Losing my religion, where is the evidence for God

[Ross Woodward]

That was a one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind opportunity you missed.
Why did you miss? - simply your attitude.That was reflected in your reply.

Men in their great wisdom and intellect have probed the edge of the solar system, scanned the Universe but doesn't understand how to find God.

Deuteronomy 30:14
And it is not beyond the sea, that you would need to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it for us and proclaim it, that we may obey it?” 14But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may obey it

AGNOSTIC
The dictionary definition of an Agnostic is the view that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable and that you need Scientific grounds for professing what you believe.

Would God use intellect and Science as a means of Salvation? Pity those who lived 2000 years ago if this were true. It' all about your attitude. Your heart.

My definition of an AGNOSTIC is someone who thinks he is smarter than God and doesn't follow the instructions given to him by God. If you did - you would KNOW the truth of this

For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” 20Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…

More nonsense. Saying we do not know about what occurs outside of the observable universe isn’t saying you are smarter than God. It is humbly admitting the limitations of what we can know.

 

[Ross Woodward]

if so why you stop responding to our discussion about the evidence for design? we already had a good start. here again your claim about the car:

"We can observe cars being designed and built because it happens within this universe"

so i said that according to this criteria we cant conclude design when we see a car if we never seen how a car were designed. what is your objection to this argument?

The two are non sequitor. Because we can observe a car being built we can recognise that as something that may be designed and built.

Have you ever seen anybody design and build as human eye? If not then why do you have belief that it was designed any more than it occurred in nature? If you claim everything in nature was designed aren’t you really comparing between man made and not man made rather than between designed and not designed.

I know people who can design cars, the world has people who can work out how man made things are built and replicate that in most cases. Nobody has built an eye. They have grown fully functioning body parts mind you.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

More nonsense. Saying we do not know about what occurs outside of the observable universe isn’t saying you are smarter than God. It is humbly admitting the limitations of what we can know.

Yes - so humble yourself and follow the instructions - simples

 

[Hieronymus]

The two are non sequitor. Because we can observe a car being built we can recognise that as something that may be designed and built.

Without observing a car being built it can also be recognized as designed and built.
Even a simple mouse trap can be recognized as designed and built.
Somehow though, when it is infinitely more complex and genius we can not recognize this?

 

[Ross Woodward]

How can you so confidently assert that God is outside the laws of nature? That is a philosophical and theological position based upon a non empirical assumption, but you are supposedly reliant upon only empirical evidence as an agnostic, for the foundational establishment of your fundamental principles of reasoning.

God, in Christian Theology is thought to be omnipresent and all pervasive. By that definition then God would be found both within and outside 'the laws of nature', in fact both within and outside of the created universe itself. The creation, however it came into existence, has never displaced God, who is noncreated Spirit. For all we know scientifically, the laws of nature, as we understand them, may be the only laws of nature that actually exist, either within or 'outside' the created universe, now or ever. It seems to me to be highly likely that is actually the case and this universe is probably the only kind of universe capable of sustained existence, and even that is only temporary, as far as we can tell.
.

If God can create matter and time from nothing he is clearly outside of the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not allow for this to happen. So clearly you are saying the laws of nature do not apply to God. Unless you want to change your definition of God from him being omnipresent, omnipotent then you have to concede that is what you are saying. I am just using the normal definition the Christian God. It doesn’t matter if you say he is within and without the universe, he isn’t subject to these laws, according to you not me.

So you cannot possibly then claim that the laws of nature are highly likely to be the only laws that actually exist. You’ve claimed God isn’t subject to them so clearly they didn’t hold sway when you say he created the universe.

None of what you wrote actually shows that the laws that apply now applied at the start of this universe or to whatever may exist outside of it in space and time. I therefor repeat my view that the possibilities outside of what we can observe are infinite.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Yes - so humble yourself and follow the instructions - simples

Because people tell me to follow theirs and not others. Gods not telling me to do so. People are. People who can offer no reason for doing so other than their feelings and an old book.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Then you do believe in my God? You can't have it both ways...I mean you are actually stating it's a fact God is outside the laws of nature, something, BTW, you don't know is true or not, so no, I am not wrong.

I am saying your God claim is by necessity outside of the laws of nature. You can’t have him create the universe from nothing and be omnipotent and still claim he is bound by those laws, don’t be silly.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

Because people tell me to follow theirs and not others. Gods not telling me to do so. People are. People who can offer no reason for doing so other than their feelings and an old book.

God didn't give Naaman his instructions -Elisha did - why? Because Elisha knew the system and Naaman was unable to hear or see God so he needed to be shown the way - he had done it himself. We all have.. We listened .. We did ... . Now we teach the same..

2 Kings 5

Now I KNOW that there is no God in all the world except in Israel.

So what are Jesus Instructions in the Bible - You've read them during your time in the CofE?

 

[Ross Woodward]

God didn't give Naaman his instructions -Elisha did - why? Because Elisha knew the system and Naaman was unable to hear or see God so he needed to be shown the way - he had done it himself. We all have.. We listened .. We did ... . Now we teach the same..

2 Kings 5

Now I KNOW that there is no God in all the world except in Israel.

