There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shad]

P1 is not false, therefore, the argument is sound. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Negative as my links have proven in the quantum vaccum events and objects begin uncaused. Do not reject the "science" once it provided evidence against premise one.

 

[cottage]

No, it is an objective opinion based on the Scriptures. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Somethings do not require empirical proof for them to be true.

1. I believe that God exists, therefore, he does to me.

2. Because he exists to my satisfaction I believe that he compiled the Scriptures for people like me who believe he exists.

3. I, therefore, believe the Scriptures to me the literal word of God.

4. The Scriptures tell me that God is a God of Salvation who gave us free will.

5. That is my objective opinion based on the Scriptures.

It is therefore relevant to the discussion for without it there would be no discussion. If you want to deny that or challenge it then I certainly do not have any objections.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but to be clear the main point I’m making is that salvation and the notion of a God-given free will is not logically necessary to the concept of Supreme Being, and the minor point is that such things aren’t demonstrated empirically.

Well, no, that is your concept of a Supreme Being and by definition he is simply "God". The online free dictionary defines a Supreme Being as this.

Supreme Being

Noun 1. Supreme Being - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the object of worship in monotheistic religions God

That is the God of classical theism, and I’m entirely happy with that broad definition. But the definition of “supreme” is the crucial aspect. And what god could be greater and more perfect than a being whose nature is complete and sufficient in all things, with no need for contingent comforts or trivial objects (us!)? So it must be the case that nothing can benefit God, least of all imperfect, inferior contingent creatures. Only human creatures have needs and desires because of our imperfections, but a Supreme Being has no such needs or desires for his being is already augmented without limit.

As I have said, three times now, God did not create us. We have always existed in a form similar to quantum sub-automic particles. Or intelligences. Quantum sub-automic particles flash blue and red constantly. The only time they stop flashing and remain blue or red is when you observe them. They have sufficient intelligence to know when you are observing them. They are intelligent particles. All God did was to organise those intelligences into our spirits. That self same spirit is an integral part of our soul and makes us who we are. The longer we are in this body the more those intelligences will grow in experience and knowledge. That is our purpose. Just like everything is the combination of quantum sub-automic particles in our physically observed world, is it the same in the spirit world, being tangible and conscious.

I was fervently hoping for both our sakes that you might have let that incoherent explanation drop so that I wouldn’t have to rub salt in the wound. Just think about it! If I was conscious before I was born then the statement “I wasn’t conscious before I was born” would be self-contradictory, which it isn’t, and if I wasn’t a conscious being before I was born then how could it be said that something devoid of consciousness can benefit from anything? Second point: if sub-atomic particles have always existed then they are eternal, and if they are eternal, existing of themselves, then God cannot be the “originator” (refer to the definition you gave up the page).

There is a saying (in rather twisted logic) that the more that is said of God the more impossible he becomes. I think in our discussion you’ve proved the truth of that old adage perfectly. With each response you weaken God further by throwing anything and everything into the argument, regardless of coherency or logical absurdities. I’ve noticed there is always a comical aspect to these protracted discussions, where I defend and support the concept of God and theists whittle away at it in order to sustain their religious beliefs.

A Supreme Being and God are synonymous. They mean the exact same thing. Logically, if God exists then he has to be a Supreme Being.

No, if there are contradictions or absurdities then the “God” you claim exists is by the very definition of the term not the “supreme” entity.

There is a God. If you look carefully you will find Him in the same way as they determine whether you have HIV or not. They look where it has been. You can do that by looking in nature.

If God’s handiwork is seen in nature then the evil and suffering we see in nature are also his handiwork. Therefore the infant that dies of Leukaemia, the sufferers of epilepsy, motor-neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and congenital heart disease are all evidence of where God has been.

Not in the world I live in.

Exactly! That is subjectivism.

 

[cottage]

This.
So, does that mean that there does not have to be a precedent for something beginning to exist having a cause as we know that a body remains in its current state unless acted upon by an external force or cause, just like we know that a triangle is the sum of its three angles. Seems like an identical principle to me so why are we continuing to argue thee point.

You are confusing two things, an inferential argument that takes premises inductively from features in the world and a deductive argument that is demonstrably true purely to the premises being valid and sound. An inductive argument can still be unsound even if the premises are valid because nothing in experience can ever be certain, whereas a deductive argument such as the “Tom” example will always be true by definition, regardless of there being a “Tom” person.

It is essential for there to be a Tom. The argument fails otherwise as the name Tom indicates that he is a male and not a female, which would make the argument a nonsense.

