There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[metis]

There are people who say they know Jesus and His Heavenly Father exist and there are people who say they know Jesus and His Heavenly Father do not exist. At this point, you have people asking for proof from one another on how they came to their conclusion on the matter.

Now, most who follow Jesus came to see His existence through personal experience. We didn't just open the Bible, read it and say "Yep, He exists." But, for those who say they need evidence, Historians have archaeological verifications of the Bible recorded down. I do not feel the need to post it all since people can google it themselves. Will it be enough for some to suddenly know there's a God? No. Every person has reached and will reach God differently because each of us are different. God will not reveal Himself to someone who chooses to not want Him or know about Him. But, God never stops trying to show nonbelievers in many ways that He is around. One would see those ways once they choose to sincerely open their heart and mind. One can read all the books, watch all the videos and shows, attend every religious or scientific seminar but it's the personal experience that provides a concrete answer.

I am often told "There's no scientific evidence to support there is a divine creator." Well, scientists have discovered things using certain methods and can often explain it. But, one comes to discover God through a different method and then explain the best they can. Once you discover God, God Himself reveals that He is the architect of all that scientists and all people discover. It's not science v religion.

I am often told because I believe in a divine creator that I lack reason, rationality and I'm close-minded. Below is an article I copied/pasted down because he explains what I have to say better.

God or Atheism — Which Is More Rational?
PETER KREEFT

The conclusion that God exists doesn't require faith. Atheism requires faith.

"Is it rational to believe in God? Many people think that faith and reason are opposites; that belief in God and tough-minded logical reasoning are like oil and water. They are wrong. Belief in God is far more rational than atheism. Logic can show that there is a God. If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you'll find that it's full of God's fingerprints.
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian. The argument starts with the not-very-startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement, and whatever caused that must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an unmoved mover to begin all the motion in the universe, a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.

A modern objection to this argument is that some movements in quantum mechanics — radioactive decay, for example — have no discernible cause. But hang on a second. Just because scientists don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means science hasn't found it yet. Maybe someday they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That's no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.

Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So, if there's no first cause, there can't be second causes — or anything at all. In other words, if there's no creator, there can't be a universe.

But what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask. Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old — that it had a beginning, in the big bang. If the universe had a beginning, then it didn't have to exist. And things which don't have to exist must have a cause.

There's confirmation of this argument from big-bang cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it "creationism in disguise". Now, add to this premise a very logical second premise, the principle of causality, that nothing begins without an adequate cause, and you get the conclusion that since there was a big bang, there must be a "big banger".

It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

But is this "big banger" God? Why couldn't it be just another universe? Because Einstein's general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter, and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there's no time before the big bang. And even if there is time before the big bang, even if there is a multiverse, that is, many universes with many big bangs, as string theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning.

An absolute beginning is what most people mean by 'God'. Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

How far will scientists go to avoid having to conclude that God created the universe? Here's what Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind said: "Real scientists resist the temptation to explain creation by divine intervention. We resist to the death all explanations of the world based on anything but the laws of physics." Yet the father of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, believed fervently in God. Was he not a real scientist? Can you believe in God and be a scientist, and not be a fraud? According to Susskind, apparently not. So who exactly are the closed-minded ones in this debate?

The conclusion that God exists doesn't require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

I'm Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University."

In regards to how this debate is handled the majority of the time well, I'm tired of seeing people from both sides of this discussion say horrible things to one another. It's not an attitude to be proud of. It doesn't make anyone look good. If you notice, in public we deal with strangers everyday and we do not speak to one another about anything beyond courteous small talk most of the time. But, once one is beyond a computer screen they will talk to another and say what they will, how they will (good or bad) as if they know everything about them. I have sincerely enjoyed conversations with many nonbelievers online and face to face. The ones who I had the pleasure of speaking with came from a place where they were not on the offensive or defensive but open minded, willing to hear me out, ask questions and I reciprocated the behavior. Humility instead of pride is a game changer in a discussion.

If you read all that thank you for taking the time to.

Having read Susskind and knowing a bit about Newton, I'll go with Susskind. Newton just assumed there was God whereas Susskind doesn't assume one way or another.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..He was referring to the blind spot in each eye, which could rather easily could have been prevented if part of the retina was reversed.

In his book 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?', Dawks refers to the whole retina, not just the blind spot-
He says- “The retina is back to front..The ‘wires’ connecting the photocells to the brain run over all the surface of the retina, so the light rays have to pass through a carpet of massed wires before they hit the photocells. That doesn’t make sense … ” (pp. 353–4)

Here a biologist corrects him-
"Actually it does make sense, as ophthalmologists know, and have explained for years, so Dawkins has no excuse for repeating such discredited arguments. Dawkins’ analogy fails because photocells don’t have to be chemically regenerated, while the eye’s photoreceptors are chemically active, and need a rich blood supply for regeneration"
Mueller cells backwardly wired retina v Dawkins - creation.com

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I am often told because I believe in a divine creator that I lack reason, rationality and I'm close-minded..

