Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[bhsmte]

Ok cool. Most Christians that I know of have such convincing personal experiences but this isn't the beginning of revelations. The Universe itself makes Yahweh self evident, and if we accept this and search for him ( with all of the being ) the more personal ( related directly to us ) will be given.

I don't see how the existence of the universe, makes a God self evident.

Can you list the characteristics of the God you perceive as typical, and how you came to this conclusion of his ( its ) characteristics ?

Since this is a Christian site, I will rely on your typical Christian descriptions of how this God goes about his business:

-He cares about all his creation
-Sends his son 2,000 years ago to save all mankind, when man has been on this earth, for about 200,000 years. Why wait so long?
-Making it absolute, that you must accept Jesus as God to gain any possibility of avoiding doom and having any chance of eternal life, while only allowing a small portion of the population, to be exposed to Jesus and putting the rest of the people, at a significant disadvantage and allowing 2/3 of the world's population, to be doomed according to typical Christian theology. Doesn't sound like a God that cares for all his creation.
-Furthermore, the NT, which is the driving force behind this theology, leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to historical credibility, IMO.

Cliff notes version, of why I call myself atheist towards the Christian God and agnostic towards a universal, non personal God.

 

[smaneck]

How do you define omnipotence and omniscience?

If God can do anything and knows everything, then he could do what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

Yeah, I'm sure He could. But would that make you love Him?

Possibly. But what if that's what it takes to get me to believe a god exists?

Again, what difference does it make if you believe He exists?

When, where and how has he shown that he cares?

Through Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah. I could go on and on. My own scriptures say:

O Salmán! The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue for ever to be, closed in the face of men. No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God. Every one of them is the Way of God that connecteth this world with the realms above, and the Standard of His Truth unto every one in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. They are the Manifestations of God amidst men, the evidences of His Truth, and the signs of His glory.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then we have version found in Luke 11:

"29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here."

Here it is Jonah's preaching that signifies the sign, not his being swallowed by a whale.

I see we have a Bible Contradiction, that you are alleging. I believe that the above passage expands upon the teaching of jonah, not jonah's signship. now Jonah was a sign unto ninevah, in a similiar manner that Jesus was, namely that of being a sing to begin with. The signs were different, Jonahs sign was that of repentance, Jesus' ministry was of repentance, but His sign, the only sign given was the sign of Jonah....and then he expands on it...."three days and three nights" and so, again if we look at Jesus's quotations, we see another confirmation of the three days: "destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."

So with expositional constancy the contradiction is reduced to merely a biblical confusion of text. Let me know if I can be of further help.

And why would we accept this over the traditional site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?

not sure, what you mean. I know there are many Holy Sites in and around Jerusalem, some legit, and others not. But by all means make your case.

Actually, tombs hewn from stone are fairly common.

Jesus was from Jerusalem

Jesus was "buried with the rich" the prophecy states, and furthmore Joseph of arimathea, a sadducee (converted christian), hewed the stone for him/and or his family, donated it to Jesus.

Now, you can refute this. But then why didn't Joseph use the tomb himself, furthermore, why didn't some one else? 2000 years is a long time for a perfectly suitable stone tomb not to be used.

So please name one other tomb hewn from stone, in the area.

And we can discuss it.

But as far as I know, I have not heard of another stone tomb ever, (except maybe Egyptian pharoahs. But then again I haven't looked.

Now I am sure they exist. But they are far from common as you suggest.

the reason why they are uncommon, is because it is expensive to carve a tomb out of rock. Much cheaper to dig a grave, or cheaper yet, to cremate.

So again they are far from common.

But say they were all over, and say all kinds of kings, and presidents, and pharoahs, and even typical wealthy people found huge rocks, and bored them out for graves....

I have yet to hear of one anywhere near Jerusalem. Not in the city, nor vacinity. I would guess that there was not another for 100 mile circumference. But again, please correct if I am wrong.

So even if there was on 25 miles away, or 50 or 75 miles away, it does not explain the rather obvious trench that was bored in front of the tomb, and obvious "chock" on the bottom of the trench to keep the obvious round rolling type door from rolling too far.