No it isn’t necessary for any specific. Allow me to explain with an example by Rene Descartes, a theist philosopher (who himself proposed a version of the cosmological argument), who said: “…because I cannot conceive of a mountain without a valley it does not follow that there is any mountain in the world, or any valley, but only that the mountain and the valley, whether they exist or not, cannot be separated from one another.” Discourse on method and the meditations.

Equally, once a thing is defined then it cannot be other than the definition. If a bachelor is an unmarried man then that is the definition, regardless of any individual man.

That is a subjective opinion based on your own bias. I see "anything" differently to how you see it. Which interpretation is right, yours or mine? Even if "anything" means elements and there is no other precedent to it does not invalidate the first premise. It just causes you to investigate it further not to dismiss it because it has never happened before, therefore, the first premise is an objective opinion based on Sir Isaac Newton's first and third laws on motion. Naturalistic laws by which we determine how the world in which we live works.

We cannot venture outside the natural world. Newton’s laws apply to things within the natural world and cannot be used to give a cause to the world without asserting “All universes that exist are caused to exist”, a statement that no scientist could or would ever make because it is not empirically demonstrable (and nor is it a necessary truth).

Not my opinion. Everything exists because the big bang gave it the building blocks to exist in space and time. However, a chair exists because it was caused to exist by a craftsman taking those building blocks and then creating a chair from them. The chair did not exist, in its current form, prior to being constructed by the chair maker, therefor it began to exist at a point in time when the construction was complete. Anything that begins to exist has a cause is a perfectly sound argument that proves itself by shear observation.

Let me remind you that the Kalam argument says “Whatever begins to exist”. “Whatever” means “everything”, all matter, which includes the chair that was formed out of matter. But we’ve no experience of all matter beginning to exist and so the primary premise is false.

You have said "Everything that exists takes its form from existent matter in the universe" which means that the form began to exist. You have inadvertently agreed with me.

I thought you said you’d grasped the objection? Now I find you’re still begging the question! If matter is already existent and only changes form then it cannot be said to have begun to exist. So the only way to prove the truth of the proposition “whatever begins to exist has a cause” is to demonstrate the premise ”The world has a cause”, and that cannot be demonstrated by reference to things existent within the world that simply change their form. Please tell me that you’ve got it now?

If nothing in the universe exists, but only changes form, ex-materia, how can that be as ex-materia means from nothing. But more important the semantics, why then is science researching matter and anti-matter, which is exactly what ex-materia means.

“Ex materia” means out of, or from, matter. “Ex nihilo” means out of, or from, nothing. Just because we don’t know how the world began doesn’t mean we ought to accept a false proposition and false inference. That would be a case of trying to make the facts correspond with what we would like to believe. That’s bad philosophy and even worse science.

 

[Serenity7855]

The original ending of Mark was problematic because it made no mention of anyone seeing Jesus after the resurrection. Bits and pieces from here and there were tacked on later (in very non-Markan style) to cover up this problem. My point, once again, is that Mark does not constitute separate testimony in this matter. Without Mark there is almost no correlation between the stories about Jesus after the resurrection.

There is no definitive evidence that says that the end of Mark is anything else then what it is.

In regard to the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20, it needs to be be first pointed out that the authenticity of this passage (i.e. the historical accuracy and correctness of its teaching) has never been questioned by scholars. The only question that has been raised as to its genuineness pertains to whether or not it was written by Mark and whether it should be considered a part of Mark's original manuscript. Since the accuracy and correctness of the teaching cannot be successfully denied, for the passage to be attached to the close of Mark's Gospel does not render it any less valuable even though some other Apostle or inspired writer should have been its author

Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine

Cobbling the several stories together creates a complicated tale that raises more questions than it answers, as I have documented previously.

Cobbling the several stories together produces an accurate depiction of exactly what happen. The exactitude is worth having to deal with the complexity.

That presumes that one already believes in the Gospels as accurate accounts. It also raises the very odd notion that God is intentionally telling a confusing story.

I read the Scriptures with an open mind being prepared to prove or disprove it's authenticity. By the time I had finished Revelations I knew that it was an accurate account. I was 28 years old having never been a part of any religious organisations.

What I see in comparing Matthew and Luke is Luke quite intentionally turning Matthew on his head because Luke has an agenda that is opposite to Matthew. It is not a matter of different pieces of the same story. It is that Luke deliberately contradicts Matthew in important ways to emphasize that he has a different focus.

And that is the whole problem in this debate. "What you think". I do not know your history and any thing I now say is pure conjecture. You seem to be looking for errors and contradictions, in places where there is no other evidence other then what you think. It is almost like you are justifying your disbelief in divinity by what you perceive to be errors in His words. God cannot make mistakes, therefore, the Scriptures are a fake so God to is a fake, is what seems to be your escape route. Of, course, you are perfectly entitles to read into the word of God whatever you wish to, and even publicise your findings, however, ultimately we will be held accountable for everything we do here on earth, unless we repent.

