Why does God leave no tracks?

[Hieronymus]

o.k. how about: "if God exists, then where are the tracks?".

God's tracks are in creation (universe and life) in culture, religion and in history (written and archaeology).

I'm getting a little annoyed by people repeatedly telling me that my questions are not sincere.

Well, if you start off with a conclusion...

Ironically, this seems to always happen when my questions are the most sincere. I suspect you and others are stereotyping my personality and beliefs because my account is labeled "atheist".

Who put that label there then?

 

[cloudyday2]

God's tracks are in creation (universe and life) in culture, religion and in history (written and archaeology).Well, if you start off with a conclusion...Who put that label there then?

Are those the tracks of Yahweh or Baal or Zeus or who?

Regarding the "atheist" label, I switched my label from "seeker" to "atheist" about two years ago, because I was pleased to have made some psychological progress in overcoming psychosis. Shortly thereafter, I began to realize that the psychosis was not quite gone, and I still had some confusion at times. I did not have the confidence in atheism that I had hoped to have, so the label was not a good fit. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way to change the labels after the forum upgraded their interface. I have noticed a lot more animosity and suspicion of my motives from Christian members after I labeled as "atheist". I also have noticed a preference for "agnostic" over "atheist" that reflects a fundamental ignorance of the beliefs of people who label themselves as atheists. You should join an atheist forum, and get to know some real atheists in their natural environment. They are all types of people. Again, I don't consider myself to be a model atheist, but I'm not ashamed to call myself one. What I object to is being stereotyped in a negative way because of this label.

 

[cloudyday2]

^ While I'm on a rant...
When my account was labeled as "seeker", I could speak freely. After I changed the label to "atheist", I seem to keep getting into trouble for rules violations. I'm same old person with the same old thoughts behind this "atheist" label.

 

[Davian]

Speculation. I asked for actual data. How many star/planet systems did you actually check?

Davian says:
Speculation. I asked for actual data. How many star/planet systems did you actually check?

You tell how many there are, and I will get to work checking them all out. But in the mean time, I think "trillions X trillions" will be sufficient data for our discussion.

You haven't checked any other planets? Why don't you get started already?

Davian:
<citation missing>

Whenever you use "citation missing" it means you are using an unclever way to avoid a meaningful response.
In this case, I have said that science has no idea how earth made its way to settle in it's position by the sun and it's perfect orbit around the sun. Because science has no factual data about it, but just theories, their only position can be: it happened by natural chance. Now if you would like to respond to that statement do so, if not, say "citation missing". I don't really care if you have a source citation or not, it is what you think that is important to me.

No, <citation missing> is an unclever way to simply state that you have failed to provide a proper citation for the claim you have made, be it a scientific paper, or documented theory, or the equivalent scientific reference.

Davian:
That is not what I asked. What does your god use for a brain, as in, what is it made of, where is it?

I really thought you would get it, when I said His brain is like our brain, (made out of the same stuff our brain is made of) only much more advanced. I know, speculation and no citation, it is what I believe. God is a man, although a highly advanced man, a man nontheless, with a brain like yours, only far more advanced.

Speculation. I am not interested.

Davian:
Classic attempt to shirk your burden of evidence.

I have stated that the fossil record backs me up on no intermediate animals going from no central nervous system animals to fully functional central nervous system animals.
You are the one that is responding and your response again is insufficient for a continuing discussion. I quoted the fossil record. Go to the fossil record and prove me wrong. If not, let's not be siting, "shirking ones burden of evidence", to get away from the problem of responding.

<citation missing>

Davian:
Does he talk to you? Do you hear voices?

Now here we have "classic scientific mud slinging and mocking". I say men in this day have seen God and have received information from him, and you resort to "do you hear voices". Please update your mockery.

No, I think the mockery was quite appropriate for the nonsense you posted.

Davian:
How we test your hypothesis? How do you show it to be there?

How do we test the hypothesis of non-living matter turning into a living cell?
You can't, believe me science has tried everything for centuries. God told a man in this time that spirit is "refined matter". That's it. You either have faith that that is correct or you don't. Can't prove it one way or the other. But I believe that dark matter is nothing more than spirit matter. No citation.