Haha they're just jealous because you've got that inner strength and fearlessness that all true Christians have, it shows in their eyes..
"For we look at things unseen rather than the seen,for the seen are temporary,but the unseen are eternal" (2 Cor 4:18)

"My Christian faith has been such a backbone through so many difficult times. For me Christianity is about being strengthened"- Bear Grylls

"God makes His reality so obvious to us in His creation and in the little mini-miracles that happen everyday"- Becky St. James

"To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible, it just strengthens my faith"- John Glenn

 

[cottage]

Now I read that as anything that begins to exists has a cause. By anything I took it to mean everything, since the universe contains everything and anything that exists, as far as we know, then everything in the universe had a beginning, that was at the point of the big bang, so the statement is correct, anything (as in the contents of the universe) that begins to exist has a cause.

Now you are saying, as I have said, that there is no precedent. In post 2577 I wrote "The universe began to exist from nothing. Nothing in our universe has ever began to exist from nothing, therefore, we have no precedent to ex nihilo nihil fit. You wouldn't expect a precedent though as it was the beginning of everything so no events preceded it. Every 10 mile walk begins with the first step. Just because there could not be a precedent does not mean that one cannot be set, but aside from that. Kalam cosmological argument was based on Newton's laws on motion, cause and effect. "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." in other word nothingness will remain as nothingness unless something acts upon it to make it something. Anything that begins to exist has moved from one state of being into another state of being, via a cause. That, to me, is sound science.

Yes, I’m inclined to agree that it is what we might call “sound science” or to be accurate more a case of X being highly probable. But if nothing in our universe has ever begun to exist (i.e. from nothing, since it is only mutation and motion of matter that we can experience), then from what is the proposition “whatever begins to exist has cause” inferred? Newton’s law(s) of motion are inductively arrived at, but the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference identifies the impossibility of directly observing causal effects. David Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature said if we strike an object there is no reason to suppose, other than by reasoning from past experience, that it will not remain stationary rather than being given to motion. Any scientific explanations that appear to account for the object’s motion hold true only so long as the action can be demonstrated in experience. But no matter how many times I kick a football to find to find it carries forward in motion I am not justified in stating, as a logical law, that striking the ball with my foot will always have the same result. Similarly there is no way of telling, before the fact, whether a leaden object placed in water might be buoyant while an object made of cork might sink. Experimental reasoning (science) can never be certain, which is to say it can never be demonstrably true. So we make a huge leap on two counts when propose an external cause of the universe, for we are saying cause is necessary, which it demonstrably isn’t, and that all worlds (including God) will be as this world, which is an assertion devoid of any logical demonstration or the slightest speck of evidence.

Oh, it is certain that cause and effect came into being at the point of the big bang, however, to say that it did not exist prior to the big bang is speculation and conjecture. You, or I, do not know that. Nobody knows that. Your judgement is based on your knowledge and intellect of known science. The singularity is unknown.

To be clear I am not saying, and it cannot be said, that causality could not pre-exist the Big Bang: what I am saying is that the Kalam argument cannot infer that it does. And the reason is because the opening premise of the argument is false.

I feel that you are playing on words rather then their interpretations.

I'm not sure that the simple explanation that I gave, and upon which we all agree, can justly be described as “playing with words”:

Everything in the universe answers to cause and effect
The universe began to exist
Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

Yes, you would be correct in your conjecture, however, I am confident that you will never make a successful argument against the existence of God, however, do not allow that to stop you from trying. It is only when we make mistakes will we gain new knowledge But you are a self proclaimed sceptic. You are anticipating that it could go either way, aren't you?

Yes, of course, but subject to this: The broad statement “There is no God” would be difficult or impossible to prove. However where it takes the form of a proposition that is distinct in its definition, then it becomes a different matter. In the case of the Abrahamic God, proposed with a list of attributes, it only becomes necessary for the sceptic to demonstrate any of the definitional attributes that imply a contradiction. I have identified several of them already.

 

[Alt Thinker]

I am assuming that you mean that the extra verses are one of the contradictions you claim. I hate to disappoint but the fact that additional verses might have been added is neither a contradiction or in anyway takes away the authenticity of the bible.

My point was that the verses were added to Mark to bring Mark in line with the other Gospels and do not constitute separate testimony from those Gospels.

James and Paul's 500 are not mentioned in the four Gospels because they had already been mentioned in Paul's writings. Why would, or what is the need, for them to be written more than once?

Why should more than one Gospel have been written containing the same events? What was the need? Paul mentioned many things that also show up in the Gospels. What was the need?

The Gospels tell very similar stories about Passion Week. Yet they differ substantially in the post-resurrection stories. That is the payoff without which the idea of genuine divine sanction for Jesus falls apart. Viewed in that context, the poor correlation between the Gospels and with Paul in the post-resurrection passages becomes highly problematic. Trying to fit them all together ends up with the elaborate and seemingly pointless travelogue I put together here.

"not recognised", that is, not identified from previous encounters or knowledge..

They didn't recognise him because their eyes were holden.

* 16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.

How does Luke know “their eyes were holden”? He was not there. For the sake of the discussion, I will assume he received this information from others and did not invent it to support his agenda of focusing on Jerusalem and away from Matthew’s Galilee, as I have argued elsewhere.

The disciples told the Eleven that they were prevented from recognizing Jesus until he broke bread. How did they know they were prevented from recognizing Jesus as opposed to suddenly deciding this was Jesus because he did something familiar, like break bread and give it to them? They then say “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk 24:32) I know someone who is always saying, “I had a feeling that was going to happen” but they never mention these feelings before the fact. And note that this person who walked with them (and was going to keep traveling!) never said he was Jesus. If you did not already believe it, would you believe it?