When details differ noticeably among the Gospels, it is said to be because the story was passed on by fallible human beings. When a Gospel writer records something that no one could know about, it is because he was inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Well, that is totally illogical to me. It would mean that the entire New Testament was written by the Holy Ghost and not the Apostles, as we are told. It would mean that they were not an account of what the Apostles actually encountered. It would be a fake, however, I know that it is not. God compiled the bible by selecting what it contains or does not contain. There were other Gospels He could have chosen. He selected the four that we see today. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even if you believe that there are additional verses in Mark does not matter because that is what God wanted. It is a part of His words.

Sorry, not buying it. Sounds a lot more like the Gospel writers intentionally tailored their stories to suit their separate agendas.

You make the Gospels writers seem dishonest and out to fulfil their own needs rather then preach the truth about divinity. Again, your choice, however, I think that deep within yourself you know that is not true.

And exactly why would Jesus hide his identity until the last minute? Remember he intended to keep traveling. What if he had? Sounds like maybe a tradition that after being told about an empty tomb, a couple of guys tricked themselves into thinking this stranger was Jesus, something he never claimed. Luke found this story useful for redirecting the disciples away from Galilee and back to Jerusalem.

That would make God dishonest and like unto Satan, the father of all lies. We need to be careful who we allow into our lives. Satan is not brash and bold in his agenda. He carefully tries to lower us down into he'll with truth and even an angel of light and before we know it we have been ensnared and cannot release ourselves. We end up believing that wrong is right and good is bad. Whatever you need to know about God and his plan you can know. Just ask him in faith and you can know the truth of all things, even hidden truths.

The importance of those commandments rests on believing Jesus rose from the dead. Paul even says so. Why is that part of the story told in such a disjointed style with almost no correlation among the tellers and a very odd result if you sum the stories? If you did not already believe it, why would you believe it?

Because the light of Christ would testify to our being that it is true and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things.

Why would they need to dare to ask him who he was. Why is that word used at all? Unlessof course there was a discrepancy between what they were seeing and what they wanted to believe.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

I had provided a quote that showed that she had already looked at Jesus and did not recognize him.

No you didn't

John 20

13“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.”

She did not realize it was him, probably because of her grief and knowledge that she had seen him dead three days earlier. She wasn't expecting to see him. Plus, the last time she saw him he was in a bit of a mess so what her eyes saw did not match with what she was now seeing. It is all down to what you want it to say rather then what it is really saying.

Why is there this repeated reference to Jesus not being recognized? Was there a tradition that the person who was supposed to be Jesus raised from the dead was often not recognized as Jesus? The authors could have been addressing this issue by having him first not be recognized then suddenly being recognized. See? It was Jesus after all. Ignore that old story.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

As I have said earlier, if the Gospels are telling different parts of a single coherent story, why are they doing it so poorly and hereby raising such awkward questions? Where was the Holy Ghost? I will stick with my theory that the Gospels were written with varying agendas in mind and that the traditions (and each other’s writings) were adapted to serve those agendas.

Then that is your perogative.

 

[Nada]

There is no definitive evidence that says that the end of Mark is anything else then what it is.

In regard to the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20, it needs to be be first pointed out that the authenticity of this passage (i.e. the historical accuracy and correctness of its teaching) has never been questioned by scholars. The only question that has been raised as to its genuineness pertains to whether or not it was written by Mark and whether it should be considered a part of Mark's original manuscript. Since the accuracy and correctness of the teaching cannot be successfully denied, for the passage to be attached to the close of Mark's Gospel does not render it any less valuable even though some other Apostle or inspired writer should have been its author

Is Mark 16:9-20 Spurious or Genuine



Cobbling the several stories together produces an accurate depiction of exactly what happen. The exactitude is worth having to deal with the complexity.



I read the Scriptures with an open mind being prepared to prove or disprove it's authenticity. By the time I had finished Revelations I knew that it was an accurate account. I was 28 years old having never been a part of any religious organisations.



And that is the whole problem in this debate. "What you think". I do not know your history and any thing I now say is pure conjecture. You seem to be looking for errors and contradictions, in places where there is no other evidence other then what you think. It is almost like you are justifying your disbelief in divinity by what you perceive to be errors in His words. God cannot make mistakes, therefore, the Scriptures are a fake so God to is a fake, is what seems to be your escape route. Of, course, you are perfectly entitles to read into the word of God whatever you wish to, and even publicise your findings, however, ultimately we will be held accountable for everything we do here on earth, unless we repent.



