Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

Probably, I will go back and look.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.



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.



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.



Interchangeable, not inseparable.



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.



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.

I responded to this.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You've got the concept wrong. Let me give you an example,

By 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, he wrote:
Now when affairs within the city were in this posture, Titus went round the city on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls;

Now what evidence shows that this piece of sentence is written by Josephus? What evidence shows that Titus actually went around the city with some horsemen?

In a nutshell, you need faith in order to consider this piece of info factual, while history is made up of sentences of this type.

People actually look into these descriptions to see if they are reasonably justified. No one can determine anything with 100% certainty. This is not faith as described in the bible. I will believe it because it has some support by experts and the claim is mundane. There is nothing supernatural about this claim and if it did not happen it has no bearing on our lives. The bible has supranational claims that says it is actual history. These supernatural claims need better evidence to be believed. Do you believe the supernatural history in the Quran?

Let me give you another example. Do you have a grandpa? Can you compile a list of humans he ever encountered with evidence? How about the grandpa of your grandpa. If you can't, it simply means you can't evidence anything even if he encountered God. That's what history is!

It is ridiculous to think that all history cannot be verified at the same level. Some history has more evidence and other history has less. It is gods fault that he wrote a book that we cannot know if it is true or not.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

So what makes for good and what makes for bad since everyone does it?

Everyone's standard of evidence is subjective. What each person considers good evidence is different and is different for every claim. Give me a claim and supporting evidence and I will give you my reasons whether I think the evidence is sufficient or not. The same evidence will be sufficient for one claim and insufficient for another claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yes, God is the very life force running through ALL of this Creation. I see no way in which the Light of God can be separated from the Spark of Life.

What is the Light of God and How do you know this?

 

[Kylie]

Not to be pedantic, but I did say you "seem to think it's impossible". The point is that you're strongly implying it's not possible without using that exact word.

Your next comment confirms this:



Can you see how one could rightly discern that you think it is not possible to forsake everything even though you've not used the word impossible? The incredulity makes that thought clear.

Ah, but you are talking about two different things here. When I you can't assume I think it is impossible, I was saying that you can't assume that I think it's impossible for people to do things for love rather than money. I completely believe that people can do things motivated by love rather than money. I've done it many times myself.

When I was asking if you thought it was actually possible for a person to do a thing, I was not asking if you thought it was possible for a person to do something out of love rather than for money. I was asking if you thought a person really could forsake all he has to follow Jesus.

Two different things.

Also take note that it's not about what I think. You suggested that if God did jump through a few hoops to prove himself to you, you'd deign to obey him. I countered by suggesting that belief in the existence of God does not not necessarily equate to obedience and you seemed to take offense at that, as though it should be obvious that if you believe you will obey, so I listed a few examples that people, professing Christians included, regularly struggle with.

If I get evidence that it is pouring torrential rain outside, I'm not going to refuse to take an umbrella because I'd rather believe it's sunny.

Straight away you've started arguing against the teaching, as though Jesus asked us to do impossible things. Almost certainly this stubborn resistance would spread to other areas of Jesus' teaching and before long you'd have a thorough list of reasons why we can't actually obey Jesus.

I'm not arguing against the teaching, I'm asking if you think a person can genuinely forsake everything he has to follow Jesus.

And if I have not forsaken all, will you interpret that as justification for you also not forsaking all? Can you see how you're using me in that manner?

No, but I will see it as evidence that you have been unable to do this thing, lending support to the "it's impossible" position.

What God is looking for are people who want to obey him. Has it occurred to you that perhaps God has not bothered revealing himself to you because he understand that you are not interested in obeying him? Perhaps he can see, better than you or I, all these excuses you'd make to ignore his teachings. Wouldn't that make him feel foolish, to give you some kind of special feeling or proof of some kind of his existence, only to have you then explain to him that you're not interested in obeying him.

Or perhaps I am not interested in obeying anyone until I know for a fact that the person exists?

