Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

But, look who you're aligning yourself with:

That is a dishonest tactic. It makes no difference what someone else believes about evolution. When you are talking to me it maters what I believe.

This guy doesn't know whether intelligence is involved or not; in fact he's making it clear that he simply does not care if intelligence is involved or not, despite boldly declaring that my earlier claims of no intelligence being involved in the theory was definitely wrong. On the one hand he says my assertion is wrong, while on the other hand he's saying he doesn't care if there is or is not intelligence. Neither one of you understands the theory.

Go ask him about what he believes, ask me about what I believe. I gave my response to the coder/programmer idea you have and you ignored it and instead put on me what someone else says, WTH?

You're both lost in this confused, middling, grey area where you want to say there is genetic code, but there is no coder. You want to believe there really is intelligence, but there really is not intelligence. You want both to be true at the same time and in the midst of all that irrational confusion you find shelter for your bitterness toward God.

No I am not. You just refuse to understand that natural selection is a natural process that is not completely random just like many other natural process. I explained this already but, oh yeah, you ignored that too. What will be your next dishonest tactic?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

When has evidence been opinion?

That is up to the person evaluating evidence. I don't consider it good evidence but that is just me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

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.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[John Helpher]

That is a dishonest tactic. It makes no difference what someone else believes about evolution. When you are talking to me it maters what I believe.

You're both saying the same thing; it's just that eight foot manchild (yes, he's actually calling himself that) is a little more honest about his confusion.

I gave my response to the coder/programmer idea you have and you ignored it

No, I addressed it by saying your position is irrational. You said you do not believe in a programmer without a program, and yet you refer to genetic code while denying a coder. It's the same thing; a program without a programmer and code without a coder. You can't have code without a coder. That's just a factual, logical observation which can be tested by anyone.

This is an example of your confusion. Deep down you know you are not the result of random, dumb-luck chance. At the very least your pride will not allow you to admit this, but I believe it is more than that; you were created to seek purpose. You are denying your creator, yes, but you cannot, by sheer will power, deny that you crave meaning behind your existence. The solution, as irrational as it is, is to deny your creator and instead imbue intelligence into some unthinking, uncaring "process" which produced you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is up to the person evaluating evidence. I don't consider it good evidence but that is just me.

Opinion is never evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You're both saying the same thing; it's just that eight foot manchild (yes, he's actually calling himself that) is a little more honest about his confusion.

Then just address my comments.

No, I addressed it by saying your position is irrational. You said you do not believe in a programmer without a program, and yet you refer to genetic code while denying a coder. It's the same thing; a program without a programmer and code without a coder. You can't have code without a coder. That's just a factual, logical observation which can be tested by anyone.

I addressed this already and you are misrepresenting what I said. I never said it the genetic code is a program or a code in the sense you want to use it. Please be honest and respond to what I actually said.

This is an example of your confusion. Deep down you know you are not the result of random, dumb-luck chance.

I agree because natural selection/evolution is not a random process dumb luck process as you have been shown but refuse to respond to. Did you watch the video about this? What are your thoughts?

At the very least your pride will not allow you to admit this, but I believe it is more than that; you were created to seek purpose. You are denying your creator, yes, but you cannot, by sheer will power, deny that you crave meaning behind your existence. The solution, as irrational as it is, is to deny your creator and instead imbue intelligence into some unthinking, uncaring "process" which produced you.

You are being really dishonest here as usual. You have no idea what I think about my purpose and that I am denying god. That is arrogant and condescending to tell me that I actually believe in a god.

What if I told you that you were just scared of death so that is the reason you believe in a god. How would you feel about that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Opinion is never evidence.

Why? It is evidence, each person just needs to decide if it is good evidence or not.

 

[John Helpher]

I never said it the genetic code is a program or a code in the sense you want to use it.

You call it code but you do not think it is code? This is the deliberate confusion I'm referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why? It is evidence, each person just needs to decide if it is good evidence or not.

Because opinion is just that opinion, evidence is supported by factual data. My experience or opinion that God exists is not evidence of His existence to anyone but me. However, there is evidence that supports my experience or opinion that He does. I mean, to me it isn't really my opinion that He exists, it is more a combination of experiencing Him, having supportive evidence that He exists. I don't expect anyone to think my experience or 'opinion' is good evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You call it code but you do not think it is code? This is the deliberate confusion I'm referring to.

I won't explain it to you because you will just cherry pick one sentence out of my entire post and comment on that, ignoring the major points I make in my posts to you. You have done that three times now.

What are your comments on the 5 minute video on the non randomness of evolution and the five fingers?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because opinion is just that opinion, evidence is supported by factual data. My experience or opinion that God exists is not evidence of His existence to anyone but me. However, there is evidence that supports my experience or opinion that He does. I mean, to me it isn't really my opinion that He exists, it is more a combination of experiencing Him, having supportive evidence that He exists. I don't expect anyone to think my experience or 'opinion' is good evidence.

