Why does God leave no tracks?

[bhsmte]

Let me give you 1 of the "universal constants" that means life or death in our universe.

A proton always has a mass of 1.672 x 10^-27
An electron always has a mass of 9.109 x 10^-31
The proton mass divided by the neutron mass = 1836.15267389
See on www.physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme

This ratio is an important scientific ratio and has its own scientific symbol (u) and is considered a miraculous constant because it has held to be true since the beginning of time and in all quadrants of the universe.

Science cannot explain how this ratio came into existence and they cannot explain how all protons and electrons ever existing can maintain this constant ratio.

Science does know this: this ratio is so perfectly fine tuned that if it were larger or smaller by just
1 in 10^37, there would be no life in the universe.

So how did this constant get set up in the first place and how after billions of years does a proton always have a mass of 1.672 x 10^-27 and an electron always have a mass of 9.109 x 10^-31. It is so important that this ratio stay just this precise or life does not exist. The only plausible explanation is ID with a full knowledge of the univeral constants and their importance for life. Chance doesn't have a chance with this kind of precision.

This is just 1, there are 39+ more. Then when you get done with that, I will tell you more wonderful scientific things about the earth that create tracks directly leading to ID.

You cant stand to say you dont know, so it must be god.

Does that sum it up?

 

[HitchSlap]

What's the word for a person who ignores evidence of ID, because they are so sure that there is no ID?

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I'm gonna' go with "reasonable."

 

[cloudyday2]

God is the system Administrator of life for all the universe, which means His part is to provide the souls with abundant and everlasting life without making them feel like (His) puppets/slaves (in His hands), i.e. just to provide them with abundant and everlasting lives making them feel free from any possible bondage/slavery (which also means to provide them with human forms of life), that is why He cannot afford to be visible/perceptible to them, because if we see Him, then we will see how all created things/beings (including the elementary particles and objects of the cosmos) are (so to speak) a kind of puppets in His hands, i.e. we can thus even find ourselves to be a kind of puppets in the hands of one universal giant (a giant of universal scale), in other words, we will see, feel and realize that we do not move any part of the universe, including of our own bodies, but that one universal giant moves everything, that is why there are no tracks of Him

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.",

1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Blessings

Thanks, @toLiJC , that seems like a fairly plausible explanation. But if people are ultimately sock puppets of God with an illusion of consciousness and free will, then it seems a little odd for God to have mercy on some socks and punish other socks - for behaving the way God's hands made them behave. Of course if a Christian believes that all socks will be treated with mercy, then there is no problem.

 

[toLiJC]

Thanks, @toLiJC , that seems like a fairly plausible explanation. But if people are ultimately sock puppets of God with an illusion of consciousness and free will, then it seems a little odd for God to have mercy on some socks and punish other socks - for behaving the way God's hands made them behave. Of course if a Christian believes that all socks will be treated with mercy, then there is no problem.

we just explained in short why God is invisible/imperceptible to the souls, the human and the other (be)souled beings, but as for the universal conduct, there is not only a true God, but also a negative "god" - the "Light" and the "darkness", which are two independent entities, neither did the true God ever created the "darkness", nor did the "darkness" ever created the true God, as it is also written that the "darkness" existed even before the beginning:

Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.",

1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

so there are two main puppeteers - the true God and the "darkness", which struggle for universal control - these things are not so simple to be explained, as the modern computer is not just a simple mechanism with a spring and a handle for winding the spring

Blessings

 

[cloudyday2]

we just explained in short why God is invisible/imperceptible to the souls, the human and the other (be)souled beings, but as for the universal conduct, there is not only a true God, but also a negative "god" - the "Light" and the "darkness", which are two independent entities, neither did the true God ever created the "darkness", nor did the "darkness" ever created the true God, as it is also written that the "darkness" existed even before the beginning:

Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.",

1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

so there are two main puppeteers - the true God and the "darkness", which struggle for universal control - these things are not so simple to be explained, as the modern computer is not just a simple mechanism with a spring and a handle for winding the spring

Blessings

So should we punish a sock because it happens to be filled by the hand of darkness instead of the hand of light? Or are the socks merely bags to trap bits of light and darkness so God can send them to their proper destination?

