What proof do you have of God?

[Storm]

My intent is not to generalize or associate groups of peoples together. I only infer that the idea of Intelligent Design allows for all religions to say "God did it", thus substantiating the existence of their God. I didn't specify Christianity. Intelligent Design didn't just start now since it became popular in the 90s. It was a concept during the rule of the Roman Empire as well and was simply re-adopted, perhaps re-invented maybe, so that the theory can fall in line with our current understanding of the Universe.

You didn't specify Christianity, no. You didn't really need to, though, since it's just Christian Literalism pretending to be ecumenical.

Also, it was absolutely not a concept during Roman times, being a totally reactionary stance to the ToE, which came much later.

ID and YEC are not simply the idea that God(s) Created the cosmos. They are attempts to debunk evolution and thereby force people to accept creation ex nihilo by default. Which is illogical before you even get into the arguments they utilize.

Just like all religions claim that other religions are counterfeit, fakes, copies, or just plain and simply... WRONG. They could also claim that another religion's view of Intelligent Design is a copy, or a fake, or just plain wrong. And that their view of what Intelligent Design is and how it works is the only true view of Intelligent Design because why... well, there God is the ONLY true God of course...

All religions don't claim that.

 

[RedJamaX]

All religions don't claim that.

True, forgive my haste with that statement...

 

[Storm]

True, forgive my haste with that statement...

Gladly.

 

[1robin]

Intelligent Design is Religion's Trump-Card, used as their own definitive reasoning to prove that God does exist. It claims all current, and future, scientific discoveries are simply the way we are able to interpret the work of God in our physical world.

Take this hypothetical situation if you will...

Of what value is this? I could take this Hypothetical example: God comes down and says howdy on every major network there is and it is recorded. Most people who now dismiss any reason to believe would do so then as well. Have I advanced this discussion at all? No, then neither did you.

Even if Science is able to prove the following, beyond the shadow of a doubt.... (and I mean to say that all unknowns are known and easily duplicated through lab experiments)
1. The Big Bang event of Universal Expansion

Exactly how would that be simulated?

2. The infinitely repetitious cycle of explosion and implosion of the Universe

That is impossible. You can not cross an infinate number of events or seconds to arrive at this one. Fail. Time, space, and matter began to exist and they had a creator.

3. The evolution of intelligent life from the basic elements of the Universe

You mean that they prove their other laws like (abiogenesis) are wrong. Why would I believe the new one?

4. A being's level of consciousness is directly proportionate to it's level of intelligence which, in turn, is controlled by the complexity of it's brain and genetic structure, which stemmed from evolution.

Quantify level of conciousness. Am I more concious that a gnat?

Even If all of those are proven to be absolute, no missing links, no question's unanswered, with a doubt, and Science is able to provide the exact chain of events to provide the answer the the question "Where did we come from?"....

Since that isn't even remotely the case then the question is still open.

This argument is pointless.

You said it, so why make it?

 

[RedJamaX]

Intelligent Design is Religion's Trump-Card, used as their own definitive reasoning to prove that God does exist. It claims all current, and future, scientific discoveries are simply the way we are able to interpret the work of God in our physical world.

Of what value is this?

It was mentioned in one of the other arguments before this, and it applies to the general argument in regards to "proof" of God. If Intelligent Design could in fact be proven to be the work of God (it has not been), then that would also provide the proof of God's existence.

I could take this Hypothetical example: God comes down and says howdy on every major network there is and it is recorded. Most people who now dismiss any reason to believe would do so then as well. Have I advanced this discussion at all? No, then neither did you.

How about this... instead of arguing against your point, I will actually provide a hypothetical that I believe would provide enough proof to make believers out of a large majority of those who don't. God speaks from the sky to all people around the world in their own language that he will physically appear beside them for an entire month following every thing they do, enforcing his morals by preventing any individual from committing any crime (by God's law). And then he appears beside each and every individual on earth in a physical form and each and every one of us can see the physical manifestation of God beside and beside everybody else we see, and he stays with us at our side for an entire month before returning to where he came. That would be a more convincing display of divinity.

Even if Science is able to prove the following, beyond the shadow of a doubt.... (and I mean to say that all unknowns are known and easily duplicated through lab experiments)
1. The Big Bang event of Universal Expansion

Exactly how would that be simulated?