If you go to Jerusalem, and ask Jews that don't believe in Christ at all, I bet they would attest that the garden tomb was for a rich Jew in the past and that it originally had a round tomb door.

As far as sealed with a round stone, I see no evidence that this was the case with this particular tomb. But then I really don't know that round stones sealing a tomb were particularly unusual.

There see no real evidence that the stone was connected with the tomb. It is located in Jordan, not Jerusalem, after all.

well again, there are studies suggesting the rock was the same dimensions, and the same type of rock, even similar chisel markings. I have not verified this, but I don't believe my argument even need this as one of it's premises.

the tomb itself, even without the rolling tomb stone, is enough of a Holy Site to dictate that it will never be used, namely because of it's obvious and very blatent correlation to the Biblical account.

Again, name one tomb in 100 mile radius of Jerusalem, that describes the account of the ancient Gospel manuscripts, then at least you will have an alternative theory.

I am not saying that there are not other oppinions about the tomb, but there are none with official manuscripts that can be inspected in a museum somewhere, they are basically arguments from silence, and such is the case with your argument here.

again, thanks for the reply.

Also, I have more than a problem with your source which appears to be A True Ott. His PhD is supposedly from the American University in nutrition, not archaeology. But here is bigger problem. The American University only offers a Master's degree in nutrition, not a PhD. More disturbing is the assertions I found on his website that Simon Magus founded the Catholic Church. I've also heard that Mr. Ott is behind a number of conspiracy theories such as the swine flu being the result of a bio weapon and the Great Recession the result of the Chinese no longer buying US assets. He claims the Obama finally gave the Chinese eminent domain over the US to repay our debts. But what I found most disturbing with this at the bottom of his article:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/hexagram.jpg

It shows the Star of David and encourages us to connect the thirteen evil dots. A rather nasty piece of antisemitism, don't you think?
Not a very credible source, if you ask me.

I see a bait and switch tactic here, let me explain:

A little description of the 4 in 1, Bait and Switch tactic:
Let me illustrate to you what I view this fallacy involves which is actually 4 fallacies used together sequentially as 1. I have put the fallacies in quotation marks to identify each of the 4 fallacies that compose what is called the “Bait and Switch” (commonly used to commit financial fraud today.) But for now, we will define it the way I see it being used, but correct me if I am wrong:
“the audience is baited (a classic “straw manning” of the only weakness that can be found), then a switch is made (using the weakest argument as a “red herring” to avoid having to answer the harder more thought provoking evidences in any given post, or link.) It sounds like this person is refuting the argument, but essence they are picking and choosing small pieces that are irrelevant to my posts (“non sequitur&#8221while committing a 4th fallacy of rational debate: “poisoning the well.”

thanks again for the heads up, but the topic of this conversation is not the star of David, so your argument is non sequitur. A red herring, and also a straw man/ poisoning the well.

I have more than a problem with your source which appears to be A True Ott. His PhD is supposedly from the American University in nutrition, not archaeology.

as I have said before, in debate, many secularists resort to straw manning of personal sources.

even if it was a valid source, you would say that it was an appeal to authority.

So as it stands, just because a person has a whacky view of one thing, does not make all their views whacky, that is poisoning the well.

thanks again, however your post has at first an argument from silence, as there is no official manuscripts quoted for your refutations,

and your post concludes with a bait and switch (four fallacies in one).

So with detection of five fallacies in a row, I would say your post was effectively refuted.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

thanks again.

 

[smaneck]

So with expositional constancy the contradiction is reduced to merely a biblical confusion of text.

Sorry, that sentence makes no sense to me.

Let me know if I can be of further help.

Wasn't asking for help.

not sure, what you mean. I know there are many Holy Sites in and around Jerusalem, some legit, and others not. But by all means make your case.

All I'm saying is that the bulk of the Church has always believed that Jesus tomb is located below what we today call the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I've been there and stood in the very place where Jesus was said to have been raised from the dead. So when you argue this other place was really Jesus' tomb, I want to see some pretty strong evidence.

