How to prove God exists.

[Michael]

So "God" isn´t an answer to the question for the origin of the natural world.

God could however be an answer to the question of the arrangement and function of the natural world as we understand it today, just as the BB is reported to be. That would actually require *four* less supernatural constructs too.

 

[quatona]

God could however be an answer to the question of the arrangement and function of the natural world as we understand it today,

In which way?

just as the BB is reported to be. That would actually require *four* less supernatural constructs too.

Yawn.

 

[Michael]

In which way?

In the same way our DNA might explain the physical layout of our forms.

Yawn.

Of course you're not interested in a comparison of ideas in terms of empirical physics. That's that conversation you simply can't win.

 

[quatona]

Of course you're not interested in a comparison of ideas in terms of empirical physics.

I´m bored by you acting on your obsession with your pet peeve, no matter what the actual topic.

That's that conversation you simply can't win.

Particularly not since I haven´t even taken a position.

 

[Michael]

I´m bored by you acting on your obsession with your pet peeve, no matter what the actual topic.

Particularly not since I haven´t even taken a position.

I didn't even invent the concept of Panentheism or Pantheism. These ideas have been used to define and describe "God" long before either of us were born. Atheists don't like to discuss such topics and such definitions of the term "God" because such definitions are purely empirical definitions. Atheists also cannot handle any sort of debate between such empirical definitions of God as the universe vs. how "science" attempts to describe that same universe. The reason for that is very simple. "Science" requires four supernatural constructs to describe the universe we live in, whereas Panentheism requires none. It's therefore impossible to claim that there is no 'evidence' of God based on a "scientific" definition of "evidence", as resident atheists *love* to erroneously claim. They therefor avoid the topic like the plague.

 

[quatona]

I didn't even invent the concept of Panentheism or Pantheism. These ideas have been used to define and describe "God" long before either of us were born. Atheists don't like to discuss such topics and such definitions of the term "God" because such definitions are purely empirical definitions. Atheists also cannot handle any sort of debate between such empirical definitions of God as the universe vs. how "science" attempts to describe that same universe. The reason for that is very simple. "Science" requires four supernatural constructs to describe the universe we live in, whereas Panentheism requires none. It's therefore impossible to claim that there is no 'evidence' of God based on a "scientific" definition of "evidence", as resident atheists *love* to erroneously claim. They therefor avoid the topic like the plague.

Spare me your broken record blahblah, stay away from the sweeping generalizations and stop trying to read my mind. Thank you.

 

[Michael]

Spare me your broken record blahblah, stay away from the sweeping generalizations and stop trying to read my mind. Thank you.

I wasn't trying to read your mind, I was simply pointing out a common pattern of atheists as it relates to the topic of God. They seem to have the most trouble dealing with a purely empirical definition of God, and the scientific definition of the term "evidence".

 

[quatona]

I wasn't trying to read your mind, I was simply pointing out a common pattern of atheists as it relates to the topic of God. They seem to have the most trouble dealing with a purely empirical definition of God, and the scientific definition of the term "evidence".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not a standard in science. We do not need to know the identity or lineage of the coin maker to deduce the ancient coin found on the beach had an intelligent maker over a natural cause.

So how do we conclude that a coin has a coin-maker?
Be specific.

 

[Skreeper]

Not a standard in science. We do not need to know the identity or lineage of the coin maker to deduce the ancient coin found on the beach had an intelligent maker over a natural cause.

That's because we have evidence that coins are a human made product. Seriously, the Watchmaker argument has been beaten down enough, please just let it rest in peace.

 

[dmmesdale]

That's because we have evidence that coins are a human made product.

So? If all life in the present retrodicts to a nonliving source then by that standard the ancient coin retrodicts to a natural cause. By your standards, the present has nothing to do with the past. Fact being, life from nonlife is impossible according to current understanding and science law. Keep in mind following laws get us to the moon whereas theories only imagine us going there. Be consistent and not selective. If a coin retrodicts to a human product. A living cause then by the same standard life retrodicts to a living source.

Seriously, the Watchmaker argument has been beaten down enough, please just let it rest in peace.