I never insinuated that it could be simulated or even possible... I was providing a situation of extremes to point out the fact that no argument, regardless of how strong, will ever make a true believer deny his/her faith.

2. The infinitely repetitious cycle of explosion and implosion of the Universe

That is impossible. You can not cross an infinate number of events or seconds to arrive at this one. Fail. Time, space, and matter began to exist and they had a creator.

Please refer to my previous answer.

3. The evolution of intelligent life from the basic elements of the Universe

You mean that they prove their other laws like (abiogenesis) are wrong. Why would I believe the new one?

I don't recall this being proven wrong. Perhaps you could provide a source? And let it be the source of an Atheist Scientist, it would be unfair for the results of scientific exploration to be tainted by preconceived ideas.

4. A being's level of consciousness is directly proportionate to it's level of intelligence which, in turn, is controlled by the complexity of it's brain and genetic structure, which stemmed from evolution.

Quantify level of conciousness. Am I more concious that a gnat?

Are you?

Even If all of those are proven to be absolute, no missing links, no question's unanswered, with a doubt, and Science is able to provide the exact chain of events to provide the answer the the question "Where did we come from?"....

Since that isn't even remotely the case then the question is still open.

:yes: The question is most definitely (your own words) STILL OPEN

Those who believe in God will simply use the theory of Intelligent Design to say "That's how God designed it to work."

This argument is pointless.

You said it, so why make it?

Fun? ... Perhaps the same reason you argue against it...

Or perhaps, I just have nothing better to do at the moment...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Quantify level of conciousness. Am I more concious that a gnat?

I advise caution regarding the use of straightlines around here. There are some who will pounce on them with no regard for good manners.

 

[1robin]

I advise caution regarding the use of straightlines around here. There are some who will pounce on them with no regard for good manners.

I have no idea what straight lines mean but I will consider myself warned.

 

[RedJamaX]

Quantify level of conciousness. Am I more concious that a gnat?

I advise caution regarding the use of straightlines around here. There are some who will pounce on them with no regard for good manners.

I have to be honest, I giggled at the opportunity But my better judgement prevailed

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have no idea what straight lines mean but I will consider myself warned.

Do you know what burlesque is/was? If not, think about comedy teams you've seen on TV. The Smothers Brothers, Martin/Lewis, Abbot/Costello, the Three Stooges.

It's the job of one of the members to deliver a line of dialogue (the straight line) which sets up the comedic reaction by the funny guy. Martin was the straight man. The short dark Smothers brother was the straight man. The tall, sophisticated half of Abbot/Costello was the straight man.

You were discussing consciousness and asked your dialogue partner -- seriously, academiclly and rationally -- whether he believed you to be more conscious than a gnat.

That was a straight line. Notice that he caved in to the funnyman's reaction. I figured someone would do so, but of course I wasn't going to touch it myself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have to be honest, I giggled at the opportunity But my better judgement prevailed

I found your reaction quite reserved under the circumstances.

 

[1robin]

Do you know what burlesque is/was? If not, think about comedy teams you've seen on TV. The Smothers Brothers, Martin/Lewis, Abbot/Costello, the Three Stooges.

It's the job of one of the members to deliver a line of dialogue (the straight line) which sets up the comedic reaction by the funny guy. Martin was the straight man. The short dark Smothers brother was the straight man. The tall, sophisticated half of Abbot/Costello was the straight man.

You were discussing consciousness and asked your dialogue partner -- seriously, academiclly and rationally -- whether he believed you to be more conscious than a gnat.

That was a straight line. Notice that he caved in to the funnyman's reaction. I figured someone would do so, but of course I wasn't going to touch it myself.

What? That makes sense and was clear, rational, and most of all not contradictory!!!!!! What did you do with the other Ambiguous guy I knew?

 

[1robin]

It is incoherent for you to assert that 'beliefs exist' if you can say nothing about the way in which beliefs exist. Unicorns exist. Bigfoot exists. Beliefs exist. Those are all just a bunch of useless assertions if you can't say anything about the nature of their existence.

I have already defined beliefs twice so far what are you talking about?

Yikes. I asked you to define your term and provided you my own definition as a courtesy... and you respond by refusing to define your term and wondering why I've asked, since I'm able to provide my own definition.

No you dismissed my definition and I assumed thought that one didn't exist and then produced one.

You've never engaged in debate before now -- before you began attempting it here?

