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

[Tolken]

LookingForAnswers - proof removes doubt, you cannot have proof and doubt, that would be an oxymoron.  you again are your arguments own worst enemy.

 

When one can not comprehend the entirety of a passage but can only focus on one word, and misinterpret it, then any attempt to bring proper meaning becomes a fruitless effort.  "Substance" can only be evidence not proof, that is so clear because if it is "hoped for" it hasn't come to definitive fruition. The passage does not say Faith is “substance” but clearly states “..the substance of things hoped for,...” , and we know that of conjoins and connects. Substance does not stand alone it is hoped for and if hoped for then clearly not realized in the present, and if not realized then clearly not proved.

 

It may be difficult for some to apply reason, even logic, to the passage but let us try. Jesus was walking on water so that one could conclude/prove that Jesus could in fact walk on water. The only “proof” presented to Peter was that Jesus could walk on water, no proof that he could. Unless there are other verses that note Peter or anyone else had walked on water, walking on water was not a universal ability but singularly confined to Jesus. There is absolutely no proof for Peter to rely on that he himself could walk on water, Jesus certainly but not Peter.  Therefore for Peter to leave the boat required Faith. Further, if Jesus walking on water is proof then why isn’t everyone capable of walking on water?

 

But we miss the point of this episode if we fail to see what is being stated. Jesus is the focus of our faith and when we allow our concentration on him to waver because of circumstance we falter.

 

Then of course for us today we run into this problem, prove that Jesus walked on water?  Prove that Peter tried, prove that this isn’t just a fairy tale contained in a book?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

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

 

 

When one can not comprehend the entirety of a passage but can only focus on one word,

 

It may be difficult for some to apply reason, even logic, to the passage

 

 

Noted your backhanded comments.....oh the Irony.

 

 

and misinterpret it,

 

As you've clearly shown

 

Then this....

 

"Substance" can only be evidence not proof,

 

The equivocation parade

 

 

"Substance" can only be evidence not proof, that is so clear because if it is "hoped for" it hasn't come to definitive fruition.

 

So you're saying the substance hasn't come to fruition yet?  Then how do you have Faith? .....is it "Blind"?

 

Then you have MAJOR PROBLEMS with your (and others) Thesis, here:

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

 

The passage does not say Faith is “substance” but clearly states “..the substance of things hoped for,...” , and we know that of conjoins and connects. Substance does not stand alone it is hoped for and if hoped for then clearly not realized in the present, and if not realized then clearly not proved.

 

Except for right here....

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

 

So you're saying that we are hoping and waiting for the Proof to be realized?  Then how do we have Faith?  Is it Blind?

 

 

And again, Major Problems....

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

GOD says that those "Invisible Things" (THE PROOF!), The "evidence of things not seen" in Heb 11:1, are Clearly Seen.  So much so, that those who fail to acknowledge and accept those "Invisible Things" will be CHARGED and are Without Excuse.

 

The only “proof” presented to Peter was that Jesus could walk on water, no proof that he could.

 

This is where you are getting confused....

 

The Proof that we're looking for is the PROOF of CHRIST (Substance) being the Son of GOD....so then, Peter could possibly have Faith and appropriate it.  We are not looking for PETER having PROOF that HE could Walk on the Water.

 

and again....

 

Peter didn't "doubt" Christ was Standing/Walking on the Water....he (Peter) lost "FAITH" and "DOUBTED" his own personal ability to appropriate it, with the PROOF of Jesus standing in front of him....on the Water.

 

 

There is absolutely no proof for Peter to rely on that he himself could walk on water, Jesus certainly but not Peter.

 

Strawman, Obvious "Blind Faith" if he did without Substance (See: Blind Faith and 3 Toed Gnomes) which no rational person would even attempt and quite irrelevant to the point. 

 

 

Therefore for Peter to leave the boat required Faith.

 

Well yes, My ENTIRE POINT!  ........Proof does not Preclude the need for Faith.

 

And so you don't get confused....... the "PROOF" in the above statement, is referring to the PROOF that Jesus was the Son of GOD.  Not any PROOF that PETER personally could walk on Water before he stepped out of the boat.

 

 

But we miss the point of this episode if we fail to see what is being stated. Jesus is the focus of our faith and when we allow our concentration on him to waver because of circumstance we falter.

 

And?  Who are you implying is losing the focus of the Faith on Jesus?  Peter did, even with 100% AAA+ Proof standing/walking on water in front of him......again, My Entire POINT!!

 

Most importantly, How did you come by that Faith in Jesus......INITIALLY?

 

Then of course for us today we run into this problem, prove that Jesus walked on water?  Prove that Peter tried, prove that this isn’t just a fairy tale contained in a book?

 

Well it's Non-Sequitur unless you have a Time-Machine. 

 

And it goes back to.....

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

Those Invisible Things:  (Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, ENCRYPTED CODE  et al)

 

In Fact, it's My Humble Opinion that He's Talking about:  Random Chance "Nature"  vs Intelligent Design  "GOD" and the responsibility for people to investigate these things (which takes about 5 seconds of coherent rational thought, Remember: "CLEARLY SEEN") then MAKE YOUR CHOICE!!

 

 

Are we tracking yet?

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - The equivocation parade.

