Ask God for Me

[John Helpher]

You want me to answer your questions

No, I want you to understand that your position is irrational. You say that evolutionary theory does not exclude intelligence, but you also want to say there is no God. These are incompatible premises.

They can't both be true. This confusion is illustrated most clearly by you referring to genetic code as code, but then also saying you have not made the argument that there can be code without a coder.

If you say that genetic code is code, then there must be a coder. This is the contradiction you do not want to address. This thing about me not answering all of your question is just an excuse you're using to avoid the issue.

 

[Kylie]

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


I addressed it again in post#358



I addressed it again in post#368



And again in post#400



and again in that same post



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!

And if you'd read the conversation I'd been having with The Iconoclast that this whole thing was in regards to a previous discussion in which he suggested that if I opened my heart to Jesus, then Jesus would come to me and I would get the evidence I required.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

I was speaking from the perspective of methodological naturalism, which is how most scientists speak just so you wouldn't accuse me of saying something that most scientists wouldn't say. I was referring to the totality of physical existence. There are other things that exist that are non-physical such as the Cause of the universe, which according to logic MUST be non-physical otherwise it would be part of the effect which is logically impossible.

 

[John Helpher]

And if you'd read the conversation I'd been having with The Iconoclast that this whole thing was in regards to a previous discussion in which he suggested that if I opened my heart to Jesus, then Jesus would come to me and I would get the evidence I required.

Right, so you're gonna do what some other person told you to do rather than what Jesus said to do and then you have the temerity to say, "Hey, I tried and it didn't work". Talk about a kangaroo court.

No, Kylie. You have not tried Jesus and God did not fail you. If you want to know him, you'll have to do it his way. If you're not interested in his way, that's fine, but just be honest about that. Don't pretend that gave it an honest try.

 

[Kylie]

Right, so you're gonna do what some other person told you to do rather than what Jesus said to do and then you have the temerity to say, "Hey, I tried and it didn't work". Talk about a kangaroo court.

No, Kylie. You have not tried Jesus and God did not fail you. If you want to know him, you'll have to do it his way. If you're not interested in his way, that's fine, but just be honest about that. Don't pretend that gave it an honest try.

Now, come on, it's not really fair of you to come in and start commenting about a conversation that you weren't even a part of and tell me that I'm doing what the other person asked wrong. If you don't like it, speak to Iconoclast, because he's the one who said it, not me. I just did what my husband asked me to because I have respect for him, and it was many years ago, and then I told Iconoclast what happened because he said that if I was to do it I would get evidence for Jesus, and I was telling him he was wrong. Don't get snarky at me because you don't like it.

 

[John Helpher]

tell me that I'm doing what the other person asked wrong.

I just did what my husband asked me to

But you won't do what Jesus asked. That's the problem. It's not that I'm getting snarky with you, but rather that I'm challenging your bad reasoning and you're reacting to that.

The point of performing the exercise was to experiment with getting proof of God's existence, except you didn't do it the way Jesus said to do it. You did it the way some other person said to do it. Rather than acknowledge that you performed the experiment with bad information, you're blaming me for pointing it out to you. That is not what a rational person would do.

This is what you said to iconoclast.

Kylie - "I already have done it, and the results I got indicate that there is no God."

The "it" here is asking Jesus into your heart, with the expectation that God would so overwhelm you with his power that you would have no choice but to acknowledge his existence. You said this:

I dunno. But surely God could give me something that would utterly convince me.

But, that's not the way Jesus said to do it. You're sabotaging the experiment in a way that will ensure you get a negative result, a result which just so happens to conform with what you already want to believe. How convenient.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, I want you to understand that your position is irrational. You say that evolutionary theory does not exclude intelligence, but you also want to say there is no God. These are incompatible premises.

I have never said these things. I have never said there is no God. Show me where I said this.

They can't both be true. This confusion is illustrated most clearly by you referring to genetic code as code, but then also saying you have not made the argument that there can be code without a coder. If you say that genetic code is code, then there must be a coder. This is the contradiction you do not want to address.

This has been addressed and you refuse to respond to it. Did you watch the 5 minute video on how evolution is not a completely random process?

This thing about me not answering all of your question is just an excuse you're using to avoid the issue.

No. It is about you being dishonest with my responses. You have many times now taken a short portion of my posts, changed the meaning of what I said and made strawman arguments against that. That is terribly dishonest. When you respond to me please quote all of what I said and not just a few words.

 

[Kylie]

But you won't do what Jesus asked. That's the problem. It's not that I'm getting snarky with you, but rather that I'm challenging your bad reasoning and you're reacting to that.

The point of performing the exercise was to experiment with getting proof of God's existence, except you didn't do it the way Jesus said to do it. You did it the way some other person said to do it. Rather than acknowledge that you performed the experiment with bad information, you're blaming me for pointing it out to you. That is not what a rational person would do.

This is what you said to iconoclast.


The "it" here is asking Jesus into your heart, with the expectation that God would so overwhelm you with his power that you would have no choice but to acknowledge his existence. You said this:



But, that's not the way Jesus said to do it. You're sabotaging the experiment in a way that will ensure you get a negative result, a result which just so happens to conform with what you already want to believe. How convenient.

I'm not talking about what Jesus said to do!

I'm talking about Iconoclast saying that if I invite Jesus into my heart I'd get the evidence to believe!

I did it and I didn't get the evidence he assured me I would get.