Jesus was from Jerusalem

Really? I'd always believed he was from Nazareth.

Jesus was "buried with the rich" the prophecy states, and furthermore Joseph of arimathea a sadducee (converted christian), hewed the stone for him/and or his family, donated it to Jesus.

Where did you get the information he was a Sadducee? The Gospels identify him as a member of the Sanhedrin but make no mention of his being a Sadducee. The Sanhedrin was made up of both Pharisees and Sadducees, with Pharisees in the majority.

Now, you can refute this. But then why didn't Joseph use the tomb himself, furthermore, why didn't some one else? 2000 years is a long time for a perfectly suitable stone tomb not to be used.

How do you know this is 2000 years old? How do we know this was once a garden or that it belonged to Joseph Arimathea? Here is what the archaeologists at the Hebrew University have concluded regarding this tomb:

The tomb has two chambers, the second to the right of the first, with stone benches along the sides of each wall in the second chamber, except the wall joining it to the first, and along the back wall of the first chamber; the benches have been heavily damaged but are still discernible. The edge of the groove outside the tomb has a diagonal edge, which would be unable to hold a stone slab in place (the slab would just fall out)] additionally, known tombs of the rolling-stone type use vertical walls on either side of the entrance to hold the stone, not a groove on the ground.

Barkay concluded that:

The waterproofing on the cistern is of the type used by the Crusaders, and the cistern must date to that era
The groove was a water trough built by the 11th-century Crusaders for donkeys/mules
The cistern was built as part of the same stable complex as the groove[30]
The design of the interior of the tomb is typical of the 8th-7th centuries BC, and fell out of use later.

So please name one other tomb hewn from stone, in the area.

See for yourself:

ANCIENT TOMBS: Archaeology, Death and the Bible

First Century Rolling Stone Tombs - Jerusalem

But as far as I know, I have not heard of another stone tomb ever, (except maybe Egyptian pharoahs. But then again I haven't looked.

And therein lies the problem. You accept whatever argument supports what you want to believe without actually examining the validity of the evidence. I'm an academic. I don't do that. I'm guessing you've never even been to Jerusalem.

Now I am sure they exist. But they are far from common as you suggest.

LOL. And where exactly was Lazarus buried? And what do you think Jesus had rolled away before he raised Lazarus from the grave?

41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”

43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

Here is the traditional site of Lazarus' tomb:

Tomb of Lazarus (al-Eizariya) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is located about two miles from Jerusalem.

the reason why they are uncommon, is because it is expensive to carve a tomb out of rock. Much cheaper to dig a grave, or cheaper yet, to cremate.

Apparently you don't know much about Judaism. Jews rarely cremate their dead.

So again they are far from common.

See, here is another fallacy you make. Because you think they should be uncommon you assume they are without actually bothering to examine the evidence.

I have yet to hear of one anywhere near Jerusalem. Not in the city, nor vacinity. I would guess that there was not another for 100 mile circumference. But again, please correct if I am wrong.

Look at the pictures. You stand corrected.

So even if there was on 25 miles away, or 50 or 75 miles away, it does not explain the rather obvious trench that was bored in front of the tomb, and obvious "chock" on the bottom of the trench to keep the obvious round rolling type door from rolling too far.

According to the archaeologist at the Hebrew University I cited earlier, this is incorrect. Vertical walls would have had to have been used to hold such a stone in place. The diagonal groove would not have held such a stone, it would have just fallen over. In fact, the archaeologist argues that this "groove" was actually a water trough used during the Crusades.

If you go to Jerusalem, and ask Jews that don't believe in Christ at all, I bet they would attest that the garden tomb was for a rich Jew in the past and that it originally had a round tomb door.

Well, I just showed you what the archaeologists at the Hebrew University said. But let's assume for the fun of it that Jews would say this, although I'm not sure why they would think it to be in a garden. The cistern was built much later. The fact that it was built for a rich Jew would not prove the rich Jew was Joseph.

well again, there are studies suggesting the rock was the same dimensions, and the same type of rock, even similar chisel markings. I have not verified this, but I don't believe my argument even need this as one of it's premises.