 

No, you are the one leading that parade.  You’ve decided to extract only what supports, weakly, your misinterpretation.  As was shown even in your own post, the missler slide, “Faith is the essense of a future reality”.  Obviously if it is future it can not be in the present...logic! Though you haven’t addressed the point the predominant use of “hypostasis” is as that which is under, that which holds up, support, substructure, etc. and this is shown both biblically and philosophically. Most often used as “confidence” and not as you would have it as “physical”.

 

Enoch2021 wrote - (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Again, again, and again you fail to read the verse as it is written...how is this: Now faith is the SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, ...”.  You can try through misinterpretation to dismiss all but the word “substance” but grammatically you fail.

 

So you're saying the substance hasn't come to fruition yet?  Then how do you have Faith? .....is it "Blind"?

 

So it seems you are the one who chooses to equivocate. How is faith blind when it is supported – “hypostasis”...that is what the word means. See above, and any number of other posts on this. Again, you are the one attempting to equivocate. Further, let us not venture into your misinterpretation of Romans 1:20 because the very same issues apply. But I will ask since you highlight “GOD says that those "Invisible Things"  but the question is what invisible things?

 

Can you explain why you dismiss and disregard the preposition “of”?

 

So, if something is hoped for or a future reality how does that address the present?

 

Hypostasis is used 5 times in the NT- 2 Cor. 9:4, 2 Cor. 11:17, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 11:1 can you show be where it is presented as physical proof? (hermeneutics)

 

From the Greek concordance: Hypostasis from a compound of ὑπό (G5259) and ἵστημι (G2476) does this better help in understanding the word usage?

Edited March 27, 2014 by Tolken

[Enoch2021]

Enoch2021 - The equivocation parade.

 

No, you are the one leading that parade.  You’ve decided to extract only what supports, weakly, your misinterpretation.  As was shown even in your own post, the missler slide, “Faith is the essense of a future reality”.  Obviously if it is future it can not be in the present...logic! Though you haven’t addressed the point the predominant use of “hypostasis” is as that which is under, that which holds up, support, substructure, etc. and this is shown both biblically and philosophically. Most often used as “confidence” and not as you would have it as “physical”.

 

Enoch2021 wrote - (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Again, again, and again you fail to read the verse as it is written...how is this: Now faith is the SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, ...”.  You can try through misinterpretation to dismiss all but the word “substance” but grammatically you fail.

 

So you're saying the substance hasn't come to fruition yet?  Then how do you have Faith? .....is it "Blind"?

 

So it seems you are the one who chooses to equivocate. How is faith blind when it is supported – “hypostasis”...that is what the word means. See above, and any number of other posts on this. Again, you are the one attempting to equivocate. Further, let us not venture into your misinterpretation of Romans 1:20 because the very same issues apply. But I will ask since you highlight “GOD says that those "Invisible Things"  but the question is what invisible things?

 

Can you explain why you dismiss and disregard the preposition “of”?

 

So, if something is hoped for or a future reality how does that address the present?

 

Hypostasis is used 5 times in the NT- 2 Cor. 9:4, 2 Cor. 11:17, Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 3:14, Hebrews 11:1 can you show be where it is presented as physical proof? (hermeneutics)

 

From the Greek concordance: Hypostasis from a compound of

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - Take this to a 3rd -5th Grade Sunday School Class @ the nearest Church, they will have little difficulty explaining it to you...if you still don't understand it;

 

Actually, they have explained it quite clearly in various churches and theology courses...perhaps best for you to revisit grammar classes, check out sentence construction, prepositions, etc.  I appreciate that any answers will not address the specific questions posed but simply more narrow focus, maybe it's a forest for the trees situation with you.

[LookingForAnswers]

It is now a pride thing for him. He is too deep in to admit he was mistaken. He has totally ignored the fact that others have and will perform miracles, so using them as proof of one being the creator of the universe is a mistake.

[Sheniy]

Are we still on this? lol

 

You still haven't answered my questions, Enoch.

[Enoch2021]

Are we still on this? lol

 

You still haven't answered my questions, Enoch.

 

 

Yes I have multiple time with exclamation points but I'm quite done with this thread.  If YOU need further clarification PM me.

[JohnD]

There's not even a second choice when you consider everything came from nothing which is a scientific law of impossibility. Someone with intelligence (evidenced by deliberate and intelligent design) greater than the laws of physics created / brought forth the existent from non existence.

 

This Question/Subject was asked on a different Thread and I felt was the Quintessential Question and a Great Topic for the Forum's Namesake.

 

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe and "nature" is your choice, then you have three minor hurdles to negotiate; namely,  Abiogenesis, the 1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics(1LOT/2LOT) "Pillars of Science", and Information.  Allow me to explain....

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

 

2.) 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.

 

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.
Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....
That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)
Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

 

 

4.)  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 1800 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.

 

 

If you're on the Fence....It's TIME to face this Head On!!  For you don't know when you'll take your Last Breath. 

 

HE'S Calling You!!! 

 

For even the very hairs on your head are all numbered!!!!  Do you think we are talking here by Random Chance??

 

Humble Yourself Before HIM and HE will LIFT YOU UP!!  It's ABSOLUTELY FREE!!  PAID IN FULL!!

 

 

(John 14:6) "Jesus saith unto him,  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

 

(Revelation 21:6) "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

 

 

AMEN, PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!