Proof in the existance of God

[RGR]

you would expect to see some evidence that he exists.

It amazes me how that atheists will do everything in their power to suppress the knowledge of God that is within them! What more evidence do you need? Just look at the intricate way the Earth is made and that should give you some clues. The very fact that our body temperature is just right. Sure, you can keep suppressing the truth that you deep down is within you, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

[Fovezer]

It amazes me how that atheists will do everything in their power to suppress the knowledge of God that is within them!  What more evidence do you need?  Just look at the intricate way the Earth is made and that should give you some clues.  The very fact that our body temperature is just right.  Sure, you can keep suppressing the truth that you deep down is within you, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

Ignorance is bliss, right? Why learn the truth when you can just attribute it to God. It is, after all, easier.

You are making assumptions that you are right and know the truth, yet provide no evidence. Please show me where this knowledge of God is inside of me. I do not see it. The Earth is not intricitely made, it is huge ball of molten rock. Our body tempurature is right were it is because we evolved and adapted to our enviroment.

Please, keep being arrogant.

[sagz4Christ]

I just presented what could have caused the matter - virtual particles. And why wouldn't energy creating matter apply? I don't see how the Second Law would apply in the first place. Nothing contridicts the Second Law. The Second Law deals with usable energy becoming unusable, so tell me, how does this deal with the creation of matter. I am not changing the definition. Entropy is the measure of disorder, and unusable energy is "disorder."

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

As I posted above, virtual particles are a prime candidate, and I believe that in atom smashers, they have made them.

If we both agree that before the Big Bang, "nothing" existed, then why assume "something a.k.a. energy" was there to begin with? I think this is a double standard. You have stated that you can't know WHAT was there before the Big Bang. All fine and good, but to throw out one possiblility for one just as likely not to be the case, would be a double standard.

Either "nothing," and by that, I mean absolutely nothing....for if we have energy, that is "something"....existed.....

Or something other than matter, and/or energy existed.

I understand that quantum physics says that energy is ever present, but taking that to the place we are talking about, would mean that there was something (atomically, or in the form of energy waves) there before the explosion. You have stated that it is impossible for science to KNOW what was there. As plausible as your line of reasoning is for the creation of matter, it doesn't address how energy got there also. Remeber...."nothing" was there.

The Second Law does not deal with the creation of matter. It deals with usable energy becoming unusable....matter deteriorating into unordered..nothingness....for lack of a better word. Matter...and thusly energy...moves from order....to unorder....from order to chaos.

In this direction, and in it's most basic form, matter and/or energy does not have any ordering principles in and of themselves. They cannot move from chaos to order. It is impossible. The matter that has order is no way to explain this. For it didn't get that way on it's own. WE keep taking it back one step at a time. We get to the Big Bang....and then we go one step farther...where did the order come from? Is an explotion...or rapid expansion of gas as the Big Bang theory states...any way to create order in anything? When was the last time a bomb built a building?

This is all I am saying. Nothing is precisly that. Nothing. Not blackness, not emptiness, not anything....it is simply...nothing. It is hard to comprehend nothing...but nothing is just what was there. Dealing with the creation of the universe, the Second Law shows us that something had to create the matter and energy it took to start the Big Bang.

You claim it is quantum physics. I disagree. There is nothing in quantum physics that says the matter froduced by engery even stays around longer than a fraction of a fraction of a second. The articles you posted on the subject bear this out. This can't possibly account for the creation of the amount of matter needed to create the universe. And I showed how it couldn't even be that anyway. For there to be nothing...not even energy could exist. So something had to be there to even introduce that energy. This is why I see it as a double standard.

I am not trying to use the 2nd Law as a means to point toward God. I am not trying to use the 2nd Law as a means to point toward God. I am not.... hehe, well, you get the idea. I am using the 2nd Law as a means to show that matter and energy can't order themselves, for they frist have to be ordered. Energy can't do this....matter can't do this...they both tend toward entropy. Logically, something MUST introduce BOTH of them into the equation at the start.

We agree that the universe isn't eternal. That would neccessarily include energy as well. For to have anything natural to exist before the Big Bang is to say it is eternal. Energy is part of the known universe. Therefore, to say energy is eternal is to say the universe is eternal. Maybe not as we know it, but in some form, that is what you are saying. And since the universe isn't eternal, energy can't be also. Therefore, it can't account for the creation of it. Strawman? No. Logic tells us that. I hope you understand.