Well, that is totally illogical to me. It would mean that the entire New Testament was written by the Holy Ghost and not the Apostles, as we are told. It would mean that they were not an account of what the Apostles actually encountered. It would be a fake, however, I know that it is not. God compiled the bible by selecting what it contains or does not contain. There were other Gospels He could have chosen. He selected the four that we see today. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Even if you believe that there are additional verses in Mark does not matter because that is what God wanted. It is a part of His words.


You make the Gospels writers seem dishonest and out to fulfil their own needs rather then preach the truth about divinity. Again, your choice, however, I think that deep within yourself you know that is not true.



That would make God dishonest and like unto Satan, the father of all lies. We need to be careful who we allow into our lives. Satan is not brash and bold in his agenda. He carefully tries to lower us down into he'll with truth and even an angel of light and before we know it we have been ensnared and cannot release ourselves. We end up believing that wrong is right and good is bad. Whatever you need to know about God and his plan you can know. Just ask him in faith and you can know the truth of all things, even hidden truths.



Because the light of Christ would testify to our being that it is true and by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things.



James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.



No you didn't



She did not realize it was him, probably because of her grief and knowledge that she had seen him dead three days earlier. She wasn't expecting to see him. Plus, the last time she saw him he was in a bit of a mess so what her eyes saw did not match with what she was now seeing. It is all down to what you want it to say rather then what it is really saying.



James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.



Then that is your perogative.

Mark 16:9-20 is not God inspired.It does not belong in the holy scriptures.

Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53–8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision.*
Some other wording has been adjusted to incorporate what scholars generally accept as the most authentic reflection of the original writings.

A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Nada]

Long and Short Conclusions. Some have thought that Mark 16:8, which ends with the words “and they told nobody anything, for they were in fear,” is too abrupt to have been the original ending of this Gospel. However, that need not be concluded in view of Mark’s general style. Also, the fourth-century scholars Jerome and Eusebius agree that the authentic record closes with the words “for they were in fear.”—Jerome, letter 120, question 3, as published in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vienna and Leipzig, 1912, Vol. LV, p. 481; Eusebius, “Ad Marinum,” I, as published in Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1857, Vol. XXII, col. 937.

There are a number of manuscripts and versions that add a long or a short conclusion after these words. The long conclusion (consisting of 12 verses) is found in the Alexandrine Manuscript, the Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. It also appears in the Latin Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Syriac Pe****ta. But it is omitted in the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, the Sinaitic Syriac codex, and the Armenian Version. Certain late manuscripts and versions contain the short conclusion. The Codex Regius of the eighth century C.E. has both conclusions, giving the shorter conclusion first. It prefixes a note to each conclusion, saying that these passages are current in some quarters, though it evidently recognized neither of them as authoritative.

In commenting on the long and short conclusions of the Gospel of Mark, Bible translator Edgar J. Goodspeed noted: “The Short Conclusion connects much better with Mark 16:8 than does the Long, but neither can be considered an original part of the Gospel of Mark.”—The Goodspeed Parallel New Testament, 1944, p. 127.



Mark, Good News According to — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[Serenity7855]

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but to be clear the main point I’m making is that salvation and the notion of a God-given free will is not logically necessary to the concept of Supreme Being, and the minor point is that such things aren’t demonstrated empirically.

And that is the point we are stuck on. I cannot change what I believe to be the truth. Without salvation and free will religion is an empty vessel having no substance in it.

Plan of Redemption

The fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, designed to bring about man’s immortality and eternal life. It includes the Creation, Fall, and Atonement, along with all God-given laws, ordinances, and doctrines. This plan makes it possible for all people to be exalted and live forever with God . The scriptures also refer to this plan as the plan of salvation, the plan of happiness, and the plan of mercy.

1. There is none other name under heaven by which man can be saved:Acts 4:12;
2. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive:1 Cor. 15:22;
3. By grace are ye saved through faith:Eph. 2:8;
4. God promised eternal life before the world began:Titus 1:2;
5. Jesus is the author of eternal salvation:Heb. 5:8–9;
6. The plan of redemption was extended to the dead:1 Pet. 3:18–20;1 Pet. 4:6;

That is the God of classical theism, and I’m entirely happy with that broad definition. But the definition of “supreme” is the crucial aspect. And what god could be greater and more perfect than a being whose nature is complete and sufficient in all things, with no need for contingent comforts or trivial objects (us!)? So it must be the case that nothing can benefit God, least of all imperfect, inferior contingent creatures. Only human creatures have needs and desires because of our imperfections, but a Supreme Being has no such needs or desires for his being is already augmented without limit.

