Would you listen to God?

[Smartt33]

Absolute proof negates the need for faith. Faith is the very thing that makes it possible for God to lead us. What would "absolute proof of God" actually look like? Would it mean that we could then tell God what to do? Would we have a choice when He tells us what to do? Could we just use Him? Where would faith be? What would be the place for waiting and trusting, and believing that God has eternal life for us? What would our relationship with God be like? Would it be personal?

I'm curious. Why is faith necessary? I mean, what is the mechanism of faith that makes it necessary? Let me see if I can't pose this question more articulately: Why would one have faith? What causes one to have faith and ff there was absolute proof of God, faith would no longer be necessary; wouldn't that be better for everyone not to go to Hell and make for a better world? If not, why? And this isn't a challenge I'm posing but an honest question because I don't understand the nature of faith in a religious sense.

Do you think that if there was absolute proof of God, everyonr would follow Him? Is it possible that some might not lioke Him?

With faith, there can come blessings of getting to know God in a personal way without having to look at what everyone else is lookinf for in God. How personal would we be with God if everyone could see Him and knew He was real? Would people seek to have a real and personal relationship with Him?

It is, after all, all about God, for He is the creator of all things, and He did it all because of who He is, LOVE. He could create beings that would have no choice but to love Him, but that would not be true love. He made man, in a way that allowed for true love to be experienced in both directions. It doesn't take a lot of faith to get to know God, it just takes some faith. Faith, no matter how small it is will produce action. That action is what leads to a real and personal relationship with God, and it is that relationship that sparks the kind of love that is true and pure in us.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Do you think that if there was absolute proof of God, everyonr would follow Him? Is it possible that some might not lioke Him?

Does everyone follow God now? Is is possible that some might not like Him as it is now? I don't think that's a valid reason why one should have faith in a being for which there is no evidence or proof. I think that if God appeared in a way which could not be reasonably denied, just about everyone would follow Him and everyone would like Him. Why? Because, the omnipotent, omniscient ruler and creator of the Universe exists! How would one rebel against that?!

With faith, there can come blessings of getting to know God in a personal way without having to look at what everyone else is lookinf for in God. How personal would we be with God if everyone could see Him and knew He was real? Would people seek to have a real and personal relationship with Him?

I would imagine that if the supreme ruler of the Universe undoubtedly existed, everyone would want a real and personal relationship with Him.

It is, after all, all about God, for He is the creator of all things, and He did it all because of who He is, LOVE. He could create beings that would have no choice but to love Him, but that would not be true love. He made man, in a way that allowed for true love to be experienced in both directions. It doesn't take a lot of faith to get to know God, it just takes some faith. Faith, no matter how small it is will produce action. That action is what leads to a real and personal relationship with God, and it is that relationship that sparks the kind of love that is true and pure in us.

I guess either your reasoning is such that I can't follow because I can't understand faith in an organized religious sense, or your answer to my question seems supported by weak reasoning. I can almost understand the true and pure love part, but it still doesn't seem to be answer enough to make up for all the logical gaps in why one should have faith.

Perhaps someone else can better answer my question...

 

[HUGGY]

Absolute proof negates the need for faith. Faith is the very thing that makes it possible for God to lead us. What would "absolute proof of God" actually look like? Would it mean that we could then tell God what to do? Would we have a choice when He tells us what to do? Could we just use Him? Where would faith be? What would be the place for waiting and trusting, and believing that God has eternal life for us? What would our relationship with God be like? Would it be personal?

I'm curious. Why is faith necessary? I mean, what is the mechanism of faith that makes it necessary? Let me see if I can't pose this question more articulately: Why would one have faith? What causes one to have faith and ff there was absolute proof of God, faith would no longer be necessary; wouldn't that be better for everyone not to go to Hell and make for a better world? If not, why? And this isn't a challenge I'm posing but an honest question because I don't understand the nature of faith in a religious sense.

Faith is the foundation to the religiosity scam. Once they have you convinced in "Faith" they can convince you of anything. Burning bushes....resurections..and of course that invisible guy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Absolute proof negates the need for faith. Faith is the very thing that makes it possible for God to lead us. What would "absolute proof of God" actually look like? Would it mean that we could then tell God what to do? Would we have a choice when He tells us what to do? Could we just use Him? Where would faith be? What would be the place for waiting and trusting, and believing that God has eternal life for us? What would our relationship with God be like? Would it be personal?