I have to go to work, friend. I will get to the rest of your post when I get back, later tonight.

We are making wonderful progress! I am excited......and...I...just can't....hide it....I'm about to lose control....*yawn*...and I think....*no wait*....*yeah, ok. I think*.....and I think I like it.......who-weee...

I couldn't resist. I love doing that to that song. It has nothing to do with the coversation at hand. It is intended to remind us we are more than our brain!

~serving Christ in faith

[Faith1]

you would expect to see some evidence that he exists.

It amazes me how that atheists will do everything in their power to suppress the knowledge of God that is within them! What more evidence do you need? Just look at the intricate way the Earth is made and that should give you some clues. The very fact that our body temperature is just right. Sure, you can keep suppressing the truth that you deep down is within you, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!

RGR - Amen brother!

Sagz - Love what you did with the song bro

Sagz - We are making wonderful progress! I am excited......and...I...just can't....hide it....I'm about to lose control....*yawn*...and I think....*no wait*....*yeah, ok. I think*.....and I think I like it.......who-weee...

[Fovezer]

If we both agree that before the Big Bang, "nothing" existed, then why assume "something a.k.a. energy" was there to begin with?  I think this is a double standard.  You have stated that you can't know WHAT was there before the Big Bang.  All fine and good, but to throw out one possiblility for one just as likely not to be the case, would be a double standard.

Either "nothing," and by that, I mean absolutely nothing....for if we have energy, that is "something"....existed.....

Or something other than matter, and/or energy existed.

I thought you were referring to matter. I said nothing as in the context of matter, not energy. I apologize for the miscommunication. I can see the energy being the "something else" you were talking about.

I understand that quantum physics says that energy is ever present, but taking that to the place we are talking about, would mean that there was something (atomically, or in the form of energy waves) there before the explosion.  You have stated that it is impossible for science to KNOW what was there.  As plausible as your line of reasoning is for the creation of matter, it doesn't address how energy got there also.  Remeber...."nothing" was there.

I never said it was impossible for science to know, I said that science does not know at this present time. I don't know how the energy got there. Neither does science. The energy could be eternal, but we may never know.

In this direction, and in it's most basic form, matter and/or energy does not have any ordering principles in and of themselves.  They cannot move from chaos to order.  It is impossible.  The matter that has order is no way to explain this.  For it didn't get that way on it's own.  WE keep taking it back one step at a time.  We get to the Big Bang....and then we go one step farther...where did the order come from?  Is an explotion...or rapid expansion of gas as the Big Bang theory states...any way to create order in anything?  When was the last time a bomb built a building?

Yes, it is impossible to move from chaos to order, unusable to usable, but what you are thinking is that without something to organize them, it starts out in disorder. This is false. All matter starts with order, even if its not perfect order, and it then becomes unusable, or disordered. And come on, I thought you were above strawman arguments.

This is all I am saying.  Nothing is precisly that.  Nothing.  Not blackness, not emptiness, not anything....it is simply...nothing.  It is hard to comprehend nothing...but nothing is just what was there.  Dealing with the creation of the universe, the Second Law shows us that something had to create the matter and energy it took to start the Big Bang.

No, it doesn't.

You claim it is quantum physics.  I disagree.  There is nothing in quantum physics that says the matter froduced by engery even stays around longer than a fraction of a fraction of a second.  The articles you posted on the subject bear this out.  This can't possibly account for the creation of the amount of matter needed to create the universe.  And I showed how it couldn't even be that anyway.  For there to be nothing...not even energy could exist.  So something had to be there to even introduce that energy.  This is why I see it as a double standard.

Virtual particles colliding, after formed by energy, which was there(I had stated in the beginning of this post that I meant just matter.) So, you'll just keep saying "Well, what created that?" I will pose a question to you. What created God? He "just is" and he is th "uncaused cause" will not cut it, because what would you say if I said the energy "just is"?

I am not trying to use the 2nd Law as a means to point toward God.  I am not trying to use the 2nd Law as a means to point toward God.  I am not.... hehe, well, you get the idea.  I am using the 2nd Law as a means to show that matter and energy can't order themselves, for they frist have to be ordered.  Energy can't do this....matter can't do this...they both tend toward entropy.  Logically, something MUST introduce BOTH of them into the equation at the start.

I understand what you are trying to do, but you are misusing the second law. It doesn not deal with how the matter got ordered, just from order to disorder. It's a measurement.