I have always believed that a Supreme Being is in fact God. Nothing more and nothing less. I do not recognise your definition of a Supreme Being. My definition of God is an entity with a perfected, self perpetuating form. Full of pure love and compassion. Empathetic and benevolent. Being a father figure with all of its noble attributes. An entity whose glory defies all comprehension and He thrives, and is sustained, by the glory given Him by us, his children. Yes we are imperfect, inferior contingent creatures, however, the remedy to that is our trial of faith here, salvation and then exaltation which means that we too will reach a state of physical perfection.

"Supreme Being has no such needs or desires for his being is already augmented without limit". This is your Achilles heel. I do not know how you have concluded this as a definition to God.

I was fervently hoping for both our sakes that you might have let that incoherent explanation drop so that I wouldn’t have to rub salt in the wound. Just think about it! If I was conscious before I was born then the statement “I wasn’t conscious before I was born” would be self-contradictory, which it isn’t, and if I wasn’t a conscious being before I was born then how could it be said that something devoid of consciousness can benefit from anything? Second point: if sub-atomic particles have always existed then they are eternal, and if they are eternal, existing of themselves, then God cannot be the “originator” (refer to the definition you gave up the page).

I said " We have always existed in a form similar to quantum sub-automic particles" I have said similar not that it is actually quantum sub-automic particles. Incoherent? I think it is made to measure.

I am not sure to what you refer to with regards to consciousness. We are eternal beings. I speak to you today by and through my spirit. A spirit that has always existed. When entering mortality our minds had a veil of forgetfulness place on it so that we could act without bias or knowledge of God. If that were not so then our trial of faith would be a trial of knowledge and worthless as a trial. Very often the veil wears thin and we get glimpses into another dimension where our loved ones, who have gone before, reside. It is a perfect plan. You will not be able to fault it. I tried for many years but without any success.

Jeremiah 1:5

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations

Revelations 12

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


How Satan became the devil—He tempts Eve—Adam and Eve fall, and death enters the world.

1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

There is a saying (in rather twisted logic) that the more that is said of God the more impossible he becomes. I think in our discussion you’ve proved the truth of that old adage perfectly. With each response you weaken God further by throwing anything and everything into the argument, regardless of coherency or logical absurdities. I’ve noticed there is always a comical aspect to these protracted discussions, where I defend and support the concept of God and theists whittle away at it in order to sustain their religious beliefs.

That is strange. The more I speak about god the more I cannot disbelieve in him. In addition to that, the more I read criticism of Him the more I am convinced that he lives. That is why I love having my beliefs challenged. It always shows the argumentum ad ignorantium of those who only have a partial knowledge of the great plan of Salvation.

With each response you weaken God further by throwing anything and everything into the argument, regardless of coherency or logical absurdities

This, of course, is an unnecessary remark to make so I will not rise to it.

No, if there are contradictions or absurdities then the “God” you claim exists is by the very definition of the term not the “supreme” entity.

Not necessarily, but to follow that topic would only cause further verbose discussion that would get neither of us anywhere. But having said that, your definition of a Supreme Being differs from that of the dictionary.

If God’s handiwork is seen in nature then the evil and suffering we see in nature are also his handiwork. Therefore the infant that dies of Leukaemia, the sufferers of epilepsy, motor-neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and congenital heart disease are all evidence of where God has been.

No, that is all caused by man, not by God. He is a non-interventionary God.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: here is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, for example this is the retina, it looks just like an electronics printed circuit board, and the big question is 'did God wire it up or did it wire itself up'?

 

[Sapiens]

There is good evidence that it evolved and no evidence that a god wired it.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

There is good evidence that it evolved and no evidence that a god wired it.

If there's absolute solid evidence, why don't atheists simply present it to shut up the creationists once and for all?..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Topic title: here is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, for example this is the retina, it looks just like an electronics printed circuit board, and the big question is 'did God wire it up or did it wire itself up'?

Is your argument that it looks like something humans designed, so a god must have designed it?

 

[cottage]

And that is the point we are stuck on. I cannot change what I believe to be the truth. Without salvation and free will religion is an empty vessel having no substance in it.

But your opening post to this thread asserts “There is more than enough evidence to ‘”prove”’ God exists. And yet all I’ve seen from you are arguments from faith, or believers’ arguments from scripture. Where is this “proof”? I am not a sceptic, a priori, but remain sceptical until and unless I am given conclusive reason to believe what is claimed. And that hasn’t happened here, or in past millennia. All the reasons I’m being give seem contrived and are plainly contradictory in most cases.