It was not a case of not recognising him they said they did not know it was Jesus, probably because he was stood a ways off from them on the shore.

* but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.

This is at the Sea of Galilee in John 21. Even though they knew it was Jesus “None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” (Jn 21:12) Why would they be afraid to ask if they recognized him? And this is now sitting right next to him on shore, close enough to be handed bread and fish. It should not be an issue of being surprised to see Jesus alive. They already saw him twice in Jerusalem. John makes it clear that this is the third time. (Jn 21:14) Is this ‘knowing’ perhaps a matter of believing because they want to believe despite what they actually see? In other words, faith.

She did not recognise him because she was not looking at him. * She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.,

Mary Magdalene had already looked at Jesus and spoken to him but did not recognize him.

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

I eagerly await your next instalment. This is fun and only enhances my testimony.

I have to track down all of your replies. I think I have missed some.

 

[McBell]

Haha they're just jealous because you've got that inner strength and fearlessness that all true Christians have, it shows in their eyes..
"For we look at things unseen rather than the seen,for the seen are temporary,but the unseen are eternal" (2 Cor 4:18)

"My Christian faith has been such a backbone through so many difficult times. For me Christianity is about being strengthened"- Bear Grylls

"God makes His reality so obvious to us in His creation and in the little mini-miracles that happen everyday"- Becky St. James

"To look out at this kind of creation out here and not believe in God is to me impossible, it just strengthens my faith"- John Glenn

OMG!
You have so convinced me!


ooops.
Nope.
False alarm.

 

[metis]

In his book 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth?', Dawks refers to the whole retina, not just the blind spot-
He says- “The retina is back to front..The ‘wires’ connecting the photocells to the brain run over all the surface of the retina, so the light rays have to pass through a carpet of massed wires before they hit the photocells. That doesn’t make sense … ” (pp. 353–4)

Here a biologist corrects him-
"Actually it does make sense, as ophthalmologists know, and have explained for years, so Dawkins has no excuse for repeating such discredited arguments. Dawkins’ analogy fails because photocells don’t have to be chemically regenerated, while the eye’s photoreceptors are chemically active, and need a rich blood supply for regeneration"
Mueller cells backwardly wired retina v Dawkins - creation.com

Thanks for the correction, but from what I've read in Scientific America coming from some other biologists, I'll go with Dawkins. Our eyes function quite well, but the consensus I've read says that it could have been "designed" better.

 

[metis]

Everything in the universe answers to cause and effect
The universe began to exist
Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

But that then defies what we know about cause-and-effect".

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for the correction, but from what I've read in Scientific America coming from some other biologists, I'll go with Dawkins. Our eyes function quite well, but the consensus I've read says that it could have been "designed" better.

If I remember right, there are currently some 20 different "designs" of eyes in the biosphere. Eagles have better resolution (more "pixels"). Octopus have a better eye too, and hermit shrimp. On top of that, a small percentage of humans have a better color vision (tetrachromats) than the rest of us (trichromats), and a few have even worse (color blind, dichromats). If it was just one design, and a perfect design, then why are there three?

 

[metis]

If I remember right, there are currently some 20 different "designs" of eyes in the biosphere. Eagles have better resolution (more "pixels"). Octopus have a better eye too, and hermit shrimp. On top of that, a small percentage of humans have a better color vision (tetrachromats) than the rest of us (trichromats), and a few have even worse (color blind, dichromats). If it was just one design, and a perfect design, then why are there three?

Our bodies, and the bodies of all other large organisms, are based on compromise. Because of the energy necessary for growth, it is quite impossible for any organism to have the best attributes as compared to all the other organisms.

Our large brain growth ties up tremendous amounts of energy when growing, so in order for that to grow as large as it is, some other things had to be sacrificed. This may not have anything to do with the retina, but it certainly involves other major organs, directly or indirectly.

Also, the body tends to evolve in terms of "what works" versus "what works best". If a particular adaptation gives us the advantage of survival, perfection isn't necessary. Our eyes work quite well even though they ain't the eyes of an eagle.

I gotta go for now.

 

[Ouroboros]

Our bodies, and the bodies of all other large organisms, are based on compromise. Because of the energy necessary for growth, it is quite impossible for any organism to have the best attributes as compared to all the other organisms.

Our large brain growth ties up tremendous amounts of energy when growing, so in order for that to grow as large as it is, some other things had to be sacrificed. This may not have anything to do with the retina, but it certainly involves other major organs, directly or indirectly.

Also, the body tends to evolve in terms of "what works" versus "what works best". If a particular adaptation gives us the advantage of survival, perfection isn't necessary. Our eyes work quite well even though they ain't the eyes of an eagle.

Yup. I agree.

(My "why" was more of a rhetorical question. )

I was reminded of an experiment with some mice some time ago. They selected for the mice with the best teeth and gum health. Over time, the mice had great teeth that didn't decay, but they also had brittle bones. If I remember right, basically the nutrients needed for strong bones were redirected to the teeth because that was what was the more "fit" phenotype.

 

[metis]

Yup. I agree.

