Proof of GOD, (without attacking Old Earth or evolution)

[a-seeker]

 

 

Well, argument from incredulity is a subset of argument from ignorance. From reading your posts, Connor, I would never insinuate that you are ignorant, on the contrary you seem sharper than I. I only say ignorance in that we have not found the answers yet. I think that if we would have stopped at God-did-it, we would have missed a lot of wonder - think telescopes, Hubble, LHC etc...Science is the search for God. We will never find him by natural means, but we will only harm ourselves by stopping the search. There are still a lot of us who believe in the bible no matter what we think the evidence tells us. If Enoch can't grasp that well...that's an argument from ignorance. GB.

Understood....

 

You know, part of the problem is your status as an "unbeliever".  Is that a self-assigned status? I began with that status and it threw off a lot of people (so they bumped me up to Seeker! I should've thrown a party at my church). 

 

I absolutely agree that we must continue to exploring the natural world.  But Philosophically I cannot account for its or our origins and our experiences apart from a supernatural power that is self-existent (uncaused).  Now if you agree with that, we are probably on the same page.

 

clb

 

I was assigned "Nonbeliever". I think we are close to being on the same page, except I don't think science and nature cares a fig about our philosophy. Nature goes on no matter how eloquent our philosophical spewings.

 

Agreed if you mean one's "philosophical outlook" makes no difference to nature as she works according to her laws: she does what she does whether you are a Platonist or a Thomist or a Nihilist.  But there is logic, and in order for science to work (to study nature systematically) logic must be trusted.  There is a cause/effect problem inherent in the Big Bang.  That is all I meant.

 

clb

[Organic Medicine]

"Yes, it's me.  It's in my head....here's the jist:"

 

That's the point.  Your "science" is so unsatisfying, does not answer questions, is unfalsifiable, and offers no predictive capabilites.  It reminds me of what I've read from Walt Brown which has been thoroughly debunked (such as the hydroplate theory whose energy release would have destroyed the earth).  In spite of it being debunked, YE creationists keep putting it forward...that astounds me.

There is information which shows without doubt the existence of God .I will enlarge a little later .

First I will explain with a story .I had heard a musician who played regularly in an Irish pub. Years ago .

He was very skilled,and ,I found myself asking if he ever wrote his own music . He said to my surprise he could not write his own music,because he c not

not write his own music ,because he could not read music .

I was almost shocked, because I at first could not understand how he could play so well if he had neve learned formally,which would require an ablility to know and read what others had composed .But he could .This example came into my head recently,and the lesson is that to hear God(and His voice you need to be gifted with the light of the Spirit,and you get that by reading what Jesus tells us and by trying even if imperfectly to strain to hear what He is really saying,and take it seriously .

For me Learning to read music ,while you are 'tone deaf' is a pointless exercise ,and will bear no fruit,but once you have the Ear for music,then Learning how to read it comes AFterwards . It is not essentail in order to play notes ,but later if you wish to communicate your own music to others you need to learn to write it down.

People who hear the Music of God have no need for in detailed science,but in order to move forward in the world we need to learn the language of science ,which is what we are trying to do ,but Hearing comes first. Those who only have scientific language,will be like the Tone deaf,having pointless knowledge,which in time will be sterile,and useless by itself .

Even Einstein said that maths which is really only the measure of things had no real purpose if 'imagination' ,a gift of the Spirit,given by God

Edited March 21, 2014 by Organic Medicine

[LookingForAnswers]

 

There is information which shows without doubt the existence of God .I will enlarge a little later .

 

 

No, there really is not.  If there were then there would not be any atheist or Muslims or Buddhist or Hindus or....well you get the picture.

 

Why do people try so hard to prove the unprovable?  When did Christians become so against faith?

[Enoch2021]

 

There is information which shows without doubt the existence of God .I will enlarge a little later .

 

No, there really is not.  If there were then there would not be any atheist or Muslims or Buddhist or Hindus or....well you get the picture.

 

Why do people try so hard to prove the unprovable?  When did Christians become so against faith?

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

No, there really is not.  If there were then there would not be any atheist or Muslims or Buddhist or Hindus or....well you get the picture

 

Thinking on your Feet, eh?         

 

This is a Logical Fallacy............ Affirming the Consequent:

 

If P then Q

Observe Q

Therefore: P

 

We surely get the Picture 

 

When did Christians become so against faith?

 

They're not, most Christians intuitively know what FAITH is.

 

 

Why do people try so hard to prove the unprovable?

 

People really don't have to try all that Hard....just be able to recognize "Specific Complexity" and have the ability to consider 2 or more concepts @ a Time then assimilate those into One coherent stream of thought.

 

 

except that Peter was given no proof till after the resurrection.

