|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hey, Jar! Long time no see!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But where did that hot, dense stuff come from? Did it come from nothing? From something? Is is eternal?...Sounds like a great, purely natural explanation for the origin of our universe, doesn't it? We are ignorant of how the universe came about. Are you telling us that God is nothing more than disguised ignorance?
Though the order and complexity we see in nature is quite a testament to God's existence, How so? Can you please explain why an orderly and complex universe has anything to do with the supernatural or God, complete with evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You appear to be a materialist, No, I am not. I am asking for claims backed by evidence. Why is that a problem? If you are going to do nothing but make excuses for why you don't have this evidence then why are you in this thread?
This vs. assumes the existence of a spirit, which is immaterial. Therefore, standing firmly on the Bible and nothing else, I conclude that there must be an immaterial reality. So you are assuming the conclusion sans evidence. Is that correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
And isn't it equally up to those who deny that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its non-existence? I do not claim that there is no non-physical reality. However, I need evidence before I will accept its existence. Have any? Imagine if we ran our court system like you run your logic. The prosecution would have to disprove the existence of leprechauns planting evidence at the scene of the crime just because the defense raises it as a possibility. Again, those making a positive claim must produce positive evidence. That would be you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Lastly, you may notice that I have been putting quotation marks around the word religion. This is because you seem to think of religion as...well, I don't know for sure, but ultimately, you seem to equate Christianity with all the ancient, mythological religions, such as the Vikings, and the Romans, and the Greeks. But God is not religion. Your worship of God is religion. The rites and worship of a deity is the very definition of religion.
God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created. Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4741 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
You'd first need to prove there is a god, before you can even begin to discuss its nature. And your point is? My point was that if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang? And besides, the nature of something must be explained to some degree before one can believe in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9146 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
My point was that if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang?
One reason is that he doesn't worship the Big Bang. Or think that it provides some sort of moral lesson. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: I had no withdrawl, no problems of any kind physical or mental except without all that poision in my body I gained weight. Changes in appetite is a common physical withdrawal effect of nicotine. Once again we see you simply omitting facts that contradict your opinions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
My point was that if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang? However there is evidence that there was some beginning to this Universe. We can determine that this Universe does exist. There is no evidence however that God exists. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You sly old bugger - slipped back in without most of us noticing. Good to see you, mate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2153 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:So long as you leave the question "Does non-physical reality exist?" open, then you have no burden of proof, nothing for which you need to provide evidence. But make sure that you are really leaving the question open, rather than implicitly taking a position against the question as killinghurts did in the OP. quote:Be careful that you are not asking for pyhsical evidence for non-physical reality. This would be illogical. quote:No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it. If so, the evidence would probably be implicit, based on the jurors' experience and their belief that leprechauns are imaginary. Leprechauns are not believable enough to provide "reasonable doubt." If this was the best the defense could do, they would lose. quote:Where have I made a positive claim in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3798 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
Have you heard of the saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
It isn't true that the weight of evidence lies equally with both sides when making a claim. It is up to the claimant to provide the evidence which is then refuted or not refuted based on the quality of the evidence provided by the other side of the debate. and so on...
BTW, logic also demands that one not insist on physical evidence for non-physical reality. If the non-physical 'reality' is able to affect the physical reality, then it isn't unreasonable to ask for physical evidence of said effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr Adequate does not understand that Saul/Paul did not get a sign but a special calling to be an Apostle to the gentiles. He didn't get a sign? What do you call this then?
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" "Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the LordJesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming herehas sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. ---
I chuckle everytime I think about all the times I pushed for an answer as to where the universe that existed at T=10-43 came from. The correct answer is "We don't know". But I have also been told it just is. But when I say God just exists they want to laugh me out of the thread. They don't realize that to believe what they believe that they have to believe the universe exists by faith. No, we can see that the universe exists. Faith doesn't come into it. It's not totally clear why it exists, but it's evident that it does. With God, we can neither see that he exists nor understand why he would if he did. We could give you a free pass on the second bit, but not on the first.
The unexplainability of the singularity should be a point of detection of God. The unexplainability of where the universe came from should be a point of detection of God. The unexplainability of what is holding the universe together should be a point of detection of God. "The unexplainability of what happened to my spectacles should be a point of detection of God." No, it's just something we want an explanation for. There's no particular reason why the explanation should involve an entity possessed of personality, omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and a grudge against people who eat lobsters, pick up sticks on Saturday, or wear socks woven from a nylon-cotton mix. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Phage,
Phage0070 writes: Changes in appetite is a common physical withdrawal effect of nicotine. Once again we see you simply omitting facts that contradict your opinions. But my appetite did not change to wanting more food. I cut my intake in half but I still gained weight. The poison was killing me. I grew the stuff I know what chemicals went into producing the crop, and keeping the bugs off. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: But my appetite did not change to wanting more food. I cut my intake in half but I still gained weight. I suppose we should add outright denial of reality and lying to the tally. Unless of course your smoking was causing bulimia.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024