I like your ideas, but they don't sound like traditional Christian theology to me.

 

[dlamberth]

Everywhere I look, there God is.

 

[Davian]

All your high-sounding, scholarly words and all your time, and all your efforts are not getting us any closer to the truth about how the universe came into existence or how life got started on earth.

Perhaps, but they do reduce the chance of running down blind alleys and dead-ends.

I suspect that the reason "agenticity" came to be a word is because science can't tie down the source and maintenance of the universal constants. So some astute scientist said, since we can't figure it out, there must be a 3rd party agent that did the work. Smart scientist, but probably lost his job. Christians have just put a name to this agent, ID or God.

I do not suffer from Apophenia because I do not percieve meaningful patterns within random data. That is the problem that science must overcome. I percieve that the data that is available confirms that random chance happenings like a universe just happening by are impossible. It is because of impossible data that Agenticity was considered.

Sometimes I use big words I don't fully understand...

• Davian
• Apr 14, 2016

I do have confirmation bias, but so do you, we both suffer from this condition.

But one of us is using methodology that minimizes bias, and you are using religion.

You probably did not even google "universal constants, or fine tuned universe".

Mind-reading attempt fail.

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

You bypassed this study to go directly to a useless study of apophenia, agenticity, and confirmation bias.

Not useless, if it has explanatory power for why you find yourself unable to substantiate your claims.

What's the word for a person who ignores evidence of ID, because they are so sure that there is no ID?

In the absence of this evidence that you allude to being presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, may I suggest, rational.

 

[Davian]

Everywhere I look, there God is.

God who?

 

[Peter1000]

You cant stand to say you dont know, so it must be god.

Does that sum it up?

I could have written your response, before you did. You are not interested in evidence for ID. This universal constant that I presented to you is recognized by science as one of the most important, and miraculous ratios in the universe. But they are the ones that "don't know" how,when,where.

I will say, I don't know how ID did it. There you go. But I do know He did. It is the only obvious answer that an intelligent, 3rd party agent was contolling the elements.

Here is your challenge: go get a 20 sided die and roll it 32 times. Our goal is to roll the #6, 32 times in a row. So if you start, and roll a #19, then start over. If you start and roll a #6, then a #9, start over. But when you have rolled the #6, 32 straight times, then call me and I will listen to anything you have to say, intently. This would be the chance of (U) coming into existence by a random chance happening. Probability near 0, possiblility 0.

Until then, find ID. Instead of using your time to prove ID does not exist, try to prove that He does. Google all the other 40+ universal constants, it is interesting. They are tracks straight to ID. Kneel down and find ID. Do the kinds of things ID would want you to do and you will find Him to be a friend. Try a life believing in ID, I know it will be brighter than your life is now.

 

[bhsmte]

I could have written your response, before you did. You are not interested in evidence for ID. This universal constant that I presented to you is recognized by science as one of the most important, and miraculous ratios in the universe. But they are the ones that "don't know" how,when,where.

I will say, I don't know how ID did it. There you go. But I do know He did. It is the only obvious answer that an intelligent, 3rd party agent was contolling the elements.

Here is your challenge: go get a 20 sided die and roll it 32 times. Our goal is to roll the #6, 32 times in a row. So if you start, and roll a #19, then start over. If you start and roll a #6, then a #9, start over. But when you have rolled the #6, 32 straight times, then call me and I will listen to anything you have to say, intently. This would be the chance of (U) coming into existence by a random chance happening. Probability near 0, possiblility 0.

Until then, find ID. Instead of using your time to prove ID does not exist, try to prove that He does. Google all the other 40+ universal constants, it is interesting. They are tracks straight to ID. Kneel down and find ID. Do the kinds of things ID would want you to do and you will find Him to be a friend. Try a life believing in ID, I know it will be brighter than your life is now.