Then I have no interest in it.

Davian:
<citation missing>

This citation missing had to do with the mysterious but constant "constants of the universe". Again science is besides itself trying to figure out what caused these constants to be and why are they so constant? Google "constants" and read up, it is a pure fingerprint to an intelligent being that is knowledgeable enough to organize and boot up the constants that produce life for this planet.

<citation missing>

Davian:
ID is an argument against biblical-type gods.

Please, I wasn't born a minute ago. Intelligent Design says that an intelligent designer made it happen. How does that go against a biblical God, who designed the universe?

"ID" is the implication that everything had to be 'just right' for everything to be as we observe it to be today. If the constants, set back at the instantiation of the cosmos (also with the presumption that they could be set to something else) had not been constant, we would not be here. Why would a biblical-type god care of such details? As in the Genesis story, he would just make the world miracle-by-miracle, constants be damned.

The problem for this designer is: how do I help my children know about My design?

He could make the world look designed. I see no such evidence for this.

It is Genesis that is the problem. God could have written his creation process in a very large technical manual, but believe me, this would have caused more problems than the 4 pages of Genesis. The Designer chose to gives us a glimpse, not a technical manual. The glimpse (Genesis) is only to get our faith going.

If that were the intent, why is it so wrong, and inconsistent?

It is not the whole answer. It is not even 1/1000 the answer.

And what we do get does not comport with observations of reality.

I have faith, and at the moment you do not.

By "faith" in this context, you appear to mean "gullibility".

That is the only difference between you and I.

Ok.

 

[Davian]

Actually, God has left a HUGE Track, it is called the universe.

Like your god is the only one that takes credit for that.

Plus all the good things that He has done thru His people on the earth. Almost everything good about western civilization comes from Christianity. Modern science, modern hospitals, modern universities, ending slavery and etc.

That is evidence for people and religions. The good work done by them does not require the existence of actual gods.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Please demonstrate, that the god you believe in, is the cause of anything.

I just did using the law of causality and the BB theory.

 

[Hieronymus]

Are those the tracks of Yahweh or Baal or Zeus or who?

Your question was about God the Creator.
The Bible is the main 'track left by God', where He claims He is YHWH Elohim, the God of Abraham, Jesus Christ, the Father, etcetera.

Regarding the "atheist" label ........... What I object to is being stereotyped in a negative way because of this label.

I would contact staff about that if i were you.
You're apparently an agnostic or seeker.
The term "atheist" means you believe God does not exist, which is obviously a negative statement when on a Christian Forum, and comes with certain 'apologetics', like compulsive denial (way beyond skepticism).
It's a statement of disbelief.

 

[cloudyday2]

You're apparently an agnostic or seeker.
The term "atheist" means you believe God does not exist, which is obviously a negative statement when on a Christian Forum, and comes with certain 'apologetics', like compulsive denial (way beyond skepticism).
It's a statement of disbelief.

No, that's one of the things I'm griping about. What you are describing as "atheist" is called a "gnostic atheist" - an atheist who claims to know that there are not gods. The gnostic atheists are a tiny minority of the atheist community - like maybe 1%. Most atheists will allow that gods might exist, but they are unconvinced personally by theist claims.

Imagine if an atheist told somebody that they are not a Christian because they are a Presbyterian based on a one sentence definition from some dictionary. It would be pretty annoying to the Presbyterian. I don't know how many times Christians on various forums have told me that I'm not an atheist because I don't claim to know for certain. All I can suggest is to humble yourselves and go to an atheist forum to learn what these terms actually mean.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here, @Hieronymus , is a link to a page that explains the meanings of atheist and agnostic. Also, I don't mean to be singling you out as if you were the poster child of Christian ignorance on this issue. I think these terms have evolved over time as the atheist community has grown from an oppressed minority of hard-core idealists to a more normal community representing people of all intellectual and educational backgrounds.