I agree with you. But some people can think otherwise. Good evidence is supported by factual data, bad evidence can be supported by opinion. Both can still be evidence.

 

[Kylie]

But, Jesus didn't teach that people should pray for a feeling in their heart. I've said this several times now but it seems you simply do not want to acknowledge that you've tried a method which Jesus himself did not teach. It is just testable, observable logic that if you do not follow the instructions, you will not get a proper result. That you do not want to acknowledge this strongly indicates that you are not thinking scientifically or rationally about this, but rather emotionally. You want the experiment to fail so you're deliberately performing it in an improper way and then pretending the results are valid.

You seem to be trying to change the subject.

I said I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart.

You asked me what it would have been like if that had worked.

I said that if it had worked I'd have felt Jesus in my heart.

Now you are trying to get around it by saying that Jesus never told people to do that. I never said he did. I am simply saying what I did, and I am answering your question about what it would have been like if it had worked.

I also notice that you didn't reply to my comment about how I won't expect someone can give me something good as long as I do something first if they can't produce evidence that they can live up to their end of the bargain. I take it that means you agree with me on that point?

I guess this is your way of suggesting that you think God is hardening your heart?

No.

You say that there are people who won't follow God's rules even if they have the evidence he exists, yet in the example you gave, that's not what was happening. Pharaoh wasn't refusing to obey God because he didn't want to follow God's laws. He wasn't obeying God because God was forcing him. You don't get to blame someone for things out of their control.

I guess this is your way of saying that despite God hardening your heart, you think he should also so powerfully overwhelm you with his might that you have no choice but to capitulate to his will? No, if God wanted robots he would have made robots. What he's looking for are people who want what he has to offer. If you do not want what he's offering, do not blame him for not forcing you to want it. Just plainly say that you do not want it. That would be the more honest approach.

All this stuff about whether he exists or not is just game playing. Your comments up to know strongly indicate that you would not obey him even if you did believe in his existence. You've already hinted as much with your rather brazen suggestion that forsaking all and working for love (as opposed to working for money) is impossible. Your husband believes in the existence of God, but he's not obeying Jesus (based on what you've shared here) and if you were to mention these teachings to him, he'd probably have some convenient excuse to explain them away, as though he is some kind of exception to the standards Jesus set out for his followers, or that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, or perhaps, like you yourself have shared, that it is impossible to obey Jesus. Whatever the excuse may be, the result will be the same; Jesus' teachings get ignored.

Since you start out with a completely wrong assumption, I suggest you go and rethink this whole bit, okay?

And considering how God forced Pharaoh to act in a certain way, would you say to him, "If you DO want what he's offering, do not blame him for not forcing you to NOT want it."

And in what way is my husband not obeying Jesus?

 

[John Helpher]

Now you are trying to get around it by saying that Jesus never told people to do that. I never said he did.

Nope. I said this in my first response to you from post #322

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".

I addressed it again in post#358

Remember your comment about getting proof of the Holy Spirit by asking Jesus into your heart? That almost always means getting a feeling. This is problematic because feelings come and go and "visions" can easily be explained away as hallucinations or some kind of episode. They are often arbitrary and highly subjective.

But principles and standards are not. When Jesus says that we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other, he's referring to a logical fact; we cannot say that we're working for love if we're only doing the work because we expect payment. That's not a feeling or an opinion.

I addressed it again in post#368

This whole, "Jesus, come into my heart" thing isn't what Jesus taught. This is a modern day twisting of a few cherry-picked verses designed to diminish any need for obedience. Jesus said that if you want to know if his teachings really are from God, then you should practice them. If you're not prepared to do it the way Jesus said to do it, that's fine, but don't delude yourself into thinking that God is the one who failed for not living up to your expectation.

And again in post#400

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.

and again in that same post

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.

In conclusion, I've addressed this issue, thoroughly, in every reply to you, but you seem to think I'm only just now dealing with it, which is a pretty strong indicator that you are simply are not listening. That is disappointing as the quotes in your signature give the impression that you're interested in rational, logical thinking. Alas, to be so deceived!

 

[John Helpher]

I won't explain it to you

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Surprise, surprise.

Again cherry picking and leaving out what I actually said and the valid reasons for my response. You are so dishonest in these discussions and not just with me. If that is what it takes to maintain your belief then may be you should ponder your belief.

This is what I actually said:

I won't explain it to you because you will just cherry pick one sentence out of my entire post and comment on that, ignoring the major points I make in my posts to you. You have done that three times now.

What are your comments on the 5 minute video on the non randomness of evolution and the five fingers?

And look at that, you did cherry pick one comment out of my post. I must be a prophet!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Ok. See if you understand this: subjective ≠ relative

 

[John Helpher]

I must be a prophet!

Nah, you're avoiding the issue. Why call it genetic code if you do not believe it is code?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok. See if you understand this: subjective ≠ relative

I agree.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nah, you're avoiding the issue. Why call it genetic code if you do not believe it is code?

Now you are just a troll. You want me to answer your questions when you ignore all of mine. Get lost.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree.

Ok.