God & the Fairy Tree

There was no expansion on "how he did it" only a claim that "He is responsible for it" and the proof is in the pudding(so to speak). Explaining how creation was carried out has no bearing on the initial claim. Unless we are assuming that a lack of cooperation now disproves a claim.

INQUIRY: Who built this house.
CLAIMANT: I built it.
CHALLENGER: I don't believe you, prove it!
REBUTTAL: It's standing before you isn't it?
CHALLENGER: This proves nothing.
CLAIMANT: It proves that someone built the house.
CHALLENGER: It was not you.The challenger holds no authority on the claim. He did not claim to build the house, nor has anyone else other than the original claimant. The challenger could choose to ignore the claim, however under law, he would be required to provide evidence and prove that the claimant is wrong. Unless someone else comes forward with a claim.Unfortunately in this case, dismissing the house as evidence is not an option, it is the object of dispute. Edited by pbee, : typo

If you claimed to create all things as God did then, I would take that information and measure it up against the initial one. No prejudism applied.At face value, I am skeptical, however, how do I know your not possessed with divine powers. Now, I am left to reason on this claim. Would you provide me with some form of insight to these works. Written or otherwise? (so many questions)

Very good. The house does not prove anything in regards to the builder and this is perfectly logical. However, unless someone else contests the claim, there is no way to derive a need for proof beyond the object of dispute. We know the house exists, and a person did claim it was the product of there own doing. Are we entitled to drive him out of the house because he failed to prove he built it? That act would be unlawful.Taking it a step further(permits and by-laws aside). What if the inquirers have never seen a house? What if they do not believe the house is a product of anything known to them. What if the maker explained how He made the house but the inquirers were incapable of resolving the implications and decided the claimant was a liar.This has no bearing on the initial statement. However it does raise some interesting issues with the problem in question. But we are still left with a house and a claimant nonetheless.

I will take your hint and reply with another. If you reply that my response of eternal status implies that our universe is free'd from intent, then I will imply that it is completely benign to anticipate that our universe(showing age) would be the one and only product of eternity. Furthermore, it would even "more" benign to reason that out of eternity would come no intelligence preceding out own.This could make an excellent topic of conversation in another thread, however the subject has already been mapped by others and conclusions have come about. fascinating nonetheless)

So true, "no one built it" is an option. Although it is not very popular with logical aspects of life, it has gained acceptance where the origin of life is concerned.Again, you are correct in asserting that this claim has many claimants. And the answer to your question is yes, I have evidence which supports my choices on matters. Edited by pbee, : typo

Don't be shocked by this, but some people have come to the conclusion that in order for life to exist, the eternity(component) is inevitable. Having said this, there are a certain number of people, who believe that the only thing to come out of eternity is us.This is what I said when I heard such reasoning. "Wow"

As mentioned, we have no definitives. It all comes down to personal assessments(nothing more). However, we can evaluate and measure the values of those claims to draw conclusions.I can't personally say how compatible the issue is with scientific methods. But this has no bearing on ones ability to evaluate the problem.

I don't mean to make people squirm, however the fact that we exist is the evidence(as initially stated). And to this evidence, we have a claim. It may not be what we like. However, the fact remains that our existence has been claimed by God. Until we can prove otherwise, His claim stands to reason.We all know, that no matter how we manipulate a problem we can never change its value. We can however, expand and get lost in the calculations(diversions).PS. I realize God is only one of many claimants and the focus was on one particular doctrine.

Thanks, I really needed something like that. - Well perhaps, lets go to the other extreme. If someone tells you that they love you, will you reach for your lab equipment and begin to apply scientific methods to validate that claim?God made the claim that created everything. He left a permit(written in stone) declaring his ownership on the work which has survived to this day.It up to us now, to evaluated and declare whether or not we accept His claim. - As far as science is concerned, we could effectively validate His claim, howewer at this stage we lack the equipment or knowledge to do so. That's not to say we will never have the capacity, it simply means were not there yet. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

I don't blame you. I shared very similar feelings at one point in time. No matter how we slice it. The laws which we live by bind us to deal with the God's claim to creation as it were. Simply put, if someone claimed to do something then the result is the evidence of the action. We can argue until the cows come home about how it doesn't make sense because we cannot see beyond existence. However, when all is said and done, the claim stands to reason.One day, I believe we will have the capacity to challenge God's claim to creation. Until then, it is what it is. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

Yes, you are definitely on the list! - Are you going to write a book also? If so, I can't wait to read it.

Theres another person, calls himself YHWH, who made the same claim, it was recorded over 3000 yrs ago. Not calling you a liar or anything but... Edited by pbee, : typo

Natural, unnatural, this has no bearing on the claim or evidence of the claim. Very good. The comment was not a lesson in love but a illustration used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the appropriate tool and method for the job. I know nothing of this argument. However the record of this claim has proven its age and authenticity. it would be senseless to try and determine how we could one day have the capacity to map out our precise origin. However, already we are on to several promising theories which support alternate realms and parallel universes. It looks as though we are headed in that direction.

I was unaware of that, although I do remember that discussion. I'll look into it. - thx