I still have not entered into a debate with you. I am lazily throwing lobs at the plate. I have not bore down with the heat. I am considering doing so but have not decided.

Yeah. It's how we theologians act. We understand that words mean different things to different people, so we tend to ask people what they mean by their words and to generously offer our own definitions when asked.

Then it is provided and you act as if it wasn't. Imply a definition does not exist and then give one.

I was pretty certain that you wouldn't/couldn't attempt your own defintion of your terms, but I wanted to check. It's easy to sling words around. Much harder to describe what those words mean to us.

It is necessary to meet on neutral ground in a discussion. You have no reason to accept my opinion. That is why I provided the "official" one.

Forgive my doubt. Some people know themselves well and others don't seem to know themselves at all. That's been my experience anyway.

Forgive??? The heavens will thunder, spears will shatter, bones will splinter, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengance on...... wait that is not right. Ok, forgiven.

And you want to do theology. Have you ever looked into what real theologians do? They manipulate the language in order to search for and express God. They don't sit and copy holy words from Bibles and Dictionaries. Maybe you are thinking of scribes? I'm not sure there's much call for scribes anymore.

No they do not. You are quite the card. Maybe a quick check for the guys in white is in order.

So God isn't powerful enough to deceive you into thinking that you see light reflection or the effects of gravity? I thought you considered Him omnipotent.

I didn't say he would or could noty do so. He said he would not do so and there is no evidence he did, however I don't think that will stop you.

How curious. 190 hours of college and you don't seem to recognize a common numbering system for college courses. How very odd. Would you mind saying what kind of college you attended? Was it by chance a bible college?

That is not even close to the numbering systems that were used in all 3 of them I went to. Nope, engineering.

Wow. So in order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to God. Wow.

Nope, I said that God determines what is proven as well as reality in a general sense which you question left out as well as any other thing that makes it relevant or meaningfull.

And if I say that my points have been proven to God, and you deny that my points have been proven to God, I wonder whether my points have been proven.

Wonder away.

Just kidding. As an actual prophet of God, I already know the answer to that one, of course. Just ask me. I'll tell you which one of us God loves best and considers the finest logician, theologian and debater

I can't explain how much I am not interested. I think he loves us both the same.

190 hours of college credit and you can't seem to parse some pretty simple statements which I make here. It is most curious to me.

Deep blue couldn't figure you out.

(Read my 'sarcasm' again. It was fairly clever, if simple. You said that you run from incoherence. I implied that you were then running from yourself -- that it might be a mirror receding behind you. Read it again. Think about it.)

I did and you were right. It was good. Why can't you do the same with a serious topic.
Speaking of Jaylo. Your assumed contradiction is in fact not even potentially contradictory. Jaylo is hot is a subjective astetic value. Jaylo is cold is a relative absolute temperature claim. It is not contradictory, meaningful, or even amusing which is the more sad of the three.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What? That makes sense and was clear, rational, and most of all not contradictory!!!!!! What did you do with the other Ambiguous guy I knew?

I am the massive and constant elephant.

But blind men understand me differently each time they see me.

 

[1robin]

I am the massive and constant elephant.

But blind men understand me differently each time they see me.

Your back. Blind men see you, A mute God told you he doesn't tell us stuff. You have proven and not proven your point. You are like a free contradiction vending machine.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your back. Blind men see you, A mute God told you he doesn't tell us stuff. You have proven and not proven your point. You are like a free contradiction vending machine.

Just testing you again. Sorry.

If you want to understand what I'm doing, imagine that you are speaking to a fellow Christian whose theology seems pretty odd to you. So you decide to test whether this guy is really well-grounded in the scriptures. You're speaking with him about faith in Yahweh, and you say to him: "Hey, we all have to decide why the bush burns -- natural gas or Holy Spirit. We each have to decide whether we will kill our first-born son on a pile of rocks if we're told to do so."

"What?" he exclaims. "You're not making any sense again. Burning bushes? Killing our sons? What the heck does that stuff have to do with any of this! You just can't keep on the subject of faith in Yahweh, can you!"

By his response, you can be pretty sure that he is unfamiliar with the Old Testament.

In our case, I'm testing the limits of your cultural literacy. It's nothing personal. It's just that I've never met an adult American who did not recognize the term 'straight line' and I've met very few educated people who've never heard of the blind men and the elephant. So I'm a bit intrigued by you.