We agree that the universe isn't eternal.  That would neccessarily include energy as well.  For to have anything natural to exist before the Big Bang is to say it is eternal.  Energy is part of the known universe.  Therefore, to say energy is eternal is to say the universe is eternal.  Maybe not as we know it, but in some form, that is what you are saying.  And since the universe isn't eternal, energy can't be also.  Therefore, it can't account for the creation of it.  Strawman?  No.  Logic tells us that.  I hope you understand.

The universe may of had a beginning, but that NEVER says ANYTHING about energy.

I have to go to work, friend.  I will get to the rest of your post when I get back, later tonight.

Hope you enjoy it!!!

We are making wonderful progress!  I am excited......and...I...just can't....hide it....I'm about to lose control....*yawn*...and I think....*no wait*....*yeah, ok.  I think*.....and I think I like it.......who-weee...

I couldn't resist.  I love doing that to that song.  It has nothing to do with the coversation at hand.  It is intended to remind us we are more than our brain!

:t: :t:

[sagz4Christ]

I thought you were referring to matter. I said nothing as in the context of matter, not energy. I apologize for the miscommunication. I can see the energy being the "something else" you were talking about.

I understand that. I was refering to both.

I never said it was impossible for science to know, I said that science does not know at this present time. I don't know how the energy got there. Neither does science. The energy could be eternal, but we may never know.

But don't you see? It can't have been there. Otherwise, we would be in a state of complete entropy right now. If the 2nd Law is the measurement of usable energy, then how could energy be eternal?

Yes, it is impossible to move from chaos to order, unusable to usable, but what you are thinking is that without something to organize them, it starts out in disorder. This is false. All matter starts with order, even if its not perfect order, and it then becomes unusable, or disordered. And come on, I thought you were above strawman arguments.

Lol! This almost hurt my feelings. I thought you knew me a tad better than that? I think I explained my post wasn't meant to be a strawman at the end. We agree...impossible to move from chaos to order, unusable to usable. How then, can matter (created as you said from virtual particles colliding, after being formed by energy) start out ordered? To me, it seems weak at best, and may have the shadow of a strawman. :x:

Virtual particles colliding, after formed by energy, which was there(I had stated in the beginning of this post that I meant just matter.) So, you'll just keep saying "Well, what created that?" I will pose a question to you. What created God? He "just is" and he is  th "uncaused cause" will not cut it, because what would you say if I said the energy "just is"?

Two different arguements here. On the one hand, we are talking about something that can be tested, observed, and manipulated to gain a better understanding. Basically, we can use emperical means to study and understand energy. Besides, energy can't be eternal as you claim it might because it doesn't sustain itself. It moves to unusable from usable. If it were eternal, then it would all be unusable today, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. It, by the measurements of, yet again, the 2nd Law, must of had a beginning at some point. Where did it come from?

I would actually like to hear how you think energy, the underlying current of the marterial world, and therefore, a part of the same world, created all the matter in the universe, ordered it and then sent it out to form the stars and planets. But it would have to explain the fact that since you say energy could be eternal (a contradiction of the 2nd Law), that it suddenly took on the principle of said Law. I ask because I just don't think I understand what you are trying to say. I THINK I do, but we seem to be butting heads over this. I just want to get the story straight.

On the other hand, God cannot be measured, manipulated or observed emperically. God is immaterial, He is Spirit. Not bound by our measurements of time and space. This is where I was intending to go next.

The verifiability principle. Empericism. I asked you to put the principle to it's own test and verify it emperically. You wisely said it couldn't be done. Here is what you said:

I agree to an extent, because while I do think things should be tested empirically, I also think that there are places when something is not verifiable by science, but small things like people saying they built a sand castle. This is easily believed, and requires no empirical proof they did, because it is not a signifigant thing. But when people say there is a god, and he created everything, you would expect to see some evidence that he exists.

I would like to submit to you a web site that helps clarify what I am about to get into. Dr. Robert Jastrow. You may have heard of him, but he is a scientist that doesn't believe in the emperical method. He is not an empericist. He is an astronomer who is an agnostic, not a believer, that believes the universe was created. He even goes so far as to chide his peers for getting irritated at that conclusoin, a conclusion brought about by the evidence they themselves uncovered through thier empirical research. If you are interested, you can find that information in his book, God and the Astronomers on pages 11-16.