Because otherwise I could be taken advantage of someone who merely claims that there is some lawgiver who needs to be obeyed, but the person who makes the claim is just trying to manipulate me.

I'm guessing you probably won't get it but I'll make an attempt at an explanation anyway; the bomb is greed. The bomb is fear and the bomb is pride. The bomb is self-righteousness and the bomb is hypocrisy. The bomb is all those behaviors we engage in which are contrary to goodness.

The warning that the bomb is in the room is the teachings of Jesus and the evidence that we believe the warning is obedience to those teachings.

This really sounds like those skin cream ads that claim that they will fight the "seven signs of aging," you know the ones where they claims that a particular thing is bad and try to make you afraid of them so they can sell you the "cure" they've invented?

You have not listened to the warning the first time. That "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is not what Jesus taught. That is a man-made construct, a twisting of what Jesus taught. If you believe Jesus, you will obey him. How can you say that you've sincerely asked Jesus to "come into your heart" but that you're not willing to obey him? That makes no rational sense, like a bride saying to her husband, yes, I love you, but I'm not gonna be faithful to you.

I will make a promise to you and to everyone right now. If you can demonstrate that Jesus and/or God as described in the Bible is real, I will obey their laws completely.

I believe I have answered your question appropriately, but it's possible there is some motivation hidden behind the question that, as you say, I'm missing. In that case, can you clarify what the point of the question is?

No, I don't think you have answered me.

Of all the things that Jesus has instructed that we do, which things does my atheism prevent me from doing?

All you've done is claim that you don't think I really want to follow God's laws even if I was shown irrefutable evidence that God was real. (Which, let's be honest, is rather insulting that you would just jump to such unwarranted conclusions about me, despite the fact that I have said several times that I wouldn't act like that at all.)

 

[Kylie]

You've got the concept wrong. Let me give you an example,

By 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, he wrote:
Now when affairs within the city were in this posture, Titus went round the city on the outside with some chosen horsemen, and looked about for a proper place where he might make an impression upon the walls;

Now what evidence shows that this piece of sentence is written by Josephus? What evidence shows that Titus actually went around the city with some horsemen?

In a nutshell, you need faith in order to consider this piece of info factual, while history is made up of sentences of this type.

Let me give you another example. Do you have a grandpa? Can you compile a list of humans he ever encountered with evidence? How about the grandpa of your grandpa. If you can't, it simply means you can't evidence anything even if he encountered God. That's what history is!

Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The kind of faith you need in order to believe in Jesus who brought people back from the dead is in no way comparable to the faith needed to believe that my grandma once ate a sandwich.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Everyone's standard of evidence is subjective. What each person considers good evidence is different and is different for every claim. Give me a claim and supporting evidence and I will give you my reasons whether I think the evidence is sufficient or not. The same evidence will be sufficient for one claim and insufficient for another claim.

Evidence is that which has facts rather than opinion.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No it isn't.

The majority view of scientists in relevant fields is that Big Bang cosmology represents the earliest known conditions, expansion, and evolution of the observable universe. Nothing else. That is what they mean when they refer to a 'beginning', and if they mean more than that when writing at a popular level, they are expressing an opinion.

Your assertion is that it is the majority view that the Big Bang represents an 'absolute beginning' to not merely the observable universe, but the totality of existence. That is FALSE. Physics are incapable of addressing anything prior to Planck time. It is impossible to have a scientific majority view on a subject for which no science has been or even can be done.

All you can do is appeal to speculations and opinions. In which case, you still come out losing, because the majority of scientists in relevant fields are atheist. The actual majority answer you will get is the honest one - 'I don't know'.

This is strictly for the benefit of anyone who might be reading along. I've corrected you on this basic equivocation fallacy about a dozen times, so I fully expect you to trot it out again in the future.

While yes, of course, they are not going to say they believe there is a God, I am not claiming that, nevertheless according to the Museum of Natural History, the majority of scientists believe that the BB was the beginning of the totality of space, time, matter and energy.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

the majority of scientists believe that the BB was the beginning of the totality of space, time, matter and energy.

