A Working Definition of God

Doesn't the Rosetta stone mention Hebrews? (aslo thanks to Magisterium Devolver for input)

Jar, I know a stone of some type definitely mentioned an early Israel people. I have searched to no end.What we do know is that the city of Rameses is found, as you people keep ignoring. You seem to ignore any evidence which might favour an Exodus.

Brilliant. Thanks Monk.I seen it on discovery channel, but people here just ignore this kind of evidence.To Mammuthus; I know EXACTLY what your idea of evidence is.My idea of evidence is not yours but you said wrongly because infact everybody can verify that the universe exists independently from MTW. Remember I said the universe evidences God?

Mammuthus, absence of evidence can mean absence of God if that evidence is what is to be expected that God should do. The universe isn't expected as Since no one decides what God should do, he can only declare what he did do after he did it.It is not my definition of "evidence" anyway. It is a statement in scripture, which pre-dates authoratitive elementatry philosophies of naturalistic dogma. The universe IS evidence. You use it as evidence all the time pertaining to ToE.I a fossil evidence of a transitional? Or is it evidence of itself?The universe is evidence of God, in that I use the definition of "evidence" used since the beginning.I'm not going to make up a definition of what God is and that is idolatry, I can only say what the bible says. Either you haven't read all of this thread or you've ignored my quote from 1 John 4. It's not my desired outcome though, it's what the bible says which predates your science and logic.Your science and logic says it must be independently verified through the scientific method AKA elemantary philosophies of reaching conclusions about truth WITHOUT GOD. B U T it is irrelevant. How could the universe being evidence of God be a desired outcome, when it is written that the universe is evidence of God BEFORE logic and science?It means that you think I'm trying to fit evidence into your science. I AM NOT. I APPEAL NOT to your logic and science, nor is it my authority, because my authority is he who created the universe, as it has been known from the beginning, and no one is without excuse. (Romans).So it's all well and dandy that you say that evidence is this that and the other according to science and logic.My sister who is 14 says to me "I know my father better than you, yet you are a man", and I laugh, can the roof of the house say "I know the ground better than the base knows it"? Science is TOO LATE, the bible is the truth of the ages, that tells us the truth millenia before naturalistic input.

Mamuthus, I don't don't seek to persuade you of anything when you misconstrue and warp everything I say to fit into your argument. For example; 1. I have clearly defined what the bible says God is, and not what I say he is.2. I didn't say God can't declare anything, he often does in the bible, I infact said;" Since no one decides what God should do, he can only declare what he did do after he did it. "How can God declare something to you before he makes you? Are you deliberately being obtuse, or are your reading glasses being repaired? This neither negates nor confirms any of my claims, according to logic.If Joe can play football, that doesn't mean mike can't.But I've already said that football involves naturalistic dogma that excludes God.So, that's a double logical error. First, you seem to imply I am stating that I am scientific, and you then say that your being scientific makes me unscientific.1. I'm not trying to be scientific
2. Even if I was your being scientific wouldn't negate my scientificness.Mammy my friend, it's all good showing what you and others can confirm according to science, but I've already said you're using God's evidence, which is the universe, which also - anyone else can confirm as to whether it exists or not. The first people were Adam and Eve, there was no Greek scholars that could have pre-dated them. You assume I look at things with a premise of naturalistic dogma, and thereby "date things" with little devices of arrogant man. Science doesn't negate God, like you are implying. Are you saying science says Jesus Christ doesn't exist? Thanks for coming clean. I told you you really ARE out to rid God, but this recent naturalistic authoritative idolizing of the elementary philosophies is but a fart in Yahweh's wind. PS. I think we should agree to disagree, I like you, but we're just totally different animals ideologically. Your big truth is the method, which is my big zero = nihilism. It's not to offend you, it's just how I see it.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2005 10:13 AM

Well I can tell you that that was a waste of time.Nobdoy will listen to that. I tell you this because as you can see, I've been here a while, and here's what happens.The evo/atheist insists on playing the EvC game his way. In this topic, here's what the evo/atheist wants to achieve;He wants us to bend over backward in a futile effort to define God, knowing that God must be - if he is real, pretty unfathomable and thereby the atheist knows that we will at best produce a hundred defintions from the bible that will make us look like a bunch of incoherent nonsense in a bid to meet their criteria. This is irrelevant dear atheist, because as you know - nothing on earth or in the region of Pluto, is going to be recognizable as God, and the chap would HAVE TO BE indescribably unfathomable - to be God.It's a game that I can see happening logically and I sit here knowing EXACTLY what their motives are after studying their strange behaviour for two years.All this means that if you wrote an essay, addendum or bible NOTHING would satisfy the atheist as a workable definition. An what is that anyway? "workable"? Like God has to be worked on? That just proves their thinking is self-rigteouss. They think they can analyze God and then tell him if he exists or not. Lol.Answer; Don't play their game in the first place. Just refute them by learning their own way of playing.Nevertheless, you rightly said; This is correct biblically as there is no darkness in God at all according to the bible, and Christ said "only one is good, that being God".We have our definition friend. The topic was over when we gave it. And now what, "it's too vague" and/or "whine, whine, you haven't gave us a definition".It was game set match mikey, at mikey's first post.Well done for this highly knowledgeable post which will only be apreciated by me. Oh sure, they might say "well done, you tried BUT,........I don't buy it, but thanks for playing the definitions game".PS. There's no reason why a synergetic group of agreed upon demands are correct = we don't have to refute them on their terms, we just have to obey logic fairly reasonably, and I'm confident many don't know why, that logically, it is moot to carry on, since mike's first post.Also, since the concept is that God is indescribable and unfathomable (everybody knows he must be in some way) then agian, this makes definition moot logically.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2005 05:37 PM