I'm curious. Why is faith necessary? I mean, what is the mechanism of faith that makes it necessary? Let me see if I can't pose this question more articulately: Why would one have faith? What causes one to have faith and ff there was absolute proof of God, faith would no longer be necessary; wouldn't that be better for everyone not to go to Hell and make for a better world? If not, why? And this isn't a challenge I'm posing but an honest question because I don't understand the nature of faith in a religious sense.

Faith is the foundation to the religiosity scam. Once they have you convinced in "Faith" they can convince you of anything. Burning bushes....resurections..and of course that invisible guy.

Are you serious? Freedom of religion in this country works both ways, and there is a REALLY damned good reason. There is no definitive proof that gods do exist, and absolutely nothing to prove they do not. The only thing you CAN logically debate is what the gods are. Something created the universe, it can't have been all an accident, the laws of physics state that even in chaos there is order, mathematically proven that nothing is truly random, only our perception of it. Which oddly could be considered proof of the existence of creator(s) ... but not definitive enough to say for certain, but that's a hell of a lot more proof than anyone anti-religion has that there isn't. So if you want to know what the real scam is ... it's idiots thinking they know all the answers better than any other idiot.

 

[We Are They]

Avatar asked: would you listen to god?

Only if he took me to his planet first.
BBBOOOUUUUAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

(Gunny, he asked )

 

[Ralph]

Only if He Spoke to me directly rather than through some self serving intermediary with an agenda.

Oh, and I'd need to see ID.

Though a miracle or some other similar magic trick would do.

How about the "magic" of life? Just what force is it that has the capacity to animate a clump of carbon based DEAD MATTER and give it an intellect so strong that it can reason its own mortality? I for one would like any student of the sciences to empirically demonstrate just how life came into existence.

And its moot to point to such nonsense as the Miller/Urey experiment that merely produced a mixture containing two simple amino acids, which is but the first step among hundreds of thousands needed to create PROTEIN, the building block of life. What they did produce while attempting to create life where none had previously existed by introducing an electric shock into a mixture that supposedly mirrored the conditions of early earth, aka a primordial soup containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, was a mixture of TAR 85%, CARBOLIC ACID 13%, GLYCINE 1.05%, ALANINE .05%...and trace amounts of several other chemicals.

This was touted as a GREAT SUCCESS in proving that LIFE "Could have", "Probably did", "Points To", "Indicates"...etc is a product of NATURE without design, self gestated by random happenstance, and of course all this NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE was falsely projected by INTELLIGENTLY robbing the experiment of Oxygen because they very well knew that Oxygen would oxide any amino acid that might be produced as a by product of the ammonia, methane and hydrogen mixture. Yet, Science has debunked the assumption that the early atmosphere of earth was void of oxygen as biological life can not be propagated void of oxygen.

I fail to see the logic that is projected in declaring this proves that life could randomly create itself void of design and intelligence when all the great minds of history, from point A to point B have not been able to intelligently re-create life other than by the empirically proven and observed method of Biogenesis. Thus, most certainly LIFE ITSELF should be concluded to be a very clearly spoken message about the existence of a SUPERNATURAL FORCE being necessary to CREATE LIFE, as NATURE clearly does not have the capacity as can be OBSERVED, REPRODUCED or EVIDENCED in the natural SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Life can only be brought into existence by natural happenstance in theoretical philosophy, dressed as Physical Science.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

How about the "magic" of life? Just what force is it that has the capacity to animate a clump of carbon based DEAD MATTER and give it an intellect so strong that it can reason its own mortality? I for one would like any student of the sciences to empirically demonstrate just how life came into existence.

Were you to use a tv on one of the Andaman Islands, the primitive and recently contacted tribes would believe you are using magic.

Because something has not YET been understood in a rational, logical way does not make it 'magic'.

And its moot to point to such nonsense as the Miller/Urey experiment that merely produced a mixture containing two simple amino acids, which is but the first step among hundreds of thousands needed to create PROTEIN, the building block of life. What they did produce while attempting to create life where none had previously existed by introducing an electric shock into a mixture that supposedly mirrored the conditions of early earth, aka a primordial soup containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, was a mixture of TAR 85%, CARBOLIC ACID 13%, GLYCINE 1.05%, ALANINE .05%...and trace amounts of several other chemicals.