Which is not the same as an 'absolute beginning' of the totality of existence.

Kindly stop misrepresenting honest people for the sake of your crappy apologetics.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You have no reason to suspect it began ex nihilo...why?

Because I am in the habit of only suspecting things that are supported by a robust body of evidence, and there is zero evidence for it. I'm not even convinced 'absolute nothing' is a possibility.

First of all, the Bible doesn't actually claim the universe came from absolute nothing. I know that many read it that way but it really doesn't make that claim. It claims our universe was created and it began to exist.

'Created' from what? What did Yahweh 'create' the universe out of?

Secondly, the BB does exactly claim that the universe...space, time, matter and energy didn't exist prior to about one-hundredth of a second from the BB or thereabouts.

And it does not say that they came into existence ex nihilo, or that they necessarily represent the totality of existence.

We still have the underlying causality even if it isn't deterministic.

Not in any manner that is relevant to your apologetics. Cause-and-effect breaks down at the quantum level.

Modern Science at its earliest foundations was to understand how God did things.

No it wasn't. The scientific method had been around and in development in various places throughout the world for thousands of years by the time Christianity became the cultural status quo and began contributing.

Also, it's hardly remarkable to point out that the scientists of a given culture were Christian, given that for much of its history, it was at least taboo and very often outright illegal to be anything else publicly.

Source?

Albert Einstein.

Actually, I have to much to say about this and not enough time right now.

Suppose I grant that Genesis got the 'beginning' part right - which, in the vaguest terms possible, ignoring the finer details of BB cosmology, is grantable. If I am to accept the dichotomy that either the universe 'began', or it didn't, then anyone could be right about the origin of the universe 50% of the time if they just guessed randomly. Not impressive at all.

And if you're going to make the assertion that cosmology confirms the Genesis creation account, you can't just pick out the one part with a vague analog to a robust body of scientific literature. You are also tasked with accounting for the details that it gets absolutely wrong.

Good luck.

 

[GospelS]

Hello @Clizby WampusCat I like your thread. Good job. I pray/ask that God will encounter you in a way that will convince you of His existence. I ask to tell me what would convince you and reveal it to you accordingly. He knows and will let me know if God chose me to present you with that evidence. It is also my prayer for all unbelievers. We might not know what each one needs to be convinced; but please continue to be open minded and seek with a genuine heart. May be you will need a supernatural evidence, even a simple miracle, or just His gentle voice and warmth of His presence. I wish I could actually reach out and visit you (and everyone like you) to show you the Christ in me and possibly help you see/feel Him. Because if I can reach and show you, and you start to notice the Christ in me, then you will also clearly notice His imprints in all His creation. He has a specific pattern for each creation and a part of His nature was woven into all His creations, even you. It is just like the way how your art/work or your children will have a part and a reflection of your mind, soul, and body. Then you will know how real God is and His love for you, something that you could never grasp before although the evidence was always there before your very eyes. Anyways, there is always hope. I'm really hopeful that God will encounter you and other people like you on this forum. Blessings.

I thought this will be interesting for a read. Found Jesus in Super 8 after approx 12-14 years of atheism

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Everyone's standard of evidence is subjective. What each person considers good evidence is different and is different for every claim.

.... Is this really the case in any scientific or engineering endeavor? Is the standard of evidence by which each and every person aboard a nuclear sub ............... "different"?

I mean, if there's one thing I am aware of even as the spiritual existentialist that I am, it is that a number of things in life that are more ethereal are open to variable human perceptions.

BUT at the same time, I'd think that if I were working for NASA, or Boeing, or the U.S. Navy, and involved with the use of high-tech ships, it'd be a preposterous thing for me to expect to find each person claiming, "But, Captain, I have MY OWN essentially subjective epistemic mode by which I will understand and carry out your orders as well as by which I will (or will not) proficiently operate equipment with my skills in my required position ....... "

Yeah. I just don't see how that kind of 'subjectivity' is feasible or real, or allowed in those domains. So, while I think we can say that some of our standards are somewhat subjective for some areas of life (like "religion"), they really aren't for other areas of life (like while on the "objective job").

