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

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

 

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? 

 

 Did you even read the rest of the paragraph? Here it is again. Please read past the first sentence. 

 

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.

 

---------

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

 

You missed the Point.

 

And you missed the rest of what I said.  Again.  How much of it did you even read? lol

 

Here's a sample:

 

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 their faith was BASED ON EVIDENCE.

 

Get it?  Maybe if I try Enoch-style. 

 

The problem with the disciples was their faith was------->  BASED ON EVIDENCE!!!!!   <------------------

 

 Consider thy battleship sunk, my friend.

 

 

-----------

 

Why a three toed Gnome?!

 

Why not? 

 

 

 

You missed my other questions.  I answered yours.  It's only fair.  

 

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?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

This is most evident in your posting "Specific Complexity" as some sort of proof.  Specific Complexity argument, not a proof.

 

 See Below

 

 

The truly ironic part is that if there were actually proof there would be no need for the argument.

 

Strawman you created based on your Fallacious Definition of the term "Faith" and the never ending equivocations with the term "Proof".

 

 

 

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.

 

Over and Over and Over again with the same Ineptness.  The problem you have is you can't consider more than 2 topics @ Once and then assimilate them into a coherent stream of thought.

 

Just for the Listeners:

 

Ya see, we don't live in a Vacuum.  We make conclusions with the preponderance of the evidence @ our disposal.  Since this subject has it's basis in the past, we have to Forensically (Historical Science) put the pieces together.  "Most" have @ their disposal: Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving Skills, and good ole Fashioned Common Sense).  Combined with Sound Scientific Principles is a pretty powerful combination.

 

"Specific Complexity"------- Confirms Designer.  It's a Slam Dunk!!

 

Which/Who: well.....

 

1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT "Pillar of Science"): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT "Pillar of Science"): The amount of energy available for work is running out,  and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

then....

 

Well taking our thesis with 1LOT....the GOD who created 1LOT must be outside of Time and not bound by it's Laws: Holy Scripture confirms this....

 

(Isaiah 57:15) "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;..."

Eternity is not someplace with Lots of Time....it's the Absence of Time.

 

(Isaiah 46:10) "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

 

(2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This IMHO, is a Rhetorical Device (Metaphors, Similes, Idioms, Types, Allegories) of which there are over 200 styles in the Holy Bible.  I hear people quote the first half of this verse and arrive @ a Literal conclusion (a Day = a Thousand Years).  Taking the Whole Verse...this clearly is conveying HIS TIMELESSNESS.

 

So if HE is outside of time and able to declare "End from the Beginning", can we test this Empirically?.... Yes; PROPHECY.  And ALL must be 100% accurate without failure.  By a conservative count there are over 2000 Specific Prophecies in the Holy Bible.  85% of them have come to pass with 100% accuracy without Failure.  The last 15% or so are yet future....Revelation.  There are Prophecies throughout Scripture but the mother-load IMHO are in the Book Of Daniel.  Among 100's detailing (Babylon, Medo-Persia: Cyrus The Great, Greece: Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals, and Romans) He details approx 300 years of secular history beforehand between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

 

Along with 2000 other examples with Prophecy. 

 

What other "gods" can claim this ability??    ZERO !!!!!!

 

and there you have it:  1 + 1 = 2

 

If you need a little more: SEE the OP of this Topic, here:  

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

Can't explain it any simpler to you Sheniy.  Go ahead and reread the post.  The simple "Evidence" I provided renders your questions and the subsequent answers, moot.

[Hawkins]

To me, evolution only makes sense under the assumption that God doesn't exist. If God exists then anything is possible. It is actually a deceptive argument that evolution is evidenced. To give you another perspective;

 

Please make a list of all species currently existing in planet earth, then examine each of these species carefully and answer the one question,

 

1. a Cat

What evidence do you have which shows that a cat is formed by a single cell?

 

2. a bird

same question. What evidence do you have which shows that a bird is formed by a single cell?

 

3. a toad

same question. What evidence do you have which effectively shows that a toad is formed from a single cell?

 

(make a list of all species then count to how many species ToE is evident)

 

All people have is the discrete changes possibly made by the nature. They can try to imagine that the nature can gradually change a cell to a finished species (cat, bird, toad, etc.) but such evidence (i.e. from cell to cat) is never existed. It is a belief by faith that small changes have the added up effect (this however is never evident to an extent that cat can be formed from a single cell this way). Such an added up effect is faith based.