This was touted as a GREAT SUCCESS in proving that LIFE "Could have", "Probably did", "Points To", "Indicates"...etc is a product of NATURE without design, self gestated by random happenstance, and of course all this NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE was falsely projected by INTELLIGENTLY robbing the experiment of Oxygen because they very well knew that Oxygen would oxide any amino acid that might be produced as a by product of the ammonia, methane and hydrogen mixture. Yet, Science has debunked the assumption that the early atmosphere of earth was void of oxygen as biological life can not be propagated void of oxygen.

The early Earth did not have an oxygen atmosphere. Take a Geology 101 class. Then, take a Biology 101 class. There are plenty of anaerobic microbes which exist in the world.

I fail to see the logic that is projected in declaring this proves that life could randomly create itself void of design and intelligence when all the great minds of history, from point A to point B have not been able to intelligently re-create life other than by the empirically proven and observed method of Biogenesis.

Well, because YOU fail to see it, it must not be true because you're obviously an expert.

The experiment didn't prove it, it just provided supporting evidence that life started from a primordial soup. Which, by the way, wasn't the purpose of the experiment. The purpose of the experiment was too actually observe if primitive amino acids could start from the primordial soup in the theorized conditions. And they succeeded. If after millions of years, those simple amino acids were to chain together into protein molecules; and then after millions of years, those chains of protein molecules began to randomly reproduce; and then after millions of years those randomly reproducing protein chains eventually evolved into viruses; and then after millions of years those viruses mutated (which happens ALL the time) into what could be considered life, then one could say they succeeded in creating life from the primordial soup.

Thus, most certainly LIFE ITSELF should be concluded to be a very clearly spoken message about the existence of a SUPERNATURAL FORCE being necessary to CREATE LIFE, as NATURE clearly does not have the capacity as can be OBSERVED, REPRODUCED or EVIDENCED in the natural SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Life can only be brought into existence by natural happenstance in theoretical philosophy, dressed as Physical Science.

You're jumping to conclusions. Be patient and give these scientists a few dozen million years to create life from non-life in the right conditions before claiming it can't be done.

 

[editec]

If you had absolute proof God existed, would you listen to what He had to tell you and do what He said?

You're kidding, right?

If a person was faced with absolute proof of GOD, a GOD who was sending you on a mission, who wouldn't take that mission?

 

[Ralph]

How about the "magic" of life? Just what force is it that has the capacity to animate a clump of carbon based DEAD MATTER and give it an intellect so strong that it can reason its own mortality? I for one would like any student of the sciences to empirically demonstrate just how life came into existence.

Were you to use a tv on one of the Andaman Islands, the primitive and recently contacted tribes would believe you are using magic.

Because something has not YET been understood in a rational, logical way does not make it 'magic'.

And its moot to point to such nonsense as the Miller/Urey experiment that merely produced a mixture containing two simple amino acids, which is but the first step among hundreds of thousands needed to create PROTEIN, the building block of life. What they did produce while attempting to create life where none had previously existed by introducing an electric shock into a mixture that supposedly mirrored the conditions of early earth, aka a primordial soup containing water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, was a mixture of TAR 85%, CARBOLIC ACID 13%, GLYCINE 1.05%, ALANINE .05%...and trace amounts of several other chemicals.

This was touted as a GREAT SUCCESS in proving that LIFE "Could have", "Probably did", "Points To", "Indicates"...etc is a product of NATURE without design, self gestated by random happenstance, and of course all this NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE was falsely projected by INTELLIGENTLY robbing the experiment of Oxygen because they very well knew that Oxygen would oxide any amino acid that might be produced as a by product of the ammonia, methane and hydrogen mixture. Yet, Science has debunked the assumption that the early atmosphere of earth was void of oxygen as biological life can not be propagated void of oxygen.

The early Earth did not have an oxygen atmosphere. Take a Geology 101 class. Then, take a Biology 101 class. There are plenty of anaerobic microbes which exist in the world.

I fail to see the logic that is projected in declaring this proves that life could randomly create itself void of design and intelligence when all the great minds of history, from point A to point B have not been able to intelligently re-create life other than by the empirically proven and observed method of Biogenesis.

Well, because YOU fail to see it, it must not be true because you're obviously an expert.

