Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[kenblaster5000]

3sigma asked:


kenblaster answered:


For those who missed it, this little Q&A went like this:
3sigma: "Who can believe without evidence?"
kenblaster: "Those who believe."

...

That is pretty silly, huh. I was not paying attention to all the words.

Anyhow, do not ignore the rest of my posts. I have shown evidence of God's existence. I propose that through my experience with Him I know He exists. You cannot take that as evidence because you call into question whether I am lying or not. Why would I lie?

I am not a lawyer.

 

[Gracchus]

That is pretty silly, huh. I was not paying attention to all the words.

Yes.

Anyhow, do not ignore the rest of my posts. I have shown evidence of God's existence.

I didn't see it.

I propose that through my experience with Him I know He exists. You cannot take that as evidence because you call into question whether I am lying or not. Why would I lie?

I met a fellow once who was convinced he was the Archangel Gabriel. He wasn't lying either. He didn't even need to be restrained most of the time.

I am not a lawyer.

That is faint praise.

 

[3sigma]

Really, sigma needs to see the definition of evidence and admit that I and others have presented evidence.

And perhaps you should read [post=53979254]this[/post] post to see what sort of evidence I consider acceptable. I provided some examples of sound, objective evidence and some examples of evidence that I consider worthless. The “evidence” you think you’ve presented all falls into the ‘worthless’ category.

 

[Wedjat]

I just gave you the proof of evidence. But, I did not mean to pick on you. I really enjoy talking with you. You do for others if you have the mean to. Really, sigma needs to see the definition of evidence and admit that I and others have presented evidence. Now I have shown and attested that I know that God exists. "God did it" is real to me. I read it all the time in the bible.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Is there a heaven. Is there an earth.

Proof that these exist and evidence that God created them. That is, Genesis gives a record of this event.

Oh no, I don't feel picked on at all, I just figured based off of previous posts that you didn't really feel like talking science (although I do have to wonder why you are in the science forums). All I was saying as that in the same way I do not consider you to have presented evidence I am sure that you would not consider any evidence that I have to give so the discussion is rather pointless. And while you may believe that the heavens and the earth are proof of creation, I don't even believe in heaven so really the point falls on the wrong audience.
I do believe however that we are at an impasse.

 

[BananaSlug]

Who or what made the process that way, assuming you are correct?

Could you please provide a testable experiment so we can see "God's hand" during the development of an embryo? All the tests we have done so far have concluded that the timing in the expression of certain genes is what controls embryonic development. If God is the puppeteer pulling the strings then there must be a way to observe it, right? So again, please provide a testable explanation as to how God actively controls the formation of the embyro.

 

[theFijian]

Because until you can show me non-empirical, sound, objective evidence that can be used to verify the existence of something then empirical evidence is all I can use.

Like I said previously you do indeed hold to unprovable philosophical assumptions just like I as a religious person do, difference is that i'm willing to admit it while it seems you are not. This does rather remind me of dealing with creationists who think they don't interpret the bible, they just read it.

In particular, can you show me any sound, objective evidence—empirical or non-empirical—

So by non-empirical you mean you would now accept personal testimony? Since that is after all non-empirical.

To get this thread back on track, can you or any other Christian provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

I wouldn't try to use 'goddidit' as a scientific explanation since I'm not a creationist.

 

[theFijian]

You guys sound smart. I bet your mommies are very proud of you.

You seem sincere but sometimes it really is better to just say silent

 

[Gracchus]

You seem sincere but sometimes it really is better to just say silent

That would seem to be a lesson you have never taken to heart.

 

[theFijian]

That would seem to be a lesson you have never taken to heart.

Likewise.

 

[CoderHead]

We always have to show you God. It is alot easier to help someone who will try to help himself.

Why does an omnipotent deity have to have flawed humans argue with emotion that He's real? Seems both inefficient and insufficient...

If any of you were sincere and diligent enough to seek after Him, He would be faithful to His word and meet you there.

Been there, done it, and it didn't work. Again, I ask why an omnipotent and loving God chooses not to reveal Himself to those who seek Him when He clearly promised He would?

I have seen God writing the commandments with lightning from His fingertips and Jesus Christ opening up the book of life.

Ummm, I don't mean to nitpick, but how is it that you've seen any such thing?

Guess what? Your name is not written in there.

And you know this how? You really come off as condescending and pompous. I hope that's working out for you.

You cannot take that as evidence because you call into question whether I am lying or not. Why would I lie?

Lie? I don't know about that. It's possible that you believe every single word you say and type wholeheartedly. Still, that doesn't mean it's true for anyone aside from you. You're using your own personal experience as "evidence," which nobody can verify because it's only your own personal experience.

 

[3sigma]

Like I said previously you do indeed hold to unprovable philosophical assumptions just like I as a religious person do, difference is that i'm willing to admit it while it seems you are not.

