Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=================
There is NO evidence of a “God“.
========================

You are expecting something in a test tube?
You demand something seen under the microscope or seen with telescope ?[/b]

Dirr …No; any kind of evidence/reasoning would do providing it is flawless and reliable and really does RATIONALLY give credence to the given hypothesis (so mere stories and say-so from a book doesn’t count).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Dirr …No; any kind of evidence/reasoning would do providing it is flawless and reliable and really does RATIONALLY give credence to the given hypothesis (so mere stories and say-so from a book doesn’t count).

You and I both know that that will not happen. But we also should know that that fact will not change how these people feel. Some people need to feel that there is a deity, some don't. I think that you and I are avoiding headaches by not needing to feel that way but you're not going to convince those that do by reason. If they were subject to being convinced by reason then they most likely wouldn't need to feel that way in the first place. As long as they are no longer piling kindling beneath our feet we should be thankful and smile away.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Dirr …No; any kind of evidence/reasoning would do providing it is flawless and reliable and really does RATIONALLY give credence to the given hypothesis (so mere stories and say-so from a book doesn’t count).

Tell me something about RATIONALITY (which you love to put in caps).

How do you account for the existence of laws of logic ?

If they are something conceptual that the mind recognizes how do you know that they themselves are not the product of a mind ?

Originally posted by jaywill
How do you account for the existence of [b]laws of logic ?

If they are something conceptual that the mind recognizes how do you know that they themselves are not the product of a mind ?[/b]

Come on, jaywill, that's a pretty poor argument! I don't know whether you have 3 legs or whether Andrew has a horn growing from his head but if either of you claimed those things should I just believe you? As I pointed out, I can respect your feeling but logic is no use to you. Just be happy with how you feel and give up the illusion that you can reason your way to anything unseen. Evidence is shared experience that can be repeated in similar conditions. We could probably agree on "red" (at least if you're not the most common kind of colorblind - and even then we could probably discover "colorblindness" and resolve the issue with satisfaction) but you'll never convince me that there are no leprechauns if I "feel" that there are - or talk me into a deity that seems nothing more than a projection of human ego.

We can collect and compare experiences and have some faith (yep, I said it) in logical operations because we can demonstrate thru experience their consistent results but none of that addresses the unseen dragons that you want to irrefutably prove. Buried deep in the earth guarding their treasures they remain hidden from our everyday experience. If you see them soaring in the skies above your castle then I encourage you to enjoy it. I only see the rolling clouds and for me that is enough.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Come on, jaywill, that's a pretty poor argument! I don't know whether you have 3 legs or whether Andrew has a horn growing from his head but if either of you claimed those things should I just believe you? As I pointed out, I can respect your feeling but logic is no use to you. Just be happy with how you feel and give up the illusion that you can reason I encourage you to enjoy it. I only see the rolling clouds and for me that is enough.

=============================
Come on, jaywill, that's a pretty poor argument! I don't know whether you have 3 legs or whether Andrew has a horn growing from his head but if either of you claimed those things should I just believe you?
===================================

I don't see how your analogy applies.
I don't think you are helping Andrew.

And the only "argument" implied is really that there is a possibility that universal laws of logic are recoginized by the mind because those laws came about because of a mind.

It was not meant to be a formal "proof" of God. It was a question as to how can he be so sure that a law giving mind is not behind the universal laws of logic.

[

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…where did matter come from in the Big Bang when we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed?
… (my emphasis)

If the standard most accepted understanding of the big bang is correct, no matter was created or destroyed BECAUSE time began at the start of the big bang. The mater/energy (the two are equivalent at least in this context) ...[text shortened]... e” if the standard most accepted understanding of the big bang is correct because time STARTED then)

I would only say that we can look as far back as the Big Bang and no further. What lies beyond it will forever be a mystery. In that sense all that we see and experience had a beginning.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The first living cell must have been spontaneously created from non-living matter -don’t see a problem here.[/b]

It must have been spontaneously created from non-living matter? Well I suppose that there is no question that living organisms exists from the building blocks of nonliving forms of matter. Even the Bible says we were created from the dust of the Earth, however, the big question is, what made the nonliving come to life? Of course, the mystery is, is it of divine intervention or random luck? Scientifically, to say that it MUST have occured randomly is problematic to say the least because we can neither duplicate this nor observe it. Heck, we don't even fully understand the smallest living organism which is a cell. Intead, this mystery catalyst is trapped in theory only where it will forever linger.

Originally posted by whodey
It must have been spontaneously created from non-living matter? Well I suppose that there is no question that living organisms exists from the building blocks of nonliving forms of matter. Even the Bible says we were created from the dust of the Earth, however, the big question is, what made the nonliving come to life? Of course, the mystery is, is it of a cell. Intead, this mystery catalyst is trapped in theory only where it will forever linger.

Here is what I believe. There is one Someone who is uncreated. There is behind all life and lives an Uncreated Life.

I think the most substantial and powerful reality is this Uncreated Life. That Uncreated Life is God.

This Uncreated Life is self existent and not dependent upon any other. All other lives are dependent. All other lives had a creation and a beginning.