The experiment didn't prove it, it just provided supporting evidence that life started from a primordial soup. Which, by the way, wasn't the purpose of the experiment. The purpose of the experiment was too actually observe if primitive amino acids could start from the primordial soup in the theorized conditions. And they succeeded. If after millions of years, those simple amino acids were to chain together into protein molecules; and then after millions of years, those chains of protein molecules began to randomly reproduce; and then after millions of years those randomly reproducing protein chains eventually evolved into viruses; and then after millions of years those viruses mutated (which happens ALL the time) into what could be considered life, then one could say they succeeded in creating life from the primordial soup.

Thus, most certainly LIFE ITSELF should be concluded to be a very clearly spoken message about the existence of a SUPERNATURAL FORCE being necessary to CREATE LIFE, as NATURE clearly does not have the capacity as can be OBSERVED, REPRODUCED or EVIDENCED in the natural SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Life can only be brought into existence by natural happenstance in theoretical philosophy, dressed as Physical Science.

You're jumping to conclusions. Be patient and give these scientists a few dozen million years to create life from non-life in the right conditions before claiming it can't be done.

As I said, philosophy dressed as Science does not have the answer, so they deflect with an IGNORANT, simply because I do not know, does not constitute such from being SCIENCE. Yet, Science in any physical empirical format must answer the question when it is presented. If not, that void of unanswered ignorance simply means that one is CONTINGENT to that which he is unable to COMPREHEND. And thus far, the philosophical theorists certainly are in a CONTINGENT position to the Prima Facie evidence offered by RELIGION, which leaves no questions UNANSWERED, nor is true religion contingently existence upon any force of nature. As the laws of Physical Science can prove beyond doubt that a SUPERIOR, EXTERNALLY EXISTING CAUSE is responsible for the grand effect known as the Physical Universe/Time Space/Reality...aka NATURE is therefore contingent upon that SUPERNATURAL CAUSE...as NATURE cannot define the cause to its own existence in any EMPIRICAL FASHION. Once again establishing a Contingency based existence dependent upon a force that is UNCOMPREHENDED. Just ask, any intelligent person.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model CANNOT ANSWER the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe." -- {Stephen W. Hawking, "A Brief History of Time" pg. 174 }

"Imagine (a favorite of the theorist) that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles (quantum/micro), and all the basic laws, and unite everything into one equation. We then can ask, Why that equation? It is fashionable now to CONJECTURE that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum void of space and time. BUT OF COURSE SUCH A VACUUM IS A FAR CRY FROM NOTHING. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws? There is no escape from the superultimate questions; Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is that something structured that way? "

I am certainly not as intelligent as many great men of science....but that does not indicate that I lack the ability to use my God granted ability to reason in a most LOGICAL FASHION. And any theory presented by the philosophers dressed as scientists right away breeches the most basic law of logic, that being the Law of the Excluded middle, which declares that nothing has the inherent ability to be both true and false at the same instant....yet that is what the Darwinian Cultist demands from us to accept via mandate. As a theory is by self profession a speculation based upon observed evidence and must be accepted as truth....until it is corrected by FUTURE DISCOVERY. Thus, theory is taught as truth, until it is debunked. Yet, truth is absolute, as long as a possibility exists that ERROR is incorporated into that theory, it cannot be LOGICALLY presented as TRUTH.

And as demonstrated, THE THEORY of GENERAL EVOLUTION and COMMON DESCENT does not have an empirical leg to stand on, as the very basis to that theory is that nature has the inherent ability to SELF GESTATE life from DEAD MATTER. A circumstance that has never come close to being exampled in any empirical fashion...IN HISTORY. Yet, micro, horizontal evolution is demonstrated every day in the empirically proven physically observed LAW OF BIOGENESIS. No intelligent person disagrees with horizontal evolution but horizontal, MICRO EVOLUTION does not validate VERTICAL GENERAL EVOLUTION as being exampled in a COMMON descending natural methodology, as there is no FOUNDATION for this philosophy to stand.

After ALL it is not "I" that pretends to be in position to the knowledge of the truth under a false projection that it can be validated by SCIENCE...I believe that is YOUR POSITION. I have to prove nothing, as I base what I believe upon the prima facie evidences presented in the revealed word of God, and I find it far more Plausible than that which is offered by the Philosophers, which CAN NOT prove what they propagate as SCIENCE.