It seems you are saying that anything that science can prove is proved by empirical means. And anything that can't is not science. I put it another way somewhere above; "science just doesn't bother with things that aren't subject to some kind of emperical verification."

I would say this...Science does great so long as it deals only with emperical questions, the day-to-day questions of science. But it can't deal with a more fundamental question that way.

You may ask what question is that?

I say the very nature of science. What science is, what it does, and why. Why, after all, do scientists believe that emperical evidence is worth anything?

You provided the answer in another thread. I believe it was to One Love Christ in Burden of Proof. You said something like, "they test things over and over and find it reliable." Forgive me if I misquoted, but I believe I got the context right.

I would say to you, it is reliable within it's boundaries, yes. But they can't give emperical evidence for their belief in the reliablility of emperical evidence. If they did, they would be arguing in circles.

Look, emperical evidence is fine so long as you're dealing with emperical realities, as science normally does. But when you start dealing with non-emperical realities -- things that are neither matter nor energy -- emperical evidence is utterly inadequate. And that is precisely why the basic principle of empericism, that a statement is meaningful only if it is emperically verifiable, is nonsense.

It is that way because it doesn't stand up to it's own test. You can't give any emperical evidence for it, because it isn't a statement about emperical things. It's a statement about ultimate reality and ultimate truth, and it isn't open to any kind of empirical testing. But since it says only statements open to emperical testing are sensible, and it isn't open to emperical testing, it's nonsence. It's self-defeating.

This is round one for empericism! *ding ding!*

I understand what you are trying to do, but you are misusing the second law. It doesn not deal with how the matter got ordered, just from order to disorder. It's a measurement.

The universe may of had a beginning, but that NEVER says ANYTHING about energy.

I think I covered my thoughts on this in the above statements. No, but the 2nd Law does. I hate to keep bringing this up, and I am remorse that you keep thinking I am misusing the Law. I am not. I am just trying to show that energy can't be eternal. By your own words, the Law deals with energy becoming unusable. Over any period of time with any amount of energy. But if it is your contention that energy is eternal, then the 2nd Law is no good. For to have energy being eternal, would mean that we would be in a state of complete and utter entropy. We are not in that state, so energy MUST of had a beginning as well. That is ALL I am trying to say. Not a strawman, just logic.

[Fovezer]

I understand that.  I was refering to both.

Ok, sorry for the misunderstanding

But don't you see?  It can't have been there.  Otherwise, we would be in a state of complete entropy right now.  If the 2nd Law is the measurement of usable energy, then how could energy be eternal?

Because the energy wasn't used until the Big Bang.

Lol!  This almost hurt my feelings.  I thought you knew me a tad better than that?  I think I explained my post wasn't meant to be a strawman at the end.  We agree...impossible to move from chaos to order, unusable to usable.  How then, can matter (created as you said from virtual particles colliding, after being formed by energy) start out ordered?  To me, it seems weak at best, and may have the shadow of a strawman.   :x: 

I'm sorry. When I said strawman, i was only referring to the last sentence of that part when you said, "When was the last time a bomb built a building?" That is a strawman argument. You create a misrepresentation of an argument and then attack the misrepresentation and not the actual argument. You see what I'm saying?

All things start with order. It is just when they are used, does is become disordered, or useless.

Two different arguements here.  On the one hand, we are talking about something that can be tested, observed, and manipulated to gain a better understanding.  Basically, we can use emperical means to study and understand energy.  Besides, energy can't be eternal as you claim it might because it doesn't sustain itself.  It moves to unusable from usable.  If it were eternal, then it would all be unusable today, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.  It, by the measurements of, yet again, the 2nd Law, must of had a beginning at some point.  Where did it come from?

I would actually like to hear how you think energy, the underlying current of the marterial world, and therefore, a part of the same world, created all the matter in the universe, ordered it and then sent it out to form the stars and planets.  But it would have to explain the fact that since you say energy could be eternal (a contradiction of the 2nd Law), that it suddenly took on the principle of said Law.  I ask because I just don't think I understand what you are trying to say.  I THINK I do, but we seem to be butting heads over this.  I just want to get the story straight.

On the other hand, God cannot be measured, manipulated or observed emperically.  God is immaterial, He is Spirit.  Not bound by our measurements of time and space.  This is where I was intending to go next.

