Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are thinking of laws as the description of the workings of the world. I am talking about the actual workings of the world.
What evidence?
If this would prove to be accurate, it still doesn't explain what force is behind that force because there would by necessity be one.
You have not shown that materialism is self-refuting.
We asking for evidence that God caused effects in the material world which is entirely within the material world. It is claimed that material creatures were created, so that makes God testable through materialism.
Well I disagree.
No, it makes the material world testable.
God is outside of that.
We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence.
You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to.
God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.
There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.
That is perhaps the lamest argument that christians make.
You are projecting. I have had several epiphanies over the last 10 years that have seriously altered my worldview. I kind of look forward to the next occurrence.Hmmm. Good point.
I doubt that, but nice try.
As mentioned by others, those are particularly bad examples of "immaterial".It seems from a cognizant point of view, one would be able to determine that there are material things i.g., you, me and my dog and there are immaterial things i.g., Gravity or wind.
To date all I have seen you do is build a straw man of others' worldviews.You have misunderstood my position. I have never claimed that inconsistencies in others' worldview is evidence for God. I said that one's worldview should not be self-refuting which materialism is.
You have just described your god as non-existent.This current discussion was not based on evidence in either position. However, demanding evidence for God in a materialistic model is irrational for a being that is outside of the material world.
So now you *do* have material evidence. Where is it?Jesus was the material evidence of God on earth. Unbelievers will deny that as well.
I am here to explore, but it would seem at this time you are expending your energies on the rationale and viewpoint of these straw-man "materialists" and the worldview that you think they have. The point of my question was to bring up your evasiveness in substantiating your own rationale and viewpoint.So it comes down to this Davian. Do you want to cut to the chase and claim that since you see no evidence of God that it is said and done and we discontinue our conversation since there would be absolutely no point, or do you wish to explore the rationale and viewpoint of someone that believes differently than you do? I am fine either way.
There are a lot of terms that need to be defined before we can have a meeting of the minds. For example, I would say that humans and chimps are separate species because there is no sharing of DNA between the populations. However, they are still linked by common ancestry and they are part of a larger nested hierarchy. Kingdoms are no different. You can put all of life into a single kind based on shared features.
If you think there are separate kinds that are not linked by common ancestry then we need someway of determine what these kinds are, and more to the point you need to explain why separately created kinds would necessarily fall into a twin nested hierarchy.
Given the nested hierarchy and shared features, the evidence is strongly on the side of all life sharing a common ancestor. What evidence do you have that kinds were created separately?
What scientific theory would this NOT apply to? There has to be an ultimate source of matter, so does this mean that we have to chuck scientific based chemistry? Do we need to know the ultimate origin of life in order to use fingerprints in forensic science?
I don't understand why creationists are so obsessed with ultimate causes with we are dealing with proximal effects. It is some kind of vapor lock or something. We don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand what is going on in the world around us.
A great quote. Another point is, we can all agree on what is meant by 'teapot', and what it might take to detect such an object in this context. This is not the case for gods....
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell
I am not expecting "absolute proof", but I would hope for more than citing a character in a book as evidence for another character in the same book....
No, it makes the material world testable. God is outside of that. We can use different "tests" that support His existence. We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence. You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.
How would one differentiate this "test" from an exercise in self-deception?There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.
So what term are we needing to have defined?
Well like I said the kinds could be what we call Kingdoms. It could be simply what we call species.
What do you mean by separately?
However, the materialist claims to be working on just the evidence. There is no evidence for a common ancestor.
So where you claim that everything you hold as true must be in the evidence, you self defeat your claim unless you can allow for an exclusion to your empirical standard.
You and I agree on the fact that we don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand it in a scientific model. However, when you claim that you are an Empiricist and that only what can be shown with material evidence is true, then you self defeat that with the common ancestor.
In the early stages currently, in clinical neuroscience.
We know that gravity is a force that acts between all mass in the universe. Electromagnetic force acts between electrically charged particles. Light, Electricity and magnetism are produced by this force. The strong force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms. Weak force causes Beta decay and various particles are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions. Obviously relationships and interactions are what happens. It is the forces that are the underbelly so to speak of them.I'm not sure if that makes sense. For some reason you are separating "the laws" from the relationships.
If logic is a description of relationships among propositions it can not be absolute. Do you believe that logic is absolute? IF not why?Again, I'm not sure where you get this idea from. What makes you think that if logic is a description of relationships among propositions that it would necessarily be subjective?
It would depend on the relationship rather than truth.Ummm, why?
No I'm not.You are claiming the concept 'relationship' is not possible in a material universe.
That is precisely how I see things as well. My questions were meant to guide us to this point.
So how is gravity not material?
If we do conclude that gravity is immaterial, then why can't you evidence God in the same way that we evidence gravity?
The current hypothesis would be gravitons.Well tell me how it is. What material does it consist of?
By what criteria did you determine that the universe was designed? What other universes did you compare it to?We do. We see evidence of a universe that is designed. We see that denied by those who do not believe in a Designer. No one disputes that the universe looks to be designed, but a lot of effort is given to "prove" that it is only apparent design. We see that the universe seems made for life. No one disputes that if any of the multitude of values or constants were different life could not have began, in fact, the universe itself would not have existed.
Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?We see a religion based on a man claiming to be God, and convincing people of that fact through the miracles He performed. After His death one would think that it all would have been proven false, but people were so convinced that Jesus rose from the grave that they too died. Does this prove God exists, no but it is supportive evidence to the claim.
It may be a very practical illusion.Gravity is only seen acting upon mass. We don't see "it". However, we have supportive evidence that it exists. At least we see a force we call gravity that we think exists. It could be that gravity doesn't exist. Erik Verlinde thinks it is an illusion.
Well tell me how it is. What material does it consist of?
We do. We see evidence of a universe that is designed.
We see that denied by those who do not believe in a Designer.
No one disputes that the universe looks to be designed, but a lot of effort is given to "prove" that it is only apparent design.
We see that the universe seems made for life.
We see a religion based on a man claiming to be God, and convincing people of that fact through the miracles He performed. After His death one would think that it all would have been proven false, but people were so convinced that Jesus rose from the grave that they too died. Does this prove God exists, no but it is supportive evidence to the claim.
Gravity is only seen acting upon mass. We don't see "it". However, we have supportive evidence that it exists. At least we see a force we call gravity that we think exists. It could be that gravity doesn't exist. Erik Verlinde thinks it is an illusion.
Current research is looking into gravitons as the particle that confers gravitational force.
No, I asked for evidence. What evidence do you have that it is material?
The current hypothesis would be gravitons.
By what criteria did you determine that the universe was designed? What other universes did you compare it to?
Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?
The effects can be measured detected and tested. Pretty much the same reasons we can say that the wind is material.
The effects are not the material it consists of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?