There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Looncall]

But where do those properties come from? How do those processes arrive. Please don't say it is natural. I guess they come about through accident and luck..

No-one knows why they are as they are. That problem is being worked on.

A supernatural answer, though, is just an admission of defeat, as it carries no evidence.

,

 

[adi2d]

No-one knows why they are as they are. That problem is being worked on.

A supernatural answer, though, is just an admission of defeat, as it carries no evidence.

,

No one knows if the properties could be different

We only have one universe so these properties are 100 per cent

 

[Sonofason]

Interesting.

Exactly.. haha, spot on.

Correct again sir.
The problem, you see, is not with science, it is the inability to understand scripture fully, so the excuse of science is used to explain things they cannot explain.

Right again sir. Somewhat of a problem I think. Perhaps it is too big a problem to comprehend.

As has been pointed out, we will not all believe exactly the same thing, but at least we all sit at the same table to eat.

It is so simple, I can't believe everyone doesn't see it. It boggles my mind. I feel like I'm trying to teach kindergartners about Quantum physics. You got the little kids on one side just daydreaming. You got the kids over in the corner throwing spit balls at you when your back is turned. You know, I think it would be easier to teach kindergartners Quantum physics.

But you're right we have to be able to sit at the same table.

 

[Parsimony]

Please don't explain natural selection to me.

So you don't want the answer then? Apparently, you don't understand how it works, or otherwise you'd realize your answer is already there.

Do you know that bears are natural creatures. Did you know that everything that a bear does is natural? Do you know that human beings are natural creatures? Did you know that everything that a human being does is natural.

Tell me, what is unnatural about a human being developing language?
Or tell me, what is unnatural about a human being making tools?
Or tell me, what is artificial about human beings, or the doings of human beings?

Robert Evans had asked?
"Where does the 'selection' process come from? Are you going to say it is natural?"

Please note, that the discussion was about "natural selection".

And your interjection was, "It can be either natural or artificial (human-controlled)."

What exactly about human beings are you suggesting is artificial?

Are you suggesting that something can exist in this universe that is artificial, or unnatural?

You are technically right, but I use the term 'artificial' as a term to denote anything made by humans. In such a case, artificial is a subset of natural.

 

[Sonofason]

So you don't want the answer then? Apparently, you don't understand how it works, or otherwise you'd realize your answer is already there.


You are technically right, but I use the term 'artificial' as a term to denote anything made by humans. In such a case, artificial is a subset of natural.

I agree with both of your statements completely.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sure, that's why I sometimes use the term Panentheist (-en- for beyond or more than), which is to many a problem since "pan" already means everything. How can something be more than all that is?

Beyond are own consciousnesses I would say. That is another level.. haha

Anyway, I think we've exhausted our little discussion. Good talking to you, and I appreciate your level-headedness in it. :bow:

I enjoyed it, though I did not think it was exhausted, rather just beginning. If you change your mind, as they say, just whistle

 

[Robert.Evans]

Robert Evans


None,of that has anything whatsoever to do with atheism I'm afraid Robert. Atheism has no position on evolution, on the origins of life or o the origins of the universe. Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic god - not biology, cosmology or abiogenesis.

It shows their mindset

Your idea that atheists belief that everything happens by accident is completely false,

If it is not ultimately by accident, then you must think there is is a mind behind it.

it is a misconception of yours that you seem unable to grapple with - evolution, abiogenesis and the formation of the early universe have nothing to do with accident or random chance.

Chaos theory has everything to do with that. Physical processes (which I have no problem with) only explain a means to an end, they do not explain how they themselves come about in the first place. Evolution, for example, needs certain parameters in it to make it work. Where did they come from? If it is not from a mind, then it is by accident at some point down the historic road of knowledge.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No-one knows why they are as they are. That problem is being worked on.

people know, not everyone is prepared to accept their answer. I guess you mean mainstream science. they will never answer the big questions, only things that belong in the physical realm. That is what they are good at.

A supernatural answer, though, is just an admission of defeat, as it carries no evidence.