This is nothing more than mealy-mouthed, equivocating nonsense. I do not hold the same kind of beliefs religious believers do. Religious believers, including you, believe that things such as your God and Satan are real—that they actually exist—without a shred of sound, objective evidence to support those beliefs. I do not. I think your God, Satan, angels, heaven and hell are purely imaginary. Many religious believers think they will have eternal life. I do not. I think that is a fanciful hope driven by a fear of death.

So by non-empirical you mean you would now accept [post=53979254]personal testimony[/post]? Since that is after all non-empirical.

Of course I won’t accept personal testimony as evidence that something such as your God exists and I even said as much in that post to which you linked. I keep asking you to show me non-empirical evidence that is sound, objective evidence, but you keep evading that request. Personal testimony is not objective and is unlikely to be free from error, fallacy or misapprehension as well.

I wouldn't try to use 'goddidit' as a scientific explanation since I'm not a creationist.

Really? So you don’t believe that your God created man in its image; you think the Bible is wrong about that? You don’t believe that your God does things like answer prayers? If you think your God answers prayers then you think “God did it”.

 

[SkyWriting]

Could you please provide a testable experiment so we can see "God's hand" during the development of an embryo? All the tests we have done so far have concluded that the timing in the expression of certain genes is what controls embryonic development. If God is the puppeteer pulling the strings then there must be a way to observe it, right? So again, please provide a testable explanation as to how God actively controls the formation of the embyro.

You just said it

the timing in the expression of certain genes is what controls embryonic development.

So all you need to show is that raw chemicals understand timing and have a vested interest in being alive. In the entire rest of the Cosmos, we see no such evidence. Oh we HAVE looked. Spent Billions in the search too. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

[Skaloop]

So all you need to show is that raw chemicals understand timing

They don't. The components of a watch don't understand timing either, but they do just fine in keeping time.

and have a vested interest in being alive.

They don't. They are, as you said, merely chemicals. They have no vested interest in anything, they just undergo their chemical reactions. Do an acid and base have a vested interest in neutralizing each other and forming water and a salt when mixed? No, but it happens anyway.

 

[pgp_protector]

A person with faith, diligence, and a seeker. As opposed to someone who thinks he has shown that angels, God, the devil, etc. do not exist. God has proven Himself to me. That is all that matters. I have seen demons, as well as an angel. I have seen God writing the commandments with lightning from His fingertips and Jesus Christ opening up the book of life. Guess what? Your name is not written in there.

Did you read the whole book of life?

 

[BananaSlug]

You just said it

I wanted to hear you say it.

So all you need to show is that raw chemicals understand timing and have a vested interest in being alive.

So what kind of test would should we develop to see whether or not the genes "understand" timing?

In the entire rest of the Cosmos, we see no such evidence. Oh we HAVE looked. Spent Billions in the search too. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

I agree, zero evidence in support of a deity.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I wanted to hear you say it.



So what kind of test would should we develop to see whether or not the genes "understand" timing?



I agree, zero evidence in support of a deity.

Dear Lord.. The gods have been good to me. For the first time in my life, everything is absolutely perfect just the way it is. So here's the deal: You freeze everything the way it is, and I won't ask for anything more. If that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. OK, deal. -homer simpson

 

[SkyWriting]

...they start with a basic template and the mutations form from there.

There are no documented mutations that create adults from baby stock.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There are no documented mutations that create adults from baby stock.

Um... did anyone say there was?

 

[SkyWriting]

They don't. The components of a watch don't understand timing either, but they do just fine in keeping time.



They don't. They are, as you said, merely chemicals. They have no vested interest in anything, they just undergo their chemical reactions. Do an acid and base have a vested interest in neutralizing each other and forming water and a salt when mixed? No, but it happens anyway.

What a perfect observation!

And a watch had a designer, and a watch functions for its designed lifetime, and at first it may have timed races, then later been just a timepiece. Then after the band falls off, it may become a pocketwatch. But it was always a watch, and it will take a certain amount of stress, and after that it will fail.

We might ponder on it's workings and marvel at it's engineering. Yet it's just a functioning system. It came from a designer and has no ability to adapt beyond it's intended design.

Frogs, when stressed, may reproduce without mating. But it's a function already in the frog. Mutations couldn't have come up with that ability.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You just said it


So all you need to show is that raw chemicals understand timing and have a vested interest in being alive. In the entire rest of the Cosmos, we see no such evidence. Oh we HAVE looked. Spent Billions in the search too. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Really? Please... tell me more about the billions spent searching "" the rest of the cosmos" for being alive? I havn't heard about it.

Also, despite what you may have heard, there is already quite a bit more than "nada.zip.zilch" evidence for life elsewhere. ALH84001 being the obvious example. But the biochemical analysis on Viking was a minority report positive test for metabolic process. Europa has significant liquid oceans, and thats just within our own solar system.