The studies your A True Otta was relying on are all from the 19th century which modern scholarship has long since debunked.

the tomb itself, even without the rolling tomb stone, is enough of a Holy Site to dictate that it will never be used, namely because of it's obvious and very blatent correlation to the Biblical account.

LOL. Jews aren't burying people in stone tombs anymore. Besides, why would they mess with a tourist trap?

Again, name one tomb in 100 mile radius of Jerusalem, that describes the account of the ancient Gospel manuscripts, then at least you will have an alternative theory.

I just provided you with numerous pictures of ones. If you had bothered to check on the internet you would have found dozens yourself.

I am not saying that there are not other oppinions about the tomb, but there are none with official manuscripts that can be inspected in a museum somewhere, they are basically arguments from silence, and such is the case with your argument here.

Uh, no. They are looking at the archaeological evidence itself. The stones do speak, they just aren't telling you what you want to hear.

thanks again for the heads up, but the topic of this conversation is not the star of David, so your argument is non sequitur. A red herring, and also a straw man/ poisoning the well.

I'm just pointing out that your well is already poisoned. You are getting your information from a delusional antisemitic crank and because it reinforces what you want to believe you check neither his credentials or his evidence. I checked both and both are bogus.

as I have said before, in debate, many secularists resort to straw manning of personal sources.

You realize that "straw manning" is not a word? However, a straw man argument is when ones words get twisted so they are made to say something they did not say. For instance, if I say I think gun control is a good idea and you answer, "Hitler believed in gun control, you are trying to make us all Nazis." That would be an example of a straw man argument. I think what you really mean to say is that bringing up this guys history was an ad hominem. An example of an ad hominem argument would be to say that "secularists resort to straw manning."

even if it was a valid source, you would say that it was an appeal to authority.

I would certainly give it more weight if this analysis had actually come from the peer-reviewed work of a noted archaeologist.

So as it stands, just because a person has a whacky view of one thing, does not make all their views whacky, that is poisoning the well.

I admit that he did strike me as rather poisonous and not just whacky. It is possible he could be right about some things. Even a dead clock is right twice a day. But in this case, the evidence proves him wrong.

thanks again, however your post has at first an argument from silence, as there is no official manuscripts quoted for your refutations,

Why do I need a manuscript to examine stones? And what is an "official" manuscript anyhow?

So with detection of five fallacies in a row, I would say your post was effectively refuted.

LOL. You are really hilarious.

 

[FredVB]

I don't see how the existence of the universe, makes a God self evident.
Since this is a Christian site, I will rely on your typical Christian descriptions of how this God goes about his business:
-He cares about all his creation
-Sends his son 2,000 years ago to save all mankind, when man has been on this earth, for about 200,000 years. Why wait so long?
-Making it absolute, that you must accept Jesus as God to gain any possibility of avoiding doom and having any chance of eternal life, while only allowing a small portion of the population, to be exposed to Jesus and putting the rest of the people, at a significant disadvantage and allowing 2/3 of the world's population, to be doomed according to typical Christian theology. Doesn't sound like a God that cares for all his creation.
-Furthermore, the NT, which is the driving force behind this theology, leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to historical credibility, IMO.

As one Christian here I feel qualified to answer with my perspective, that some other believers will also understand. Yahweh God cares for all, all are given opportunity for reconciliation with salvation, God is gracious showing evidence of God's presence and caring to those who want to see that, those did not miss out on that who lived before Christ came, but believers do not all believe that amounted to hundreds of thousands of years. I do not think belief that Jesus is God is essential in that, but it is the most logical, and recognition of Jesus being Lord is needed, and that he is savior, and in scripture it is only Yahweh who is Lord and Savior, and this works with understanding how Jesus and the heavenly Father really are One. No one is already doomed while all are getting opportunities.

 

[Crandaddy]

OK what evidence do you have for the faith?