(My "why" was more of a rhetorical question. )

I was reminded of an experiment with some mice some time ago. They selected for the mice with the best teeth and gum health. Over time, the mice had great teeth that didn't decay, but they also had brittle bones. If I remember right, basically the nutrients needed for strong bones were redirected to the teeth because that was what was the more "fit" phenotype.

A good example, imo.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, I’m inclined to agree that it is what we might call “sound science” or to be accurate more a case of X being highly probable. But if nothing in our universe has ever begun to exist (i.e. from nothing, since it is only mutation and motion of matter that we can experience), then from what is the proposition “whatever begins to exist has cause” inferred?

We have experience, in the real world, of what begins to exist has a cause. Let's take the chair as an example. It is true that every elements that the chair contains had its beginning at the big bang, however, that is not what your average person in the street sees. They see the beginning of a chair from whence there was none. They see it come into existence from the cause of the craftsman's hand. That is the norm to the vast majority of mankind, so, if you were to tell them that the universe just sprang into existence they would ask "what caused it". They point I am making is that mankind has many, many precedents of caused existence. It is what we expect. To say that this does not cause the same effect in scientists is ridiculous to say. We are very familiar with things coming into existed after a cause. In reality, there was a point at which the chair did not exist in form. It was in another form. So, to say that the chair came into existence as a result of the craftsman's hand is an accurate statement to make.

Newton’s law(s) of motion are inductively arrived at, but the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference identifies the impossibility of directly observing causal effects.

That is not true. I watched my wife bring a cake into existed as a result of her skills in baking. It was not there and then it was. It was caused to exist. I directly observed causal effect. Noise begins to come into existence as does a thought or smell, an emotion like love, a belief like in God, all begin to exist.

David Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature said if we strike an object there is no reason to suppose, other than by reasoning from past experience, that it will not remain stationary rather than being given to motion. Any scientific explanations that appear to account for the object’s motion hold true only so long as the action can be demonstrated in experience. But no matter how many times I kick a football to find to find it carries forward in motion I am not justified in stating, as a logical law, that striking the ball with my foot will always have the same result.

Well, once again, not true. Newton's Law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Also, an object will remain in its current state unless acted upon by another force or cause. That is a universal law, a constant. Every time you kick that ball it will reacted by moving away from the force applied. The moment that it does not respond in such a manner is the moment it becomes a supernatural event that is not governed by naturalistic laws, magic.

Similarly there is no way of telling, before the fact, whether a leaden object placed in water might be buoyant while an object made of cork might sink. Experimental reasoning (science) can never be certain, which is to say it can never be demonstrably true. So we make a huge leap on two counts when propose an external cause of the universe, for we are saying cause is necessary, which it demonstrably isn’t, and that all worlds (including God) will be as this world, which is an assertion devoid of any logical demonstration or the slightest speck of evidence.

So by your logic evolution can not be taken seriously as science is not based on fact but supposition. I do not think you will find a single physicist who would consider, for a second, that the ball would not move if you kick it. If it is not considered factual then it is very much axiomatic. Cause, in our world, always precedes an effect. It is a naturalistic law and constant.

To be clear I am not saying, and it cannot be said, that causality could not pre-exist the Big Bang: what I am saying is that the Kalam argument cannot infer that it does. And the reason is because the opening premise of the argument is false.

I fear that you are taking the semantics of his argument far to literally. He spoke as a citizen of the human race with the same influences and biases as all of us do. Like all of us, he is subjected to colloquialisms as well. Anything that begins to exist has a cause, could have easily meant, every chair, car or human being. You are assuming that he was referring to element when that is not what he said. You are being far too literal.

I'm not sure that the simple explanation that I gave, and upon which we all agree, can justly be described as “playing with words”:

It is in the sense that you have taken the word "anything" far to literally. I take anything to me everyday objects and not the elements of their construction.

Everything in the universe answers to cause and effect
The universe began to exist
Everything in the universe began to exist (including cause and effect)

The third premise can not be substantiated. I am now told that quantum physics existed prior to the big bang. That being the case the laws on motion must have also existed as they operate within quantum physics, just not accurately.

Yes, of course, but subject to this: The broad statement “There is no God” would be difficult or impossible to prove. However where it takes the form of a proposition that is distinct in its definition, then it becomes a different matter. In the case of the Abrahamic God, proposed with a list of attributes, it only becomes necessary for the sceptic to demonstrate any of the definitional attributes that imply a contradiction. I have identified several of them already.

You have identified several areas where you believe there are contradictions. I have adequately refuted your claims in every case as a play on words, rather then a reality, or just not a contradiction at all. Like KCA, you are taking scripture for something they are not. The Bible is not a historical record. It is a book of Commandments intended to bring the children of God back to God when the reader reads it's pages. Why do you think we have four Gospels when one would have sufficed. There is a very good and logical reason. When I read the Scriptures it brings me closer to God, when a sceptic reads the Scriptures Satan influences there understanding to see errors that are created and not literal.

 

[Serenity7855]

My point was that the verses were added to Mark to bring Mark in line with the other Gospels and do not constitute separate testimony from those Gospels.

Mark did not require being brought into line with the other Gospels. God could not physically write the Scriptures himself. He had to select existing writings to compile the Scriptures with, or influence their compilation. No single gospel could fulfil the task but four combined as one could. The four makes sure that nothing is missing.