So what are Jesus Instructions in the Bible - You've read them during your time in the CofE?

And they are not Jesus, they are somebody writing down folklore decades after of events that may or may not have occurred involving a man who may or may not have existed who it is claimed was the son of God by some people.

 

[FIRESTORM314]

And they are not Jesus, they are somebody writing down folklore decades after of events that may or may not have occurred involving a man who may or may not have existed who it is claimed was the son of God by some people.

Keep on arguing your case - it's all down to your attitude my friend - you really don't want to know.
If you did you would have done as I told you to do. It wasn't that difficult.

My earlier definition of an Agnostic was quite correct.


If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your HEART that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your HEART that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved

 

[Ross Woodward]

Keep on arguing your case - it's all down to your attitude my friend - you really don't want to know.
If you did you would have done as I told you to do. It wasn't that difficult.

My earlier definition of an Agnostic was quite correct.


If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your HEART that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your HEART that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved

I respectfully asked for evidence and all you do is quite the bible and tell me what to do

 

[FIRESTORM314]

I respectfully asked for evidence and all you do is quite the bible and tell me what to do

Yes - and I respectfully reply that you don't like being told what to do.

Neither did Naaman but even he had the sense to swallow is pride due to his Leprosy. Your condition is much worse so do think it through carefully.

I'm going to leave it at that. Think it through. And if you do eventually follow my instructions later on in life - throw in an extra apology with it for being so blind and deaf and taking so long to getting round to doing it.

The EVIDENCE is simply You don't want to know.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Yes - and I respectfully reply that you don't like being told what to do.

Neither did Naaman but even he had the sense to swallow is pride due to his Leprosy. Your condition is much worse so do think it through carefully.

I'm going to leave it at that. Think it through. And if you do eventually follow my instructions later on in life - throw in an extra apology with it for being so blind and deaf and taking so long to getting round to doing it.

The EVIDENCE is simply You don't want to know.

If I came asking for bible quotes and preaching then fair enough. But personally I think your preaching rather than dealing with what I asked is arrogant and rude.

 

[Ross Woodward]

I recommend that you research what some of the great scientists have had to say. Many here would not consider some of them Christians, but many/most were at least Deists, believing in a Supreme Being that created and sustains the Universe. I recall a book that I read decades ago while I was in college. It was written by a philosopher, but I do not recall his name. He laid out all of the pros and cons for the existence of God. His final summation was that he felt that the odds for God's existence were slightly higher than the odds against His existence and not because God was necessary to create the Universe, but because the Universe has been sustained for billions of years and this would seem to indicate a Supreme Intelligence behind it all.

I’ve read a fair few, but it’s irrelevant. There’s no evidence anybody has provided about outside of what we can observe. So it’s all conjecture and the possibilities are endless. I don’t see how anybody’s opinion is more relevant if they have nothing observable to base it on.

 

[ExTiff]

If God can create matter and time from nothing he is clearly outside of the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not allow for this to happen. So clearly you are saying the laws of nature do not apply to God. Unless you want to change your definition of God from him being omnipresent, omnipotent then you have to concede that is what you are saying. I am just using the normal definition the Christian God. It doesn’t matter if you say he is within and without the universe, he isn’t subject to these laws, according to you not me.

So you cannot possibly then claim that the laws of nature are highly likely to be the only laws that actually exist. You’ve claimed God isn’t subject to them so clearly they didn’t hold sway when you say he created the universe.

None of what you wrote actually shows that the laws that apply now applied at the start of this universe or to whatever may exist outside of it in space and time. I therefor repeat my view that the possibilities outside of what we can observe are infinite.

If God can create matter and time from nothing he is clearly outside of the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not allow for this to happen.

According to quantum physicists it happens all the time. It is also possible for something to be in two places at the same time and nowhere at all, then suddenly pop into existence and cease to exist in an instant. You are a bit scientifically behind the times, at least at the quantum level of reality. You also need to expand your concept of the nature of God if you are to do justice to the contemplation of the infinite and incomprehensible. The Sunday School pictures of an old man with a long white beard or the notion of a muscle bound man with a large hammer have to be assigned to the trash bin of intellectual nonsense before you can even begin to contemplate the being who is 'the ancient of days' and 'in whom we live and move and have our being'.

The laws of nature are designed and put in place by the God that has devised them. 'He has given them a law which shall not be broken'. That refers to the universe. The laws of physics came into existence along with time itself at the initial inflation of the universe. No physicist has yet been able to probe into the mystery of what caused it to start to exist in the first place. All we have are unverifiable theories. God is as good an explanation as any of them, with the added advantage of being more interesting and poetic than string theory, multiverses and the like.

I can possibly claim whatever I like and you have no power to stop me thinking whatever I will. The most you can do is tell me you disagree. Tough.If you can conceptualize some alternative laws to the ones we have so far discovered, I would be interested to know what you have come up with. Otherwise I am at liberty to assume the ones we have are the only ones available, here or anywhere else.

"I therefor repeat my view that the possibilities outside of what we can observe are infinite"

If "infinite" then you can't discount the possibility of a transcendent entity we have labeled "God" as being the initiator and sustainer of the universe. Or are you discounting pink unicorns as well when you use the concept of 'infinity' to describe the extent of what is 'possible'?