Well, let's see... that's kind of a broad question. I think evidence can be either private or public. Private evidence would be subjective religious experience, and so it wouldn't be very useful in a debate. Public evidence, on the other hand, would be the sort of evidence that would be invoked in a theistic argument. As you're probably aware, there have been a good many arguments for the existence of God propounded over the centuries -- some of which I think are pretty good, and some I don't.


If I were to give adequate treatment to all of the major theistic arguments, explaining whether or not I think they're any good and why, I could probably write a book, but you can find a pretty good general rundown of a couple dozen (or so) theistic arguments here if you're interested. Also, if you're interested, you can find a formulation of a modal cosmological argument that I presented in this forum a few years ago here.

 

[talquin]

How do you define omnipotence and omniscience?

If God can do anything and knows everything, then he could do what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

Yeah, I'm sure He could. But would that make you love Him?

Since I can't love something which I don't believe to exist, the first step would be to get me to believe he exists. But he doesn't do that. So if he exists, then it means he either doesn't care if I believe he exists, he doesn't know what it would take to get me to believe he exists or he is incapable of doing what it would take to get me to believe he exists.

Possibly. But what if that's what it takes to get me to believe a god exists?

Again, what difference does it make if you believe He exists?

Is it not supposed to make a difference if humans believe God exists?

When, where and how has he shown that he cares?

Through Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah. I could go on and on. My own scriptures say:

O Salmán! The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being hath ever been, and will continue for ever to be, closed in the face of men. No man’s understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self. Whoso recognizeth them hath recognized God. Whoso hearkeneth to their call, hath hearkened to the Voice of God, and whoso testifieth to the truth of their Revelation, hath testified to the truth of God Himself. Whoso turneth away from them, hath turned away from God, and whoso disbelieveth in them, hath disbelieved in God. Every one of them is the Way of God that connecteth this world with the realms above, and the Standard of His Truth unto every one in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. They are the Manifestations of God amidst men, the evidences of His Truth, and the signs of His glory.

You may be touching on the how part. But I want locations and dates.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, let's see... that's kind of a broad question. I think evidence can be either private or public. Private evidence would be subjective religious experience, and so it wouldn't be very useful in a debate. Public evidence, on the other hand, would be the sort of evidence that would be invoked in a theistic argument. As you're probably aware, there have been a good many arguments for the existence of God propounded over the centuries -- some of which I think are pretty good, and some I don't.


If I were to give adequate treatment to all of the major theistic arguments, explaining whether or not I think they're any good and why, I could probably write a book, but you can find a pretty good general rundown of a couple dozen (or so) theistic arguments here if you're interested. Also, if you're interested, you can find a formulation of a modal cosmological argument that I presented in this forum a few years ago here.

If every single argument were unequivocally refuted, would you still continue to believe?

 

[Crandaddy]

If every single argument were unequivocally refuted, would you still continue to believe?

Not in those arguments. I suppose whether or not I continue to believe in Christianity would depend on the strength of the private evidence I have.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not in those arguments. I suppose whether or not I continue to believe in Christianity would depend on the strength of the private evidence I have.

Then in what sense is your belief based on arguments and evidence? Even if they were overturned, you would believe regardless.

 

[Crandaddy]

Then in what sense is your belief based on arguments and evidence? Even if they were overturned, you would believe regardless.

If I were presented with arguments that absolutely and unequivocally refuted Christianity, then I would cease to believe it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I were presented with arguments that absolutely and unequivocally refuted Christianity, then I would cease to believe it.

What if the arguments and purported evidence for Christianity were shown to be insufficient instead?

 

[Crandaddy]

What if the arguments and purported evidence for Christianity were shown to be insufficient instead?

That would work too. As I said, I think evidence can be public or private, but I think it's possible for the sum total of the two to come up insufficient.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That would work too. As I said, I think evidence can be public or private, but I think it's possible for the sum total of the two to come up insufficient.

That raises an interesting question about how much weight is assigned to this source of information. Perhaps a case would help to illustrate: The apologist William Lane Craig appears to have assigned the preponderance of epistemic weight to the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit," meaning that no amount of evidence would ever be sufficient to lead him to reconsider his beliefs. Even if his arguments are soundly defeated, he has an intrinsic "defeater-defeater" at his disposal, enabling him to ignore even the most compelling evidence if it points to an alternative theological conclusion. The arguments and purported evidence for Christianity he appeals to therefore contribute only negligibly to his belief; he could easily do without them.