I have always believed that a Supreme Being is in fact God. Nothing more and nothing less. I do not recognise your definition of a Supreme Being. My definition of God is an entity with a perfected, self perpetuating form. Full of pure love and compassion. Empathetic and benevolent. Being a father figure with all of its noble attributes. An entity whose glory defies all comprehension and He thrives, and is sustained, by the glory given Him by us, his children. Yes we are imperfect, inferior contingent creatures, however, the remedy to that is our trial of faith here, salvation and then exaltation which means that we too will reach a state of physical perfection.

"Supreme Being has no such needs or desires for his being is already augmented without limit". This is your Achilles heel. I do not know how you have concluded this as a definition to God.

By the very definition of the concept the term Supreme Being means an entity that necessarily exists, complete and self-sufficient, with no desires or unfulfilled wishes, and the cause of everything existent outside of itself. To quote St Anselm: “A being than which none greater can be thought.” And it is immediately obvious that a being that is the creator and has everything and is everything, with no wishes to be fulfilled, is greater than a being that seeks to benefit from a domineering relationship with inferior creatures.

I said " We have always existed in a form similar to quantum sub-automic particles" I have said similar not that it is actually quantum sub-automic particles. Incoherent? I think it is made to measure.

I am not sure to what you refer to with regards to consciousness. We are eternal beings. I speak to you today by and through my spirit. A spirit that has always existed. When entering mortality our minds had a veil of forgetfulness place on it so that we could act without bias or knowledge of God. If that were not so then our trial of faith would be a trial of knowledge and worthless as a trial. Very often the veil wears thin and we get glimpses into another dimension where our loved ones, who have gone before, reside. It is a perfect plan. You will not be able to fault it. I tried for many years but without any success.

Then with respect I don't believe you’ve tried very hard! The apologetic you offer is an utterly nonsensical fantasy, for if we were eternal beings then God is not the creator of all things and cannot be the Supreme Being, demonstrated by our being able to conceive the concept of a Supreme Being who is the creator of all things (whether or not such a being exists in reality). That is the indisputable logic of the matter. And if I existed as a non-conscious form “similar to quantum sub-atomic particles” then I am not something that can benefit from being conscious. And to propose that I was made to forget my previous existence simply compounds the problem for such a ploy means I was brought into being to serve the needs of a selfish entity.

Also a “trial of faith” can only be something ordained by an autocratic god with the ultimate goal of recognition and fealty; and a god that wants to be served and glorified has anthropomorphic needs and wants, which is absurd if we’re talking about a supposedly Supreme Being.

That is strange. The more I speak about god the more I cannot disbelieve in him. In addition to that, the more I read criticism of Him the more I am convinced that he lives. That is why I love having my beliefs challenged. It always shows the argumentum ad ignorantium of those who only have a partial knowledge of the great plan of Salvation.

If you are psychologically disposed to believe in God then of course you will defend your beliefs to the hilt. Religious faith isn’t a static or passive thing but must be continually worked at if it is to hold up. And you are misapplying the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). You cannot assume some truth that exists from faith and then accuse sceptics of being ignorant of what cannot be demonstrated. An argument from ignorance is the fallacy where a proposition is claimed to be true because it has not been proven false (or false because it has not been proven true) for example: “Just because you are ignorant of the great plan of Salvation doesn’t mean such a plan doesn’t exist.” If that is the case being made then anything can be said to be true of anything.

This, of course, is an unnecessary remark to make so I will not rise to it.

It is a summary of this debate. I said: “With each response you weaken God further by throwing anything and everything into the argument, regardless of coherency or logical absurdities”. There are several examples in your post that I’m responding to here.

Not necessarily, but to follow that topic would only cause further verbose discussion that would get neither of us anywhere. But having said that, your definition of a Supreme Being differs from that of the dictionary.

Let me spell it out. The definition of the God of classical theism, the one I debate, is pretty much the same in every dictionary and described as the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent creator etc. But the term “supreme” means greatest in every respect. And I’ve shown that the God of classical theism certainly is not the greatest possible being. And the evidence we see in the world with own our eyes is also testament to that.

No, that is all caused by man, not by God. He is a non-interventionary God.

So if he is a non-interventionist God then he cannot self-evidently be all-loving or benevolent. And there is no substantive difference between a God that never intervenes and no God at all.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Is your argument [re retina] that it looks like something humans designed, so a god must have designed it?

"God" is a loaded word, so instead let's say an "alien Master Geneticist" designed it. Admittedly it sounds far-fetched, but so does saying that it designed and created itself without any help..

It's the sheer astronomical mathematical complexity of DNA and living things that amazes scientists and makes some of them say "This could NOT have occurred by random chance!"
For example the retina is lined with millions of light-sensitive rods and cones,
here's a typical rod with the light-sensitive cells stacked up inside it..