,

To say it is an admission of defeat adds nothing to your argument I feel.
What do you mean by 'supernatural'?
Presumably you think that means something in particular, and I am guessing that you think it is to do with God. But the prefix 'super' merely means 'above and beyond' something. Thus anything that is above and beyond the normal would be seen as 'super'... supercharger, supermodel etc. It does not mean it is God, even if it is wrongly attributed to that.
No one going to see the 'Natural world' would think they were going to look at atoms. So the atomic world is a 'super natural' world. The misuse of that word means you misunderstand the whole argument.

Even sceince theory is saying that everything is consciousness. Science itself says that on the small scale, all things look like information. That is what you would expect to see. It is part of the fractal nature of God.

Physical processes are expressions of the divine within physical constraints.

Perhaps we could say that the lazy answer is to say that 'natural' did it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So you don't want the answer then? Apparently, you don't understand how it works, or otherwise you'd realize your answer is already there.

Explaining natural selection is not explaining anything except the physical processes. Where do these processes come from? Are they natural? What is natural? Where is it? Care to answer? Your answer seemed somewhat curt.

 

[Robert.Evans]

...... I use the term 'artificial' as a term to denote anything made by humans. In such a case, artificial is a subset of natural.

Haha... Ok. So what is 'natural'. How is it you think you have explained something by using that word?

 

[Robert.Evans]

How is natural selection an answer if it is natural and all things are said to be natural? If there is no God, how does that work?
What is 'natural'

If you believe in God, then how is it natural? What does it mean?

Explaining a physical process explains what? Where does that process come from?

 

[LuisDantas]

How is natural selection an answer if it is natural and all things are said to be natural? If there is no God, how does that work?

You may see God's will acting on literally everything that happens if you want, I suppose. Maybe snow only melts because God decided that it wants it to, for instance.

All the same, the plain fact is that most people do not feel such a need. And they are not any worse off for that lack of need.

If anything, "God did it" causes more problems than it solves: it is no true explanation, after all, but rather a claim that some things are beyond explanation and must have happened supernaturally by way of divine will.

But really, there is no sense whatsoever in your expectation of others to share your problem with the lack of evidence of divine will in the world.

What is 'natural'

If you believe in God, then how is it natural? What does it mean?

Explaining a physical process explains what? Where does that process come from?

I suppose that arbitrarily choosing always to value the desire for "finding a creator or a reason" for things to be over the plain acknowledgement that things are you will ultimately lead to the need of belief in a Creator God whose existence is self-explained and unavoidably a mystery of faith.

Which is why I don't see any point in doing it, but that is your privilege.

 

[metis]

haha, Ok. But it sounds to me when you say that we can't prove it, that you are looking for something physical. That in turn will be seen through the outer five senses, mostly the eyes. Either way, it ends up in the mind, and the mind tells you its there.

No, what I'm saying is that if "spirit" defies the senses, then how does one know that it even exists? As humans, we have vivid imaginations, which both is a plus and a minus, and is it not possible that one may supposedly discern there being a spirit and possibly be wrong? How many people "see" Jesus and the Virgin Mary in tea leaves, shadows, clouds, you name it? Are they all perceiving these correctly?

To start from a premise that it is spiritually discerned I cannot help, as it comes from him. It lines up with scripture, history, science.

Which scripture? Which history? Which science? Are you claiming that your Bible is inerrant in all these categories?

We have that word 'nature'. What does it mean? It is 'natural'? What does taht mean? What makes it do that ''naturally''? Do you see? It appears using the word 'natural' allows to accept things for which you have no answer, to prevent you from thinking of other things... if you don't mind me saying

It's quite an assumption to imply that I haven't thought of "other things", especially in light of my brief explanation of my background that I gave you in a previous post.

Secondly, there are various forms of "naturalism", and I already mentioned that I "lean" in the direction of "Spinoza's God", to use Einstein's terminology. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but do you honestly believe Einstein didn't think of "other things" in regards to how our universe came into being?

I am not sure what you mean with the last comment on God or Gods

First of all, you keep using the word "God", but why not "Gods"? Do you know without a doubt that there is not more than just one?

 

[metis]

haha, Ok. But it sounds to me when you say that we can't prove it, that you are looking for something physical. That in turn will be seen through the outer five senses, mostly the eyes. Either way, it ends up in the mind, and the mind tells you its there.