 

[Kalam]

Thus, most certainly LIFE ITSELF should be concluded to be a very clearly spoken message about the existence of a SUPERNATURAL FORCE being necessary to CREATE LIFE, as NATURE clearly does not have the capacity as can be OBSERVED, REPRODUCED or EVIDENCED in the natural SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

If you're going to invoke the lack of empirical evidence as an argument against abiogenesis, you can't possibly claim that a theory involving supernatural intervention is more credible. Where is the empirical evidence for this supernatural force? When was it recreated in a laboratory? Given the lack of evidence for your hypothesis, it is far more logical to assume that abiogenesis occurred. It's entirely possible for nucleotides and amino acids to form through the electrical stimulation of inorganic mixtures, and it is likely that the atmospheric conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment existed at some point in Earth's history; the atmosphere has not always been oxygen-rich. If the conditions didn't exist here, they do elsewhere, and Earth was bombarded heavily by meteoroids and comets during the earlier stages of its existence.

Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

Good posts Ralph and Kalam.

From my perspective both science AND religion fail to answer the ultimate question:

Why is there being and existence?

While it is certainly true that science might eventually be able to explain the universal plumbing, it certainly cannot explain why any of it exists even if can tell you exactly how it works.

And religion likewise fails in that misson since it also starts from the position of something existing (God) without explaining WHY it exists.

In my never humble opinion, the big bang theory is no more answers the BIG QUESTION than any religion does.

And again, in my never humble opinion, no science or religion will ever answer that existential question, either.

In order to have the persective to answer that BIG (cosmological) QUESTION one would have to find puchase outside of the physical universe first.

And how can there be anything outside of everything?

As far as I can tell the concept of the singularity and GOD are interchangeable cheats which answer exactly nothing about existence itself.

 

[Ralph]

Thus, most certainly LIFE ITSELF should be concluded to be a very clearly spoken message about the existence of a SUPERNATURAL FORCE being necessary to CREATE LIFE, as NATURE clearly does not have the capacity as can be OBSERVED, REPRODUCED or EVIDENCED in the natural SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

If you're going to invoke the lack of empirical evidence as an argument against abiogenesis, you can't possibly claim that a theory involving supernatural intervention is more credible. Where is the empirical evidence for this supernatural force? When was it been recreated in a laboratory? Given the lack of evidence for your hypothesis, it is far more logical to assume that abiogenesis occurred. It's entirely possible for nucleotides and amino acids to form through the electrical stimulation of inorganic mixtures, and it is likely that the atmospheric conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment existed at some point in Earth's history; the atmosphere has not always been oxygen-rich. If the conditions didn't exist here, they do elsewhere, and Earth was bombarded heavily by meteoroids and comets during the earlier stages of its existence.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''


Once again....a philosopher attempts to DEFLECT, by presenting a FALSE PREMISE. That false premise being that PROOF which is offered to define Supernatural is concluded as plausible by MERE THEORY. When the facts are obvious that it is not THEORY that defines the CAUSE to the effect known as the Physical Universe/Nature...but PHYSICAL LAW, that law being foremost presented in the ABSOLUTE LAW of CAUSALITY which is better known in lay terms as the LAW of CAUSE AND EFFECT. And that law simply states that EVERY 'physically existing' material effect must have an adequate antecedent ( a preceding event) CAUSE.

The Law of Causality states that for every OBSERVABLE physical phenomenon (B The effect) there must exist a second phenomenon (A The cause), such that B always follows A. Thus, the statement "Every physical effect, must have an antecedent cause" is analytically true. As per the laws of logic, nothing physical can create itself FROM nothing, as per the demonstration of empirical math. 0 + 0 always = 0. When you begin with NOTHING, nothing is all that will ever be exampled in TOTAL. No matter what one accepts as truth, whether you are a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist...there is common agreement, The Physical Universe is OBSERVED AS BEING MORE THAN NOTHING, it is observed therefore, it is physically existing.

In Physical Science as demonstrated via the Scientific Method of Observed, reproducible evidence....EFFECTS without adequate CAUSES are UNKNOWN, thus we have the absolute law of causality. And I would most appreciate anyone to simply demonstrate via the empirical scientific method just what CAUSE is responsible for the grand physical effect known as the Universe/nature. No philosophical theories please.....just pure physical OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE that defines the CAUSE to the mass/matter/energy that is commonly labeled as responsible for the BIG BANG, such as been theorized being a "Cosmic Egg". I would ask that someone demonstrate just where the energy came from that CAUSED all that is natural to come into existence.