Why should more than one Gospel have been written containing the same events? What was the need? Paul mentioned many things that also show up in the Gospels. What was the need?

For the same reasons that I have shown above, plus, we do not see the whole picture, and for that reason, we never question God and what he does. He has a good reason for what he does.

The Gospels tell very similar stories about Passion Week. Yet they differ substantially in the post-resurrection stories. That is the payoff without which the idea of genuine divine sanction for Jesus falls apart. Viewed in that context, the poor correlation between the Gospels and with Paul in the post-resurrection passages becomes highly problematic. Trying to fit them all together ends up with the elaborate and seemingly pointless travelogue I put together here.

What you see as poor correlation is based on your understanding. As I have said, you do not have the full picture. Just because you do not see it all does not mean that it is contradictory. The effect of how it was written does not affect its authenticity. It has converted billions of lost souls over the centuries which means that it works very well in its correct state.

How does Luke know “their eyes were holden”? He was not there. For the sake of the discussion, I will assume he received this information from others and did not invent it to support his agenda of focusing on Jerusalem and away from Matthew’s Galilee, as I have argued elsewhere.

The Holy Ghost.

The disciples told the Eleven that they were prevented from recognizing Jesus until he broke bread. How did they know they were prevented from recognizing Jesus as opposed to suddenly deciding this was Jesus because he did something familiar, like break bread and give it to them?

Because their eyes were holden one moment and then they were not, at which time, they recognised him, is my guess, however, we do not have a word for word account of what was said.

They then say “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” (Lk 24:32) I know someone who is always saying, “I had a feeling that was going to happen” but they never mention these feelings before the fact. And note that this person who walked with them (and was going to keep traveling!) never said he was Jesus. If you did not already believe it, would you believe it?

If I were them, yes I would. You must remember that it is a book of Commandments and not a history book. Not everything that was said and done has been reported in the Scriptures.

This is at the Sea of Galilee in John 21. Even though they knew it was Jesus “None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” (Jn 21:12) Why would they be afraid to ask if they recognized him? And this is now sitting right next to him on shore, close enough to be handed bread and fish. It should not be an issue of being surprised to see Jesus alive. They already saw him twice in Jerusalem. John makes it clear that this is the third time. (Jn 21:14) Is this ‘knowing’ perhaps a matter of believing because they want to believe despite what they actually see? In other words, faith.

You are guessing based on very little evidence. It is irrelevant to the meaning of the Scriptures and most certainly not a contradiction.

Are you aware that this is nonsensical. "Even though they knew it was Jesus “None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?". Why would they ask who he was when, as you said, they knew it was Jesus.

Mary Magdalene had already looked at Jesus and spoken to him but did not recognize him.

She did not recognise him because she was not looking at him. * She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.,

 

[cottage]

We have experience, in the real world, of what begins to exist has a cause. Let's take the chair as an example. It is true that every elements that the chair contains had its beginning at the big bang, however, that is not what your average person in the street sees. They see the beginning of a chair from whence there was none. They see it come into existence from the cause of the craftsman's hand. That is the norm to the vast majority of mankind, so, if you were to tell them that the universe just sprang into existence they would ask "what caused it". They point I am making is that mankind has many, many precedents of caused existence. It is what we expect. To say that this does not cause the same effect in scientists is ridiculous to say. We are very familiar with things coming into existed after a cause. In reality, there was a point at which the chair did not exist in form. It was in another form. So, to say that the chair came into existence as a result of the craftsman's hand is an accurate statement to make.

All you are describing is mutation, a change in the form of pre-existent matter. The Kalam argument, if I might remind you, argues for the very existence of matter coming into being.

That is not true. I watched my wife bring a cake into existed as a result of her skills in baking. It was not there and then it was. It was caused to exist. I directly observed causal effect.

I’m guessing a lot of this stuff is new to you but frankly I can’t be bothered to write a page of text when you can look it up yourself. Check out the “Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference” so at least we can then have an informed discussion.

So by your logic evolution can not be taken seriously as science is not based on fact but supposition. I do not think you will find a single physicist who would consider, for a second, that the ball would not move if you kick it. If it is not considered factual then it is very much axiomatic. Cause, in our world, always precedes an effect. It is a naturalistic law and constant.

“Science based on supposition?” No of course not. It is based on a methodology and repetitive studies. Evolution is taken seriously in exactly the same way that other scientific theories are to be taken seriously! Science is about facts! A “fact” is derived from an empirical proposition that can be true or false, but is taken to have a high degree of probability on the basis of past experience. Causality is a fact, Newton’s Laws of Motion are a fact, Evolution is a fact, water is composed of the elements H20 is a fact. But none of those things are demonstrable for they are only as true as the last observation. But I don’t think you’re getting the problem of induction, which can never be solved by experimental reasoning (science), because there is no necessity in cause. The ‘truth’ of the hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future. So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past. Therefore statements insisting one thing is caused by another are only contingently true. The only statements that are necessarily true are those referring to tautologies and definitions. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.
If you’re still with me up to now then I’ll paraphrase the last sentence in the passage you’re responding to and hopefully you’ll see what I’m driving at. Now because there is no necessity in any matter of fact we very obviously cannot pronounce that in all possible worlds (to include God) the principle of causality will obtain, which in any case would make for a further problem as it would mean that God, the Necessary Being, was dependent upon a contingent principle, which is logically impossible.