People sometimes say stuff like, “I’m an agnostic” when the other person thinks they’re closer to a weak atheist. Alternatively people call themselves atheists while others think they’re agnostics. Then people can get accused of lying when they didn’t intend to deceive anyone. Below are examples of different use of atheist and agnostic:- Richard Dawkins argues that there almost certainly is no god and is considered an atheist. Bertrand Russell also believed that god is very unlikely but called himself an agnostic at least part of the time, [1] .

People generally hate it if they get called liars despite trying to be honest. So at the very least we should take care to remember that other people may use these two words with a different meaning from the meaning we assume.

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, you have some good points there.
But what is a person that believes God does NOT exist?
It's an atheist.
Because it's still a belief, there's an agnostic element to it, but i.m.o. that's always the case, for Christians too.

Only revelation can eliminate the agnostic aspect i.m.o.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, you have some good points there.
But what is a person that believes God does NOT exist?
It's an atheist.
Because it's still a belief, there's an agnostic element to it, but i.m.o. that's always the case, for Christians too.

Only revelation can eliminate the agnostic aspect i.m.o.

That's true that nobody knows for certain about anything. To further complicate things, the definition of "agnostic" given by Huxley (who coined the term) is more of a nit-picky, philosophical objection to any claims of knowledge (positive or negative) regarding gods. Huxley was not talking about being personally uncertain or undecided; he was talking about personally knowing that nothing can be known on the issue.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Thomas_Henry_Huxley

 

[bhsmte]

I just did using the law of causality and the BB theory.

No you didnt.

 

[Peter1000]

You can certainly believe that, just let us know, when you can demonstrate it, with something other than your opinion.

Google "universal constants". These are the constants that drive the universe at the sub-particle level. They are impressive and unanswerable by science. IOW science acknowledges that they exist and if they don't, there is no life, but they have no idea how they came into existence and what makes them continue to exist.

Yes, they are demonstratable, just google and be impressed. They make a track directly to an intelligent being, with the knowledge to boot up such systems and sustain them for billions of years.

 

[Peter1000]

You haven't checked any other planets? Why don't you get started already?

No, <citation missing> is an unclever way to simply state that you have failed to provide a proper citation for the claim you have made, be it a scientific paper, or documented theory, or the equivalent scientific reference.

Speculation. I am not interested.

<citation missing>

No, I think the mockery was quite appropriate for the nonsense you posted.

Then I have no interest in it.

<citation missing>

"ID" is the implication that everything had to be 'just right' for everything to be as we observe it to be today. If the constants, set back at the instantiation of the cosmos (also with the presumption that they could be set to something else) had not been constant, we would not be here. Why would a biblical-type god care of such details? As in the Genesis story, he would just make the world miracle-by-miracle, constants be damned.

He could make the world look designed. I see no such evidence for this.

If that were the intent, why is it so wrong, and inconsistent?

And what we do get does not comport with observations of reality.

By "faith" in this context, you appear to mean "gullibility".

Ok.

Davian says:
"ID" is the implication that everything had to be 'just right' for everything to be as we observe it to be today. If the constants, set back at the instantiation of the cosmos (also with the presumption that they could be set to something else) had not been constant, we would not be here. Why would a biblical-type god care of such details? As in the Genesis story, he would just make the world miracle-by-miracle, constants be damned.

God is a superior, intellgent master of the sub-atomic world. He has to be. He has to do His work within the confines that the constants demand. The constants are set in the precise ratio, because if not there will not be life.

So God knows this, so He sets the constants in order to produce life. If He doesn't set it properly, there is no life.

He is God because He knows. Not because He can perform a miracle. He is omniscience, which means He knows all that needs to be done to organize and boot up the systems that cause universes to come into existence and solar systems to flourish and earths to be formed with abundant life.

That's why I say, the probability that 40 constants came into existence by chance and at just the right ratio to produce life is so low that the possibility is 0. So the "constants" are a major track directly to ID.

 

[bhsmte]

Google "universal constants". These are the constants that drive the universe at the sub-particle level. They are impressive and unanswerable by science. IOW science acknowledges that they exist and if they don't, there is no life, but they have no idea how they came into existence and what makes them continue to exist.

