Ask God for Me

[Kylie]

So what happened with your husband? What was his response to your experiment and did he accept the results?

I posted a link to the post where I first mentioned it.

If what you are seeking is not mentioned in that post, perhaps you should ask yourself if it's any of your business.

 

[John Helpher]

perhaps you should ask yourself if it's any of your business.

I did have a look in the link you posted, but I didn't see that information there. Of course I realize that personal details of any person's life is not my business (in the sense that I'm owed such information), but to be fair neither was I the one who mentioned that business in the first place. I was just curious to know how he interpreted your experiment since he was the one who asked you to try it in the first place. I'm guessing neither of you were particularly satisfied with the results so I can understand your sensitivity in this area. It sometimes feels a little awkward trying to explain that I have a lot of respect for marriage (and the effort it takes to make a marriage work) so I'm hoping the two of you will manage to find a way through whatever difficulties you may be having in this area.

I hope you won't mind if I add a bit more to the general topic of your experiment, (though I'll understand if you feel like you've had enough of this topic). You said the "ask Jesus into your heart" experiment failed, but you may be interested to know that this isn't something Jesus asked his followers to do. Yes, it's become common in church circles these days to believe that the sinner's prayer is all it takes, but that's a bit like asking someone to test the temperature at which water boils by talking nicely to the water. When the water fails to boil you can say, "welp, that didn't work; I guess water doesn't actually boil".

A rational person would note that the procedure used was not correct regarding what it takes to boil the water. If you want the water boiled you must heat the water. It's like that with testing God's existence; if you want to perform the test properly, you must follow the proper procedure. In the case of understanding that there is an intelligent creator who made us, Jesus' instruction was to apply his teachings if we want proof of this intelligent being.

In other words, a formulaic ritual (like eating bread and drinking special wine, or getting baptized in water, or saying a special prayer, or going to a particular building) will produce a negative result much like talking nicely to water will not make it boil.

 

[the iconoclast]

We've already had this discussion. If you didn't get it then you won't get it now and I'm not going to waste my time trying to tell you again when you've just demonstrated that you just seem to think I should do things your way.

Hey hey kylie

Actually we were having a discussion and we never finished - due to my absence. I want to get it!


I've gone back into my folder and found some interesting quotes from you

I was honestly open to God and would have accepted it if He chose to speak to me.

Remember that h2o battery experiment, to get a result you must follow a certain criteria.

How did you come to Christ or what criteria did you follow?

What method or methods did you use?

I always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know.

Are you willing to do what is needed or are you not going to be systematic?

I challenge you. What harm is there for you to give it another shot - maybe one or two - and do things His way, not your way?

If God is imaginary then you have nothing to lose, correct?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey @cvanwey my dear sir

@muichimotsu seems to have lost all motivation to have a discussion with me - he was very motivated a couple of months ago.

You and I have unfinished business. Would you treat me with a simple discussion.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey @Ophiolite my dear

 

[John Helpher]

What harm is there for you to give it another shot - maybe one or two -

Heh, most people spend their whole lives trying to give it another shot, but hey, if God doesn't jump through hoops for you on the first go-round it must be because he doesn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great. And as he later told Sean Carol, as Carol mentioned in his debate with WLC in 2016, he thinks the universe could be eternal? And like I said, no one knows (yet). It would appear there is not yet, nor may not ever be, enough data to assert one or the other? All scientists, work upon their hunch(es) alone, for now anyways....

The problem with an eternal universe which is inescapable has two factors, one being change. Something eternal can't change; the second factor is that we know that at the earliest point in our universe there was no time, space, matter or energy and if it were eternal it would be in a cyclic state then all possible arrangements and states of that prior universe would have been obtained at some time during this past. Most theories don't have multiple inflation events in their models, at least that I am aware of anyway.

But it seems clear here, that you really want the universe to have a true beginning. Otherwise, if the universe does indeed turn out to be eternal, that the concept of creation would instead possibly be a superfluous assertion? Whereas, if the universe did have a true beginning, we are still no closer to not only god(s), but God.

We already know that this specific universe did have a beginning. The very most we know is that there was no space, no time, no energy, no matter and most importantly no laws of nature.

