Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,242 Year: 5,499/9,624 Month: 524/323 Week: 21/143 Day: 11/10 Hour: 0/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 353 of 364 (849576)
03-15-2019 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
01-22-2007 10:06 AM

Phat writes:
I want to start a semi humorous, semi serious discussion about the nature of God. Pretend that we hav a sort of a roundtable Town Meeting Group. There are four God candidates present. each one seeks to be recognized as God, Omnipotant Creator of all things.
at the table we have:
1) Jesus Christ, who is representing His Father.
2) Loki, the Trickster.
3) Sophia- the source of Wisdom.
4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster
I would say the problem with this is that there is no reason for the comparison to begin with without THE HIDDEN ASSUMPTION that there is some manner of equivalence to begin with. So they obviously share some basic elements but this doesn't make them equal if there are different reasons for why those elements may exist. For example Santa's invisibility is not the same as an atoms invisibility so if both are invisible this doesn't mean an atom is the same as Santa anyway.
If God exists and is invisible because He transcends the universe but these other things are invisible because they are false, then obviously they can't be truly equivalent. (yes I understand why atheists say they have to treat them equally but they are being facetious because they know there is no chance these other things are real.)
For example, it's obvious that something like the flying S-monster is fiction as we know it is invention, however what reason does that give us logically to compare it with Jesus Christ, and acknowledged to be genuine historical figure?
The problem is the comparison-table only suggests comparisons with things likely to be fiction. The adult mind innately knows that which is superficial and phoney or that which has no depth. Holy cows, Thor, Loki, etc, we know that these things are likely caused by primitive invention.
So to do a comparison we also have to compare the thing in question with other things which share it's elements.
For example our God is not physically detectable, and neither is a type of boson in another universe, so why not compare God to an undetectable type of higgs boson?
CONCLUSION: The error is in assuming that God can only be compared to things rigged to be false things, without comparing Him to things we don't know are false.
God us undetectable and invisible, but this doesn't mean God is comparable to a holy cow or an I.P.U necessarily because we also know there were many things which used to be undetectable and invisible but they turned out to be true, such as the higgs boson.
So ultimately you are playing the atheists game on his own terms by only comparing God to things which are reasonably false to most people.
There are also things which share God's characteristics which are reasonably true meaning that logically speaking you also have to compare God to those things if your position is that you don't know if God is there.
So my request is that I compare Jesus Christ to other historical figures such as Ghandi or Caesar rather than playing the infantile game of the atheist by comparing God to invisible, pink unicorns and Santa.
Why can't we compare abiogenesis and evolution to other fairytales since they share the same method of "long ago and far away"...
Creation and evolution views: Comparing God With Santa Or a Pink Unicorn
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 01-22-2007 10:06 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 356 of 364 (849583)
03-15-2019 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Stile
03-15-2019 9:20 AM

stile writes:
ut, again, there is no objective evidence that "some type" of a God exists right here in our local universe.
There is evidence consistent with God. God is a Creator, what is the usual evidence of creativity and intelligence? The usual evidence is intelligent design, order, aesthetics. Whether you like it or not there is evidence for God in that there are conditional implications where certain consequents MUST follow.
To say, "we wouldn't expect creativity from a Creator, we wouldn't expect ingenius solutions in nature to obscure problems"when those are the very things we find when we look at out own creators, is a contradiction.
Stile writes:
The comparison-table contains only those things that have "no objective evidence of any kind."
The problem (for you) is that things we "aren't sure about are true - but think they likely exist here or there where we haven't tested yet..." are still based upon having objective evidence for them in places where we have been able to test.
Therefore - they don't belong in the table because they have more than "no objective evidence of any kind."
Objective evidence is qualified not by what atheists say but by what logical notation dictates. the only evidence atheists qualify for God is "that which they know is not there".
The correct qualification is to ask what would follow if God exists. To say an intelligible universe would follow from a big-banged tornado in a junkyard assembling it, is a contradiction. The true prediction for a Creator is a creation, and there is no escaping it. You can say there is no evidence for God all you want and that is all you guys do, repeat the falsehood. (ad nauseam fallacy)
Stile writes:
But, again, we have objective evidence of Ghandi or Caesar.
The point of the comparison-table is to list all things that have no objective evidence.
Qualify according to logical rules what evidence of God would be. I predict you will come up with any particular thing you already know is not there, rather than genuinely qualifying what usually would follow as signs of a Creator.
Specified complexity, contingency planning, information code, function, goals, irreducible complexity, when we look for where these things we find in life come from, 100% of the data shows they come from a creator/designer, and 0% of the data says they come from natural process.
Stile writes:
Of course, you can get God out of that bucket. Just provide some objective evidence. Or, even, provide objective evidence showing a level of confidence in the direction of God's existence.
I don't have to because I know a lot, lot more about evidence and how it is qualified, than you do. If you don't want there to be anything that evidences God you will say there is no evidence of God.
But logical rules show all of the expected evidence of an all-knowing God are right there is nature. Biomimetics alone proves the design in nature is smarter than our design because when we run out of ideas we have to plagiarise God's designs.
Think about the epitome of design. Surely we make the best lights, right? No, God does, such as the bioluminescence in fire-flies which has, "the efficiency with which this process turns chemical energy into light rather than wasting it as heat is extremely high; around 40%,1 some 20 times higher than an incandescent light bulb, and higher than the best fluorescent and LED bulbs"
You can read lots of evidence for a more intelligent designer than us, in this one article alone;
Bioluminescencethe light of living things -
CONCLUSION: I can logically prove there is confirmation evidence for God's existence. You on the other hand can only monopolise the evidence by using HINDSIGHT to PRETEND you would expect this evidence from evolution.
Stile writes:
Because abiogenesis and evolution either have objective evidence, or they have objective evidence pointing in their direction.
Is that so. Then can you show me the evidence that a DNA molecule comes about by chance outside of life or any other sophisticated polymers? Thought not. In fact all of the evidence by experimentation as pointed to the conclusion abiogenesis is science fiction, as for the "objective evidence" for evolution, what is that exactly? Are you saying you have now found the transitionals for bats, pterosaurs, insect wings, Ichthyosaurs and pine trees? What about the ancestors for all the phyla of the Cambrian? What about the ancestors for angiosperms? What about the ancestors for dinosaurs? Whatever you show me I can prove mathematically your evidence would represent less than 1% of the transitionals that would have had to exist in the past.
Question: Just how can you know what evolution would do? You can't, you can only use hindsight because there is no example of evolution outside of life. But with design we can correctly predict what the evidence would be.
So when you say there is evidence for evolution, how can you say that without having experienced macro evolution? How can you actually know what evolution would predict? For example when you are selective and say it would predict homology, did you also predict homoplasies?No, they didn't predict that for evolution, but now they PRETEND it is a prediction of evolution and call it, "convergent evolution."
Can you see what I am saying? I am saying your predicted evidence for evolution is based on HINDSIGHT, for all you know the correct evidence for evolution would be a barely viable bio-blob that belched then died.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Stile, posted 03-15-2019 10:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 110 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