 

 

(Matthew 14:25-33) "And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.  {26} And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.  {27} But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying,  Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.  {28} And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  {29} And he said,  Come.  And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.  {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.  {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,  O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?  {32} And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.  {33} Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

 

So how many people roughly do you expect the Apostles witnessed in their lifetime that Stood on Water?

 

How many times, before Jesus, did Peter Walk on Water?

 

It surely appears, from the Scripture above, that ALL the Apostles (Including Peter) knew HE was the Son of GOD the Moment they witnessed HIM Standing on the WATER.

[LookingForAnswers]

Thinking on your Feet, eh?

 

 

Yes I am.  Why doe this skill bother you so much?  Is it that you fear what you don't understand or do is it envy of what you do not possess?

 

Simple logic here...IF there is information which shows without doubt the existence of something, then guess what...nobody can doubt it.  Not sure why this is too complicated for you.

 

 

They're not, most Christians intuitively know what FAITH is.

 

 

Yes they do, which begs the question..why don't you?

 

So how many people roughly do you expect the Apostles witnessed in their lifetime that Stood on Water?

 

How many times, before Jesus, did Peter Walk on Water?

 

It surely appears, from the Scripture above, that ALL the Apostles (Including Peter) knew HE was the Son of GOD the Moment they witnessed HIM Standing on the WATER.

 

 

This was certainly compelling evidence for Peter, evidence that sealed his faith in Jesus.  Yet even the faith of the most faithful can waver, that is the nature of being a human.  We have examples from Genesis to Revelations of the faith of great men and women waver.  Even John the Baptist had a moment of doubt...that did not make him weak, it made him stronger by allowing God to provide his strength.  To many people want to rely on their own understanding, their own "proofs" instead of leaning on God, instead of relying on God.  When you can move past this you will show true faith in God.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==========================================================

 

Thinking on your Feet,

 

Yes I am.  Why doe this skill bother you so much?

 

When you start to display some semblance of it,  rather than post Fallacy after Logical Fallacy that if we collected then consolidated would sink the Titanic, all over again.

 

 

Simple logic here..

 

Please, it was quite enough months ago

 

 

Yes they do, which begs the question..why don't you?

 

Demonstrated Fallacious Assertion

 

 

This was certainly compelling evidence for Peter,

 

"Concrete" evidence to not only Peter but all the Apostles....EXPLICITLY EXPRESSED by:

 

(Matthew 14:33) 'Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

 

Which sinks your (and others) Personal Conjecture Ship.

 

 

Yet even the faith of the most faithful can waver, that is the nature of being a human.  We have examples from Genesis to Revelations of the faith of great men and women waver.  Even John the Baptist had a moment of doubt...that did not make him weak, it made him stronger by allowing God to provide his strength.  To many people want to rely on their own understanding, their own "proofs" instead of leaning on God, instead of relying on God. 

 

And....?  Listing obvious facts about faith wavering throughout Scripture has what Relevance to your Claim?

 

If I may remind you, your claim was (more or less) : If we have Proof then what's the Need of Faith.

 

Of which I, over numerous posts, showed quite demonstrably (including this post)  that your "Faith" Definition is erroneous.

[Sheniy]

Let me ask you a couple questions:

Okay.  But your turn next. 

 

How do you have Faith, without it being Absolutely Blind, without Substance?

 

I see two problems with this.

 

1. Faith is not absolutely blind.  Faith is physically blind, though.  That's basically the definition of faith (believing without seeing, "walk by faith, not by sight" 2 Cor 5:7). 

 

How it not blind, then?  We see by spiritual revelation.  I'm not talking about prophecy (not entirely).  I am talking about the counsel of the Holy Spirit.  God is here.  And he talks to us (still small voice, the sheep hear His voice, etc).  He is the one who helps us SEE the truth.

Ephesians 1:18 KJV "The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,"

Faith comes from hearing the Word (Jesus), and the Spirit opens my eyes to the Truth (also Jesus).  NOW I can look at the cosmos and see the work of the Creator (again, Jesus).

 

 

2. Substance isn't faith. This isn't a math problem where F = S.  They're not interchangeable.   You seem to think that verse is saying that substance (evidence) is necessary for faith (you said, "Yes, because Faith is based on Substance."), but it's not saying that (and you're leaving out the rest of the verse).  It isn't based on actual physical substance. It doesn't result from substance.  In this verse, faith is already acquired.  Faith is hope, realized. 

    If I baked a hope cake, faith would be the main ingredient.  "What's that cake made out of?" you'd ask, and I'd say, "It's made of faith, but you can't have any, yet. It's not done."