In essence, the creationist may stand to loose an awful lot, whereas the scientist sees no difference either way...?[/QUOTE]To claim that scientist sees no difference either way is false for many scientists. Many scientists have an agenda to quash God as an explanation.

 

[Caliban]

What evidence do you have that there isn't a God?

Science says the universe began at the big band. So what caused the big bang?

God of the gaps.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm saying that using your time to work for money is not consistent with what Jesus taught. I'm sensing that you may feel a little outrage that I would dare to suggest that you weren't a real Christian, but you, being an Atheist now, should have a reasonable perspective on that, now.

Jesus himself suggested as much about many of those who professed to follow him even in his own day. He said, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? and "The foolish man is the one who hears my teachings but does not obey them".

If you spent your time working for money, then you were not practicing Jesus' teachings, and therefore the principle I relayed to you in my original post still applies.

Do you think you have to follow all Jesus teachings to be a Christian?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Space and time, almost certainly yes. Energy, no. It is not known whether energy can be said to have ever 'begun'.

Energy no? That sounds like you are claiming you do know that energy had never 'began', what leads you to believe that?

And if you're uncomfortable with an infinite regress, energy is a much better candidate for something timeless than a god is, as it does not necessitate a mountain of additional assumptions along with it, each requiring its own separate argument.

What caused the energy to generate the BB?

Some do, some don't, and almost none of them mean an 'absolute nothing' as necessitated by your apologetics.

No so. There are theories about what that nothing could be but they have serious flaws, the major one is no natural laws.

It's all speculation anyway. It is absolutely not a 'fact', as you asserted earlier. Most, when pressed on what is actually demonstrable, will give the honest answer - 'we don't know'.

We do know that there was no space, no time, no matter and energy (most scientists believe energy and matter are inseparable) which existed prior to the creation of our universe.

The Bible's description of the universe is, at best, not in evidence - such as depicting a creation ex nihilo - and at worst, wrong by billions of years - such as placing the formation of the Earth before the stars.

So, you'll be waiting a while on that.

First darkness, then light (not from the stars), then water (the perfect liquid) matter was before the stars.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm asking you if you have a praxis by which you attempt to evaluate information and/or evidence. I would kind of expect for this to the case if you're now an avowed Evidentialist with materialist leanings, but if you're instead merely a Nietzschean existentialist, well then, I .... guess you can call the shots about what makes "good" evidence versus "bad" evidence as you see fit.

Label me what you want. You are asking me to give you an answer that has no one answer. Each claim and evidence are different. My standards of evidence are different depending on the claim and all beliefs are subjective. I don't know what would convince me of any particular claim until the evidence is presented.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Label me what you want. You are asking me to give you an answer that has no one answer. Each claim and evidence are different. My standards of evidence are different depending on the claim and all beliefs are subjective. I don't know what would convince me of any particular claim until the evidence is presented.

So, are you saying that the processes of science (and just plain rationality) play absolutely no part in your overall understanding as to what constitutes evidence and as to what constitutes a substantive evaluation about the evidence you think you have?

And are you also saying, then, that you can't cite the sources that have fed into the development of your own personal sense of evaluative praxis? I mean, if you truly eschew the idea of "hard solipsism," ----which you said you did earlier----why can't you share your sources, even if just as a complementary helping hand to the rest of us who are existentially wading through the confusion of this life and have been deceived by the preponderant presence of 'religious ideas'?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not one I can explain in one post on the internet. Would you be willing to study the evidence as to why scientists are convinced that evolution happened and why I am convinced?

I have. Thanks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What are the two different definitions?

God and not God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A lot of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence.

Again, your subjective determination of what is bad and what is good.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Energy no? That sounds like you are claiming you do know that energy had never 'began', what leads you to believe that?

I am not claiming to know. But I have no reason to suspect that it began ex nihilo, from a state of 'absolute nothing'. I have no reason to suspect there was ever a state of 'absolute nothing' in the first place.

Once again, I am going to come back to the same equivocation fallacy that bubbles up over and over again in these exchanges - you are not merely looking to establish a case for a beginning to the observable universe. You are looking to establish a case for a creation ex nihilo event of the totality of existence, from 'absolute nothing'.

