Losing my religion, where is the evidence for God

[Tom 1]

You absolutely can apply the just exists bit though.

No, not to the known universe. That is subject to change and therefore subject to then, now, not yet etc and so cannot be infinite - it has some starting point. For a changing thing to be infinite and without a cause is logically impossible. You can’t have ‘now’ without ‘then’, and a thing without ‘now’ and ‘then’ cannot change.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Ok I will take it slowly as you don’t seem to be getting my point.

There's no need for all that...if you can't grasp it, just say so.

What we see may not be all there is to the laws of nature. To a society never touched by our technologies, a transistor radio goes against the laws of nature, but once they're educated, it's perfecly natural.

Hope that helps.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Then God is not infinite as there are many verses where purportedly does many things in sequences and some of him changing his mind. How can he change his mind unless there is a before and after

 

[Tom 1]

Then God is not infinite as there are many verses where purportedly does many things in sequences and some of him changing his mind. How can he change his mind unless there is a before and after

Is that directed at me? As I said above, there are changes in being, which is one thing, and changes of mind, which are a function of God’s interaction with a timebound universe. When God interacts with us, he interacts with our reality as we experience it.

 

[Ross Woodward]

There's no need for all that...if you can't grasp it, just say so.

What we see may not be all there is to the laws of nature. To a society never touched by our technologies, a transistor radio goes against the laws of nature, but once they're educated, it's perfecly natural.

Hope that helps.

It’s you who are not grasping my point. My point is that we do not know what the laws of nature are at the point prior to what we can observe. You are virtually proving my point for me. If we’re accept your premise then you are saying we don’t even know them for what we can observe, in which case you cannot say nothing cannot come from nothing even now. You are expanding the area of uncertainty not reducing it.

I would say that the laws we see now are the best indstanding based on evidence, they are of course open to revision if new evidence comes to light that refutes them. But again we’d need evidence. What remains true is that we do not know what laws were active at the point when the current iteration of this universe began and that you accept that God is outside of them.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Is that directed at me? As I said above, there are changes in being, which is one thing, and changes of mind, which are a function of God’s interaction with a timebound universe. When God interacts with us, he interacts with our reality as we experience it.

When he changes his mind that is a change. And there are numerous verses where this occurs.

 

[ExTiff]

What is the point of my doing it? I’m not testing anything that is going to provide evidence, so it is a pointless exercise. Have you conducted a similar experiment for all other faiths? If not how can you tell me that the outcome you experienced is any evidence for the existence of God. If you you tell me that God will provide me with a falsifiable piece of information then great. But before I waste my time can you tell me what falsifiable information God provided you with when you did it....

Q. What is the point of doing any experiment?
A. To test a hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that testing your own reflexes will only reveal subjective results which therefore cannot be trusted? Do you have such little faith in your own capacity to discern 'truth' that you consider the pursuit of it "A pointless exercise", simply because that search takes you into an area of research that you find intellectually uncomfortable, merely because your data will be purely subjective?

I did not conduct the experiment to confirm or refute any particular 'faith'. I conducted it because I wanted to learn whether God existed or not before I was willing to commit myself to accepting my responsibilities toward Him. That is not about analyzing dry data, and trying to dissect a god in a microscope, but about the personal intent of your heart.

I still have no idea what 'faith' God adheres to. I rather doubt God has a 'faith' at all. He would not need one, being omnipotent, omniscient and utterly unique, unlike any other entity anywhere. I imagine some aspects of what Christianity has developed into might appeal to him though, wherever it beneficially affects the conduct of his creatures, if He actually has taken the trouble of becoming incarnate in the person of Jesus the Christ, and 'was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them', I don't think God is disapproving therefore of alternative 'beliefs', only of 'inhuman conduct', which under certain circumstances God is even willing to overlook. We are not intended to be 'Religious' we are designed to be 'Free, in the Power of The Holy Spirit, to love and live as God intends". It is human sin which prevents that and God who has provided the remedy. That has to be accepted before God will go further with your education.

You simply have to accept that you are dealing with your creator, not dissecting a lab rat or a proving Ohms Law. If you can't operate in the realm of The Spirit, you might as well give up right now. Yours is not a search for truth, it is a retreat from your responsibilities, (assuming that is, that you are being truthful about actually wanting to confirm your faith, rather than just looking for excuses for ditching it).

But before I waste my time can you tell me what falsifiable information God provided you with when you did it....