 

Let's clear up another misconception.  We've sort of changed the meaning of the word "hope".  I did a study on this years ago, and it was illuminating.  We say today, "man, I hope it doesn't rain," or "I hope you'll share your cake with me," implying we really, really wish those things.  That kind of hope isn't used in the bible; it's a modern invention.  When hope is used in the bible, it refers to a desire (I want cake) but also includes the assurance of the eventual fulfillment of that desire (I will have cake).

  If I said to you, "You can have some cake when it's done," you have the hope of eating yummy cake (you want it and you know you will get it), and your assurance of my promise of cake is faith.

  You can't prove the cake exists, but you don't need evidence because you have my word.  Say someone else said, "the cake is a lie!! There is no cake!" ...

Aaaaand this analogy has just mutated into an internet meme, so I'm gonna stop there.

 

I've been studying this for hours, and the more I search, the more I find regarding faith.  It's amazing.  Faith is so much more than belief in something or someone.  It seems to be a deep, solid conviction that leads to action.  I can explain, but I need to do more searching. 

 

 

----------

 

You can read a Book stating 3 Toed Gnomes Rule the Universe...and to believe that would be "Blind" Faith, because there's No Evidence or Substance.

How is that different than what you've been talking about? 

 

Okay, say there's a little wooden shack with a sign outside that says "A Three toed Gnome lives here, but he's invisible!"  You look inside and see nothing but some worn furniture.  You could scour the shack for clues while others scoff, "why are you bothering, why would you need to find a 3 toed gnome?"  You ignore them and keep searching for hours...days...years.  You might find some evidence of something living there, but no proof. But, somehow, you know he's there.

 

But then, one day, you say, "Hey, Mr Gnome, are you there?"

 

And Mr Gnome replies "Yeah, I've been here the whole time."

 

And you say, "but why didn't you say so earlier?!"

 

"You didn't ask," he replies, "BTW, want some cake?"

 

(interpretation in case it's not clear: you can search the cosmos for proof of it's creator, but the only way to find Him is to ask)

 

Bad analogy, I know.  Three toed gnomes aren't actually real.  If you're response to this is, "did you seriously imply that God is like a 3 toed gnome?!"  I would say this: you did it first.

----------

 

I found another question of yours:

Faith in what specifically with Almighty GOD?

 

I see two categories: 

 

Faith that HE exists.

 

Faith HE will keep HIS Promises.

 

"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." - Hebrews 11:6 KJV

 

This verse covers both.

 

Note that it is 5 verses away from the "substance" verse in question.

 ---------

 

Peter's Faltering Alone (Multiple Times!!) ends your position (and Sheniy's, Tolken's et al) quite abruptly.

 

Just because you walked with Jesus, doesn't mean you have unshakable faith.  Take Judas, for example. He was inhabited by Satan.

 

Peter's faith was weak, like a faulty hypothesis.  These are Jesus' words, by the way (not the hypothesis part, lol) in Matthew 14:31.  Jesus tells his disciples their faith is weak several times.  They had plenty of evidence!  Their faith was lacking SUBSTANCE.  He said faith as small as a mustard seed (oh, look! Substance!) can move a mountain (Matthew 17:20).

 

The problem with the disciples was the their faith was BASED ON EVIDENCE. This guy with miraculous powers asks some common folk, ordinary people (read: not already Christian) to follow him.  He is interesting.  Very interesting.  His teachings make sense, except when they don't and He has to explain it to them.  He blows their mind with the power He has over the elements. "WHO IS this guy?!" they ask, amazed.  Their hopes were skewed.  "He will overthrow our government" some said.  Some develop an agenda.  Some develop pride.  ALL of them leave Him in the garden (another parallel to Genesis? Oy!).

Peter gains the revelation that Jesus is the Son of God, the messiah (Matt 16:17).  This is not something he could have learned on his own, as natural man doesn't understand the spiritual things of God unless revealed by the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10-14).

  After the Resurrection,  He appeared to the disciples and reproached them for their unbelief. (mark 16:14)   Their minds had to "be opened" in order to understand these things (Luke 24; Eph 1:18).  Thomas required physical evidence, but Jesus said blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.

 

These people who walked with Jesus had "little faith".  They witnessed him, but still had unbelief.  They heard the promises of the Word (from the mouth of the Word Himself!), the Spirit opened their minds to the truth, and their faith became "substance", solid and unshakable.  After their faith (confidence) grew, however, they became the evidence of Him (Acts 4:13).

 

 ----------

 

Okay Enoch. I've answered your questions.  Could you please answer all of mine?

 

If my argument is wrong, then why do scriptures support it?  Can you explain them away?

 

Can you provide as many scripture to support your argument? 