It has never been refuted. It has been selectively rejected by God deniers but it certainly does resonate with an audience who does not have the hang ups of the atheists and wish to follow the evidence. Those of us who can reason from effect to cause. The delusion has to do with the atheist assertions they can be convinced by evidence and are open when they are not. No amount of available evidence will ever convince them because they are dogmatically committed to interpreting it all atheistically. No matter the logic contradictions and the abandoning of science method to cling to a methodology which has zero to do with science and cannot be applied consistently.

If naturalists are trying to explain the origins of bio life here thru natural means absent supernatural intervention then they are stuck with natural causes. They cannot. It is blind faith, not science.


One does not need to know the identity or lineage of the intelligent source to eliminate an exclusive nonliving cause.

 

[lesliedellow]

So? If all life in the present retrodicts to a nonliving source then by that standard the ancient coin retrodicts to a natural cause. By your standards, the present has nothing to do with the past."

The present has everything to do with the past; as in, evolution has left its fingerprints behind for us to examine in the present.

Fact being, life from nonlife is impossible according to current understanding and science law.

I take it that is yet another fallacious reference to the second law of thermodynamics. How often do creationists need to be told that it applies only in a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.

keep in mind following laws get us to the moon whereas theories only imagine us going there

Yet anoother endlessly repeated creationist fallacy. Scientific theories are things which have been tested experimentally, and have been found to make accurate predictions. Newton's theory of gravitation was one of the things needed to get us to the Moon.

It has been selectively rejected by God deniers but it certainly does resonate with an audience who does not have the hang ups of the atheists and wish to follow the evidence.

So the Pope is a God denier. And so to are scientists such as Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, Martin Nowak, Simon Conway Morris, Sam Berry, Denis Alexander, Ken Miller, and others - they are all God deniers, even though they are all professing Christians, and one of them is an ordained priest.

 

[dmmesdale]

The present has everything to do with the past; as in, evolution has left its fingerprints behind for us to examine in the present.

If all life retrodicts to a nonliving source then by those standards the present has nothing to do with the past and neither does science laws.

I take it that is yet another fallacious reference to the second law of thermodynamics.

No. Biogenesis.

How often do creationists need to be told that it applies only in a closed system, and the Earth is not a closed system.

Garbage. It works in both. Go park your can in the rain forest and come back in 500 years and the odds are you will have nothing but rust as opposed to an evolution to an f-15 fighter jet. A cup of coffee goes to room temperature here. That is 2nd law and it works in open systems. All the sun rays will not fuel your car or keep it from rusting out. You explain it to me. If subs have radar for the hunting of other subs and is the result of intelligent design then why do sperm whales have radar for the hunting of squid assumed to be the result of natural causes absent intelligence? Would you know a fingerprint if you saw one? How bout birds with flight navigation capability to fly 10 K miles to specific nesting locations. Yet we have jet with flight navigation systems which are intelligently designed. Why is the bird flight technology natural, no intelligence needed, and the jets intelligently designed when it is functionally the same systems in both? We require a precise explanation of how nature installed flight navigation in birds, echolocation in bats, sonar in whales. Appeals to ignorance will not do. Because the only known cause for these technologies is intelligence, not natural causes. Better yet perhaps you can show where your car develops navigation systems without being installed by an intelligent source. After all the Earth is an open system and you have all that energy coming in from the sun. You do that and you might have something. Otherwise all you have is a nothing burger. All hat and no cattle. By the by, those who attempt to explain it all naturally are creationists. They have their own creation myths.

So the Pope is a God denier. And so to are scientists such as Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala, Martin Nowak, Simon Conway Morris, Sam Berry, Denis Alexander, Ken Miller, and others - they are all God deniers, even though they are all professing Christians, and one of them is an ordained priest.

I don't know what you are addressing. if they are asserting all life is from nonlife then they are into blind faith and not science. I am addressing naturalistice explanations to origin of life and i provided the explanation which you ignored.

 

[lesliedellow]

If all life retrodicts to a nonliving source then by those standards the present has nothing to do with the past and neither does science laws.
No. Biogenesis.




It works in both. Go park your can in the rain forest and come back in 500 years and the odds are you will have nothing but rust as opposed to an evolution to an f-15 fighter jet.

It will rust away because the oxidation of iron was one of the very few chemical reactions which could take place under those circumstances.

That is 2nd law and it works in open systems.

It is no such thing.

