Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Neogaia777]

Veiled threat then,

I knew you were going to say something like that, or assume something like that, etc, other than me just meaning it's just maybe something you might want to think about maybe, as a maybe kind of "just in case" type of thing, etc, since, according to the evidence, God, or higher beings, cannot be proved nor disproved either way, etc...

If I'm wrong, hey, no sweat right, at least I can still feel like I lived the most moral life I maybe could have ever while I was here, etc, and I don't think that's ever wasted time, etc... But, what if your wrong, etc...?

And I'm not saying you should be obsessing over it necessarily either or anything, but more just thinking about how you maybe might answer such a One in such a possibility maybe, etc...

Or are you maybe going to argue with Him about "evidence", or what you only might be claiming is or are some of the real reasons you do not or have not believed in Him up to this point truly, etc, but then God takes through the tapes, or takes you down a trip down memory lane in your life, and shows you all of the times of when you just chose not to ever see, or ever really truly believe, etc...

Along with probably invalidating your other reasons by these same methods as well, etc... Many, many things you/me missed and did not see, etc, and how that it was, at times, because we chose not to, etc...

You think God does not know you? or does not understand you? He has your entire life on tape and has it all memorized, etc... You do not even begin to truly know yourself so well, etc, but God does, etc... And a very simple admission/understanding of that at the start could possibly get you very far, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I knew you were going to say something like that, or assume something like that, etc, other than me just meaning it's just maybe something you might want to think about maybe, as a maybe kind of "just in case" type of thing, etc, since, according to the evidence, God, or higher beings, cannot be proved nor disproved either way, etc...

The problem with this is that why would I just assume Christianity is true "just in case". There are dire consequences of not believing Allah is the true god as well and many other proposed gods out there to worry about. Without good evidence there is no way to know which "just in case" god I should believe. The best position is to believe in a god claim when I have good reasons to do so.

If I'm wrong, hey, no sweat right, at least I can still feel like I lived the most moral life I maybe could have ever while I was here, etc, and I don't think that's ever wasted time, etc... But, what if your wrong, etc...?

If I live my life as a Christian and it is not true there are negative consequences of that. There are always negative consequences of believing false things, some are dire and some not so dire.

And I'm not saying you should be obsessing over it necessarily either or anything, but more just thinking about how you maybe might answer such a One in such a possibility maybe, etc...

See above.

Or are you maybe going to argue with Him about "evidence", or what you only might be claiming is or are some of the real reasons you do not or have not believed in Him up to this point truly, etc, but then God takes through the tapes, or takes you down a trip down memory lane in your life, and shows you all of the times of when you just chose not to ever see, or ever really truly believe, etc...

Belief is not a choice. Nobody can believe anything that they are not convinced is true. If I was shown good evidence then I would have no choice but to believe. Can you choose to believe Allah is the true God? So obviously if I do not believe I have not been shown good enough evidence for me to be convinced.

You think God does not know you? or does not understand you? He has your entire life on tape and has it all memorized, etc... You do not even begin to truly know yourself so well, etc, but God does, etc... And a very simple admission/understanding of that at the start could possibly get you very far, etc...

Why do you believe this is true?

 

[Neogaia777]

The problem with this is that why would I just assume Christianity is true "just in case". There are dire consequences of not believing Allah is the true god as well and many other proposed gods out there to worry about. Without good evidence there is no way to know which "just in case" god I should believe. The best position is to believe in a god claim when I have good reasons to do so.

If I live my life as a Christian and it is not true there are negative consequences of that. There are always negative consequences of believing false things, some are dire and some not so dire.

See above.

Belief is not a choice. Nobody can believe anything that they are not convinced is true. If I was shown good evidence then I would have no choice but to believe. Can you choose to believe Allah is the true God? So obviously if I do not believe I have not been shown good enough evidence for me to be convinced.

Why do you believe this is true?

Well, it sounds like you maybe have thought about what you might say to God, and we'll see how that works out for you, OK...

God Bless!

 

[Kyrani]

I don't understand what you mean by " independently repeatable evidence", but I certainly think that there is evidence that God interacts with our world, i.e., the physical creation.
The evidence I see is in the continual actions in the body at the cellular and sub-cellular level that enable the body to function at the base level.
Biomedical scientists talk is not realistic. For instance in this video of Professor Dave,
Transcription and Translation: From DNA to Protein - YouTube
He says things like
"the genetic code is read by enzymes in order to produce all of the proteins in an organism."
"
RNA polymerase, with the help of proteins called transcription factors, binds to a specific sequence within the gene, which is called the promoter.