No, what I'm saying is that if "spirit" defies the senses, then how does one know that it even exists? As humans, we have vivid imaginations, which both is a plus and a minus, and is it not possible that one may supposedly discern there being a spirit and possibly be wrong? How many people "see" Jesus and the Virgin Mary in tea leaves, shadows, clouds, you name it? Are they all perceiving these correctly?

To start from a premise that it is spiritually discerned I cannot help, as it comes from him. It lines up with scripture, history, science.

Which scripture? Which history? Which science? Are you claiming that your Bible is inerrant in all these categories?

We have that word 'nature'. What does it mean? It is 'natural'? What does taht mean? What makes it do that ''naturally''? Do you see? It appears using the word 'natural' allows to accept things for which you have no answer, to prevent you from thinking of other things... if you don't mind me saying

It's quite an assumption to imply that I haven't thought of "other things", especially in light of my brief explanation of my background that I gave you in a previous post.

Secondly, there are various forms of "naturalism", and I already mentioned that I "lean" in the direction of "Spinoza's God", to use Einstein's terminology. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but do you honestly believe Einstein didn't think of "other things" in regards to how our universe came into being?

I am not sure what you mean with the last comment on God or Gods

First of all, you keep using the word "God", but why not "Gods"? Do you know without a doubt that there is not more than just one?

Secondly, why is it that it's impossible for some to think that maybe some materialistic chain of causation may go back into infinity, and yet they posit a deity or deities that go back into infinity? I'll return back to this in a post a bit later.

 

[metis]

When you go down to the smallest level on the Planck scale, all things are seen as one (by some scientists). It is an ocean of Existence that we are part of. We are malleable waves within it, shaping as we go...

Just because we may have emerged from singularity doesn't mean that all is the same, nor does it answer the question as to where did this singularity come from or even whether there were/are other points of singularity that may have created other universes? At this point, cosmologists have far more questions than answers, and they are very far from being able to determine what occurred prior to the BB and what exactly caused the expansion.

 

[metis]

Even sceince theory is saying that everything is consciousness. Science itself says that on the small scale, all things look like information. That is what you would expect to see. It is part of the fractal nature of God.

This is not what "science" is saying at all. Sub-atomic particles, energy waves, and matter are not necessarily "consciousness" as this implies that it's organized into a system of self-awareness of some type. Prior to the formation of life here on Earth, how could we have any evidence of some sort of "consciousness"? How could we in any way sense that there was some sort of "consciousness" prior to 4 billion b.p.?

 

[Robert.Evans]

You may see God's will acting on literally everything that happens if you want, I suppose. Maybe snow only melts because God decided that it wants it to, for instance.

Snow would melt because snow is snow, and with the parameters of the environment it is within, that is what it does. It is part of the consciousness of God.
So it is not quite that God said, do this, or, do that.

All the same, the plain fact is that most people do not feel such a need. And they are not any worse off for that lack of need.

You speak of the physical realm. As such, I agree. But we answer for such things.

If anything, "God did it" causes more problems than it solves: it is no true explanation, after all, but rather a claim that some things are beyond explanation and must have happened supernaturally by way of divine will.

See above

But really, there is no sense whatsoever in your expectation of others to share your problem with the lack of evidence of divine will in the world.

There is no lack of evidence, there is a lack of understanding. God works through the physical processes that we see about us. That is what he is within this realm, in one sense. You are suggesting you will see something you will not find.

I suppose that arbitrarily choosing always to value the desire for "finding a creator or a reason" for things to be over the plain acknowledgement that things are you will ultimately lead to the need of belief in a Creator God whose existence is self-explained and unavoidably a mystery of faith.
Which is why I don't see any point in doing it, but that is your privilege.

Thankyou for the privilege.. haha. Faith is something that is evidence of a proof. Blind faith is something that atheists have, or anyone who thinks it is merely physical and by blind chance.
We look for a creator as that is put within us in the first place. Others do the same thing in other ways, such as science. They answer it within the physical world.

But intelligence trumps accident and luck any day.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Snow would melt because snow is snow, and with the parameters of the environment it is within, that is what it does. It is part of the consciousness of God.
So it is not quite that God said, do this, or, do that.