Yes, they are demonstratable, just google and be impressed. They make a track directly to an intelligent being, with the knowledge to boot up such systems and sustain them for billions of years.

Your claim so you google.

Then, tie it all back, directly to a god.

 

[Davian]

God is a superior, intellgent master of the sub-atomic world.

Does it say that exact thing in your Bible?

He has to be. He has to do His work within the confines that the constants demand. The constants are set in the precise ratio, because if not there will not be life.

Or, not life as we know it.

So God knows this, so He sets the constants in order to produce life. If He doesn't set it properly, there is no life.

A weak god then, unable to rise above physics of the universe as we observe them to be.

He is God because He knows. Not because He can perform a miracle.

ID is anti-miracle. If you can do miracles, why do you need such a careful design?

He is omniscience, which means He knows all that needs to be done to organize and boot up the systems that cause universes to come into existence and solar systems to flourish and earths to be formed with abundant life.

Yet we do not observe life to be abundant. We only see it to exist here, in a thin veneer on one planet within our star system.

That's why I say, the probability that 40 constants came into existence by chance

I do not know what you mean by "chance" in this context. We have no way of knowing how many possibilities - if any - of how the universe could be existed.

and at just the right ratio to produce life is so low that the possibility is 0.

Yet you still fail to provide the math to support this assertion.

So the "constants" are a major track directly to ID.

Show this in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No you didnt.

Explain how I didn't. Scientists use data (the evidence for the BB) and logic everyday to come to conclusions about causes. Explain how I didn't do what scientists do everyday.

 

[bhsmte]

Explain how I didn't. Scientists use data (the evidence for the BB) and logic everyday to come to conclusions about causes. Explain how I didn't do what scientists do everyday.

Comparing yourself to a scientist?

Ok, what is your falsifiable test, to determine whether god was the cause of the universe?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As far as the universe is concerned, according to the BB theory and the law of causality, the universe needs a Cause that exists "outside" the universe. And there exists in the universe purposes, such as eyes for seeing and ears for hearing. Since we know that purposes only come from intelligent personal minds, then the Cause of the universe must be personal and intelligent, just as God is defined. And also the universe is a diversity within a unity, which is also a basic characteristic of the Triune Christian God, showing that that is His "fingerprint" on His creation of this universe.

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

 

[Peter1000]

Your claim so you google.

Then, tie it all back, directly to a god.

Interesting, I claim and tell you where you can go to get information, and you respond by saying, it is your claim, you google. Well apparently we are at an impass. I have already googled and came to a conclusion. You will not google, so you will have to reamain in the dark. Good luck with that.

It boils down to this. How does the godless explain the universe? Their only expanation is that it happened naturally by a random chance happening. There are other explanations that are stupid, like there are trillions x trillions of universes and 1 of them is ours and that random chance happening, happened. Again, good luck with presenting scientific evidence for that theory.

The probability of our universe and solar system and earth, (with all the constants necessary for life), coming into existence by a random chance happening is so near zero, that the possibility of it happening that way is zero. That is all you have to prove there is no God. Random chance. Tell me if you have more.

I want you to go buy a 20 sided die, and roll it 34 times. When you roll the number 16, 34 times in a row, then come back to me and I will listen to you intently.

What I have is an intelligent, advanced, holy being. This Person has the knowledge to line up the constants in just the right way to boot up a universe, solar system and and earth teeming with life.

It takes a lot less faith to believe in ID than it does to believe in a 20 sided die and rolling 16, 34 times in a row. The real problem is that an ID requires things of us, things that seen to be controlling, and for some people that is untollerable. They would rather lose everything and not believe in ID rather than conform to the principles He requires. They cannot see that the principles he requires will lead them to the highest happiness that exists, but they must conform. It's kind of like conforming to the traffic laws. If you choose not to, you could be severly injured, or severly injure someone else, and you could be killed, or sent to prison. How happy are those alternatives. If you conform, your life is different and happier and at least has the possibility to be full of joy.

You make the choice.