PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[Motherofkittens]

Evidence of intelligent manufacture; refined materials, tool marks, etc. Really, Xianghua, we've been over this with you many times.

I've been a lurker and I have seen you and others say the same thing but it is like he isn't reading any of the posts because he asks the same questions over and over and over again. I actually laugh because it is so ridiculous. I understand being ignorant and denying evolution but when he and other creationists are corrected or told something like this or say "evolution is just a theory" or "it doesn't add new information" or "so a monkey gave birth to a human." or "where are the half cat half ant?" etc., it isn't simply ignorance anymore. Unless they really aren't reading any of the replies which is quite possible.

If you believe in God It doesn't lessen him that lighting and snowflakes and volcanos and birth and everything we know of in nature is natural so evolution shouldn't have any religious people bothered and indeed most aren't.

 

[Motherofkittens]

It's called the Tower of Babel incident.

Technology was advancing faster than normal (due to our sin nature), and it was starting to surpass the mores of the time; getting to the point where God had to do something, lest technology outclass their ability to handle it.

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
It is because God hid easter eggs (resources) in the earth, that wouldn't be discovered until the proper time.

With the confusion that resulted from the incident, technology suffered a severe setback; and actually got back on God's timetable.

Later on, Aristotle would come along with junk science and stunt its growth for two thousand years.

Thanks for the answer but that makes me wonder why God doesn't want us to have advanced technology?

 

[Speedwell]

I've been a lurker and I have seen you and others say the same thing but it is like he isn't reading any of the posts because he asks the same questions over and over and over again. I actually laugh because it is so ridiculous. I understand being ignorant and denying evolution but when he and other creationists are corrected or told something like this or say "evolution is just a theory" or "it doesn't add new information" or "so a monkey gave birth to a human." or "where are the half cat half ant?" etc., it isn't simply ignorance anymore. Unless they really aren't reading any of the replies which is quite possible.

If you believe in God It doesn't lessen him that lighting and snowflakes and volcanos and birth and everything we know of in nature is natural so evolution shouldn't have any religious people bothered and indeed most aren't.

People who are trying to "prove" God using science or logic generally have a political agenda. They want to be able to compel belief, or at least acquiescence.

 

[Speedwell]

Could you clarify? This sounds a lot like confirmation bias.

All gods, including mine, are to a large extent the "god in the mirror."

 

[Tinker Grey]

All gods, including mine, are to a large extent the "god in the mirror."

I don't disagree.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the answer but that makes me wonder why God doesn't want us to have advanced technology?

I didn't say that.

I said He doesn't want us to have advanced technology until the time is right.

Imagine the Israelites trying to go home to their Promised Land and facing nuclear missiles at Jericho!

Of course, I'm being facetious here, but I hope you get the point.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I didn't say that.

I said He doesn't want us to have advanced technology until the time is right.

Imagine the Israelites trying to go home to their Promised Land and facing nuclear missiles at Jericho!

Of course, I'm being facetious here, but I hope you get the point.

I know. Sorry I was gonna edit in "ahead of schedule" but tablet wasn't working. Why is it ok to have nukes now?

 

[AV1611VET]

I know. Sorry I was gonna edit in "ahead of schedule" but tablet wasn't working.

Ain't no thang!

Welcome to CF, by the way!

How do you like it, so far?

Why is it ok to have nukes now?

LOL! Got me on that one!

 

[Radrook]

so if this motor above had a self replicating system and made from organic components like a wood, you will not conclude design in this case?

Design is anathema and isn't admitted in their scheme of things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if this motor above had a self replicating system and made from organic components like a wood, you will not conclude design in this case?

Then it wouldn't be like the motor above.

What if the Eiffel Tower would actually be a giant flower made from organic components?
Well, then it would be a flower and not a tower. Derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design is anathema and isn't admitted in their scheme of things.

You mean that "design" isn't just assumed by us.

 

[Radrook]

You mean that "design" isn't just assumed by us.

No, I mean that the very mention of any indication of design automatically initiates selective vision and refusals to remain logically consent.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I mean that the very mention of any indication of design automatically initiates selective vision and refusals to remain logically consent.

Nope. We just disagree on what exactly indicates design.

In fact, the very "criteria" that are posted by "design proponents" to conclude design, actually don't make it possible at all to properly distinguish between an undesigned and a designed object.

There have been threads on here geared specifically towards ID proponents to come up with a proper definition as well as methodology on how to detect design. Not a single one has ever provided or shared such a methodology.

You are welcome to try, right here, right now, though.

 

[Radrook]

Nope. We just disagree on what exactly indicates design.

In fact, the very "criteria" that are posted by "design proponents" to conclude design, actually don't make it possible at all to properly distinguish between an undesigned and a designed object.

There have been threads on here geared specifically towards ID proponents to come up with a proper definition as well as methodology on how to detect design. Not a single one has ever provided or shared such a methodology.

You are welcome to try, right here, right now, though.

I am welcomed to bang my head against any brick wall of my choice as well but would decline.
Thanks but no thanks!

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am welcomed to bang my head against any brick wall of my choice as well but would decline.
Thanks but no thanks!

Colour me unsurprised.

 

[Speedwell]

Colour me unsurprised.

In all fairness, he did put in quite an effort a few months ago and made no headway at all, even with some of us who believe in a creator God. I see no shame in his not wanting to try again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In all fairness, he did put in quite an effort a few months ago and made no headway at all, even with some of us who believe in a creator God. I see no shame in his not wanting to try again.

I'm well aware of that. ;-)

 

[Radrook]

Colour me unsurprised.

I wasn't attempting to surprise you.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Ain't no thang!

Welcome to CF, by the way!

How do you like it, so far?LOL! Got me on that one!

Thanks. It is nice.

 

[dmmesdale]

Nope. We just disagree on what exactly indicates design.

Robert Sanders' Review of Signature in the Cell is Lacking Objectivity and Understanding | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

• Saunders: (2) “Specified Information” is a bogus concept, and one which Meyer never actually defines…This quite clearly illustrates the flaw in Meyer’s reasoning. I don’t believe that linguistic information or computer code are directly analogous to biological information.

It is amazing how transparently self-contradictory this is. In his objection (1) Saunders claims that there are plenty of chemical and biological mechanisms which increase biological information and then in (2) he claims that the concept of “specified biological information” is a non-existent concept! In fact, Meyer spends many pages in the book explaining in detail the nature of “information” and the concept of “specified information.” (Take a look at the index under “specified information.”) It is even more amazing in light of the fact that other Origin of Life researchers understand quite clearly what “specified information” is while Saunders claims to be totally baffled by the concept. Dawkins, in River Out of Eden: “Genes themselves…are living strings of pure digital information…the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like…DNA messages are pure digital code.” Dr. Paul Davies: “In a living organism we see the power of software, or information processing, refined to an incredible degree…the problem of origin of life reduces to one of understanding how encoded software emerged spontaneously from hardware…how did nature go digital?” Bill Gates: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Biophysicist Manfred Eigen: “Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information.” Dr. Hubert Yockey: “Genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found…in modern communication and computer codes.” In short, all Origin of Life researchers understand that the simplest living cell is packed with enormous amounts of specified information and science is at present clueless as to how it originated.