There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Polymath257]

Then why have you done these things? You’ve never lied, been irresponsible , envied, gotten drunk, immoral behavior, etc. ?

I have done these things because I am human and sometimes ignorant, self-concerned, etc. But again, I don't need a God to tell me those are bad things. I just need to be stronger.

I generally don't get drunk: I don't like the feeling or the consequences, and I have learned.

I am generally not irresponsible: I fulfill my promises because I understand other people depend on me.

I usually don't envy. My life is good and I don't worry about what other people are doing too much.

I try to treat people with respect and honesty.

I don't need a God to tell me to do so. They are pretty obvious if you think about them a bit.

 

[KWED]

So you have a hypothesis ( this is by faith). Then you look at what was already created by God as He said in Genesis, By the way He said Creation would continue by natural process example seed bearing plants, human beings - be fruitful and multiply, fill the Earth. He set the seasons, night and day etc. He is the engineer, architect, lawmaker, In Christ all things hold together. Then you say see the mountains happened or the tree grew, or the butterfly changed colors, or the offspring is shorter, taller, smarter, a little different than their parents, by the process God put in motion at the beginning. So God is into variety and you call it natural selection.
Not following your logic.

With all due respect, if you are simply going to post random word salads, I will refrain from tucking in.

 

[Firelight]

No, that didn't answer anything. It repeated a claim which most religions have. God is eternal. You haven't proven God yet.
In fact the Persian God is where they got many of these ideas from

"God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities. "

Hmm, kind of sounds like yet another thing the Hebrew religion took from the Persians. You have latched onto a Jewish/Greek/Hebrew myth that some people told you was actually true. It isn't. It's a myth just like Islam or Hinduism. The historicity and archaeology completely confirms this. The apologetics put forth by C.S. Lewis, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, WLC and so on, are completely crank lies that are always debunked by smart people.

So, I ask again, since you are so smug with your communications, please tell me, what does God tell you my and GF name is? Where am I, where is she? This isn't proof, I just want to make sure he knows it's the correct person. No big deal, he should be able to provide that no problem.

I don’t know what all your yapping is about. I don’t recognize any of those names you list. God already knows your and GF names and where you both live. I don’t care to know. I’m not out to prove to you that God exists. You asked me to answer one of your questions and I did. You either care to believe in and develop a relationship with God, or you don’t……and ….. you don’t. Not my problem.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, so you have to have chemicals to get chemicals, just like you need life to create life. You are just talking in circles.

No, you need chemicals to form life because life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. it is a question of organization, not of composition.

Once you have some reactions at the right level of complexity, they tend to produce more reactions at the level of complexity.

And you don't need molecules to produce molecules. You need atoms to create molecules.

And you don't need atoms to produce atoms. You need protons, electrons, and neutrons to produce atoms.

So, no, you don't need chemicals to produce chemicals. Chemicals can be made from things that are not, themselves chemicals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t know what all your yapping is about. I don’t recognize any of those names you list. God already knows your and GF names and where you both live. I don’t care to know. I’m not out to prove to you that God exists. You asked me to answer one of your questions and I did. You either care to believe in and develop a relationship with God, or you don’t……and ….. you don’t. Not my problem.

What is that about?

 

[KWED]

God is Eternal, this life came from Him.

1. If god is a living thing, then his life did not come from life.
2. If god is not a living thing, then life on earth did not come from life.

Which ever way you look at it, life came from non-life.
Sorry.

 

[KWED]

What is the evidence that you are a we?

Get some rest, or take a walk outside. Something.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Get some rest, or take a walk outside. Something.

So you don't have evidence and don't meet the burden of proof.

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously not. Combining two chemicals to get a third isn't chemicals creating themselves.

And chemicals combining to form life is not life creating itself either.

 

[Polymath257]

No it's not. It didn't come into being by non living material. I said all along that we need food to nourish what already exists.

And the material from that *non-living* food *becomes* the material in the *living* body.

So the non-living material in the food becomes the living material in the body.

Now, that process *uses* the living body to organize the *non-living material* into *living material*.

But there is no different between a sugar molecule in a living body and a sugar molecule that isn't. There is no difference between DNA that is in a test tube (and so not alive) and DNA that is in a living body.

NONE of the molecules in your body are alive. So *you* are made of non-living materials.

The difference between living and non-living materials isn't composition: it is organization. it is access to the chemical potential of oxygen.

 

[Polymath257]

Some people live their lives like Mr. Magoo, not realizing what trouble they’re in while they go through life.

And the same happens with believers who close their eyes to all the falsehoods in their sacred texts.

 

[Polymath257]

Life begets life. We all came to be from other life. We need food for sustenance but food obviously didn't create us.

Food is the material from which you are formed. If you don't eat, you will die.

Here's some information for you so you can find out where babies come from.. I trust you not to read it if you are too young.
Conception: How It Works | Patient Education | UCSF Health

And if, after conception, no food is ingested by the woman, the embryo will not grow. It gets its food from the placenta and uses that food to grow.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And the material from that *non-living* food *becomes* the material in the *living* body.

So the non-living material in the food becomes the living material in the body.

Now, that process *uses* the living body to organize the *non-living material* into *living material*.