..like a tube of Pringles-

There are 120 million tubes of Pringles (rods) in the human eye (and another 7 million cones), each one containing stacks of individual pringles which takes the numbers way off the scale, and scientists can't even begin to fathom how they "evolved", let alone explain how they "wired themselves up" to the optic nerve which then connected itself up to the brain..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Complexity does not imply design. We already know a perfectly viable, non-supernatural cause for apparent complexity in living organisms. It is called evolution:

David Attenborough: The evolution of the eye. [VIDEO]

You are factually wrong to say "scientists can't even begin to fathom how they evolved", when we already have a well-detailed explanation of exactly how the eye could evolve.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

But if scientists have got it all nicely figgered out and neatly tied up in pretty pink ribbons, why is it still called the THEORY of Evolution and not the FACT of Evolution, to squash all doubts once and for all?
For example how exactly did the eyes transparent jelly suddenly appear out of nowhere?

PS- I've got a theory that the woman in the book store fancies me, but it'll remain just a theory until I can pluck up the courage to invite her for a stroll along the seafront to find out once and for all..

 

[cottage]

But if scientists have got it all nicely figgered out and neatly tied up in pretty pink ribbons, why is it still called the THEORY of Evolution and not the FACT of Evolution, to squash all doubts once and for all?
For example how exactly did the eyes transparent jelly suddenly appear out of nowhere?

PS- I've got a theory that the woman in the book store fancies me, but it'll remain just a theory until I can pluck up the courage to invite her for a stroll along the seafront to find out once and for all..

A "scientific theory" and a "fact" have exactly the same meaning. Look it up.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But if scientists have got it all nicely figgered out and neatly tied up in pretty pink ribbons, why is it still called the THEORY of Evolution and not the FACT of Evolution, to squash all doubts once and for all?

Because fact isn't a graduation of theory. Evolution is both. It is a known fact that living populations diversify over time through subsequent generations. The THEORY of evolution explains how and why this happens, and provides an explanatory framework from which we can put this knowledge to practical use.

For example, gravity is a fact and a theory. It is a fact that objects exert a gravitational pull. The theory of gravity explains how and why this occurs. Do you understand?

For example how exactly did the eyes transparent jelly suddenly appear out of nowhere?

It didn't. Did you not watch the video? None of these things "appeared out of nowhere". It starts with a small, minor mutation, which changes in subsequent generations and develops over time with small additions, subtraction and alterations.

PS- I've got a theory that the woman in the book store fancies me, but it'll remain just a theory until I can pluck up the courage to invite her for a stroll along the seafront to find out once and for all..

Well, good luck! But your theory definitely isn't a scientific one. In science, theory has a much more specific definition.

 

[Sapiens]

If there's absolute solid evidence, why don't atheists simply present it to shut up the creationists once and for all?..

It has been presented repeatedly ... but since it is not what the creationists want to hear they continue to pretend that it does not exist or that is is not valid, there's way, way more evidence pointing to how the evolution of the eye progressed than there is for, say, the historicity of Jesus, yet believers will go into flights of fancy concerning Jesus, but will dismiss well documented science concerning the eye.

 

[Serenity7855]

But your opening post to this thread asserts “There is more than enough evidence to ‘”prove”’ God exists. And yet all I’ve seen from you are arguments from faith, or believers’ arguments from scripture. Where is this “proof”? I am not a sceptic, a priori, but remain sceptical until and unless I am given conclusive reason to believe what is claimed. And that hasn’t happened here, or in past millennia. All the reasons I’m being give seem contrived and are plainly contradictory in most cases.

Then all I can say is hat you need to read the thread. I have given scientific evidence and circumstantial evidences that, when looked at as a whole, provides more then enough evidence to prove God's existence. Only if you do not want to find it will you not see it. Those which ascribed to a sort of stubbornness to accept the truth are, more often then not, failed Christians who could not keep the covenants and Commandments of God.

By the very definition of the concept the term Supreme Being means an entity that necessarily exists, complete and self-sufficient, with no desires or unfulfilled wishes, and the cause of everything existent outside of itself.

That is your definition, it is not a dictionary definition or a Christian definition. A Supreme Being is God and all he stands for, not what you think he is or stands for. If you want to know the attributes of God may I suggest fasting and praying for 24 hours and then read the Scriptures where you will find the true nature of God, the eternal father.

To quote St Anselm: “A being than which none greater can be thought.” And it is immediately obvious that a being that is the creator and has everything and is everything, with no wishes to be fulfilled, is greater than a being that seeks to benefit from a domineering relationship with inferior creatures.