 

..........Why a three toed Gnome?!   lol

 

 

 

[a-seeker]

Maybe this has already been done, but has everyone the same definition of proof, faith, and God?

 

By proof do we mean the kind attainable in mathematics?  Or do we mean something more like a probability so high that there is not the least reason to doubt, even though it is not provable? 

 

By faith do we mean "belief" as in "I believe there is a God", or do we mean "trust" as in "I trust God to protect me from this man-eating tiger?"  We can call the one faith "universal" and the other "particular"--or the one intellectual and the other emotional.

 

By God do we mean a "higher being", or do we mean a God with a particular character and particular designs for creation (i.e. the God we meet in the Bible)?  For instance, I doubt anyone here thinks they could prove by mere logic that Jesus is God if they had never heard of Jesus, or the Bible, or anything Biblical; or that, once coming to the conviction that there is a God, you could move, once more by sheer logic, to the conclusion of a Triune God.  Aquinas thought he had a proof for the existence of God, but he did not say that that was the God of the Bible; ultimately it was, but you couldn't prove it, that is where faith came in: my logic tells me there is a God, but it is faith that holds me to this God.  I am not here endorsing blind fideism.  I think most people think they have good reason to make the second step.  But it is not proof.

Edited March 21, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

==========================================================

 

Thinking on your Feet,

 

Yes I am.  Why doe this skill bother you so much?

 

When you start to display some semblance of it,  rather than post Fallacy after Logical Fallacy that if we collected then consolidated would sink the Titanic, all over again.

 

 

Simple logic here..

 

Please, it was quite enough months ago

 

 

Yes they do, which begs the question..why don't you?

 

Demonstrated Fallacious Assertion

 

 

This was certainly compelling evidence for Peter,

 

"Concrete" evidence to not only Peter but all the Apostles....EXPLICITLY EXPRESSED by:

 

(Matthew 14:33) 'Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

 

Which sinks your (and others) Personal Conjecture Ship.

 

 

Yet even the faith of the most faithful can waver, that is the nature of being a human.  We have examples from Genesis to Revelations of the faith of great men and women waver.  Even John the Baptist had a moment of doubt...that did not make him weak, it made him stronger by allowing God to provide his strength.  To many people want to rely on their own understanding, their own "proofs" instead of leaning on God, instead of relying on God. 

 

And....?  Listing obvious facts about faith wavering throughout Scripture has what Relevance to your Claim?

 

If I may remind you, your claim was (more or less) : If we have Proof then what's the Need of Faith.

 

Of which I, over numerous posts, showed quite demonstrably (including this post)  that your "Faith" Definition is erroneous.

 

 

The obvious problem here is that you have some sort of pet definition of proof and thus do not really understand what the word truly means.

This is most evident in your posting "Specific Complexity" as some sort of proof.  Specific Complexity argument, not a proof.  The truly ironic part is that if there were actually proof there would be no need for the argument.  Last night the North Dakota University Bisons beat the University of Oklahoma Sooners in the 2nd round of the NCAA Basketball tourney. (which I was 14 for 16 in the games yesterday!).  This is a fact and and the proof was on the television for a million people to watch last night. Notice there is no need for an argument to try and prove that this happened, because there is proof of it. 

The next part with escapes your grasp to understand is that Specific Complexity is not an argument for the God of the Bible (let alone a proof).  It is an argument for an intelligent designer, nothing more.  The Specific Complexity argument does in no way address who/what the designer might be.  Once you learn what "proof" is you will see how silly you have been for all these threads.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

1. Faith is not absolutely blind.

 

Then...

 

2. Substance isn't faith.

 

 

This is a Contradiction.

 

And..... (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the--------> substance <--------  of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

So your position is, Faith is not substance? 

 

 

Faith is physically blind, though.  That's basically the definition of faith (believing without seeing, "walk by faith, not by sight" 2 Cor 5:7).

 

Just because you can't see something doesn't make it Untrue/Unprovable/Unknowable.

 

See: BMW and Water on the Sea Floor Examples

 

 

Just because you walked with Jesus, doesn't mean you have unshakable faith.

 

You missed the Point.

 

They not only walked with Jesus....JESUS STOOD ON WATER, sheniy .....THEN PETER WALKED ON WATER, then faltered.  SEE THE PROOF??  Then you have...

 

(Matthew 14:33) 'Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God."

 

All your positions are basically:  If you have Proof, what's the need for Faith.

 

Well PETER Had the "Proof" the moment they saw Jesus Standing on the Water..... and I would say AAA+ PROOF, but still didn't have enough FAITH.

 

This example alone sinks your Faith Boat

 

I could post quite a list of similar examples throughout Scripture....but it would be inordinately redundant.

 

 

Why a three toed Gnome?!

 

Why not?