I'm not writing only to test you, of course. I just throw items into the mix now and again to see how you will handle them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have already defined beliefs twice so far what are you talking about?

No, actually you've twice simply given me synonyms ('concept' and 'idea') and then refused to discuss it further. In my experience, that's what people do who are not confident in their own beliefs. They want to get out of the room without saying anything more than necessary.

I still have not entered into a debate with you. I am lazily throwing lobs at the plate. I have not bore down with the heat. I am considering doing so but have not decided.

It sound spooky, but I give you my full permission to bear down with the heat. It might be nice. My thumbs are kinda chilly anyway. Their skin is worn away -- what with all the twiddling they've been up to since we met. [Edit: I just realized that you're using a baseball metaphor. Forgive my ignorance of the game, and forgive my laziness for not adjusting my answer.]

It is necessary to meet on neutral ground in a discussion. You have no reason to accept my opinion. That is why I provided the "official" one.

Actually I own several dictionaries, though I rarely open one. There is no need to recite official definitions to me. A theologian can define his own terms, in his own words, and I was thinking that you aspired to be a theologian?

No they do not. You are quite the card. Maybe a quick check for the guys in white is in order.

I have not been dealt from a standard deck, that's true. (Straight line, for your pleasure.)

That is not even close to the numbering systems that were used in all 3 of them I went to.

So the first number didn't reflect the year? 1 = freshman; 2 = sophomore? With anything higher than 4 being a graduate-level course?

Nope, engineering.

I'm trying to build a pond and need to figure the watershed. Could you give me some pointers on how to do that?

Nope, I said that God determines what is proven as well as reality in a general sense which you question left out as well as any other thing that makes it relevant or meaningfull.

I'm glad that you deny writing wordsalad. Otherwise I might suspect otherwise.

Deep blue couldn't figure you out.

Geez, sometimes you really do make me blush.

I did and you were right. It was good. Why can't you do the same with a serious topic.

Only ask. I am here for you.

Speaking of Jaylo. Your assumed contradiction is in fact not even potentially contradictory. Jaylo is hot is a subjective astetic value. Jaylo is cold is a relative absolute temperature claim. It is not contradictory, meaningful, or even amusing which is the more sad of the three.

A fair study, even with the embedded insult. Thanks. So you agree that it isn't contradictory. Great. Then neither is the following statement contradictory, yes?

I have proven all my points in this debate [to me], and I have proven none of my points in this debate [to you].

 

[Vansdad]

I'm really not. I'm pointing out that the arguments are not universal.

I'm clarifying what God. The One who created everything. Period. Not Zeus or Thor. I think you are avoiding the point.

 

[Storm]

I'm clarifying what God. The One who created everything. Period. Not Zeus or Thor. I think you are avoiding the point.

I don't know what the point is. But I do know that "the One who created everything" is actually rather vague. Perhaps that's the point?

 

[Thief]

Logic is based in the language.

If you believe it, then you believe it. But I can say with 100% authority that you are mistaken. After all, I myself have proven Christianity wrong using textual claims.

A god who would send down Holy Words would be making such a huge mistake and creating such havoc and discord among humanity that He could not possibly be a true God. Only a malevolent God would send down rigid, unchangeable words to us.

I think the gospels were written as fiction, based on earlier oral claims. I don't think Jesus existed in any form recognizable to us and not in first-century Judea. Sorry.

Theologians fear no question. Theologians yearn to be challenged to think in new ways, to grapple with strange thoughts and claims, to reorganize the language in a way which more clearly expresses God and life. I'm talking here about really good theologians, of course. Any guy can call himself a theologian.

OK. In my theology, that means that you have given up the theology game. Sorry, it's just how I see it.

Logic is not based on language.

You have not 100% authority.

Somethings are true continually....such as the parables of the Carpenter.
Good stuff coming from Someone who never lived?

Note my banner and signature.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Logic is not based on language.

Well, OK. I'd be curious to see you do any sort of substantial logic without the use of language.

You have not 100% authority.

I don't have any authority at all beyond my ability to argue for my positions.

Well, unless I meet a prophet on the road. In that case, I counter his 100% authority with my own 100% authority. It's the only way to deal with a prophet, I think.

Somethings are true continually....such as the parables of the Carpenter.
Good stuff coming from Someone who never lived?

I'm not sure what you mean. But taking a stab at it, I'll observe that fiction writers are entirely capable of creating parables for their characters to speak.