You explain it to me. If subs have radar for the hunting of other subs and is the result of intelliegent design then why do sperm whales have radar for the hunting of squid assumed to be the product of natural causes? Would you know a fingerprint if you saw one? How bout birds with flight navigation capability to fly 10 K miles to specific nesting locations. Yet we have jet with flight navigation systems which are intelligently designed. Why are the birds natural and the jets intelligently designed when it is essentially the same systems in both?

Whales are believed to have evolved because their evolution can be traced. Ditto birds. That we had better put our thinking caps on if we want several hundred tons of metal to remain airborne is fairly irrelevant.

Better yet perhaps you can show where your car develops navigation systems without being installed by an intelligent source.

My car was not the product of evolution. So what is that supposed to prove? That nothing can be?

 

[dmmesdale]

Whales are believed to have evolved because their evolution can be traced.

Believe to have evolved? I notice your quote on the bottom of your posts.

''We conclude [wrongly] that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science.''

So when do guesses equate to science truth? They do not since science is based on empirical evidence, not guesses, absent evidence. You have simply exempted your religion from your impositions and choose to ignore the contradiction. Hoping everybody will not catch your error. You need to explain exactly how whales developed radar for the hunting of squid or bats developed echolocation. That is so vague it is an admission of blind faith. Life from nonlife and unguided evo are as scientific as voodoo. It does not rise to the true technology which enables real scientists to go to the moon or create and use puters, smart phones etc. Out of time but even if i wasn't this is a dead end. Don't confuse your blind faith with actual science. If you are seeking the first cause for bio life here then you are seeking a living source. That is following the evidence and not making up stories to fit your preprogrammed beliefs.

 

[lesliedellow]

Believe to have evolved? I notice your quote on the bottom of your posts.

''We conclude [wrongly] that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science.''

So?

So when do guesses equate to science truth?

When nature is observed to agree with those guesses. F=ma didn't drop out of the sky, and it certainly wasn't directly observed. It started out as a guess.

You have simply exempted your religion from your impositions and choose to ignore the contradiction.

I am not sure what you are going on about, but there is no contradiction in supposing that the scientist and theologian should have different methodologies, according to their different disciplines.

That is so vague it is an admission of blind faith. Life from nonlife and unguided evo are as scientific as voodoo.

Why? Because you say so, and you don't want to believe that biologists know what they are talking about.

 

[Radrook]

Seriously, the Watchmaker argument has been beaten down enough, please just let it rest in peace.

Not everyone shares that opinion.

 

[Kylie]

Not everyone shares that opinion.

Irrelevant. It has been shown that it is a logically flawed argument. it's not really a matter of opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So?

"so?"??

I'ld think it's rather relevant, that we have evidence of coins being made by coin-makers, when investigating the origins of a coin...

If all life in the present retrodicts to a nonliving source then by that standard the ancient coin retrodicts to a natural cause. By your standards, the present has nothing to do with the past.

Seems to be pulled out of thin air.

Fact being, life from nonlife is impossible according to current understanding and science law.

Really? what "law" would that be? And how come the scientific community isn't aware of this?

Keep in mind following laws get us to the moon whereas theories only imagine us going there.

Ow dear.............................


Seriously, learn2science....

It has never been refuted.

So, are all things to be considered true by default, until they can be refuted?

No amount of available evidence will ever convince them because they are dogmatically committed to interpreting it all atheistically.

Irony.

If naturalists are trying to explain the origins of bio life here thru natural means absent supernatural intervention then they are stuck with natural causes.

The only reason science doesn't include supernatural things, is because they are nowhere to be found in reality.

Unlike what many anti-science folk try to claim, science isn't a priori opposed to anything. It's just that it will only include that which can be empirically supported in some way.
The supernatural happens to not show up anywhere. So why would it be included as a parameter or what-have-you in any model, theory or law?

They cannot. It is blind faith, not science.

"Blind faith", is not including those things for which you have no evidence?
That's a strange definition of "blind faith".

One does not need to know the identity or lineage of the intelligent source to eliminate an exclusive nonliving cause.

Sure. But one still requires evidence for that source. Got any?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not everyone shares that opinion.

It's not an opinion. That has been show to be false comparision.
That people are still repeating this fallacious argument, doesn't change the fact that it's been shown to be invalid.