Is your time so precious to you then that you can't even take a day out for contemplation and heart searching prayer? Challenge God, but beware, ignorance is an acceptable excuse only as long as you remain actually ignorant.

God provided me with no 'falsifiable information'. You do not exchange contracts with God. That's not how faith works and God does not 'entrust us with the message of reconciliation' until we are unconditionally convinced we ourselves are reconciled with Him and He with us.

I was provided with sufficient evidence that God not only exists but rewards those who seek him and are willing to serve Him.

My guess is that you are not, yet.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Q. What is the point of doing any experiment?
A. To test a hypothesis.

Are you suggesting that testing your own reflexes will only reveal subjective results which therefore cannot be trusted? Do you have such little faith in your own capacity to discern 'truth' that you consider the pursuit of it "A pointless exercise", simply because that search takes you into an area of research that you find intellectually uncomfortable, merely because your data will be purely subjective?

I did not conduct the experiment to confirm or refute any particular 'faith'. I conducted it because I wanted to learn whether God existed or not before I was willing to commit myself to accepting my responsibilities toward Him. That is not about analyzing dry data, and trying to dissect a god in a microscope, but about the personal intent of your heart.

I still have no idea what 'faith' God adheres to. I rather doubt God has a 'faith' at all. He would not need one, being omnipotent, omniscient and utterly unique, unlike any other entity anywhere. I imagine some aspects of what Christianity has developed into might appeal to him though, wherever it beneficially affects the conduct of his creatures, if He actually has taken the trouble of becoming incarnate in the person of Jesus the Christ, and 'was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them', I don't think God is disapproving therefore of alternative 'beliefs', only of 'inhuman conduct', which under certain circumstances God is even willing to overlook. We are not intended to be 'Religious' we are designed to be 'Free, in the Power of The Holy Spirit, to love and live as God intends". It is human sin which prevents that and God who has provided the remedy. That has to be accepted before God will go further with your education.

You simply have to accept that you are dealing with your creator, not dissecting a lab rat or a proving Ohms Law. If you can't operate in the realm of The Spirit, you might as well give up right now. Yours is not a search for truth, it is a retreat from your responsibilities, (assuming that is, that you are being truthful about actually wanting to confirm your faith, rather than just looking for excuses for ditching it).



Is your time so precious to you then that you can't even take a day out for contemplation and heart searching prayer? Challenge God, but beware, ignorance is an acceptable excuse only as long as you remain actually ignorant.

God provided me with no 'falsifiable information'. You do not exchange contracts with God. That's not how faith works and God does not 'entrust us with the message of reconciliation' until we are unconditionally convinced we ourselves are reconciled with Him and He with us.

I was provided with sufficient evidence that God not only exists but rewards those who seek him and are willing to serve Him.

My guess is that you are not, yet.

Reflexes are measurable. Your experiment cannot provide evidence God exists.

 

[Tom 1]

When he changes his mind that is a change. And there are numerous verses where this occurs.

Yes, I’m not sure exactly what your point is here but to make one you’d need to consider what difference there might be between God changing his mind, in relation to things that happen in our time-bound existence, and a change in God’s being. For example, God is said to be just, in an absolute sense. That doesn’t mean that God enacts justice without thinking, rather it means that God is able to arrive at perfectly just decisions, because of who he is - his capability to consider things as they happen, in our timebound universe, from the outside, as it were, and arrive at conclusions. This is an expression of his being.

 

[Ross Woodward]

Yes, I’m not sure exactly what your point is here but to make one you’d need to consider what difference there might be between God changing his mind, in relation to things that happen in our time-bound existence, and a change in God’s being. For example, God is said to be just, in an absolute sense. That doesn’t mean that God enacts justice without thinking, rather it means that God is able to arrive at perfectly just decisions, because of who he is - his capability to consider things as they happen, in our timebound universe, from the outside, as it were, and arrive at conclusions. This is an expression of his being.

Thinking is a process. It requires a before and after having a thought. Ergo by your own rules and the “inerrant word of God” God cannot be infinite. You even just said he “arrives” at a decision.

 

[Tom 1]

Thinking is a process. It requires a before and after having a thought. Ergo by your own rules and the “inerrant word of God” God cannot be infinite. You even just said he “arrives” at a decision.

Yes, that’s half of what I said. According to the bible, God brought the universe to order, and created mankind within that order with ability to act, learn, make choices and so on. Those things take place within a process of time, i.e one moment followed by another in a uniform fashion. God chooses to interact with us within those confines - he, at least some of the time, experiences that real-time process with us. I think that’s clear enough. His thinking outside of that time is a function of who he is - and without a time, or events within time, for those thoughts to happen in relation to those are something other, and anything that can be said about that would be speculative.