Message 357 of 364 (849584)
03-15-2019 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Tangle
03-15-2019 9:20 AM

Tangle writes:
I suggest you start by comparing Jesus Christ to other figures that people have invested with equal beliefs and equal historicity (ie little to none.)
The prophet Mohammed
Lord Brahma
Etc (long list)
No I think I'll stick to a far clever method of using a fair comparison. If we treat the Lord God of the bible and Jesus Christ as, "unknown if He is God", then yes to some extent it is okay to say, "these other people claim to be God too", but obviously it takes a lot of digging to compare all of the things the bible says to the claims made from other religions.
Instead it might be better to say that if we look at adults, a big percentage do they would argue, have reason to believe in some greater being. But if we look at the adults that believe in invisible pink unicorns, holy cow or Santa, the truth of the matter is only some atheists consider these things realistically.
That is because they disingenuously PRETEND there is a comparison to be made, simple to mock God.
So we must start with the question, is God there? If there is an argument God is there, and God is a personal God we can then ask more questions before we get to the comparison stage.
For example there are some major themes that exist if a personal God exists. For example there are issues of morality, the problem of good and evil, etc....the real question is, if these are realistic questions for adults and we struggle with these big questions, then does Buddha do a good job of answering them?
Obviously there is reason to believe in God despite prejudiced atheist claims to the contrary, and there is reason because of the human condition, to believe God is a personal God. If we look at life itself we see there is a vast array of immensely brilliant strategies, contrivance and inventiveness in anatomies, which are all viable.
So just going from the facts if we say, "if God created life and if He is a personal God and exists" then we can reasonably say, "then if He created life as Creator, He would have to be an immensely brilliant strategist and have immense intelligence........
This leads to another step (as you can see I have of course, thought out all of these things long before now so I am just repeating the this is nothing new to me just because you bring the issue up)
The next step is to ask, "if we see this from life, then what must we infer if we look at religion, and God's strategies in dealing with it?"
Well, the answer is that the bible is a unique book as it is compiled over centuries and has the most powerful message of love in the gospel. Arguably this is more powerful than many other religions hence it is top of the best seller and the most influential to the world historically.
Question: If God is intelligent and is not the Lord God of the bible but is Thor or Allah or Buddha, then why even allow the bible to exist to then let those other religions pale by comparison?
Think about it, the intelligent strategies we see employed in life leads to a God that wouldn't be so very stupid to even allow the bible to exist.
Look at it from Allah's perspective. If God is Allah his strategy is to let the bible exist, let million be touched by it, then much later on as a johnny-come-lately god, he then introduces the Koran to have it struggle to compete. He also allows teh bible to have the best answers to the big questions of why we exist (being made in God's image) why we bahave as badly as we do (sin nature) etc........
Conclusion: We can very quickly rule out any personal God outside of the bible because being retarded doesn't match the level of intelligence we see in life.
Of course this is only the beginning of the comparison game Tangle, I would have to write a lot, lot more to reveal the full extent of my thoughts on this matter, though I definitely believe your thoughts on this matter are paper thin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 9:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2019 12:08 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 361 by Phat, posted 03-15-2019 1:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 362 by Phat, posted 03-19-2019 11:52 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024