 

[agua]

I don't see how the existence of the universe, makes a God self evident.

I accept this is the choice you've made , towards the evidence. Oh ETA I realised I didn't explain why I believe the Universe is evidence of a Creator. The order, majesty, beauty, symbiotic relationships, mathematical precision, and a large modern look at DNA being ordered and specific code; are some things that made me accept there is a Creator, and search for Him.

Since this is a Christian site, I will rely on your typical Christian descriptions of how this God goes about his business:

1.-He cares about all his creation
2.-Sends his son 2,000 years ago to save all mankind, when man has been on this earth, for about 200,000 years. Why wait so long?
3.-Making it absolute, that you must accept Jesus as God to gain any possibility of avoiding doom and having any chance of eternal life, while only allowing a small portion of the population, to be exposed to Jesus and putting the rest of the people, at a significant disadvantage and allowing 2/3 of the world's population, to be doomed according to typical Christian theology. Doesn't sound like a God that cares for all his creation.
4.-Furthermore, the NT, which is the driving force behind this theology, leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to historical credibility, IMO.

Cliff notes version, of why I call myself atheist towards the Christian God and agnostic towards a universal, non personal God.

Can you tell me what "Cliff notes" is ?

I'll address the points in dot form, I numbered them for clarity.

1. Agree, Yahweh loves his Creation.

2.The timing of Jesus first advent was to coincide with a specific period of testing etc imo. I'm not confident in why it was 2000 years ago but I don't see why the timing of His sacrifice and resurrection effects the purpose, or hinders humans in any way. Why does the timing matter, to you ?

3.This point is very theologically unsound and not true. There have been, and are, many humans who have come to know Yahweh without even hearing Jesus' name, or seeing a Bible. I think if you understand that the search for Yahweh can begin and progress outside of Christianity you may see why. For instance no pre Advent humans knew Jesus at all, and as you say many ( esp Eastern civilizations ) post advent humans will not have any contact with Christianity, either. If you like we can address the particular scriptures that seem to suggest what concerns you, because it's a valid concern that should be cleared up, and a very poorly understood concept even by most Christians.

4. Ok we've touched on this point before and I disagree.

I suggest that the typical characteristics of the Christian God, that you've presented, aren't representative of Yahweh; but I understand why you accept it does and I'm willing to address the particular scriptures in detail, if you're willing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I accept this is the choice you've made , towards the evidence. Oh ETA I realised I didn't explain why I believe the Universe is evidence of a Creator. The order, majesty, beauty, symbiotic relationships, mathematical precision, and a large modern look at DNA being ordered and specific code; are some things that made me accept there is a Creator, and search for Him.

Is it inconceivable that structure, order, and beauty could arise from natural processes?

 

[SpyderByte]

Is it inconceivable that structure, order, and beauty could arise from natural processes?

While beauty is subjective (very subjective at times lol) I can't say I've ever witnessed structure or order from a natural process. Can you point me to some? Some that isn't inherently destructive?

 

[agua]

Is it inconceivable that structure, order, and beauty could arise from natural processes?

I accept that you may think this yes. Once you accept that it is evidence of a Creator, and search for Him, you will find there is no other option.

So yes it's conceivable that these things can be seen as rising from natural processes , to the person who doesn't accept they require a Creator.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

While beauty is subjective (very subjective at times lol) I can't say I've ever witnessed structure or order from a natural process. Can you point me to some? Some that isn't inherently destructive?

A snow flake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiuaxPETk_k

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I accept that you may think this yes. Once you accept that it is evidence of a Creator, and search for Him, you will find there is no other option.

So I need to accept your conclusion, and then the evidence for your conclusion will magically make itself apparent?

So yes it's conceivable that these things can be seen as rising from natural processes , to the person who doesn't accept they require a Creator.

You haven't given me a reason to think that a Creator is necessary.