Why does God leave no tracks?

[toLiJC]

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

and then how can you explain this:

1 John 3:6 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.",

1 John 4:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"

?!

Blessings

 

[Peter1000]

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?

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

I too am aware of ID proponents trying to bring ID into the educational discussion. With all your heart, mind, might, and will you fought like lions, and pulled every trick in the book to keep it out. For what reason?

1) If ID were given an educational process, most "reasonable" students would side with ID, not with 0 chance random happening. So the fight was over keeping scientific guesses on top of the heap, regardless of any thing else.
2) If ID were given an educational process, revenue from scientific books would plummet, making it less attractive for young hungry scientific theorists to publish.
3) If students chose ID at the high school level, the multi universe and evolutionary theories would diminish so rapidly as to astonish the world. So not one word of ID is acceptable, or it's over.
4) There are many other reasons that I have not got time to mention.

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

Science, because of the pressure to meet the godless status quo and to keep the revenue rolling, and to keep their jobs, has to publish what science wants published. Anything that disproves ID or proves that ID is not necessary is the agenda. So if the data doesn't exactly add up for the agenda, then it is either discarded on the heap of good data for ID, or the tests are run over and over until the tiniest positive data is recovered in order to announce against ID.

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

Well you have used "ignorance", "arrogance", and now "incredulity". The large numbers bother science because when you divide the large number into 1 it is a mathmatical elimination of ramdom chance happeing, which is all you have. If I were you, I would not like large numbers either.

 

[Peter1000]

and then how can you explain this:

1 John 3:6 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.",

1 John 4:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?"

?!

Blessings

You better not sin and you better love your brother, then you will see Him.

 

[Peter1000]

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.

I am thinking about this, so I haven't forgotten it. Will let you know later.

 

[Peter1000]

It's not my opinion. It is scientific fact. Do the math. 0 or DI, no other options.

 

[Peter1000]

If you think Lebowski has the answer, by all means stay close to him, you will go far.

 

[HitchSlap]

ID is not science.
Why do you think Behe had to admit under oath, that if ID was allowed into the classroom, so too would astrology?
Sorry, but ID is a cheap canard to get religion into the schools, and I have contempt for all those who use deceitful and underhanded (typical behavior for cdesign proponentsists) tactics to further their 'ends justify the means,' tact.
You're free to worship your god/s and ascribe his ability to count hairs on your head and cry raindrops, but ID is useless in reality, and nothing more than another sleazy attempt to justify religious dogma.
I ask you again, have you thought about why the only people who care about ID, are gullible religionists, and those who profit from ID?

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

I too am aware of ID proponents trying to bring ID into the educational discussion. With all your heart, mind, might, and will you fought like lions, and pulled every trick in the book to keep it out. For what reason?

1) If ID were given an educational process, most "reasonable" students would side with ID, not with 0 chance random happening. So the fight was over keeping scientific guesses on top of the heap, regardless of any thing else.
2) If ID were given an educational process, revenue from scientific books would plummet, making it less attractive for young hungry scientific theorists to publish.
3) If students chose ID at the high school level, the multi universe and evolutionary theories would diminish so rapidly as to astonish the world. So not one word of ID is acceptable, or it's over.
4) There are many other reasons that I have not got time to mention.

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

Science, because of the pressure to meet the godless status quo and to keep the revenue rolling, and to keep their jobs, has to publish what science wants published. Anything that disproves ID or proves that ID is not necessary is the agenda. So if the data doesn't exactly add up for the agenda, then it is either discarded on the heap of good data for ID, or the tests are run over and over until the tiniest positive data is recovered in order to announce against ID.

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

Well you have used "ignorance", "arrogance", and now "incredulity". The large numbers bother science because when you divide the large number into 1 it is a mathmatical elimination of ramdom chance happeing, which is all you have. If I were you, I would not like large numbers either.

 

[HitchSlap]

If you think Lebowski has the answer, by all means stay close to him, you will go far.

The Dude abides.

 

[bhsmte]

The Dude abides.

I could go for a white russian.

 

[HitchSlap]

I could go for a white russian.

It's Friday!

 

[cloudyday2]

Everywhere I look, there God is.

You must not watch the news (I don't watch the news, and I don't think I am missing very much. LOL)

 

[toLiJC]

You better not sin and you better love your brother, then you will see Him.

John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.",

1 John 4:12 "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us."

is it possible that no one had ever loved his brother without sinning for all those centuries since the day of the original sin(fall) prior to the moment when St John wrote these verses, because he categorically stated that no one had ever seen God?!, but if no one had ever loved his brother without sinning for that period, then there would not be true Prophets of God such as Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, etc., and this proves that God is not visible/perceptible to the humans in His real form of system Administrator of the universe, though some of them saw Him in one kind of vision or another, but those were visualizations that God projected in their visions, and they saw Him not in His real form, but actually some images of Him with which He represented Himself to them

Blessings

 

[dlamberth]

God who?

life!!

 

[dlamberth]

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

"ID"...That's such a confluted term... even as a Lover of God, I have no idea what that means.
And why do we even need the term?
Life seems to know what it's doing all on it's own as different life forms emerge from it.
Some see a wisp of Divine running through it.
And see a sacredness to be appreciative of, and thankful for.
All with out diminishing the wonders that science has opened up for us.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually I am a scientist.

If the universe was eternal, not expanding, not winding down and not a unity within a diversity then that would falsify the theory that the Christian God created this universe.

bh: Does this theory you mention above, meet scientific standards of a theory?

The first three were once believed by most scientists until all the evidence started pointing toward the Big Bang. The fourth is so obvious that the name "universe" actually means unity within a diversity.

bh: What evidence points only to a God and no other possible causes (if there was a cause)?

According to causality a cause cannot be part of the effect, since the effect is a physical universe then the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the universe just like God. Also, since purposes exist in the universe, we know that only purposes come from intelligent personal minds. That is also like God. Also, the Bible has taught that the universe had a definite beginning, is expanding, and energetically winding down over 3000 years before science discovered these facts about the universe.

bh: And sorry, your test, does not meet scientific standards.

In what way?

 

[Ed1wolf]

That just pushes it back one step. There has to be some universe that originally came about without cause or else never came about at all and exists eternally.

Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.

That's not exactly accurate.
God exists outside our known universe.
I mean, God does not need the universe to exist.
(i think you agree)

 

[Hieronymus]

The first three were once believed by most scientists until all the evidence started pointing toward the Big Bang.

Not exactly true.
The Big Bang is a model, it's a naturalistic model.
There's lots of things it does NOT explain.
The formation of stars and planets is still uncertain in their model.

 

[dlamberth]

That's not exactly accurate.
God exists outside our known universe.
I mean, God does not need the universe to exist.
(i think you agree)

I wouldn't!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, that is the universe where the Cause of this universe resides, what Christians call Heaven.

You agree that the universe could not have been caused.

You then go on to say that the cause of the universe is God.