If the natural cannot define its own CAUSE then it most certainly is CONTINGENTLY existing upon something that is SUPERIOR and EXTERNALLY existing to all that is natural....and what is it that one must conclude this superior, external CAUSE to be other than SUPER NATURAL, as it is superior to nature, as nature did not exist before it was CREATED/CAUSED by something superior to ITSELF.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Once again....a philosopher attempts to DEFLECT, by presenting a FALSE PREMISE. That false premise being that PROOF which is offered to define Supernatural is concluded as plausible by MERE THEORY. When the facts are obvious that it is not THEORY that defines the CAUSE to the effect known as the Physical Universe/Nature...but PHYSICAL LAW, that law being foremost presented in the ABSOLUTE LAW of CAUSALITY which is better known in lay terms as the LAW of CAUSE AND EFFECT. And that law simply states that EVERY 'physically existing' material effect must have an adequate antecedent ( a preceding event) CAUSE.

The Law of Causality states that for every OBSERVABLE physical phenomenon (B The effect) there must exist a second phenomenon (A The cause), such that B always follows A. Thus, the statement "Every physical effect, must have an antecedent cause" is analytically true. As per the laws of logic, nothing physical can create itself FROM nothing, as per the demonstration of empirical math. 0 + 0 always = 0. When you begin with NOTHING, nothing is all that will ever be exampled in TOTAL. No matter what one accepts as truth, whether you are a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist...there is common agreement, The Physical Universe is OBSERVED AS BEING MORE THAN NOTHING, it is observed therefore, it is physically existing.

In Physical Science as demonstrated via the Scientific Method of Observed, reproducible evidence....EFFECTS without adequate CAUSES are UNKNOWN, thus we have the absolute law of causality. And I would most appreciate anyone to simply demonstrate via the empirical scientific method just what CAUSE is responsible for the grand physical effect known as the Universe/nature. No philosophical theories please.....just pure physical OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE that defines the CAUSE to the mass/matter/energy that is commonly labeled as responsible for the BIG BANG, such as been theorized being a "Cosmic Egg". I would ask that someone demonstrate just where the energy came from that CAUSED all that is natural to come into existence.

If the natural cannot define its own CAUSE then it most certainly is CONTINGENTLY existing upon something that is SUPERIOR and EXTERNALLY existing to all that is natural....and what is it that one must conclude this superior, external CAUSE to be other than SUPER NATURAL, as it is superior to nature, as nature did not exist before it was CREATED/CAUSED by something superior to ITSELF.

So, because no one has come up with any verifiable cause for the Universe or life on planet Earth you just believe what the Bible told you. Great. Hey, you win. There's no arguing with that logic so I'll just bow out.

 

[Kalam]

Once again....a philosopher attempts to DEFLECT, by presenting a FALSE PREMISE. That false premise being that PROOF which is offered to define Supernatural is concluded as plausible by MERE THEORY. When the facts are obvious that it is not THEORY that defines the CAUSE to the effect known as the Physical Universe/Nature...but PHYSICAL LAW, that law being foremost presented in the ABSOLUTE LAW of CAUSALITY which is better known in lay terms as the LAW of CAUSE AND EFFECT. And that law simply states that EVERY 'physically existing' material effect must have an adequate antecedent ( a preceding event) CAUSE.

The Law of Causality states that for every OBSERVABLE physical phenomenon (B The effect) there must exist a second phenomenon (A The cause), such that B always follows A. Thus, the statement "Every physical effect, must have an antecedent cause" is analytically true. As per the laws of logic, nothing physical can create itself FROM nothing, as per the demonstration of empirical math. 0 + 0 always = 0. When you begin with NOTHING, nothing is all that will ever be exampled in TOTAL. No matter what one accepts as truth, whether you are a theist, an agnostic, or an atheist...there is common agreement, The Physical Universe is OBSERVED AS BEING MORE THAN NOTHING, it is observed therefore, it is physically existing.

In Physical Science as demonstrated via the Scientific Method of Observed, reproducible evidence....EFFECTS without adequate CAUSES are UNKNOWN, thus we have the absolute law of causality. And I would most appreciate anyone to simply demonstrate via the empirical scientific method just what CAUSE is responsible for the grand physical effect known as the Universe/nature. No philosophical theories please.....just pure physical OBSERVABLE, REPRODUCIBLE EVIDENCE that defines the CAUSE to the mass/matter/energy that is commonly labeled as responsible for the BIG BANG, such as been theorized being a "Cosmic Egg". I would ask that someone demonstrate just where the energy came from that CAUSED all that is natural to come into existence.