 

In a null shell, evolution is the belief that humans have already known all kinds of driving force and thus conclude that natural selection is the one and only one driving force to cause a single cell organism to form a much more complicated, say, cat. Actually, certain schools of evolution already assume that natural selection may not be the sole force. The question is rather how many forces out there can contribute to an evolution.

 

 

By the assumption that God exists, then anything is possible.

 

For an example, if 10 millions years ago with all other species formed by evolution, God created one species then allow the nature to continue to hammer this species. Now 10 millions year later, can human identify which one species was originally created by God? We can't. Now if God created half of the existed species 2 millions years ago and allow other species to be created by evolution, can humans today identify which species were originally created? How if God created all species some 2 millions years ago then allow the nature to continue to drive. Can today's human recognise them as created or evolved?

 

 

Another possibility is that God only created Adam and Eve. Since they left Eden, God no longer cares about our physical bodies, He cares only about our soul. He no longer maintain humans' body genetically. His focus is only on our souls. On the other hand, along the path humans fought their way to survive, they tried every way to survive. Once in a while they interbreed with all other possible species, including the ancient chimps and other homo-erectus. That could be what our physical body now.

 

 

Moreover, by the assumption that God exists, if for a reason that God ever moved the earth to another space-time then back and forth, then how the dating methods shall work? Our theories usually lie on the assumption that planet earth must have always been in its current space/position all the times. This assumption is reasonable but only under the assumption that God doesn't exist. If God exists, you may have to confirm with Him to see if He has ever manipulated the earth at a time-space level.

[LookingForAnswers]

Over and Over and Over again with the same Ineptness.  The problem you have is you can't consider more than 2 topics @ Once and then assimilate them into a coherent stream of thought.

 

 

 

It is not about considering two or more topics, it is about combining things that do not belong together.  You saying that since A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D then A leads to D, and that is not how it works.  It is shocking someone that claims some sort of aptitude at science would have such a basic misunderstanding of processes. 

Each is a separate argument that must stand on its own merits.

 

 

Just for the Listeners:

 

Ya see, we don't live in a Vacuum.  We make conclusions with the preponderance of the evidence @ our disposal.  Since this subject has it's basis in the past, we have to Forensically (Historical Science) put the pieces together.  "Most" have @ their disposal: Intellect (Inductive/Deductive Reasoning, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving Skills, and good ole Fashioned Common Sense).  Combined with Sound Scientific Principles is a pretty powerful combination.

 

 

Now the reality as opposed to Enoch's fantasy...

 

Step 1:

"Specific Complexity"

 

Is an argument for a Designer.  It's hardly a  Slam Dunk but it is very compelling.  This is where the argument of Specific Complexity ends, it can tell you nothing else about the nature of the designer.   

 

Step 1a. (this is an argument for a creator, similar to the argument of Specific Complexity).  Enoch has choice 1 and 2 correct, but misses the boat on choice 3. 

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by Something (a creator)

 

When looking at this argument one must decide which of the 3 they will choose.  Once they make that choice then this step is done and can lead one no further.  This step cannot in any way address who/what the creator is.

 

Step 3:  IF one decides there is a creator/designer they then must determine the nature of said creator.  This step is totally independent of the steps above.

 

Well taking our thesis with 1LOT....the GOD who created 1LOT must be outside of Time and not bound by it's Laws: Holy Scripture confirms this....

 

(Isaiah 57:15) "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;..."

Eternity is not someplace with Lots of Time....it's the Absence of Time.

 

(Isaiah 46:10) "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

 

(2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This IMHO, is a Rhetorical Device (Metaphors, Similes, Idioms, Types, Allegories) of which there are over 200 styles in the Holy Bible.  I hear people quote the first half of this verse and arrive @ a Literal conclusion (a Day = a Thousand Years).  Taking the Whole Verse...this clearly is conveying HIS TIMELESSNESS.

 

So if HE is outside of time and able to declare "End from the Beginning", can we test this Empirically?.... Yes; PROPHECY.  And ALL must be 100% accurate without failure.  By a conservative count there are over 2000 Specific Prophecies in the Holy Bible.  85% of them have come to pass with 100% accuracy without Failure.  The last 15% or so are yet future....Revelation.  There are Prophecies throughout Scripture but the mother-load IMHO are in the Book Of Daniel.  Among 100's detailing (Babylon, Medo-Persia: Cyrus The Great, Greece: Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals, and Romans) He details approx 300 years of secular history beforehand between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

 

Along with 2000 other examples with Prophecy.