St Austell was a benedictine monk who lived nearly a thousand years ago during the apostasy when the authority of God and the Holy priesthood, after the order of the son of God, had been taken from the earth at the death of the last living Apostle.

Then with respect I don't believe you’ve tried very hard!

That is your perogative, it does not make your belief true, indeed, I can confirm, it is not true.

The apologetic you offer is an utterly nonsensical fantasy, for if we were eternal beings then God is not the creator of all things and cannot be the Supreme Being, demonstrated by our being able to conceive the concept of a Supreme Being who is the creator of all things (whether or not such a being exists in reality). That is the indisputable logic of the matter.

God created our spirits ex-materia by using the eternal intelligences that existed. Create does not just mean Ex nihilo, as you suggest.

Meaning of the Word Create

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

create
kriːˈeɪt/Submit
verb
1. bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch; informal knock together, knock up, knock off

The Intelligences
I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

Intelligence or sub-automic particles, have always existed.

Some of our writers have endeavored to explain what an intelligence is, but to do so is futile, for we have never been given any insight into this matter beyond what the Lord has fragmentarily revealed. We know, however, that there is something called intelligence which always existed. It is the real eternal part of man, which was not created nor made. This intelligence combined with the spirit constitutes a spiritual identity or individual. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:127)

Ah, the good old accusation of fantasy. Fantasy, the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things. I suppose that to a non-believer my belief would seem like fantasy. To a realist and pragmatist it would be uncanny how perfectly all the bits fall into place as a perfect plan. To a Christian, it is what it is, the plan of Salvation. But Christians define a Supreme Being as God, and all of its ramifications, you define him as something completely different, as cold as a computer program.

And if I existed as a non-conscious form “similar to quantum sub-atomic particles” then I am not something that can benefit from being conscious. And to propose that I was made to forget my previous existence simply compounds the problem for such a ploy means I was brought into being to serve the needs of a selfish entity.

Quantum sub-automic particles behave differently when being observed as opposed to not being observed. Is that non-conscious or intelligent? Quantum sub-automic particles were known about nearly 200 year ago, way before science stumbled on them. The intelligence or spirit element became intelligences after the spirits were born as individual entities. Use of this name designates both the primal element from which the spirit offspring were created and also their inherited capacity to grow in grace, knowledge power and intelligence itself, until such intelligences, gaining the fulness of all things, become like their Father, the Supreme Intelligence You really do need to spend just a little time considering your retort before you start to type. Consciousness has many different levels

Premortality

In our premortal existence we were taught the plan of salvation. We accepted that divine plan, including the privilege and responsibility of becoming daughters, sisters, wives, mothers, and grandmothers. We knew as we came to earth that we would be tested and tried to see if we would do all things whatsoever the Lord would command us. Then a veil of forgetfulness was placed on us so we would be dependent on faith in a Savior to guide us back to our heavenly home.

Joanne B Doxey

Jesus Had to Overcome the Veil

The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, (1979), 21–25

When Jesus was born, “the veil of forgetfulness common to all who are born to earth, by which the remembrance of primeval existence is shut off” was cast over him. In the premortal world, Jesus had stood as “one like unto God”, “more intelligent than they all” , meaning all the other created spirits. But although his capacity was greater than that of any other, and he was designated to become the Only Begotten Son, still he was meek and humble; and he condescended to have a veil cast over him and to have the knowledge of his glory and power in premortality blocked from his mind at birth.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not. Even with the little knowledge that I have of the universe we live on a knife edge in, I could demonstrate that a superior force caused the universe to come into existence. Indeed, Kalam's cosmological argument is sufficient to do that on its own, that is, without mentioning the singularity, the Big Bang, rapid expansion, anthropic principle, dark matter and energy, fine tuning, etc etc etc... So why is it that Atheists have such leverage in our society to preach their counterfeit arguments.

If a man wants to know the truth, without a need to subscribe to any groups who all think the same and who all point the same condescending fingure, as there is safety in numbers, then the truth is in the stars for all to see. Why do men need to be told what to believe instead of finding out for themselves by looking at our world that simply could not exist without divinity.

Look at the vast gap between the intelligence of Man and that of our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom to see how much more intelligent we are to them. Have we evolved that much faster then they have, and if we have, then why have we? Something so fundamentally obvious, both scientifically, cosmological and supernaturally has to have a form of intelligence behind it. It is so obviously God who created the universe and set our planet up for habitation. The "by chance" idea is hugely more improbable then a supernatural being is, yet we readily believe the former. Why? How do atheists reconcile this overwhelming cosmological and intellectual evidence. How is it possible to categorically claim that God does not exist.

Well, I will say I agree with you, if only for the reason that there will be others that will not.