What's the term to describe this?

[McBell]

God is self existing.

What does that even mean?

 

[Skywalker]

What does that even mean?

God has no beginning and no end. God told Moses I am that I am.

 

[nPeace]

Grand pyramid? I would think that's knowledge not an assumption that men build pyramids. I had to look it up, but if you're talking about the Grand Pryamid of Giza (wild guess), I'm sure it wasn't an assumption. When people say evidence for god (and related), they're not talking about historical evidence whether it be an origin of something (like the originator of nature), but they're talking about the supernatural component (god doesn't have hands and feet involved).

Sorry. I meant to use something older, but didn't search for anything, so I used the pyramid.
I am really trying to find out though, what tests are you thinking of, in finding out if a structure was built by man.
Try this one.
It is said that these structures show evidence of construction methods and design that were fairly ahead of their time.

The Megalithic Temples of Malta
While not much is known about who built them, evidence from inside the temples – livestock sacrifices – suggests that local farmers constructed the stony structures. There are several temples scattered around, many of which appear on the UNESCO World Heritage List. However, the most important one of them all is the two-temple complex at Ggantija.

According to UNESCO, the Megalithic Temples of Malta are some of the oldest, free-standing stone buildings on Earth. The ancient Maltese are believed to have prioritized both architectural proficiency and artistic creativity, which these structures inherently blend together.

From what I read here, it says... "not much is known about who built them, evidence from inside the temples – livestock sacrifices – suggests that local farmers constructed the stony structures."
Have they not made assumptions here?
Finding assumed to be sacrificed animals somewhere does not prove that those animals were in any way associated with the construction.
So there really is no test that can be carried out to determine who or what put those structures in place.
Would you agree?

Add this one too...
It remains unclear when, why and by whom the earliest dolmens were made. The oldest known are found in Western Europe, dating from c 7,000 years ago. Archaeologists still do not know who erected these dolmens, which makes it difficult to know why they did it. They are generally all regarded as tombs or burial chambers, despite the absence of clear evidence for this. Human remains, sometimes accompanied by artefacts, have been found in or close to the dolmens which could be scientifically dated using radiocarbon dating. However, it has been impossible to prove that these remains date from the time when the stones were originally set in place.

But I'm confused to what you're asking. I can see how people can see a building has a builder. But it would be a huge huge assumption to say the same thing to non-man made living and not living beings and things.

Could you explain what would make the assumption huge, so huge as to be greater than the assumptions made above.

Another thing that puzzles me is if you look at the formation of a star, why don't we say god is forming the star as we see it come to being? Why not see god act now-so every person will see god role without needing to believe in a specific faith or god-religion to figure it out?

When a flower grows or a baby is growing in her mother's womb, why don't we say god is creating then?

While we can't go back in time to test whether a god (which I'm not sure how it would look) created the world, but did he stop creating in present moment-because I'm sure the laws of physics and movement haven't changed before humans existed and today.

When you look at your watch, do you ever ask, why don't that man stop turning my watch handles?
Do you ever ask, when people start a large machine in a factory, why does it do all these amazing things?

Because you see something in progress, it doesn't mean the persons who built the machine is behind every action. Neither can we say, the machine does not require a manufacturer, because the machine is doing what it was designed to do.
Likewise, the creator and designer of everything in the universe built the universe to "manufacture" (Isaiah 40:26), just as he built man to manufacture (Acts 17:26). What you are seeing is the manufacturing process taking place... like in the image above.
(Psalm 139:16) . . .Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.

 

[Skywalker]

What prophecies do you find so convincing? Perhaps the fulfillment is more in the post facto interpretation.
The Bible does mention historical events -- which were common knowledge. It also mentions a lot of events, like the flood or exodus, that definitely did not occur.
Fossils show a sequence of changes over time, so does genetics.
Darwin described changes and proposed a mechanism. "Kinds" is a recent, creationist term.
What determines a kind? Apparently there's some distinctive difference between kind and, say, 'variety'. What would that be?
Creationists are grasping at straws.

What about the Bible is post facto interpretation? There's no verse that is. Why do you think that the Exodus didn't occur? Egyptian writings have descriptions similar to the descriptions of the events in Exodus. Fossils and genetics show that there are changes over time within the same kinds. They don't show anything like a plant evolving into a bird. Darwin didn't describe changes and mechanisms like that. Even Darwin described kinds. The difference between a kind and a variety is that wolves and coyotes are different varieties and birds and squirrels are different kinds.

 

[nPeace]

I don't see the connection since smell, sight, hearing, et cetera are not "supernatural." So, when you look at a tree and a baby is listening to a mother's heartbeat, the latter there are physiological and biological explanations involved. The former, from an outsider, you're appreciating the awe of the tree, but not many people explain (or what to or can find the words) to explain what the connection they have (like the mother and baby) they have with the tree other than "but it's god." We can study the relationship between baby and mother, but not quite when it comes to how one connects nature to a creator.