 

[cottage]

God is omniscient knowing all that can be known. He is omnipotent able to do all that can be done. He cannot dwell with imperfect being because it would destroy his existence as a God so that cannot be done. He cannot not know for a surety what choices each and everyone of us will make as that would evoke predestination removing any free will and destroying the plan of Salvation. That cannot be known. He can know the beginning from the end though as regardless of our choices the end will be victorious for God. Evil can never destroy good. Like darkness can never take away the light.

First of all, the Supreme Being can bring about anything that is logically possible, and your reply tends to confuse the Supreme Being of classical theism with a particular doctrine of Christian theism. What I mean by classical theism is a creator being with the omni-attributes. The notion of free will or plans for salvation of his creation are not logically necessary to the concept; they are not attributes. Remove those aspects and the concept isn’t harmed in the least.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I was intending to let this one go, but then I noticed in another of your posts you claimed to have refuted it. So let's see.

1. Assume God created the world

God did create the world

okay

2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose

He created the world for us so that we may become like him in physical form.

He thus had needs, desires, and unfulfilled wishes.

3. He did create the world for a purpose

Yes

4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God

Yes, our needs benefited from it and the purpose was for us to return to him as perfected beings.

I think you’re missing the crucial point in a big way. We didn’t exist before God created us; so how could we benefit from anything at any time.

5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire

Perfection does not automatically bring total fulfillment of desires. He desired for us to return. He is not a magician.

No, he desired for us to exist, that’s the contradiction. There are only two possibilities. To argue that the Supreme Being created lesser beings (in itself a doubtful proposition) for his personal gratification or comfort is an evident absurdity. And to say he brought humans into being so they could benefit from his love is, with respect, unmitigated nonsense; for how would non-existent things be in a position to benefit from anything?


6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.

That is not true. It is supposition. No one knows the entire mind and will of God. He is pure love and his love for us is unconditional, to the point that he created a plan that had the potential of bring his children back to him, in a form that he could dwell with.

This is not about professing to know the mind of God; it is about whether an entity that supposedly created the world of contingent, error-prone creatures can without contradiction be entitled “The Supreme Being”. And since he preposterously has human style needs and sensibilities then on that account clearly he cannot.


7. Premise 5 is true by definition

No, it is not. That is your judgement born out of argumentum ad ignorantium. You simply do not have all of the facts.

Again, that is absurd. You’ve acknowledged “God” is not the Supreme Being in your reply to 5. And by the way this has nothing to do with facts, but with logic and the principle of non-contradiction.

8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)

God had desires for his children to return to him, no needs or unfulfilled wishes. Funny that Satan wanted to force everybody to return by taking away free agency. The attributes you assign to God were the same attributes that Satan put forward to God in his plan.

If God had a desire for X and he then caused X, then prior to X he had a wish or need to fulfil.

9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.

The premises are not true.

But you’ve not shown any to be false!

We can summarise the above argument like this:

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

Not true

It is true by definition!
Two omi-entities vie for the appellation “Supreme Being”.
Entity 1. Has no desires but he is and has everything
Entity 2. Had wishes and desires to fulfil.
Which entity is self-evidently the Supreme Being?


P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation

True

Then by your own admission (in reply to 2, 5, and 8) he had a previously unfulfilled wish or desire.


Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

Not true.

It is demonstrably true, confirmed by the self-contradictory answers you’ve given.

 

[Serenity7855]

All you are describing is mutation, a change in the form of pre-existent matter. The Kalam argument, if I might remind you, argues for the very existence of matter coming into being.

Yes, that is what I am describing. A realistic view of things coming into being by a cause. Not a scientific proposal or hypothesis but what we all consider how things begin to exist. It is not necessary to see everything through the eyes of science. People believe that the chair came into existence and that it did so by the skill of the chair maker, the cause. Noise begins to exist, as does a thought or smell, an emotion like love, a belief like in God, or an idea all begin to exist. That is how the majority of the world see it, including Kalam.

Kalams arguments says that anything that begins to exist has a cause. You are saying that by "anything" that he means "element" , or as you have stated "matter". You could not possible know that. Anything could mean anything, like a chair or a car. They are both anythings. I see a car coming into existence and that the cause of that is robots and man. If I were to write down the argument in accordance to my own perceptions I would put "anything that begins to exist has a cause" coincidentally. Now, I am starting to find this line of questioning tedious and I am feeling uncomfortable and concerned that I am causing you a lack of patience to put you case forward for discussion to me. You can convince me that I am wrong in my perceptions if you can show me that Kalam definitively meant element when he said "anything". Not an opinion or a supposition, or even inductive reasoning, but evidence. If you cannot do that then the first premise can be validated as either element or physical objects made from element. Which still means that God could be a factor in both cases.

I’m guessing a lot of this stuff is new to you but frankly I can’t be bothered to write a page of text when you can look it up yourself. Check out the “Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference” so at least we can then have an informed discussion.

Yes, some of it is knew and I am grateful to those posters who have increased my knowledge to give me a better understanding from which to reason it all out.

