46 replies to this topic

[KBC id]

I am in search of any evidences or logic based arguments that people here have for why the biblical God is the creator.
I am agnostic and as such I am sitting on the fence looking for some forms of evidence that will lead me to the truths that must exist. I would ask up front not to inundate me with replies as it is only me at this end and I like to take a bit of time to give proper considerations on any points be brought to the table. So if too many are posted I will simply fall behind and not be able to respond. (old people )

One other point that I will state ahead of time. I am not seeking to ridicule or denigrate anyones opinion or POV. I have at times in the past run into situations where and acceptable evidence for another was not for me. I will do my best to use logic and reason to accept a point or the same if I reject it. Either way I have no intent of belittling anyone elses choices.

Thx ahead of time for your responses.

[JayShel]

I think we are similar in our critical thinking and reservations about logical proof. I have seen creationists make arguments which they see as proof of God, and I don't see it as proof of God. I don't even know if it is possible to prove the existence of God in the scientific sense. I see you also have such reservations. I am of the understanding that God wants to be known by faith in His divine revelation, and not by knowledge alone, which would give us something to brag about. He is spirit and therefore not subject to observation by our five senses. The best proof of His revelation is the historicity and internal consistency of the Bible.

Logic is a good way to come to knowledge, but it has its flaws. Coming having faith in Jesus doesn't mean you have to give up your discernment, or logic, or even your doubts. It just means that you believe that there are scientific and historic clues that point to knowledge beyond our five senses, and you choose to put your faith in the religion that is the most consistent with itself and scientific evidence.

When I was first saved I had so many questions, doubts, etc. I prayed that God give me answers to my questions. The more I dig, the more answers I find, and the more questions I have, which keeps me in a constant relationship with God.

I admire your intellectual thirst and I understand your quest for logical integrity, but I am ultimately concerned for your soul. I hope you don't mind me praying for you. Your remind me so much of myself. I hope you find what you're looking for.

[Spectre]

What kind of evidence are you looking for? When you say you are looking for "evidence" how do you define it in this case?

[jason777]

First off, I would recommend looking at age determinations from geology, astronomy, paleontology (proteins in fossils), etc.

Then which God has corroborating evidence in support of him from archeology. If the God of the bible is true, then it should support what is found from historical dig sites.

When I looked at all of them together (since I'm not a gambling man) it was rather conclusive.



Enjoy.

[Ron]

I am in search of any evidences or logic based arguments that people here have for why the biblical God is the creator.

You're only looking for logical propositions then? It was my understanding from our previous conversation that you were looking at both the metaphysical AND physical realms.

[Ron]

Okay – Purely from the logical standpoint then, the first logical argument I would make is from the logical laws of “First Principles”. So I will lay out the argument in a logical format using those. But first I will briefly explain them:

Firstly – First Principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known. Even “Coherentism” uses the first principle of non-contradiction to test the coherence of its system.
Secondly – Realisim affirms that first principles apply to the real world. First principles undeniably apply to reality. The very denial that first principles apply to reality uses first principles in that very denial.
Thirdly – Principles of Reality: Without basic first principles of reality, nothing can be known. Everything we know about reality is known by them.

Conclusion: The “First Principles” are undeniable (or can be reduced to the undeniable). They are either self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. And these self-evident principles are either true by their nature or undeniable because the predicate is reducible to the subject. Because the predicate is reducible to the subject, this means we cannot deny the principle without using it. For example, the principle of non-contradiction cannot be denied without using that very principle in the very denial.

Example: The statement "Opposites cannot be true" ASSUMES that the opposite of that statement cannot be true.

Now we’ll set the argument with the twelve basic first principles, in syllogistic format, and give further explanation of their un-deniability.

1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.

Something exists (for example: BOTH you and I exist!). This is undeniable, for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence, AND you would have to exist in order to communicate with me. The very attempt to explicitly deny my existence fails because I implicitly affirm it. AND the very attempt to explicitly deny your existence fails because you implicitly affirm it.

2. Being Is Being (B is B ) = The Principle of Identity.

A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not, then it would not be itself.

3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction.

Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that "opposites can both be true" does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true. This is also an excellent dismemberment for the relativists assertion “there is no such thing as truth!”. The statement is self-refuting! It cannot sustain the weight of its own assertion, because it refutes itself! The easiest way to dismember that argument is to apply it AGAINST itself… Example:

Relativist assertion – There is no such thing as truth!
Theist’s rebuttal – Is that statement TRUE?

4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.

Being and nonbeing are complete opposites (i.e., contradictory), and opposites cannot be the same. Therefore the only choices are being and nonbeing.


5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality.

Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of "cause" implies an existing thing that has the power to affect another thing. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing! The statement "Nonbeing cannot produce being" is undeniable (if you don’t believe this, provide an empirical example that disproves it). The very concept of "produce" or "cause" implies something EXISTS to cause or produce the being produced. To deny that relationship of cause to effect is to say, "Nothing is something" and "Nonbeing is being," which is nonsense AND illogical.


6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).

If something cannot be caused by nothing, then neither can anything be caused by what could be nothing, namely, a contingent being; for that which could be nothing cannot account for its own existence! And that which cannot account for even its own existence cannot account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it cannot be that on which something else depends for its being. Therefore, one contingent being cannot be the “ultimate cause” for other contingent beings.