I believe that transcending all the matter in the universe and the lives of the earth there is this Uncreated and Eternal Life.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by whodey
[b]True. You can use deductive reasoning as evidence even though it is not proof. For example, where did matter come from in the Big Bang when we know that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Where did life come from in a seemingly lifeless universe in which we cannot create life ourselves or even see it being cre e a sketch of some of the arguments of natural theology, which are neither valid nor deductive.

I see what you are saying and the hell of it is that I know better!!

Simply put, God desires faith. In fact, he demands it!! This is one of the reasons I feel that proving his existence is counterproductive if not impossible. He is not so much interested in you believing he exists than he is wanting you to place your faith in his person. In fact, the Bible is full of examples of people who knew without a shadow of a doubt that he exists yet they later rebeled against him or drew away from him despite this knowledge. Therefore, why prove his existence? Instead, he is looking for those who respond to the purety of the message of one Jesus Christ via faith. in short, he is looking for those who DESIRE what he has revealed unto us through Christ. Those who do not desire will remain unchanged in their desire for him even if you prove his existence. In fact, if you proved his existence and had no desire for him the proof of his existence would merely be a beast of burden to you and a weight around your neck.

Originally posted by jaywill
Here is what I believe. There is one Someone who is uncreated. There is behind all life and lives an Uncreated Life.

I think the most substantial and powerful reality is this Uncreated Life. That Uncreated Life is God.

This Uncreated Life is self existent and not dependent upon any other. All other lives are dependent. All other lives had a creatio ...[text shortened]... the matter in the universe and the lives of the earth there is this Uncreated and Eternal Life.

I guess I can go along with that. How I would put it, however, is that the material universe had not always existed, rather, it was in some other form before the beginning of the Big Bang which gave birth to the material universe. In short, time began when the material universe burst upon the scene. Time is simply a demension and canvass, if you will, through which the material universe exists. It then confounds us as to how one could exist independent of time and this material universe simply because we have no point of reference divorced from it. For example, have you ever noticed man's attempt dream up ET's. Have you evern noticed they all have faces like us according to our imaginations? Without points of reference like these, our imaginations simply freeze up. How can you imagine or explain something that is 100% foreign to you? Another example might be life forms that we cannot detect. Our five sense are limited although enhanced at times with various equipment. So if we cannot detect them using our five senses, what point of reference would we have to imagine them or describe them? No doubt, we know our five senses are limited yet we cannot seem to fathom that some life forms may lie beyond our finite five senses. This is how I view the spiritual world.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Dirr …No; any kind of evidence/reasoning would do providing it is flawless and reliable and really does RATIONALLY give credence to the given hypothesis (so mere stories and say-so from a book doesn’t count).

🙂 🙂

Flawless, reliable, and rational. Sounds easy! Describe a scenario that would suit you and for that matter the entire world because if only you were convinced, well, you'd be in the same boat as the rest of us... just another nutter with no evidence.

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't see how your analogy applies.

And thus you "prove" my point! Reason, rationality whatever you may call it, has absolutely no place in your universe - quit trying to pretend it does.

Originally posted by TerrierJack
And thus you "prove" my point! Reason, rationality whatever you may call it, has absolutely no place in your universe - quit trying to pretend it does.

I think you are over stating your case there. Reason and rationality are indispensable to those of faith from what I can see. They just use reason to reach different conclusions from those of non believers, often because they proceed from different premises.

Originally posted by jaywill
Tell me something about RATIONALITY (which you love to put in caps).

How do you account for the existence of [b]laws of logic ?

If they are something conceptual that the mind recognizes how do you know that they themselves are not the product of a mind ?[/b]

…How do you ACCOUNT for the existence of laws of logic ?
… (my emphasis)

What is there to “ACCOUNT” for? All “laws” of logic are just tautologies.

…IF they are something CONCEPTUAL that the mind recognizes HOW do you know that they themselves are NOT the product of a mind ?
..…(my emphasis)

Of course if something is “CONCEPTUAL” then it is a “product of a mind” 😛 that is true by the DEFINITION of the word “CONCEPTUAL”!
One important function of these particular concepts (i.e. “laws” of logic) is to determine which statements that are supposed to be about reality make sense (so are either be “true” or “false” and are thus called “true propositions&ldquo😉 and which statements that are supposed to be about reality are actually just nonsense statements (so CANNOT either be “true” or “false” because they are “meaningless“ or self contradictory) .
For example, a phrase like “X existed before time” can be demonstrated via logical argument to be a logical self-contradiction thus could not represent any part of reality.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
Come on, jaywill, that's a pretty poor argument! I don't know whether you have 3 legs or whether Andrew has a horn growing from his head but if either of you claimed those things should I just believe you?
===================================

I don't see how your analogy applies.
I don't think you ar ...[text shortened]... can he be so sure that a law giving mind is not behind the universal laws of logic.

[[/b]

…And the only "argument" IMPLIED is really that there is a possibility that universal laws of logic are recognized by the mind BECAUSE those laws came about because of a mind.
… (my emphasis)

What nonsense:
“laws of logic” are just tautologies. No “mind” is required to stop a logical self-contradiction existing in reality because it is just a tautology that no self-contradiction existing in reality. Thus there logically cannot be anything that causes the creation of “laws of logic” -not even a “God” 😛