 

 

 

Now with this Enoch makes a great case that the creator/designer is the God of the Bible that most of us here worship.  I have to give credit where credit is due. 

 

But back to the realty...Enoch wants to believe that Specific Complexity is proof of the God of the Bible, but this is false, it is just the first step in a logical process but cannot stand alone as proof of anything, let alone the God we all worship

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

 

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

 

Can't explain it any simpler to you Sheniy.  Go ahead and reread the post.  The simple "Evidence" I provided renders your questions and the subsequent answers, moot.

 

 

No it doesn't. lol 

 

 

I reviewed your post and you said this:

 

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

 

Hmm.  First, you're lumping us all into the same assumption.  That's not my position.  I was disagreeing with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:1 that substance is physical evidence.  You were getting jumped on from all sides, so I understand the confusion. lol

 

Second, I think you misunderstand their position (whoever has that position). 

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021 - What part of ......"No disrespect intended but I'm done with this" didn't you understand?  Especially when you replied back with.....None Taken.  ??

 

Well, I saw you continue to post and thought that you'd changed your mind. But since you were unable to respond to me except with the above vacuous remarks...I will cease. Obviously Sheniy and LookingForAnswers understand Hebrews 11:1 and "Faith" so perhaps they will be able to correct your misinterpretation.

.

 

 

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

 

Whatever.  I've responded to you plenty as documented.  And your "unable to respond to me" is stuck on E, for Empty.  I didn't feel the need or desire to climb the unassailable walls of Obtuseness.

 

The Apostles witnessing Jesus Standing on Water and Peter Walking on Water and subsequent failing, renders your argument and position a Demonstrable ZERO by itself with countless more examples riddled through Scripture.

 

Just keep "Whistlin Past the Graveyard" sir

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Can't explain it any simpler to you Sheniy.  Go ahead and reread the post.  The simple "Evidence" I provided renders your questions and the subsequent answers, moot.

 

 

No it doesn't. lol 

 

 

I reviewed your post and you said this:

 

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

 

Hmm.  First, you're lumping us all into the same assumption.  That's not my position.  I was disagreeing with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:1 that substance is physical evidence.  You were getting jumped on from all sides, so I understand the confusion. lol

 

Second, I think you misunderstand their position (whoever has that position). 

 

 

It is my position, but I think the biggest confusion is that too many people have too many different opinions on what "proof' is.  

Let me try this example...I tell you that Mercer just beat Duke in college basketball.  Now you have not seen the score but know that I am huge college basketball fan so you have faith that I am telling you the truth.  Then you turn on your TV and see the score on the screen, now you have actual proof so you no longer need to have faith in what I said, in fact it is now impossible to have faith because you now have proof.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

Hmm.  First, you're lumping us all into the same assumption.  That's not my position.

 

Sorry about that.....it's difficult to keep all the "Twisted" Versions Separated.

 

 

I was disagreeing with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:1 that substance is physical evidence.

 

That's not my interpretation.....I never said it had to be "Physical" evidence.  See Multiple posts with (BMW/Sea Water/"Specific Complexity" et al)

 

 

I think you misunderstand their position

 

Really, How so?

[Sheniy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Can't explain it any simpler to you Sheniy.  Go ahead and reread the post.  The simple "Evidence" I provided renders your questions and the subsequent answers, moot.

 

 

No it doesn't. lol 

 

 

I reviewed your post and you said this:

 

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

 

Hmm.  First, you're lumping us all into the same assumption.  That's not my position.  I was disagreeing with your interpretation of Hebrews 11:1 that substance is physical evidence.  You were getting jumped on from all sides, so I understand the confusion. lol

 

Second, I think you misunderstand their position (whoever has that position). 

 

 

It is my position, but I think the biggest confusion is that too many people have too many different opinions on what "proof' is.  

Let me try this example...I tell you that Mercer just beat Duke in college basketball.  Now you have not seen the score but know that I am huge college basketball fan so you have faith that I am telling you the truth.  Then you turn on your TV and see the score on the screen, now you have actual proof so you no longer need to have faith in what I said, in fact it is now impossible to have faith because you now have proof.

 

 

 

I think the definition of "faith" is also an issue.  In your scenario, faith = belief in a general fact.   I think Enoch is equating "faith" with being a christian and trusting God.  Or something.