I am interested in all evidence.

Have you ever investigated the dover trial and the testimony of dr. Behe, who was the ID crews star witness. He got a bit embarrased.

So in regards to evidence for ID, lets start with this:

Provide the scientific definition of ID.

Provide the scientific falsifiable test, to determine if ID is present.

 

[Peter1000]

God who?

When you see rain, you see a direct track to ID, who organized the water cycle.

You want to know what the random chance happening of a completely perfect closed loop (life-necessary) water cycle, under the canopy of a perfect (life-necessary) atmospheric bubble, traveling in a perfect (life-necessary)orbit around the sun (at 67,000 mph and spinning on our perfectly (life-necessary) tilted axis at 1,040mph), in the most perfect, sweet, goldilock (life-necessary) position near the sun? You at least have to take the number of planets we know of in the universe, and divide that number into the number of planets that have the same (life-necessary) systems that we know of, which = 1. The number you will produce is so near to 0, that it makes the possiblity 0 for a random chance happening. Science has no alternative than random chance natural happening. In this case it is 0.

You ask God who? The answer is ID. Go find Him, use all your energy and intelligence to prove He exists, in stead of the opposite. I promise, your life will be brighter.

 

[Peter1000]

what you tell me here is nothing new to me

Blessings

That's good. So is your question, why does God seem unseeable and unapproachable?

 

[HitchSlap]

When you see rain, you see a direct track to ID, who organized the water cycle.

You want to know what the random chance happening of a completely perfect closed loop (life-necessary) water cycle, under the canopy of a perfect (life-necessary) atmospheric bubble, traveling in a perfect (life-necessary)orbit around the sun (at 67,000 mph and spinning on our perfectly (life-necessary) tilted axis at 1,040mph), in the most perfect, sweet, goldilock (life-necessary) position near the sun? You at least have to take the number of planets we know of in the universe, and divide that number into the number of planets that have the same (life-necessary) systems that we know of, which = 1. The number you will produce is so near to 0, that it makes the possiblity 0 for a random chance happening. Science has no alternative than random chance natural happening. In this case it is 0.

You ask God who? The answer is ID. Go find Him, use all your energy and intelligence to prove He exists, in stead of the opposite. I promise, your life will be brighter.

 

[HitchSlap]

Everywhere I look, there God is.

No matter where you go, there you are.

 

[Peter1000]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I'm gonna' go with "reasonable."

You really think it is "reasonable" to ignore evidence of ID. If you ignore evidence this way, I hope you are never chosen on a jury to make a life and death decision.

Besides, using the word "reasonable" means in this case:
It is "reasonable" to ignore evidence of ID, because I know for sure that ID does not exist.

Doesn't sound "reasonable" to me.

Doesn't sound like what a "reasonable" person would think. Think about it.

 

[toLiJC]

So should we punish a sock because it happens to be filled by the hand of darkness instead of the hand of light? Or are the socks merely bags to trap bits of light and darkness so God can send them to their proper destination?

I like your ideas, but they don't sound like traditional Christian theology to me.

first, God has been in a state of somewhat of half-sleep since the seventh day, and therefore He has not been fully able to save all the souls of the universe, which is why there were many unsaved people, for this reason He gave the fourth commandment centuries after the seventh day (Exodus 20:8-11), according to which the spiritual servants should work for overall salvation in Him while He is still in that state (of half-sleep), and that is why it was said "do not judge your neighbor"(Matthew 7), "don't cause harm/affliction to your neghbor"(Romans 13:8-10), etc., but "overcome evil with good"(Romans 12:21), etc.

Blessings

 

[HitchSlap]

You really think it is "reasonable" to ignore evidence of ID. If you ignore evidence this way, I hope you are never chosen on a jury to make a life and death decision.