It looks to me as if you have defeated your own argument.

By the way are you going to try what I suggested, to discover for yourself, whether you can engage with the creator and establish covenant with (Him/Her/it), as I once did? Or will you continue to argue the toss, (using your considerable intellect), but without conducting the experiment. Thus avoiding the risk of discovering for certain that God does not exist or alternatively avoiding the prospect of discovering God does exist and you are then personally therefore obliged to amend your preconceptions.

It is always uncomfortable dealing with God. God is quite unlike anything else you will ever encounter. "First you must believe that God exists, then you must believe that God rewards those who seek Him".
.

 

[Ross Woodward]

According to quantum physicists it happens all the time. It is also possible for something to be in two places at the same time and nowhere at all, then suddenly pop into existence and cease to exist in an instant. You are a bit scientifically behind the times, at least at the quantum level of reality. You also need to expand your concept of the nature of God if you are to do justice to the contemplation of the infinite and incomprehensible. The Sunday School pictures of an old man with a long white beard or the notion of a muscle bound man with a large hammer have to be assigned to the trash bin of intellectual nonsense before you can even begin to contemplate the being who is 'the ancient of days' and 'in whom we live and move and have our being'.

The laws of nature are designed and put in place by the God that has devised them. 'He has given them a law which shall not be broken'. That refers to the universe. The laws of physics came into existence along with time itself at the initial inflation of the universe. No physicist has yet been able to probe into the mystery of what caused it to start to exist in the first place. All we have are unverifiable theories. God is as good an explanation as any of them, with the added advantage of being more interesting and poetic than string theory, multiverses and the like.

I can possibly claim whatever I like and you have no power to stop me thinking whatever I will. The most you can do is tell me you disagree. Tough.If you can conceptualize some alternative laws to the ones we have so far discovered, I would be interested to know what you have come up with. Otherwise I am at liberty to assume the ones we have are the only ones available, here or anywhere else.



If "infinite" then you can't discount the possibility of a transcendent entity we have labeled "God" as being the initiator and sustainer of the universe. Or are you discounting pink unicorns as well when you use the concept of 'infinity' to describe the extent of what is 'possible'?

It look to me as if you have defeated your own argument.

By the way are you going to try what I suggested, to discover for yourself, whether you can engage with the creator and establish covenant with (Him/Her/it), as I once did? Or will you continue to argue the toss, (using your not inconsiderable intellect), but without conducting the experiment. Thus avoiding the risk of discovering for certain that God does not exist or alternatively avoiding the prospect of discovering God does exist and you are then personally therefore obliged to amend your preconceptions.

It is always uncomfortable dealing with God. God is quite unlike anything else you will ever encounter.
.

If God designed the laws he’s definitely outside of them.

I completely agree that physicists haven’t been able to probe into the mystery of caused it to start to exist. I’ve been saying that all along. Thanks for catching up. I’ve also been clear that I rule nothing out. That’s quite literally why I’m an agnostic atheist. Nobody has any evidence so literally anything is possible so there are infinite possibilities and therefor God is infinitesimally probable until there is evidence to reduce the possibilities and make God probable. You clearly haven’t been reading what I wrote but instead arguing against things I haven’t said, I haven’t said I know there is no God. I’ve said I dint know and neither does anybody else who can’t provide evidence.

It appears you agree that we don’t actually have any evidence, yet you believe anyway. So no I’m not going to do just try to delude myself.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Is this getting hit on the head with a hammer?

 

[Tom 1]

And a perfectly valid question as to give God the attribute of just existing but not other things is special pleading.

Yes, but attaching a label to something doesn’t determine whether or not it’s the case. If there is no God, then it’s a moot point, you have another argument then about where everything came from, if there is then arguing ‘who made God’ does inevitably become an infinite regression - who made who ad infinitum. It doesn’t avoid the question, however many ‘who mades’ you ask you eventually have to either have something simply springing into existence without any kind of cause whatsoever, or you have a being (as above, if there is a God) who just ‘is’ who is existent in a way we can’t really get our heads around - to whom concepts like beginning and end simply don’t apply.
Disclaimer - to avoid any confusion no this doesn’t prove anything, it’s just something to think about. None of us is in a position to ‘prove’ whether or not God exists.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am saying your God claim is by necessity outside of the laws of nature

How do you know God did anything outside the laws of nature?

 

[Sparagmos]

10 people out of how many billion? How is their attempt to describe the indescribable, and doing so in terms of their own cultural norms, evidence or proof of the non existence of God? I agree it is not proof of anything to the contrary either, but it in no way supports agnostic preconceptions of reality.

I didn’t say they were proof of the nonexistence of god.My point was that since people from many different faiths have the same types of religious experiences, those experiences cannot be put forward as evidence of the existence of one particular god at the exclusion of other gods. For instance, the personal spiritual experiences of a Christian cannot be put forward as evidence that the Christian god is the one true god, when Hindus report the same types of experiences. Some people here were claiming that personal religious experiences of Christians are proof of the Christian god.