"synthesizing the mRNA as it goes, reading the antisense strand from 3' to 5' and generating the mRNA"

Let's get real here, the enzymes, the RNA polymerase and other proteins are nothing more than chemicals. If you put them in a test tube together with some DNA, nothing happens.
Clearly there is intelligence involved in all cellular functions. The biomedical scientists and biologists in general do not want to admit this. This is why their language sounds absurd.
What is this intelligence, if it is not of God maintaining all living organisms?
Certainly, we have been made co-creators, in that our reactions may change the physiology, but once we stop reacting, the physiology returns to a base level or what is called resting metabolism.
All the basic functions of an organism are maintained by God. This is clear evidence that God continually interacts with this world.
"

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, it sounds like you maybe have thought about what you might say to God, and we'll see how that works out for you, OK...

God Bless!

Why do you believe God exists?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't understand what you mean by " independently repeatable evidence", but I certainly think that there is evidence that God interacts with our world, i.e., the physical creation.
The evidence I see is in the continual actions in the body at the cellular and sub-cellular level that enable the body to function at the base level.
Biomedical scientists talk is not realistic. For instance in this video of Professor Dave,
Transcription and Translation: From DNA to Protein - YouTube
He says things like
"the genetic code is read by enzymes in order to produce all of the proteins in an organism."
"
RNA polymerase, with the help of proteins called transcription factors, binds to a specific sequence within the gene, which is called the promoter.

"synthesizing the mRNA as it goes, reading the antisense strand from 3' to 5' and generating the mRNA"

Let's get real here, the enzymes, the RNA polymerase and other proteins are nothing more than chemicals. If you put them in a test tube together with some DNA, nothing happens.
Clearly there is intelligence involved in all cellular functions. The biomedical scientists and biologists in general do not want to admit this. This is why their language sounds absurd.
What is this intelligence, if it is not of God maintaining all living organisms?
Certainly, we have been made co-creators, in that our reactions may change the physiology, but once we stop reacting, the physiology returns to a base level or what is called resting metabolism.
All the basic functions of an organism are maintained by God. Thus God continually interacts with this world.
"

This is just an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't think of a way this happens then a god must be involved. You need to show that a god is involved. Until then, the right answer is "I don't know".

 

[Kyrani]

This is just an argument from incredulity. Just because you can't think of a way this happens then a god must be involved. You need to show that a god is involved. Until then, the right answer is "I don't know".

No, it is not an argument from incredulity. It is clear evidence that there is intelligence behind all of the functions of a living organism. This can only be of God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's get real here, the enzymes, the RNA polymerase and other proteins are nothing more than chemicals. If you put them in a test tube together with some DNA, nothing happens.

What do you mean "nothing happens"?

Do you know what "PCR" stands for? (It is a common type of COVID test, so the term is in wide circulation)

PCR = Polymerase Chain Reaction

It is literally placing polymerase and DNA in a test tube with other chemicals so that the polymerase makes many copies of the DNA segment.

Clearly there is intelligence involved in all cellular functions. The biomedical scientists and biologists in general do not want to admit this. This is why their language sounds absurd.
What is this intelligence, if it is not of God maintaining all living organisms?
Certainly, we have been made co-creators, in that our reactions may change the physiology, but once we stop reacting, the physiology returns to a base level or what is called resting metabolism.
All the basic functions of an organism are maintained by God. This is clear evidence that God continually interacts with this world.

Now you're essentially dismissing the last 100 years or so of work in biochemistry and molecular biology. That work has shown that cellular activity ("life" if you like) is thousands of chemical reactions and reaction feed backs including the production of enzymes and the regulation of DNA transcription.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No, it is not an argument from incredulity. It is clear evidence that there is intelligence behind all of the functions of a living organism. This can only be of God.

How have you ruled out other possibilities that you may not know about? Where is the demonstration that a god is behind it?

 

[Neogaia777]

Why do you believe God exists?

At first faith, now more evidence now though.

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Let's get real here, the enzymes, the RNA polymerase and other proteins are nothing more than chemicals. If you put them in a test tube together with some DNA, nothing happens.
Clearly there is intelligence involved in all cellular functions.

You would have a point if that was how cells are made - but it's not. Cells have always come from parent cells, right back to the simplest proto-cell which likely arose from the products of prior chemical evolution (there are various hypotheses being investigated). We, and all life on Earth, have a long ancestry.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No, it is not an argument from incredulity. It is clear evidence that there is intelligence behind all of the functions of a living organism. This can only be of God.

"I don't know/understand, [therefore intelligence,] therefore God" is (ironically) a canonical argument from incredulity.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

At first faith, now more evidence now though.