Besides, using the word "reasonable" means in this case:
It is "reasonable" to ignore evidence of ID, because I know for sure that ID does not exist.

Doesn't sound "reasonable" to me.

Doesn't sound like what a "reasonable" person would think. Think about it.

I'm perfectly aware of the ID / cdesign proponentsists movement, and their failed attempts to insert their doctrines into education.

Real science doesn't start with the answer, but draws the most parsimonious conclusion from the data.

ID has no other utilization other than to say "goddidit," which in no way adds to our collective understanding of how the world works. Not one university uses ID, and the "DI" hasn't discovered one thing since it's inception. ID is a big turd in the pool of science.

There's a reason arguments from big numbers and incredulity only work on the religious, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?

 

[toLiJC]

That's good. So is your question, why does God seem unseeable and unapproachable?

and how can you explain the following biblical verses:

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.",

1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

?!

Blessings

 

[Peter1000]

Perhaps, but they do reduce the chance of running down blind alleys and dead-ends.

Sometimes I use big words I don't fully understand...

• Davian
• Apr 14, 2016

But one of us is using methodology that minimizes bias, and you are using religion.

Mind-reading attempt fail.

Another Unsuccessful Test

• Davian
• Feb 27, 2016

Not useless, if it has explanatory power for why you find yourself unable to substantiate your claims.

In the absence of this evidence that you allude to being presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, may I suggest, rational.

Davian says:
But one of us is using methodology that minimizes bias, and you are using religion.

Methodology? Are you serious. Just what method are you using to prove that just by chance happenstance the universe flew into existence?

Do you have any idea how many theories there are today that try to explain this event? A theory is scientific language for "guess". There is no methodology involved. Just guessing. For instance, Stephen Hawking, the worlds premier godless scientist has conceeded that the odds are too small for a random chance happening to explain the universe. So in his brilliance, he has taken a leading role in the theory of "infinite multiverses". He believes that this theory of the infinite multiverses solves the chance problem, because if there are infinite multiverses, at least 1 of them will have just the right universal constants to bring the universe into existence and maintain it along with bringing life. Our universe, he says is just one of an ifinite number that has the right equation for life.

Of course, do your scientific methodolgy to find out if this theory holds water. It is the same with the big bang theory, the universe has existed for trillions of years theory, etc,etc,etc... The methodology involved in proving these theories amounts to a big ole laughing guess. But it brings money for research and books, and it is the only line of hope that somehow, somewhere, we will find a godless answer. So it is good, good business to come up with a different theory. Methodology, well we are working on that.

Besides the idea of ID is not necessarily religious. An ID or ID's made it happen. There is enough evidence that this is true. My methodology is at least as good as any scientific methodology you could produce.

Now, let's talk about your religion. I'm positive you would deny you are religious, am I right. Well you are. Your religion is non-religion. You are using your religion even more than I am using mine. You are at least as fervent about godless, non-religion, as I am about my God based religion. Your religion is growing fast these days, because my religion is not serious enough about providing an alternative to scientific methodology (random chance happening). But nonetheless don't deny you are a religious man.

Davian:
Not useless, if it has explanatory power for why you find yourself unable to substantiate your claims

I have substantiated mine, or given you what you need to substantiate mine.

What have you done to substantiate, through the scientific methodology, how the universe got started and how life on earth started from non-living matter? One idea is the big bang theory. It says that a small microscopic ball of energy suddenly burst forth and it contained all the elements in the universe.
Well, explain the methodology that science used to prove that guess.

Davian:
In the absence of this evidence that you allude to being presented in a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, may I suggest, rational.[/QUOTE]

If my evidence was absent, then you could use the word "rational", but you have not looked at the evidence nor given it any consideration. So this is what your word equates to:
It is "rational" to ignore evidence of the ID, because I know for sure that ID does not exist.

Do you have a better word that might hightlight your real self.

 

[Peter1000]

and how can you explain the following biblical verses:

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.",

1 John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

?!

Blessings

John 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.