If you want the discussion to be about something else, please feel free to start a new discussion about it and invite me, I'd be happy to participate. But don't start coming in and telling me that I'm wrong about what was said just because you disagree with it, okay?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Perhaps you could give me an example of 'bad' evidence?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you could give me an example of 'bad' evidence?

He won't. He'll just balk and say it's whatever evidence he feels "doesn't cut it." Don't ask him for an objectively oriented definition; he'll just ignore you and assert his relative preference for what he wants out of God.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Perhaps you could give me an example of 'bad' evidence?

Yes, I would consider bad evidence for belief in aliens if a physicist says it is his opinion that alien life has to exist. I don't see that as being reasonable evidence for alien life belief. I have encountered people that do think that is good evidence for belief.

 

[John Helpher]

I did it and I didn't get the evidence he assured me I would get.

I'm not talking about what Jesus said to do!

If the goal was to get evidence of Jesus being real, why would you disregard what Jesus said to do in order to get that evidence?

 

[John Helpher]

I have never said there is no God. Show me where I said this.

It's right there in your information panel; your status is listed as Atheist. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

This has been addressed

Nope. Recall what you said:

I won't explain it to you because you will just cherry pick one sentence out of my entire post...

You can't have code without a coder.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I would consider bad evidence for belief in aliens if a physicist says it is his opinion that alien life has to exist. I don't see that as being reasonable evidence for alien life belief. I have encountered people that do think that is good evidence for belief.

Ok, so do you consider this bad evidence?
Three UFO videos released by Pentagon, one from California

 

[Oncedeceived]

He won't. He'll just balk and say it's whatever evidence he feels "doesn't cut it." Don't ask him for an objectively oriented definition; he'll just ignore you and assert his relative preference for what he wants out of God.

Don't you find it 'evidence' about God that he has a problem with?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It's right there in your information panel; your status is listed as Atheist. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

So I guess you could not find me saying god does not exist.

Atheism as defined by lexico.com is:

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I have a lack of belief in the existence of Gods or gods. I cannot say there is sufficient evidence to believe a god does not exist. I also don't think there is sufficient evidence for belief. I am an atheist.

You can't have code without a coder.

And I have asked you twice to respond to the 5 minute video that starts to address this. You have ignored it. You say that I won't address the question when you ignore my supporting evidence. Again dishonest.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok, so do you consider this bad evidence?
Three UFO videos released by Pentagon, one from California

Bad evidence for what? Those videos show an unidentified flying object. The videos are insufficient by themselves to believe they are aliens if that is what you are talking about.

 

[John Helpher]

I have a lack of belief in the existence of Gods or gods. I cannot say there is sufficient evidence to believe a god does not exist.

Nah, this is just semantics. If you "lack a belief in the existence of God" then you believe God does not exist. If what you mean to say is that you're not sure, then you'd be agnostic. This is yet another aspect of the same, bottom-line problem I've been addressing with you from the start; you're playing around with these words and concepts to the point that everything becomes a muddied morass of confusion in which you hide.

And I have asked you twice to respond to the 5 minute video that starts to address this.

Nah, I don't think the video will address why Atheists refer to DNA as genetic code, but then say there is no coder. Based on the way you've praised the video, it's almost certain that it will demonstrate the same, muddled confusion that you've defended here.

Atheists (well, a large majority of them) have become experts at making confusion sound appealing, usually through two methods; 1) Intimidation. If someone disagrees with the theory of evolution, that person will likely be ridiculed, much like you and eight foot manchild did with me. And 2) An appeal to science as though doing so de-facto proves you right, as you did with all that bluster you made about all the evidence for evolutionary theory etc. The idea is to so overwhelm your opponent with bravado about the evidence that to disagree would equate to disagreeing with science itself.

But, I look at the foundation; if it is solid then I'll be open to exploring the specifics of the evidence. However, if the foundation is not solid, then everything else built on it will will be pointless. When examining your foundation, I see a lot of confusion. You say that random can be guided and guided can be random as though there really is no difference between the two concepts. You say you are an Atheist but that you leave room for the possibility of God when the whole point of having those two concepts is to define a distinction between them. You say there can be code without any need for a coder. It's all confusion which makes no rational sense and you're dearly clinging to it because you've found comfort in that confusion. You can turn your brain off and just pretend that it all makes sense. If anyone challenges you, you can put on your best hurt-feelings pout and complain that they're not addressing your points well enough, or that they've not watched a particular video, or that they've somehow insulted you.

Come out of that confusion, Clizby. Deal with the issues rationally. Start with the code issue. Logically speaking, how can there be code without a coder? Don't deflect. Just address this issue honestly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Don't you find it 'evidence' about God that he has a problem with?

That would be only one of the epistemic things I think he has a problem with. He also seems to have a problem with the epistemic processes by which God will (or will not) dispense any kind of, or any level of, knowledge we might gain about God. He seems to think, as do many people these days, that people get to call the shots on 'how' God should provide to them any kind or level of awareness of God's presence or truth(s) which we might encounter and engage in the world in which we live.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bad evidence for what? Those videos show an unidentified flying object. The videos are insufficient by themselves to believe they are aliens if that is what you are talking about.

Usually, when one sees UFO's they are connected to the thought that they are alien life forms within them. In that vein, I was inquiring if you felt it was bad evidence for alien life forms, sorry I didn't make myself clear.