 

[GospelS]

“It is as if we took out our eyes to look at them”

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, @Clizby WampusCat,

We're nearly 400 posts in. Has anyone offered to ask God what they could say to you? Did I miss it?

 

[GospelS]

So, @Clizby WampusCat,

We're nearly 400 posts in. Has anyone offered to ask God what they could say to you? Did I miss it?

Post 392. I did.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Post 392. I did.

Sorry, I missed that. Good for you. You may be the only one, though I may have missed others.

When will you report your answer?

 

[GospelS]

Sorry, I missed that. Good for you. You may be the only one, though I may have missed others.

When will you report your answer?

It depends on what convinces each person. As I stated in my previous post, God will let me know only if He chose me to present that evidence to a specific person. May be I already did present the evidence and a change of mind will begin anytime.

In general, most times I need to physically reach out to be able to present that evidence just as Jesus had to physically come into this world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because I am in the habit of only suspecting things that are supported by a robust body of evidence, and there is zero evidence for it. I'm not even convinced 'absolute nothing' is a possibility.

The Big Bang has substantial evidence, and within that model space, matter, energy and time begin to exist; at most, you can only claim that you don't know if it came from something or absolute nothing. What evidence we do have, supports that there was no universe...no space, no matter, no energy and no time until there suddenly was.

'Created' from what? What did Yahweh 'create' the universe out of?

Mind. His mind, I am sure you have heard mind over matter?

And it does not say that they came into existence ex nihilo, or that they necessarily represent the totality of existence.

How do you know? It may or may not say that, but what we do know supports that possibility. It is our totality of existence, we have no evidence for anything more.

Not in any manner that is relevant to your apologetics. Cause-and-effect breaks down at the quantum level.

That is not completely true. One particle for instance is caused by another to act a certain way if observed; even at great distances...perhaps light year distances.

No it wasn't. The scientific method had been around and in development in various places throughout the world for thousands of years by the time Christianity became the cultural status quo and began contributing.

Also, it's hardly remarkable to point out that the scientists of a given culture were Christian, given that for much of its history, it was at least taboo and very often outright illegal to be anything else publicly.

I said 'Modern History'. And no, you are incorrect; the pagan science during ancient history was considered somewhat taboo.

“It is indisputable,” historian Edward Grant explained, “that modern science emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003). p. 146

Albert Einstein.

Ah I see. Einstein thought that mass was the same as Energy Quanta and did not exist each on their own. However, later on, it was found that mass and energy can't be one and the same, not directly anyway. Gravity and inertia only acts on the outer shells of sub-atomic particles, but energy relates to the entire particle. The way I understand it is that energy relates directly to forces, without any need or requirement for the concept of mass.

Suppose I grant that Genesis got the 'beginning' part right - which, in the vaguest terms possible, ignoring the finer details of BB cosmology, is grantable. If I am to accept the dichotomy that either the universe 'began', or it didn't, then you'd be right about the origin of the universe 50% of the time if you just guessed randomly. Not impressive at all.

And if you're going to make the assertion that cosmology confirms the Genesis creation account, you can't just pick out the one part with a vague analog to a robust body of scientific literature. You are also tasked with accounting for the details that it gets absolutely wrong.

Good luck.

Interestingly enough, I've been doing this for a long time and things that at were against scientific 'evidence' or thought in the Bible have many times come around to what is in the Bible.

 

[John Helpher]

If I get evidence that it is pouring torrential rain outside, I'm not going to refuse to take an umbrella because I'd rather believe it's sunny.