But there is no different between a sugar molecule in a living body and a sugar molecule that isn't. There is no difference between DNA that is in a test tube (and so not alive) and DNA that is in a living body.

NONE of the molecules in your body are alive. So *you* are made of non-living materials.

The difference between living and non-living materials isn't composition: it is organization. it is access to the chemical potential of oxygen.

And consciousness, which we still haven't fully explained, but nevermind it doesn't exist and is not real. And that makes sense in your mind as conscious, but that is consciously useful to you.

Let me try to keep it as simple as possible. If a religious believer thinks and acts on a belief, then it is a part of the everyday world. Even if it is wrong, then wrong is a part of the everyday world. Or you get a kind of dualism as in the everyday world and not in the everyday world.
So the joke about all variants of wrong is that they have no objective referent, but that is the same with useful and useless.

Now I don't find some forms of religion useful, but that is an evaluation in me. Can you do it differently?

 

[ElishaElijah]

And the same happens with believers who close their eyes to all the falsehoods in their sacred texts.

So far ove seen your post about you saying something like Paul had a different message than
Jesus Christ which isn’t true.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't even know that there was a Big Bang. I know that some say there was. And they conjecture about it, as to how, what, when and why. But they (and I) don't KNOW that. I do believe, just like Paul wrote, that the composition of stars differ one from the other, same with planets (as we can see from exploration), moons differ from each other, and so forth. You do know, don't you, that Paul wrote that "There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the splendor of the heavenly bodies is of one degree, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is of another. 41The sun has one degree of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor." 1 Corinthians 15. So evidently by inspiration, Paul wrote that the composition of stars, moons and other celestial objects differ one from the other.

This is a good passage for learning the difference between how people in Paul's time thought of the universe and how we know it today.

In the time of Paul, there was a distinction made between 'heavenly' bodies and 'earthly' bodies. The earthly bodies were those that were naturally below the circle of the moon. Heavenly bodies were those above the moon. It was thought that the two types of bodies were made from very different things (heavenly bodies were made from 'quintessence', not 'water, earth, fire, or air').

it was also thought that the laws of motion for the heavenly bodies was different than those for the earthly bodies: heavenly bodies naturally moved in circles (around the earth) while earth naturally moved downward.

Among the neo-Platonists (which influenced early Christianity), the 'Prime Mover' was the one that moved the 'primary sphere' that the stars were on. This, then, made the planets move, and, by various processes, made things on Earth move. It was thought that when humans died, their souls ascended through the heavenly spheres to get up to heaven, which was just past that outer sphere of the stars.

Some believed that the prime mover was too separated from humans and so we needed a messenger to come down to help us in our journey up to heaven. So, the prime mover split off a piece of divinity who came down in the form of a man (sound familiar?).

Anyway, the whole universe as imagined by people at the time of Paul was just a couple of billion miles across. the stars were specks of light on a sphere, the planets were bits of brightness on other spheres, etc. The actual nature of the planets and stars was not known. For example, it was not known that the sun is a star.

What we know now is that the laws governing the motion of the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies are *the same laws* as what govern things on Earth. The heavenly bodies are made from the same basic materials as things on Earth (although stars are mostly made from hydrogen and helium). We know that the universe is vastly larger than a few billion miles across and that the stars are immense globes of gas that are light years away from us.

So, with modern knowledge, the content of Paul's quote loses any real meaning. It was meaningful given the views of his time, but we now know those are wrong. In light of what we know now, the words he wrote now pale in meaninglessness.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So far ove seen your post about you saying something like Paul had a different message than
Jesus Christ which isn’t true.

That is your interpretation. And the rest of us can still do it differently.

 

[Polymath257]

Glad you can see that as a possibility although it certainly makes me wonder how ANYONE would know what the first element in the universe was.
Except God and Jesus, of course. And maybe anyone else they desire to tell.

This was not the first element. This was the first compound. In other words, the first thing formed by two atoms combining.

How do we know? Because prior to that time, the universe was too hot to form stable compounds. Also, the only atoms around to form compounds were hydrogen and helium (there was some lithium, and lithium hydride would have formed early as well).

We also know the first elements. How? because once again, prior to the formation of the elements, the universe was too hot for stable atomic nuclei. As it cooled, the neutrons that existed previously (they can stand the heat), started binding together, forming the nuclei of the lighter elements. If you look at the periodic table, you can see the first elements formed: hydrogen, helium, and lithium: the first three elements with the fewest components in their nuclei. We even know that there were a couple of forms of hydrogen formed (ordinary hydrogen and deuterium) and a couple of forms of helium formed (He-4 and He-3).

The point? the very early universe was actually fairly simple to understand because it was so hot that most complications simply couldn't exist.

 

[Polymath257]

God is Eternal, this life came from Him.

That is your hypothesis.

Now, what is the evidence to support that hypothesis?

Or is it simply a blatant claim with no support?

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is your interpretation. And the rest of us can still do it differently.

That’s the Bible’s interpretation, the Apostles, Jesus Christ, OT and NT, even Revelation says:
“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!””
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭7:9-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
So the Gospel is not just for the Jews.

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is your hypothesis.

Now, what is the evidence to support that hypothesis?

Or is it simply a blatant claim with no support?

Jesus Christ came and proved this, are you going to argue till He returns or seek Him out? Find out if what I say is true.