You speak of the physical realm. As such, I agree. But we answer for such things.


See above

There is no lack of evidence, there is a lack of understanding. God works through the physical processes that we see about us. That is what he is within this realm, in one sense. You are suggesting you will see something you will not find.

Thankyou for the privilege.. haha. Faith is something that is evidence of a proof. Blind faith is something that atheists have, or anyone who thinks it is merely physical and by blind chance.
We look for a creator as that is put within us in the first place. Others do the same thing in other ways, such as science. They answer it within the physical world.

But intelligence trumps accident and luck any day.

This is fine and dandy but where is the evidence that god is the one who set the parameters? What makes you believe that god is the one behind it?

Follow up about you claim on atheists. Why is doubt considered blind faith? Or do you mean atheists only in the sense of people that believe that there is no god?

Second follow up question. Why would you claim intelligence trumps accident/luck? Exactly what context do you mean this to be?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, what I'm saying is that if "spirit" defies the senses, then how does one know that it even exists? As humans, we have vivid imaginations, which both is a plus and a minus, and is it not possible that one may supposedly discern there being a spirit and possibly be wrong? How many people "see" Jesus and the Virgin Mary in tea leaves, shadows, clouds, you name it? Are they all perceiving these correctly?

For we have the mind of the Mashiyach (Christ) All is God given.
Are they perceiving it correctly? they see it as they see it. To them it is correct as that is what they are. They can only follow their own Self.

Which scripture? Which history? Which science? Are you claiming that your Bible is inerrant in all these categories?

That is a huge set of questions. Scripture has to be understood. I have given you my understanding in part, and this is backed up in what I see. No doubt you could give others to show it is wrong. That is the way it is, there are many realities.

It's quite an assumption to imply that I haven't thought of "other things", especially in light of my brief explanation of my background that I gave you in a previous post.

perhaps you took that the wrong way. I meant no harm

Secondly, there are various forms of "naturalism", and I already mentioned that I "lean" in the direction of "Spinoza's God", to use Einstein's terminology. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but do you honestly believe Einstein didn't think of "other things" in regards to how our universe came into being?

I like Spinoza's God. No problem.

First of all, you keep using the word "God", but why not "Gods"? Do you know without a doubt that there is not more than just one?

there is a singularity as there can only be ONE beginning. After that there are many reflection of that One God which brings about other Gods and gods, each to their own realm.

Secondly, why is it that it's impossible for some to think that maybe some materialistic chain of causation may go back into infinity, and yet they posit a deity or deities that go back into infinity? I'll return back to this in a post a bit later.

It is not impossible to think. But it is not given me to think such things. Then you have to ignore the odds of the universe coming into being, which accordin to some on this forum, is no problem. Perhaps they should take up betting. I think they would soon be broke.
Then the multiverse is used to try and alleviate the odds. I have no problem with that, as it reflects what has gone before, and it is complex and infinite.

The Ultimate One does not go back into infinity. That One just IS. That is it. Nothing to do with Time.

 

[metis]

Finally, let me get to the Buddhist monk, Matthieu Ricard, and what he's written. Before doing that, let me just mention that before he became a monk he was a molecular geneticist who went to the Pasteur Institute and was heavily involved in intellectual circles. See: Matthieu Ricard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He sharply questions the concept of divine creation largely because it defies what we do know, even though our knowledge is obviously very limited. One problem he has is how could a deity be unchanging when everything we see is in a constant state of flux? What would lead us to conclude that any deity is unchanging?

If one posits the idea that the deity or deities is/are changing, then what would cause the changes? IOW, if something is in absolute isolation from any other influence, what would supposedly cause it to change?

Let me give an example: a painter preparing to paint. Doesn't the painter first have to formulate an idea of what to paint? Change. Doesn't a painter have to gather materials? Change. Doesn't a painter have to go through the act of painting? Change. Therefore, how could a painter or a deity create without some change being involved, and if this change supposedly happened, what caused the creator to change?

So, there are logical problems picturing a deity/deities that are unchanging, but there are also logical problems picturing a deity/deities that are changing. Can these problems be bridged? I don't know, especially because what can we use as evidence that it can be? IOW, I can maybe come up with some "solution", but what's to say my "solution" is correct?