I understand that, when you refer to evidence, you mean evidence of the existence of God. It's still not clear what you mean by that, or what evidence could convince you. You say you tried the "ask Jesus into my heart" thing, but it's not clear to me if you yourself understand what that means. Is it a feeling you get? Is it some kind of spectacular vision? How would you know if "asking Jesus into your heart" worked?

Coming from the point of view of a skeptic, even if you did get a feeling or see some kind of vision, isn't it likely that you could just as easily convince yourself that the feeling is you hyping yourself up, much like people in a haunted house work themselves into a fright even though they know it's just a haunted house made by people? Have you seen footage of church people jumping and dancing in the aisles of their church, sometimes even laughing hysterically, rolling around on the floor, or running around the church excitedly? These people believe it is the Holy spirit coming upon them which causes them to act so wildly but if you look carefully at the build-up to these events, there's peer-pressure. There's dramatic preaching and lots and lots of encouragement to let go of inhibitions or any sense of embarrassment. There's soft, emotional music as well as intensely powerful, joyous music, all with lyrics about losing one's self in the moment of worship. There's a lot happening psychologically. I'm not saying the Holy spirit cannot (or does not) visit people in a way which will cause them to act in what appears to be a strange manner, but i I do not believe it will cause people to act foolishly or as a kind of emotional entertainment where they're rolling around on the floor or losing control of themselves.

What kind of result were you expecting which would be conclusive enough to overpower any lingering, skeptical doubt and in that case, do you really think God is looking for people who only believe in him because they were overpowered into it by an emotional experience?

This is why I keep harping on the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said that the job of the Holy Spirit is to remind us of his teachings (john 14:26). He said that his teachings are his spirit. (John 6:63) If you're expecting Jesus to come into your heart, that is the same thing as expecting the Holy Spirit to come into your heart, and in either case that would mean his teachings come into your heart.

If you are not prepared to carefully study the teachings of Jesus and consider whether you are prepared to act on them, then of course Jesus would not come into your heart, not because he can't, but because he and his teachings are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other. It is through the practice of his teachings that he comes into your heart.

I understand you think you've got a really clever argument by suggesting the ball is in God's court as to whether or not you will believe in (and presumably follow) him, but I wonder if you can see just how stubborn such an argument is. You're essentially saying that if God wants you to follow him, then he must first listen to you and if he properly satisfies you by jumping through whatever hoops it would take to convince you that he is, indeed, your creator, then you will agree to follow him. It's a position which seems to make you think you're being fair toward God, but you're actually sabotaging yourself with that kind of pride, because it should be obvious, at least in concept, that if there really is a creator, it is in his nature that he is the boss. If he must obey your standards for loyalty (i.e. that he must prove himself to you according to your standards), then he no longer would be the boss.

Thus you've made the issue a test of wills and you're not gonna win that one. What's more, we already have an example of God demonstrating this concept to us with Pharaoh and Moses. If you read through the record you'll see that each time God sent a plague to Egypt, Pharaoh agreed to let the people go in order to stop the plague. As soon as God stopped the plague and there was a respite, Pharaoh reneged on his agreement and again hardened his heart. This happened several times, to the point that any fair person looking on would wonder why God continued to believe Pharaoh's obvious lies. God wasn't stupid. He knew Pharaoh would continue to deceive. He persevered with Pharaoh's stubborness because he wanted us, here in the present to be able to look back and see that any person trying to win a test of wills against God would utterly fail.

Despite all those miraculous displays of clearly supernatural power, even the Children of Israel ended up wandering away from his teachings. He even plainly complained to the children of Israrel saying that he showed them so many miracles and yet they still disobey him.

Miracles and experiences simply are not enough to guarantee loyalty. God spent thousands of years demonstrating this fact and yet there's a whole world full of people just like you who will die spiritually, shaking your fists at him all the way down at how unfair he was for not doing it your way.

This is why Jesus said that if anyone wants to know if his teachings really are from God, then you should try them. The time of using miracles as proof is over. God is looking for those sincere people who have examined the merit behind his teachings and practice them because of that merit and not because they're tickled by some emotional experience.