Big Bang cosmology does not establish that.

What caused the energy to generate the BB?

I don't know if it did or not.

In fact, I have no reason to suspect there was any 'cause' in the traditional sense. There is no such thing as a 'law of causality' in physics. We know, in fact, that our classical understanding of causality starts to break down at the quantum level.

What I do know is that at no point in any of this is it necessary, nor even remotely helpful, to invoke a god, because all that does is pile on a myriad of other questions.

No so. There are theories about what that nothing could be but they have serious flaws, the major one is no natural laws.

There are no theories about anything we've been talking about, since science is currently incapable of addressing it. There are a few hypotheses, and lots of speculation.

That's a problem for you and your apologetics. It's not a problem for me.

We do know that there was no space, no time, no matter and energy (most scientists believe energy and matter are inseparable)

Interchangeable, not inseparable.

which existed prior to the creation of our universe.

We know they didn't exist in the same form they currently occupy in the observable universe.

We do not know whether they came into being ex nihilo from a state of 'absolute nothing', or that they represent the totality of existence itself. That, whether you like it or not, is what you have tasked yourself with demonstrating.

First darkness, then light (not from the stars), then water (the perfect liquid) matter was before the stars.

Careful not to pull a muscle with all that stretching.

Plant life created before the stars - wrong by billions of years. Earth created before the stars - wrong by billions of years. Moon and stars created together - wrong by billions of years.

The creation order of flowering plants, insects, and whales - wrong by hundreds of millions of years.

I would not invoke Genesis to make your point, if I were you.

 

[John Helpher]

Do you think you have to follow all Jesus teachings to be a Christian?

That's like asking, "Do you think you must actually repair cars to be a mechanic"? Like, yeah, of course you must follow Jesus' teachings (or at least genuinely try to) to be considered a Christian. That's why he asked, "Why do you call me 'Lord', but do not obey me"?

Based on your response it sounds like even when you were a Christian you never really considered what it means to actually obey Jesus, which is not surprising as that's essentially where most of the church world today is at. They've got a whole host of religious rituals, they attend religious services, they excel at praise and worship services, they spend a lot of time making long, public, special prayers and all such things, but what they will not do is to obey Jesus.

For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? Did you know he said we should keep our charity-giving, fasting, and praying secret? Did you know he said we should not use special titles like father, Mr, or Sir for one another? Did you know he said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other and that our new, full-time job is to seek his kingdom, first? Did you know he said we cannot be his disciple unless we forsake all we have and that the followers in his day, (and thousands in the book of Acts) practiced this teaching by selling all they had and sharing all things in common?

If you did not at least try to practice these teachings then you weren't practicing Christianity even if you really, really believed you were a Christian.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So, are you saying that the processes of science (and just plain rationality) play absolutely no part in your overall understanding as to what constitutes evidence and as to what constitutes a substantive evaluation about the evidence you think you have?

Anything can be evidence, the problem is to discern if it is good enough or not for a belief. Rationality plays a role of course. The substantive evaluation depends on the claim. What I would call good evidence is based on the claim. I don't evaluate all evidence the same and the same evidence may be sufficient for one claim and not for another. I have said this many times.

And are you also saying, then, that you can't cite the sources that have fed into the development of your own personal sense of evaluative praxis? I mean, if you truly eschew the idea of "hard solipsism," ----which you said you did earlier----why can't you share your sources, even if just as a complementary helping hand to the rest of us who are existentially wading through the confusion of this life and have been deceived by the preponderant presence of 'religious ideas'?

I don't avoid the problem of hard solipsism. I do not have sufficient evidence to say it is not an option, in fact I don't think there ever can be. So I practically dismiss it and believe this reality I perceive is real, otherwise I cannot go forward with anything.

I learned a lot of things from a lot of different sources. I would rather have you discuss my beliefs instead of other peoples beliefs. Because there is not one source that I agree with 100%.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I have. Thanks.

Ok, from scientific sources, biologists, universities etc. or apologists?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Again, your subjective determination of what is bad and what is good.

Just like everyone else.