It's not obvious-so, I can't see the comparison.

Do you believe we only have five senses - sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing?

 

[nPeace]

I don't know the mechanism, therefore God?

Base rate fallacy.

 

[Skywalker]

Physics is learning a lot about cosmogeny. You need to brush up on your physics.

What does God's presumed omnipotence and self-existingness have to do with magic? I'm not hearing any mechanism proposed by religion, ergo: effect without mechanism.
God doing everything is not evident to those who understand the actual mechanisms involved. If order and purpose were evident they'd be common knowledge, yet those most knowledgeable on the subject are those least likely to see a god's hand in it.
We do see chaos in nature -- and a lot of bad design. Science describes how this came about.

Rebellion? Sin? Witchcraft? This is all folklore, is it not?
Nature is full of poisonous plants because they couldn't evade predators like animals can. They had to resort to chemical deterrents.
Adam sinned? Nature changed? There's no evidence for either of these.
How would natural selection explain anything before there was nature to select from? We're talking chemistry here, which is quite sufficient to create the organic components of life.
DNA complicated?! Poppycock! It's a simple polymer, albeit very long. Why do you say it's complicated?

A chain may be six links long, or six million. One is not more 'complicated' than the other.

It's common knowledge that nature has order and purpose. Without the trees we couldn't live and vice versa. Chaos in nature came from after humanity sinned. What in nature do you think has bad design?

 

[Skywalker]

Cause all the things attributed to him are natural phenomena?

What's an example of a fossil that has intermediate organs? There is no natural explanation for the existence of organs.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you believe we only have five senses - sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing?

Yes. Are you referring to us having a six sense?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I said non-man made things like flowers and rainbows and rocks (earth) are assumed to have a creator not natural things like using what people assume to be god's creation to build things like pyramids etc. I'm not familiar with how archeologist prove the originator of these things but I'm sure, very sure, it wasn't god.

Sorry. I meant to use something older, but didn't search for anything, so I used the pyramid.
I am really trying to find out though, what tests are you thinking of, in finding out if a structure was built by man.
Try this one.
It is said that these structures show evidence of construction methods and design that were fairly ahead of their time.

I don't see they are ahead of their time. But it looks like from reading they don't know who built it other than suggesting (assuming) farmers did. I know it's complex but I never did get the just because we don't understand something, it needs to be greater than us.

How do you compare this to a rainbow or the body developing brain cancer?

Archeologist would have a lot more evidence (though I'm not familiar with the field) to back up their suggestion than looking at the building and automatically concluding there is a "grand" creator behind it (the creation of rocks etc not the structure of the rocks).

From what I read here, it says... "not much is known about who built them, evidence from inside the temples – livestock sacrifices – suggests that local farmers constructed the stony structures."
Have they not made assumptions here?
Finding assumed to be sacrificed animals somewhere does not prove that those animals were in any way associated with the construction.
So there really is no test that can be carried out to determine who or what put those structures in place.
Would you agree?

I spoke to soon.

If that's what it says, I suppose not. Are archeologist saying that anyone other than man could have built it?

'cause god is a totally different story.

I can't deny it's pretty profound. I wanted to be an archeologist myself awhile back because of it. But the connection between builder and built in this case highly suggests humans. Saying that nature-tree, rainbow-suggests god is really pushing it.

I'm not sure where you getting at.

I heard of radiocarbon dating. That's a good way to test the age of something. But god? Nature?

Could you explain what would make the assumption huge, so huge as to be greater than the assumptions made above.

Since god is not something you can see to suggest it's nature (like human being) it's hard to state as fact that what you see as a tree is created by something in particular god. The supernaturalisity (made up word) of it makes the connection very extraneous as compared to something build we're trying to find the builder of.

How can you build a flower as you would a building?

Also, which reminds me of another question I asked someone else, if there is a designer creating, how can you not see this creating today-from seed to flower, child to adult, and so have you?

The interval in time between first creation and now shouldn't stop god from creating, true?

When you look at your watch, do you ever ask, why don't that man stop turning my watch handles?

Do you ever ask, when people start a large machine in a factory, why does it do all these amazing things?

Not with watches and machines, but I get what you're saying. When I see a painting, I wonder how the artist created such a masterpiece but I don't translate that to nature. When I'm in the forest on the trails, since trees etc aren't man-made, that assumption of creator/creation doesn't come to mind. It takes life as it is regardless what I want to believe it is and experience the bliss of being alone without assuming there needs to be an originator in order to experience it.

Because you see something in progress, it doesn't mean the persons who built the machine is behind every action. Neither can we say, the machine does not require a manufacturer, because the machine is doing what it was designed to do.

So you believe god put something in process and no longer has a hand in creating?

That does divert trying to prove god as the creator when it's assumed god no longer creates after a certain time period. I bet we will "see" the same thing here with stars forming etc as the beginning of the physical universe that there is nothing we can "see" forming these things but still carry the assumption that god did it.