If the natural cannot define its own CAUSE then it most certainly is CONTINGENTLY existing upon something that is SUPERIOR and EXTERNALLY existing to all that is natural....and what is it that one must conclude this superior, external CAUSE to be other than SUPER NATURAL, as it is superior to nature, as nature did not exist before it was CREATED/CAUSED by something superior to ITSELF.

No shit...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary

You've completely jumped track. The possible existence of a supernatural cause of the universe's expansion does not even begin to imply that life was created through direct intervention on the part of this cause. Instead of wasting your time typing out long-winded strawman arguments, please attempt to focus on the discussion at hand. Now, demonstrate why life was necessarily the direct consequence of supernatural intervention. That requires proving that this supernatural entity actively interferes in the affairs of the physical universe. Good luck.

 

[Kalam]

Good posts Ralph and Kalam.

From my perspective both science AND religion fail to answer the ultimate question:

Why is there being and existence?

Frankly, I don't believe that there is an answer to that question. There is no meaning to existence; it's up to each one of us to realize this and create meaning for ourselves.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you had absolute proof God existed, would you listen to what He had to tell you and do what He said?

If I had absolute understanding of how women think I would have better things to do than drink and hang out at USMB.

If wishes were cars I'd be out drinking and driving and picking up women in a black Mustang GT convertible.

If God existed, Western 'Civilization' would have conquered this world in a more civilized fashion.

If...........

If..........

If...........

If I had absolute proof God existed, the rest of the question would be moot.

-Joe

 

[Toro]

If I was sure God was speaking to me, of course I'd do what He says. You'd be an idiot not to.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Good posts Ralph and Kalam.

From my perspective both science AND religion fail to answer the ultimate question:

Why is there being and existence?

While it is certainly true that science might eventually be able to explain the universal plumbing, it certainly cannot explain why any of it exists even if can tell you exactly how it works.

And religion likewise fails in that misson since it also starts from the position of something existing (God) without explaining WHY it exists.

In my never humble opinion, the big bang theory is no more answers the BIG QUESTION than any religion does.

And again, in my never humble opinion, no science or religion will ever answer that existential question, either.

In order to have the persective to answer that BIG (cosmological) QUESTION one would have to find puchase outside of the physical universe first.

And how can there be anything outside of everything?

As far as I can tell the concept of the singularity and GOD are interchangeable cheats which answer exactly nothing about existence itself.

Does there have to be a reason why a flower exists for you to enjoy its fragrance?

Does laughter need a reason to be just as therapeutic to the soul?

Over-thinking life is not what started all religions, but it helps sustain the really childish ones.

-Joe

 

[Avatar4321]

Good posts Ralph and Kalam.

From my perspective both science AND religion fail to answer the ultimate question:

Why is there being and existence?

While it is certainly true that science might eventually be able to explain the universal plumbing, it certainly cannot explain why any of it exists even if can tell you exactly how it works.

And religion likewise fails in that misson since it also starts from the position of something existing (God) without explaining WHY it exists.

In my never humble opinion, the big bang theory is no more answers the BIG QUESTION than any religion does.

And again, in my never humble opinion, no science or religion will ever answer that existential question, either.

In order to have the persective to answer that BIG (cosmological) QUESTION one would have to find puchase outside of the physical universe first.

And how can there be anything outside of everything?

As far as I can tell the concept of the singularity and GOD are interchangeable cheats which answer exactly nothing about existence itself.

God exists to bring to pass the Immortality and Eternal Life of man. That is His work and His glory.

Now you know why He exists. And if you want to know more, ask God, He can instruct you.

 

[Avatar4321]

Does there have to be a reason why a flower exists for you to enjoy its fragrance?

You don't. You simply have to acknowledge that it does and accept the joy it brings to your life.

Does laughter need a reason to be just as therapeutic to the soul?

Nope. Laughter is good even if you do it for absolutely no reason. The mad scientists laugh for different reasons than the guy at the comedy club. Both of them feel pretty good afterwards.

Over-thinking life is not what started all religions, but it helps sustain the really childish ones.

-Joe

Not sure what you mean by this one. Please elaborate.