Ask God for Me

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This is, predictably, getting repetitive. I'll not be re-addressing points that anyone reading along can just go back and see for themselves.

The Big Bang has substantial evidence

And creationism doesn't.

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

Yes. In comic books and science fiction.

Also, 'mind over matter' refers to manipulation of pre-existing matter. So, that's very Mormon of you to use that as the description of God's relationship to matter.

Matter - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

How do you know?

Because I have studied this subject, and I'm not in the habit of making arguments from ignorance.

That is not completely true. One particle for instance is caused by another to act a certain way if observed

The observer effect is not in any way analogous to classical cause and effect.

I said 'Modern History'...
“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

Yeah. If you define 'modern' as 'the period during which Christianity was the status quo', and 'history' as 'European history', and 'science' as 'only those developments which came about during that place and time', then you're absolutely right. How deeply profound.

And no, you are incorrect; the pagan science during ancient history was considered somewhat taboo.

One hundred percent bull crap.

Many ancient cultures - Aztec, Maya, Egyptian, Greek, Etruscan, Chinese, Indian, etc - had independently gleaned scientific methods in various stages of development hundreds or even thousands of years before there was ever such thing as a 'Christian', or even a 'European'.

If your worldview can't cope with basic, mundane facts of history, I suggest you abandon it and find a new one.

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.

I look forward to your Nobel Prize speech, after you demonstrate the 'correct' creation order.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Evidence is that which has facts rather than opinion.

Evidence can be anything someone thinks is evidence opinion or fact. I am not saying that truth is subjective. I am saying that everyone evaluates evidence differently.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

.... 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 ....... "

Whatever, what are you trying to say now?

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").

I am not talking about truth being subjective but how we evaluate evidence is subjective. If it were not we would all believe the same things based on the same evidence. That is not the case.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I will be here if he tells you.

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.

So all the Christians I know (which is everyone) cannot show me this love?

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

So this is a story. I don't believe it because the lack of evidence. I am not saying the story is untrue just that it lacks support for belief.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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 said she did. I will see if she gets an answer. I think she may be the only one that actually asked god for me.

 

[GospelS]

So all the Christians I know (which is everyone) cannot show me this love?

They can. They should just have time and a passion to do so towards you. Mostly, they desire but find very little to no time.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

They can. They should just have time and a passion to do so towards you. Mostly, they desire but find very little to no time.

I don't know how you can possibly know this. My wife is a christian and I was for many years as well. You are basically saying to a stranger on the internet that my wife does not think it is important enough to show me Christs love to convince me to believe again.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know how you can possibly know this. My wife is a christian and I was for many years as well. You are basically saying to a stranger on the internet that my wife does not think it is important enough to show me Christs love to convince me to believe again.

Christian Apologetics might achieve more if Christians stopped trying to pretend that they know us and our lives than we do ourselves.

Send your mind-reading helmets back and demand a full refund. You were ripped off.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Christian Apologetics might achieve more if Christians stopped trying to pretend that they know us and our lives than we do ourselves.

Send your mind-reading helmets back and demand a full refund. You were ripped off.

It gets irritating sometimes. I have been told that I actually do believe in god, that something bad happened to me to stop believing, that I am using a label for myself that is incorrect etc. But maybe its payback for when I used to think like this .

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

In what way is space, time, matter and energy not the totality of existence?

 

[GospelS]

You are basically saying to a stranger on the internet that my wife does not think it is important enough to show me Christs love to convince me to believe again.

Thinking it is important enough is not really enough. I said a passion to do so for you and if she really has that passion for you, I’m confident she will convince you to believe again. There is hope, always.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Thinking it is important enough is not really enough. I said a passion to do so for you and if she really has that passion for you, I’m confident she will convince you to believe again. There is hope, always.

I hope no one at her church is giving her this advice. This puts a lot of pressure on her, huh. If I don't believe again then she has no "passion" for me to be saved and how do you think that will make her feel?