You really got to explain what god is because saying he is the creator and put things in motion sounds more like concepts and theories.

If I understood it intellectually, that wouldn't mean anything deeper to me though. I don't see my life changing just because I understood what other people mean by the creator and creation. Instead, personally, I believe the physical universe formed and created itself. The spirituality of it is all human interpretations to explain the mystery of life but we're just a speck in the universe, so I wouldn't expect to claim as a fact anything that exists beyond my assumptions (theories, hypothesis, etc).

 

[viole]

Cancer and poisonous plants aren't God's design they exist because of the sin of people.

So, they have not been designed? Take the Ebola virus, a pretty efficient machine. No design?

BR

Claudio

 

[Valjean]

It's common knowledge that nature has order and purpose.

When does a particular radioactive nucleus decay? Which sperm fertilizes which egg? Which DNA sequence is going to be miscopied during replication? There is both order and chaos in nature.

Purpose? What evidence do you have of purpose? You're making an unfounded assertion and declaring it 'obvious.' You're trying to graft your religious doctrine onto nature.

Without the trees we couldn't live and vice versa. Chaos in nature came from after humanity sinned.

More unsupported religious doctrine. What evidence do you have for this? Was there no atomic decay or mutation before man?

What in nature do you think has bad design?

Us?
Design Flaws Human Body - From our knees to our eyeballs, our bodies are full of hack solutions.
The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body
A first year engineering student could create a better design. Nature, on the other hand, has to work with what it has, making small changes to existing features.

 

[Valjean]

What's an example of a fossil that has intermediate organs? There is no natural explanation for the existence of organs.

What's an intermediate organ?

 

[Skywalker]

What's an intermediate organ?

An intermediate organ is what existed before a heart.

 

[Valjean]

An intermediate organ is what existed before a heart.

There are many different designs in nature for moving blood or body fluids about, from no heart to the four-chambered mammalian heart. There's an observable sequence of development, but "intermediate"doesn't seem to accurately describe anything.

 

[Skywalker]

When does a particular radioactive nucleus decay? Which sperm fertilizes which egg? Which DNA sequence is going to be miscopied during replication? There is both order and chaos in nature.

Purpose? What evidence do you have of purpose? You're making an unfounded assertion and declaring it 'obvious.' You're trying to graft your religious doctrine onto nature.
More unsupported religious doctrine. What evidence do you have for this? Was there no atomic decay or mutation before man?
Us?
Design Flaws Human Body - From our knees to our eyeballs, our bodies are full of hack solutions.
The Most Unfortunate Design Flaws in the Human Body
A first year engineering student could create a better design. Nature, on the other hand, has to work with what it has, making small changes to existing features.

What does knowing about when radioactive nucleus decays have to do with whether nature has order and purpose? The reason men produce sperm they don't use is similar to why women don't use all of their eggs. DNA sequences miscopying during replication happens during mutations which exist because of sin or they have an order and purpose that we don't understand.

Everything in nature fits together like a puzzle piece. That is evidence of purpose. You see order, beauty, design, not confusion when you look at a forest. Atomic decay and mutation is different from chaos in nature.

 

[Skywalker]

There are many different designs in nature for moving blood or body fluids about, from no heart to the four-chambered mammalian heart. There's an observable sequence of development, but "intermediate"doesn't seem to accurately describe anything.

How can something this physically important be gradual?

 

[Skywalker]

So, they have not been designed? Take the Ebola virus, a pretty efficient machine. No design?

BR

Claudio

Bacteria that causes death exists because of the fall of man. Its mutation not designed.

 

[Valjean]

What does knowing about when radioactive nucleus decays have to do with whether nature has order and purpose?

It has to do with chaos; with unplanned randomness. As for purpose, there is no evidence for purpose in nature.
Didn't you learn the difference between purpose and function in biology class?

The reason men produce sperm they don't use is similar to why women don't use all of their eggs. DNA sequences miscopying during replication happens during mutations which exist because of sin or they have an order and purpose that we don't understand.

Which we don't understand or can't perceive? If we can't perceive it, why would we believe it exists?
What rational reason do you have for believing sin has anything to do with anything. This is just religious dogma without a shred of supporting evidence.Wasn't there randomness in reproduction and atomic decay millions of years before any sinful humans ever appeared?

Everything in nature fits together like a puzzle piece. That is evidence of purpose. You see order, beauty, design, not confusion when you look at a forest. Atomic decay and mutation is different from chaos in nature.

This suggests purpose and design only to someone with no knowledge of physics, chemistry or biology.

How are atomic decay and mutation different from chaos? Chaos theory - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

How can something this physically important be gradual?

But it is gradual. We see gradual changes to hearts, ears, eyes, kidneys, lungs, joints, &al through out nature. Each step functional.

Have you never in your life had a biology class? Do you not realize that there is a whole sequence of functional changes in different animals -- protozoa, insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, &c?

This is just like the ridiculous assertion that an eye is irreducibly complex.