You seem to be misunderstanding the second law, no offense. Here, think of it this way. When you are breathing, you are taking oxygen, ordered and usable, and exhaling CO2, disordered and unusable. So, if there was just oxygen on the planet, and no one to use it, would it still become disordered and useless? No, once something comes along that can use it, it is used. Just like the Big Bang with energy. Catch my drift?

I would like to submit to you a web site that helps clarify what I am about to get into.  Dr. Robert Jastrow.  You may have heard of him, but he is a scientist that doesn't believe in the emperical method.  He is not an empericist.  He is an astronomer who is an agnostic, not a believer, that believes the universe was created.  He even goes so far as to chide his peers for getting irritated at that conclusoin, a conclusion brought about by the evidence they themselves uncovered through thier empirical research.  If you are interested, you can find that information in his book, God and the Astronomers on pages 11-16.

It seems you are saying that anything that science can prove is proved by empirical means.  And anything that can't is not science.  I put it another way somewhere above; "science just doesn't bother with things that aren't subject to some kind of emperical verification."

I would say this...Science does great so long as it deals only with emperical questions, the day-to-day questions of science.  But it can't deal with a more fundamental question that way.

You may ask what question is that?

I say the very nature of science.  What science is, what it does, and why.  Why, after all, do scientists believe that emperical evidence is worth anything?

You provided the answer in another thread.  I believe it was to One Love Christ in Burden of Proof.  You said something like, "they test things over and over and find it reliable."  Forgive me if I misquoted, but I believe I got the context right.

I would say to you, it is reliable within it's boundaries, yes.  But they can't give emperical evidence for their belief in the reliablility of emperical evidence.  If they did, they would be arguing in circles.

Look, emperical evidence is fine so long as you're dealing with emperical realities, as science normally does.  But when you start dealing with non-emperical realities -- things that are neither matter nor energy -- emperical evidence is utterly inadequate.  And that is precisely why the basic principle of empericism, that a statement is meaningful only if it is emperically verifiable, is nonsense.

It is that way because it doesn't stand up to it's own test.  You can't give any emperical evidence for it, because it isn't a statement about emperical things.  It's a statement about ultimate reality and ultimate truth, and it isn't open to any kind of empirical testing.  But since it says only statements open to emperical testing are sensible, and it isn't open to emperical testing, it's nonsence.  It's self-defeating.

This is round one for empericism! *ding ding!*

No offense, but what would me being an empiricist or whatever have to do with this argument? I have stated before that I want empirical evidence, so I don't think this should make any difference. I would just like to be called an atheist. Thanks

I think I covered my thoughts on this in the above statements.  No, but the 2nd Law does.  I hate to keep bringing this up, and I am remorse that you keep thinking I am misusing the Law.  I am not.  I am just trying to show that energy can't be eternal.  By your own words, the Law deals with energy becoming unusable.  Over any period of time with any amount of energy.  But if it is your contention that energy is eternal, then the 2nd Law is no good.  For to have energy being eternal, would mean that we would be in a state of complete and utter entropy.  We are not in that state, so energy MUST of had a beginning as well. That is ALL I am trying to say.  Not a strawman, just logic.

I answered this above.

-=Fovezer=-

[sagz4Christ]

Because the energy wasn't used until the Big Bang.

All things start with order. It is just when they are used, does is become disordered, or useless.

But don't you see? It wasn't sitting dormant while it was making all those virtual particles. It was being used...going from usable to unusable. Order to disorder. I thought this was what you were saying. So now, if I understand you correctly, engery is governed by two different laws? Does that make scientific sense?

I'm sorry. When I said strawman, i was only referring to the last sentence of that part when you said, "When was the last time a bomb built a building?" That is a strawman argument. You create a misrepresentation of an argument and then attack the misrepresentation and not the actual argument. You see what I'm saying?

This was intended to be a way to see things differently. An "example" if you will. Kind of like this one you gave me:

Here, think of it this way. When you are breathing, you are taking oxygen, ordered and usable, and exhaling CO2, disordered and unusable. So, if there was just oxygen on the planet, and no one to use it, would it still become disordered and useless?

Strawman? I am shocked you let that slip, my friend! This is what I did with my example, tried to give another way to "think of it!"

Besides, this is slightly flawed, because although CO2 is unusable by human standards, it is a vital thing for plants...which by the way "exhale" oxygen!

This may be a better analogy...

If you put a cold object next to a hot one, heat energy will flow out of the warmer object and into the cold one. Once the two objects have the same amount of heat energy, the flow stops.