God Bless!

What is that evidence?

 

[Neogaia777]

What is that evidence?

How long do we have?

Because there is no shortcuts or short version, etc...

To what both was and still is an ongoing and growing and evolving/unfolding process/history/story thus far...

Do you know how many times I have already tried to share a lot of it on here???

It doesn't matter, never matters, etc...

And it has to be taken as a whole anyway, and no one has the patience at all anymore, etc...

God Bless!

 

[SkyWriting]

Try convincing a polytheist Hindu with this argument.

I wouldn't try to convince. That's God's job.

 

[SkyWriting]

Then they must not believe.

Who have to BELIEVE in miracles beforehand in order to see that, for example, some clouds that sort of from a certain angle look like kind of like a bird, therefore Jesus! (actually saw that one on social media - the Christians were just so in awe over this miracle!)

If you say so.

Too bad that you don't have data to fall back on like I do.

If miracles could be influenced by people, then they would be super-powers, and not miracles, anywho.
They wouldn't qualify as miracles.

 

[chad kincham]

Let me be clear then...

Your post indicated that *you* did not understand the physics you quoted about.

Whether or not that lack of understanding makes you feel confident in you interpretation or not is the only indicator of if the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to you. (That's just the way it goes.)

From spaceandmotiion.com

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern


The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies. [48]

48] B.R. Bligh (2000), The Big Bang Exploded!

 

[sjastro]

From spaceandmotiion.com

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang Theory by Tom Van Flandern


The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with “zero-point energy” be continually created between the galaxies. [48]

48] B.R. Bligh (2000), The Big Bang Exploded!

Do you actually understand what you are posting or is it simply a case of surfing the internet to find support for your confirmation bias?

The cosmologist Peter Coles gives an insight into this Bligh character which is probably indicative of his mindset.

His (Bligh's) point was that, according to the Big Bang theory, the Universe cools as it expands. Its current temperature is about 3 Kelvin (-270 Celsius or thereabouts) but it is now expanding and cooling. Turning the clock back gives a Universe that was hotter when it was younger. He thought this was all wrong.

The argument is false, my correspondent asserted, because the Universe – by definition – hasn’t got any surroundings and therefore isn’t expanding into anything. Since it isn’t pushing against anything it can’t do any work. The internal energy of the gas must therefore remain constant and since the internal energy of an ideal gas is only a function of its temperature, the expansion of the Universe must therefore be at a constant temperature (i.e. isothermal, rather than adiabatic). He backed up his argument with bona fide experimental results on the free expansion of gases.

I didn’t reply and filed the letter away. Another came, and I did likewise. Increasingly overcome by some form of apoplexy his letters got ruder and ruder, eventually blaming me for the decline of the British education system and demanding that I be fired from my job. Finally, he wrote to the President of the Royal Society demanding that I be “struck off” and forbidden (on grounds of incompetence) ever to teach thermodynamics in a University. The copies of the letters he sent me are still will the pamphlet.

I don’t agree with him that the Big Bang is wrong, but I’ve never had the energy to reply to his rather belligerent letters.

As to why Bligh is wrong one cannot use 19th century thermodynamics to refute the Big Bang.
The high temperatures in the early history of the Big Bang are explained by mid 20th century QFT (Quantum Field Theory) which tells us a vacuum or more precisely space-time can never be empty but is a field in the lowest energy state.
This is explained in more detail in this post.
The temperatures in the early Big Bang post inflation era due to vacuum energy is explained in this post.

 

[chad kincham]

Do you actually understand what you are posting or is it simply a case of surfing the internet to find support for your confirmation bias?

The cosmologist Peter Coles gives an insight into this Bligh character which is probably indicative of his mindset.


As to why Bligh is wrong one cannot use 19th century thermodynamics to refute the Big Bang.
The high temperatures in the early history of the Big Bang are explained by mid 20th century QFT (Quantum Field Theory) which tells us a vacuum or more precisely space-time can never be empty but is a field in the lowest energy state.
This is explained in more detail in this post.
The temperatures in the early Big Bang post inflation era due to vacuum energy is explained in this post.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [8] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

 

[chad kincham]

Let me be clear then...

Your post indicated that *you* did not understand the physics you quoted about.

Whether or not that lack of understanding makes you feel confident in you interpretation or not is the only indicator of if the Dunning-Kruger effect applies to you. (That's just the way it goes.)

That’s not just the way it goes.

Flaming and goading via a round about method of saying I am incompetent, but not capable of realization of incompetence, is nevertheless a violation of forum rules.