 

[Tom 1]

Ergo by your own rules and the “inerrant word of God” God cannot be infinite.

Er, no. Can you explain what you mean in relation to all that I said in the post, rather than just part of it?

 

[Erik Nelson]

according to claims, God in heaven has been influencing earth for thousands of years

human scientists say, when they look, they don't find anything

whose fault is that?

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

not hard evidence either, but the door is always open...

in science, "never say never, always avoid always"

 

[Ross Woodward]

Yes, that’s half of what I said. According to the bible, God brought the universe to order, and created mankind within that order with ability to act, learn, make choices and so on. Those things take place within a process of time, i.e one moment followed by another in a uniform fashion. God chooses to interact with us within those confines - he, at least some of the time, experiences that real-time process with us. I think that’s clear enough. His thinking outside of that time is a function of who he is - and without a time, or events within time, for those thoughts to happen in relation to those are something other, and anything that can be said about that would be speculative.

Erm no. Oh he has thoughts that can change he has to think and to change. The bible clearly says he changed his mind. If he just is then he cannot change his mind.

In addition the bible says God worked for 5 days before we even existed to interact with. So it’s not about interacting with us.

When he interacts with angels and casts Satan down that’s outside of our universe and yet still he is doing things, changing things, taking actions.

So he’s clearly doing things doing things requires a before and after. You say that if something can change it cannot be timeless. So Hod cannot be timeless.

Obviously none of this is at all relevant to my actual request as as soon as we established that there is no evidence of what occurred before or elsewhere to the universe then my position of infinite possibilities and therefor inifinitesdimal probability of God was already established.

I’m still waiting for some evidence.

 

[Tom 1]

Erm no. Oh he has thoughts that can change he has to think and to change. The bible clearly says he changed his mind. If he just is then he cannot change his mind.

Why not? Can you explain in what way you see changes in God’s being as the same as God changing his mind in relation to something else? Thinking is a function of a person’s being - thinking in relation to something else is an expression of that being.

In addition the bible says God worked for 5 days before we even existed to interact with. So it’s not about interacting with us

What the bible says is that God brought order, in some kind of staged fashion. Although it’s usually inferred, it doesn’t say that he brought matter, or whatever you want to term it, into existence, just that he brought order to it. ‘Us’ is not the only feature of the universe.

When he interacts with angels and casts Satan down that’s outside of our universe and yet still he is doing things, changing things, taking actions.

Yes, those are also created beings, whatever is meant by Angels or Satan they are beings that at one time were not, and were brought into existence.

I’m still waiting for some evidence.

What evidence? What exactly are you thinking would be evidence of whether or not you can fit something into your worldview?

 

[Tom 1]

my position of infinite possibilities and therefor inifinitesdimal probability of God was already established

That seems like a bit of a cop-out to me, or information overload perhaps.

 

[xianghua]

The two are non sequitor. Because we can observe a car being built we can recognise that as something that may be designed and built.

so if i never seen how cars were made i cant conclude design if i will see a car? think about UFO. no one ever seen how such a thing were made. but we can detect design if we will find such a thing flying. right?

Have you ever seen anybody design and build as human eye?

we actually seen someone who made genomes of living creatures (that it not so different from building an eye):

Scientists Create First Synthetic Bacterial Genome -- Largest Chemically Defined Structure Synthesized In The Lab

so again: according to your criteria we should conclude design if we will see a genome.

 

[ExTiff]

Reflexes are measurable. Your experiment cannot provide evidence God exists.

How will you ever know if you are unwilling even to try? Am I wasting my time?

Don't answer that question, it is rhetorical.

 

[Sparagmos]

I know the reasons for that.

OF course, because you know better than everyone else.

 

[ExTiff]

Ross Woodward said: ↑
my position of infinite possibilities and therefor inifinitesdimal probability of God was already established

That seems like a bit of a cop-out to me, or information overload perhaps.

Hmmm. The incoherent misspelling of 'inifinitesdimal' is excusable if perhaps typed in frenzied haste to refute another's assertions and interpose one's own, but the logical inexactitude suggested by "infinite possibilities" while simultaneously claiming the "possibility" of the existence of a creator to be "infinitesimal" betrays a total lack of understanding of the terms "infinite" and "infinitesimal".

I might be wrong of course, but is there perhaps a logical inconsistency in his argument?