You can also imagine two large empty tanks connected at the bottom by a small pipe. If you fill one of the tanks with water and open the pipe, water will begin to gush through the pipe into the second tank. As long as there is more water in one tank than in the other, you can make the water do work for you. You could make this moving water turn a paddlewheel and generate electricity, for example. As the water levels in the two tanks comes closer together, the water will flow more and more slowly through the pipe. Eventually, when there's the same amount of water in both tanks, the flow will stop and the water can't do any more work.

This is taken from a site you provided earlier about the Laws. It is interesting to note that you also find the following observation:

The Second Law has dramatic and far-reaching consequences. It says that stars will eventually exhaust their fuel and go out, and there will come a time when no new stars will be born, because all of the Universe's energy will be spread too thin. On a more mundane level, the process of entropy is why things break down, burn out, and die. Some scientists (and science fiction writers) believe that entropy is the 'arrow of time'; the principle that makes time appear to move in only one direction and some things to happen in only one way. The Second Law is even responsible for death itself: just look what it did to Humpty Dumpty.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the King's horses and all the King's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again.

The Second Law is responsible not only for the eventual destruction of the Universe, but for the mortality of every human being as well. That, ladies and gentlemen, is entropy.

An arrow has a start, and an end. If the universe has an end, then it HAD to have a beginning. We agree on this. What I call God, you call energy not being used. I am trying to show you how logically, it can't be energy. Now let me see if I have this right;

We have energy sitting around, ordered and not being used. It is waiting for the Big Bang. But wait, it needs to first create all the matter to cause the density to cause the expansion. But while it is creating this matter, it is still not using itself. It is still just as ordered as it was before it started creating the matter.

So we have energy...not being used by anything while using itself to create virtual particles...which in turn creates enough mass(?) while not being bound by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics but by the principles of quantum physics(?)....for a cosmic expansion commonly refered to as the "Big Bang"....? This is weak scientific theory. Even you have to see that. It sounds like you are picking and choosing. I just want to get that straight. Am I not understanding you correctly?

One the other hand, what I am trying to say, is that something immaterial..something outside the confines of the Laws of Thermodynamics, had to introduce material things in order to create what we have today. I am really not asking you to believe in God from this, it is merely a starting point. And my use is still justified. If the 2nd Law can imply the eventual total destruction of the Universe, then it can be used to imply the total creation of the material Universe as well. We are standing in the middle of the 'arrow of time.' We see what we have around us, and use that to look to the future. We can also use it to look to the past.

...once something comes along that can use it, it is used. Just like the Big Bang with energy. Catch my drift?

Haven't you said that energy created the matter for the Big Bang? Wasn't it being used at that time? This is what I was refering to in my above discourse.

No offense, but what would me being an empiricist or whatever have to do with this argument? I have stated before that I want empirical evidence, so I don't think this should make any difference. I would just like to be called an atheist. Thanks

None taken my friend! Let me answer your question. I know you are an athiest. I know that we are discussing the existence of God. I know you are asking for emperical evidence to prove that existence. What I am trying to show you though, is the flaw in the principle that governs the way in which you want me to prove His existence. Empericism has nothing to do with atheism. In order for me to "prove" God exists, I need more than emperical means. And if for nothing else, for the sole reason that any evidence I DO happen to bring, (Like the 2nd Law) can be interpreted 1000+ different ways. We interpret evidence (as I said in the beginning) based on how we view the world. Not (in most cases) based on what that evidence says. you cannot use emperical means to prove an immaterial question. If it could be done, then you should be able to prove the verifiability principle. This is the reason for my post.

I am not trying to covertly adjust who I think you are. Neither am I trying to mislable you for the purpose of our talks. I don't operate like that. Your position is valid, though I disagree with it. I am walking with you on this with the intent of showing you the reasons you have to believe that God does in fact exist. I told you I am a straight-shooter in the beginning. I intend to stay that way, for your benefit.

"Not a strawman, just logic."

I love that we are keeping eachother accountable for what we say here!

GO TEAM!

~serving Christ in faith

[irishcowboy]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the King's horses and all the King's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again

it is a shame that most books that have this rhymn in them do not have the entire thing..... what about the rest of it?????

how come they all leave out the part about the KING???

the KING can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, we just have to provide Him with all the pieces.......

did you know that God is the only one that can heal a broken heart? yes, but He has to have all the pieces..... each and every one.....

mike

[artsylady]

em