living a lie, you would be telling a lie. But why would a person who concedes God is necessary turn around and say God doesn't exist? That wouldn't make sense.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Well; you wouldn't be living a lie, you would be telling a lie. But why would a person who concedes God is necessary turn around and say God doesn't exist? That wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, but when I read your reply that's what I understood you to be saying. May as well live like an atheist, even if we rationally concede God must exist to get everything started -- it doesn't mean he gives a damn about anything further. So then, on the practical level Atheism/Deism is much the same in that both lead to doing as you want or what you think is right.

Isn't that basically what you were basically saying here:

Kenny wrote:If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Well; you wouldn't be living a lie, you would be telling a lie. But why would a person who concedes God is necessary turn around and say God doesn't exist? That wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, but when I read your reply that's what I understood you to be saying. May as well live like an atheist, even if we rationally concede God must exist to get everything started -- it doesn't mean he gives a damn about anything further. So then, on the practical level Atheism/Deism is much the same in that both lead to doing as you want or what you think is right.

Isn't that basically what you were basically saying here:

Kenny wrote:If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

No. My point is, if God existed the way I described, there would be no way of knowing he existed except throughout speculation. So how is it possible to live your life as a theist, if you have no idea what or who this God is that you speculate exists?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Well; you wouldn't be living a lie, you would be telling a lie. But why would a person who concedes God is necessary turn around and say God doesn't exist? That wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, but when I read your reply that's what I understood you to be saying. May as well live like an atheist, even if we rationally concede God must exist to get everything started -- it doesn't mean he gives a damn about anything further. So then, on the practical level Atheism/Deism is much the same in that both lead to doing as you want or what you think is right.

Isn't that basically what you were basically saying here:

Kenny wrote:If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

No. My point is, if God existed the way I described, there would be no way of knowing he existed except throughout speculation. So how is it possible to live your life as a theist, if you have no idea what or who this God is that you speculate exists?

Theism is an epistemological position. It has to do with what you do/don't believe. To live your life as a theist simply means you live believing God exists.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:But, if you rationally concede God is necessary, and then live saying God doesn't exist because God remains hidden and unknowable, then essentially you're living with a lie. May as well remain honest with yourself, no?

Well; you wouldn't be living a lie, you would be telling a lie. But why would a person who concedes God is necessary turn around and say God doesn't exist? That wouldn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, but when I read your reply that's what I understood you to be saying. May as well live like an atheist, even if we rationally concede God must exist to get everything started -- it doesn't mean he gives a damn about anything further. So then, on the practical level Atheism/Deism is much the same in that both lead to doing as you want or what you think is right.

Isn't that basically what you were basically saying here:

Kenny wrote:If God didn’t want to be known, worshipped, or control us, we might as well live as atheists; right?

No. My point is, if God existed the way I described, there would be no way of knowing he existed except throughout speculation. So how is it possible to live your life as a theist, if you have no idea what or who this God is that you speculate exists?

Theism is an epistemological position. It has to do with what you do/don't believe. To live your life as a theist simply means you live believing God exists.

Which in this scenario, is no difference action wise than to live not believing God exist. Agree?

To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Kurieuo wrote:To say/believe as though God doesn't exist, when you see it is rational to minimally believe God exists as the foundation to everything else that moves and has being, is being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

That’s not what I’m asking. In this scenario, the person who concludes God must exist using rational reasoning, has no reason to behave any different than the person who uses rational reasoning and concludes God does not exist. Do you agree?