If you cannot be bothered then let me thank you for what you have bothered with and close it there, as the last thing I want to do is to use up your time and effort unnecessarily. I was, however, under the impression that we were having an informed discussion. I am not a scientist, it is true, but I do claim the ability to inductively reason things out. I believe that I have succeeded as best as anyone could in this debate.

“Science based on supposition?” No of course not. It is based on a methodology and repetitive studies.

Yes, I know that, however, I didn't say that, you did.

Experimental reasoning (science) can never be certain, which is to say it can never be demonstrably true. So we make a huge leap on two counts when propose an external cause of the universe, for we are saying cause is necessary, which it demonstrably isn’t, and that all worlds (including God) will be as this world, which is an assertion devoid of any logical demonstration or the slightest speck of evidence.

Evolution is taken seriously in exactly the same way that other scientific theories are to be taken seriously!

Yes, I agree

Science is about facts! A “fact” is derived from an empirical proposition that can be true or false, but is taken to have a high degree of probability on the basis of past experience.

No I disagree, science is about the best possible explanation, which could be fact.

Causality is a fact, Newton’s Laws of Motion are a fact, Evolution is a fact, water is composed of the elements H20 is a fact. But none of those things are demonstrable for they are only as true as the last observation.

That goes without saying but all it does is to cause unnecessary irrelevant complexities. We can only really deal with the here and now accurately.

But I don’t think you’re getting the problem of induction, which can never be solved by experimental reasoning (science), because there is no necessity in cause.

Yes, I am familiar with inductive reasoning using premises. I have never asked anyone to solve or discredit Kalams cosmological argument using science. I know it is impossible. I have said, many times, that it is an argument worthy of debate. It really matters not one iota whether the big bang was caused or cause-less both ideas equally and feasibly place God at the helm.

The ‘truth’ of the hypothesis relates only to the present and what has gone before, but not to the future.

Yet you say that in the future a ball may not move when you kick it, when you said, "But none of those things are demonstrable for they are only as true as the last observation."

So we are not justified in believing that the future must be like the past. Therefore statements insisting one thing is caused by another are only contingently true.

This is true, however, it is axiomatic.

Contingently true is a contradiction as contingent mean something not yet certain; conditional, so how can it be true.

The only statements that are necessarily true are those referring to tautologies and definitions. To deny that X is X is to utter a contradiction, but no contradiction is involved in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow, since it might not.

But surely the sun rising is defined by a tautological happenstance. It is more likely then not. The probability of the sun not rising tomorrow is so low that it is negligible and unworthy of consideration. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow as much as I have faith in God. It is as close to a fact as it could be. To say that the ball, may not move when kicked in the future is saying that naturalistic laws have been compromised along with all of the implications of a failed universal law. It is just not worthy of consideration and has no evidence to remotely substantiate it.

If you’re still with me up to now then I’ll paraphrase the last sentence in the passage you’re responding to and hopefully you’ll see what I’m driving at.

I do not see anything in your post that would cause me to lose you, so, yes, I am still with you

Now because there is no necessity in any matter of fact we very obviously cannot pronounce that in all possible worlds (to include God) the principle of causality will obtain, which in any case would make for a further problem as it would mean that God, the Necessary Being, was dependent upon a contingent principle, which is logically impossible.

How do you conclude that God was dependant upon a contingent principle. God is Alpha and Omega. He does work within contingents. He only does certainties, whether now or in the future. That being the case, your summation is counter intuitive.

 

[Serenity7855]

First of all, the Supreme Being can bring about anything that is logically possible, and your reply tends to confuse the Supreme Being of classical theism with a particular doctrine of Christian theism. What I mean by classical theism is a creator being with the omni-attributes. The notion of free will or plans for salvation of his creation are not logically necessary to the concept; they are not attributes. Remove those aspects and the concept isn’t harmed in the least.

They are the very meaning for our existence. Without them there would be no reason for divinity. Remove them and we would all become like atheists having to reason to exist.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I was intending to let this one go, but then I noticed in another of your posts you claimed to have refuted it. So let's see.

1. Assume God created the world


okay

I hope retrospect does not leave you wishing different.

2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose

He thus had needs, desires, and unfulfilled wishes.

Not from my point of view. He had desires. No needs, no unfulfilled wishes. He is, after all,, a God.

3. He did create the world for a purpose

Yes, indeed he did.

4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God

No, just a desire for us to return. Nothing depended on us returning so it was not a need. The purpose was for us to be tried and tested in the flesh. Something we all agreed on in the council in heaven before the world was made.

I think you’re missing the crucial point in a big way. We didn’t exist before God created us; so how could we benefit from anything at any time.

Not at all. I am fully aware of what you are saying it is just that what you are saying is wrong. God did not create us spiritually. We are eternal in nature, as he is. We have always existed as spirit children and intelligences, or quantum particles. The only persons created in the flesh was Adam and Eve, through the DNA written by God. Our first parents. We have come to earth as spirits who enter the bodies of our babies. This is who we are. Souls, body and spirit combined until we die.

5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire

He doesn't have physical requirements but he does have emotional desire. He is a God who loves all of us unconditionally. We are his children. As parents we desire the best for our offspring. Are you denying this right to God just because he is a God? If anything this demonstration of his pure love for us makes him more of a God then if he had no desires or passions. I fear that you miss-interpret the meaning of perfection to facilitate your errors in your inductive reasoning that I fraught with your own biases. You are not taking full account of who and what God is.