 

[GospelS]

I hope no one at her church is giving her this advice. This puts a lot of pressure on her, huh. If I don't believe again then she has no "passion" for me to be saved and how do you think that will make her feel?

You say “if you don’t believe again”; I say “I’m confident you will believe again”.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In what way is space, time, matter and energy not the totality of existence?

I'm not asserting they aren't, and don't have to in order to make my point - which is that no one knows, and you can't predicate an argument on non-existent information.

Also, which of those four is Yahweh? Is he space, time, matter, energy, or some combination?

If your answer is 'none of the above', then you don't actually believe they are the totality of existence anyway.

Or, you are placing Yahweh outside of the totality of existence. Which I agree with. He does not exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

No. Why would I? My answers preclude that as an option.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever, what are you trying to say now?

I am not talking about truth being subjective but how we evaluate evidence is subjective. If it were not we would all believe the same things based on the same evidence. That is not the case.

Yes, how we evaluate evidence may be subjective, but to say this ISN'T to also so that it is "merely relative" in the most abstract sense.

 

[John Helpher]

you can't predicate an argument on non-existent information.

We can predicate an argument on the basis of observable testing, though. You won't get ordered complexity without intelligent intent behind it.

For example, the most simple single cell is made up of hundreds of proteins, which themselves are made up of a collection of about 20 amino acids which form chains hundreds long and then fold into what is essentially a nano machine, which is what we call a protein. The DNA is the instruction set which is used to perform these tasks. The whole process is incredibly complex and the coding behind it is far, far, far more complex than any computer code we have today.

So the question is, where did the code come from? One of the most common explanations is evolutionary theory, but this theory is based on the principle that there is no intelligence, intent, or guidance behind any of the changes; it is 100%, dumb-luck, random chance.

Believing this is how so much complexity came to be just doesn’t make sense, and it is something you can test for yourself. Take any block of text from a magazine or book or whatever, to use as your starting information (this would be the equivalent of a single celled organism for the purposes of this test).

Now, use a random number and letter generator (you can find both with a simple google search) to simulate the kind of random changes evolutionary theory espouses. Use the random number generator to determine which letter will be changed (e.g. if the number pops up as 23, then go to the 23rd letter in the block of text) and then use the letter generator to determine what the current letter will change to (e.g. if the current letter is u and the letter generator pops up t, then you change the u to a t).

It will not take very long at all to see with your own eyes that such random changes will not produce greater complexity. The opposite is true; only more confusion will result.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not asserting they aren't, and don't have to in order to make my point - which is that no one knows, and you can't predicate an argument on non-existent information.

Also, which of those four is Yahweh? Is he space, time, matter, energy, or some combination?

If your answer is 'none of the above', then you don't actually believe they are the totality of existence anyway.

Or, you are placing Yahweh outside of the totality of existence. Which I agree with. He does not exist.

Consider the ancient Greek term 'dunamis' ( δύναμις ), EFM, a word that is an etymological precursor of our English word, 'dynamite.'

Of course, I don't say this to offer some kind of profound insight, but rather as a conceptual consideration for someone intelligent like you to consider, maybe even as it might be conceived of in quantum terms (hypothetically, of course).

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

One of the most common explanations is evolutionary theory, but this theory is based on the principle that there is no intelligence, intent, or guidance behind any of the changes; it is 100%, dumb luck

That is not what the Theory of Evolution is predicated on.

Put down the creationist propaganda for ten minutes and read a basic biology textbook. You don’t even know what it is you are attempting to critique.

 

[John Helpher]

That is not what the Theory of Evolution is predicated on. You don’t know what you’re talking about. At all.

Of course it is. The theory is an explanation for how life came to be what it is without any intelligence, purpose or intent. Zero. It is 100%, dumb-luck chance. That's why people so often cite the need for billions of years (because it's takes LOTS of trial and error, because there is no intelligence guiding the mutations or locations or any other of the many variables involved).

Is it your understanding that the theory of evolution does involve intelligence? If that is the case, then you are not an evolutionary theorist, but rather an unwitting supporter of intelligent design.