No, he desired for us to exist, that’s the contradiction. There are only two possibilities. To argue that the Supreme Being created lesser beings (in itself a doubtful proposition) for his personal gratification or comfort is an evident absurdity. And to say he brought humans into being so they could benefit from his love is, with respect, unmitigated nonsense; for how would non-existent things be in a position to benefit from anything?

God did not create something that has always existed, how could he. He did not bring into being that which already existed. We were, and are, lesser beings then He is. We had no body, we were sinners. Of course we were lesser beings. No Christian would contradict that. Have you not read revelations and the war in heaven. The very reason why evil is in the world.

We are in an existence not unlike the matrix. I took the blue pill whereas you took the red pill. I know that I am the product of the physical and the spiritual. And I know what roll God plays in it. My spirit is a part of the quantum network. Funny, the Matrix movie was made by a Christian.

6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.

This is not about professing to know the mind of God; it is about whether an entity that supposedly created the world of contingent, error-prone creatures can without contradiction be entitled “The Supreme Being”. And since he preposterously has human style needs and sensibilities then on that account clearly he cannot.

WHY? If you had any knowledge about the plan of Salvation then you would not say that. That is why this is a argumentum ad ignorantium

7. Premise 5 is true by definition

Again, that is absurd. You’ve acknowledged “God” is not the Supreme Being in your reply to 5. And by the way this has nothing to do with facts, but with logic and the principle of non-contradiction.

God is not a fact. He transcends the need for facts.

I have not acknowledged God is not a Supreme Being in premise five, on the contrary, my response shows him as caring and compassionate making him more of a Supreme Being. You are not taking into account the attributes of a God. You are suggesting that the attributes are in fact faults.

Ah, by that you obviously mean a play on words excluding culture and colloquialisms. Trickery. When we were in the council of heaven and the plan was presented to us, God, naturally, had a desire for us all to return. As soon as the third of the host of heaven rebelled he knew that his desire would never come to pass.

8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)

If God had a desire for X and he then caused X, then prior to X he had a wish or need to fulfil.

No, as I have said, God had a desire for us to return to him after the trail of our faith. He cannot force us to return, as Satan wanted to do, and reap the glory, because it would remove free agency and destroy his entire plan of Salvation. He most certainly does not have needs or unfulfilled wishes, he is a God.

God had a desire for X. He cannot make X happen for reasons I have already said. In fact X will never be realised by him because of people like yourself. And X cannot be evaluated until the second coming when we will be judged for our mortal probation. I desire to own a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow. A desire I feel will never be realised, however, it is was a desire and never a unfulfilled wish. A desire is, of course a wish. A wish is a desire or hope for something that cannot or probably will not happen. An unfulfilled Wish means a wish that has not been achieved. It is in the past tense. No, God has no wishes that have not been fulfilled.

9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.

But you’ve not shown any to be false!

On the contrary, your assertion that God created our spirit being is false, therefore, I have refuted what you have claimed to be true. Secondly, God's desire has been fulfilled. He no longer desires a relationship with us as he has it.

We can summarise the above argument like this:

P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

We have always existed, he has always had a relationship with us, he has a relationship with 2.2 billion of us today. Therefore, God no longer has a want or desire as he has it now and continues to have it. God is pretty satisfied with the way the plan is progressing, I would think.

It is true by definition!
Two omi-entities vie for the appellation “Supreme Being”.
Entity 1. Has no desires but he is and has everything
Entity 2. Had wishes and desires to fulfil.
Which entity is self-evidently the Supreme Being?

P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation

Then by your own admission (in reply to 2, 5, and 8) he had a previously unfulfilled wish or desire.

Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

That would only be true if by having desires that it would, in some way, make God imperfect. It doesn't, so he is the Supreme Being.

It is demonstrably true, confirmed by the self-contradictory answers you’ve given.

God is a God of love and compassion. He has a desire for all of us to return to him in heaven. Does that compromise his roll as a Supreme Being, no, of course it doesn't it enhances it and makes his existence even more tenable. By demonstrating that God has desires and passion all you have done is to make his existence more probable then not, for that I thank you. Are my answers self contradictory? The premises have certainly made me think because they are a little vague, for example, premise five does not stipulate whether the needs and wants are physical or emotional. Physically he is perfect and self sustaining, however, emotionally he has perfect love, desires and passions which may appear to the non-believers as a fault rather then the attribute it is. But if it seems like my answers are self contradictory then it is because I have not fully understood what point you were making at the time or, I had to reason it out in my mind whilst I was writing, showing my "workings out", which is not a good idea. I normally give it much more thought before responding. .

Conclusion. God is very much the superior being that Christianity claims, so I can reaffirm that it is unlikely that anybody can prove any different. God lives and loves all of us equally with compassion and a desire for us to be happy.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity "They are the very meaning for our existence. Without them there would be no reason for divinity. Remove them and we would all become like atheists having to reason to exist.*"

BIGOT

 

[McBell]

Serenity "They are the very meaning for our existence. Without them there would be no reason for divinity. Remove them and we would all become like atheists having to reason to exist.*"

BIGOT

Requiring a crutch doe snot make one a bigot