7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.

Absolutely nothing cannot cause something! Neither can one contingent kind (mode) of being cause another contingent being. So, if anything comes to be, it must be caused by a Necessary Being.


8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.

A Necessary Being is by definition a mode (kind) of being that cannot not be. That is, by its very mode (modality), it must be. It cannot come to be or cease to be. But to be caused means to come to be. Therefore, a Necessary Being cannot be caused. For what comes to be is not necessary.

9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality.

All contingent beings need (MUST HAVE) a cause; for a contingent being is something that is but could NOT be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not account for its own existence. That is, in itself there is no basis explaining why it exists rather than does not exist. It literally has nothing (nonbeing) to ground it. But nonbeing cannot ground or cause anything. Only something can cause or produce something.


10. Necessary Being exists = The Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists).

The Principle of Existential Necessity follows from two other Principles: the Principle of Existence (no. 1) and the Principle of Causality (no. 5).Since something undeniably exists (no. 1), either it is -
a. all contingent or
b. all necessary or
c. some is necessary and some is contingent.

But both "b." and "c." acknowledge a Necessary Being, and "a." is logically impossible, being contrary to the self-evident principle no. 5. For if all being(s) is (are) contingent, then it is possible for all being(s) not to exist. That is, a state of total nothingness is possible. But something now undeniably exists (e.g., I do), as was demonstrated in premise no. 1. And nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). Therefore, it is not possible (i.e., it is impossible) for there to have been a state of total nothingness. But if it is impossible for nothing to exist (since something does exist), then something necessarily exists (i.e., a Necessary Being does exist).

A more succinct way of stating it would be, if something exists and if nothing cannot cause something, then it follows that something must exist necessarily. Because if something did not necessarily exist, then nothing would have caused the something that does exist. Since it is impossible for nothing to cause something, then it is necessary for something to always have been.



11. Contingent being exists = The Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists).

Not everything that exists is necessary. For change is real, that is, at least some being(s) really change. And a Necessary Being cannot change in its being. (This does not mean there can be no change in external relations with another being. It simply means there can be no internal change in its being. When a person changes in relation to a pillar, the pillar does not change.) For its being is necessary, and what is necessary in its being cannot be other than it is in its being. And all change in being involves becoming something else in its being.

But it is evident that I change in my being. I change from not being to being. By "I" is meant the self-conscious individual being I call myself. (This is not to claim that all the parts or elements of my being are not eternal. There are good reasons to believe they are not because usable energy is running down and cannot be eternal [see Thermodynamics, Laws of], but this is not the point here.) This "I" or unifying center of consciousness around which these elemental parts of matter come and go, is not eternal. This is clear for many reasons.

Firstly, my consciousness changes (I began at birth, I matured, I will eventually pass from this mortal coil). Even those who claim they are eternal and necessary (namely, that they are a Necessary Being, God) were not always conscious of being God. Somewhere along the line they change from not being conscious they were God to being conscious they were God. But a Necessary Being cannot change. Hence, I am not a Necessary Being. Rather, I am a contingent being. Therefore, at least one contingent being exists. Everything is not necessary.

Further, there are other ways to know that we are contingent. The fact that we reason to conclusions reveals that our knowledge is not eternal and necessary. We come to know (i.e., change from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing). But no necessary being can come to know anything. It either eternally knows AND necessarily knows everything it knows, or else it knows nothing. If it is a knowing kind of being, then it necessarily knows, since it is a necessary kind of being. And a being can only know in accordance with the kind of being it is. A contingent or finite being must know contingently, and a Necessary Being must know necessarily. But I do not know all that I can know eternally and necessarily. Therefore, I am a contingent kind of being. The Apostle Paul has a very cogent and concise explanation of this in 1^st Corinthians 13: 11&12 when he said “When I was an infant, I spoke as an infant, I thought as an infant, I reasoned as an infant. But when I became a man, I did away with the things of an infant. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall fully know even as I also am fully known.”


12. Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = The Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc).

Since nonbeing cannot produce being (premise 5), only being can produce being. But a contingent being cannot produce another contingent being (premise 6). And a necessary being cannot produce another necessary being (premise 8). So only Necessary Being can cause or produce only a contingent being. For to "cause" or "produce" being means to bring something into being. Something that comes into being, has being. A cause cannot bring nonbeing into being, since being is not nonbeing (premise 4). The fact that “Being” produces “Being” implies that there is an analogy (similarity) between the cause of being and the being it causes (premise 8). But a contingent being is both similar and different from a Necessary Being. It is similar in that both have being. It is different in that one is necessary and the other is contingent. But whatever is both similar and different is analogous. Hence, there is an analogy between Necessary Being and the being it produces.

Two things, then, are entailed in the principle that Necessary Being causes being:

First – The effect must resemble the cause, since both are being. The cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess.

Second – While the effect must resemble its cause in its being (i.e., its actuality), it must also be different from it in its potentiality, because the cause (a Necessary Being), by its very nature, has no potential not to be.

But the effect (a contingent being) by its very nature has the potential not to be. Hence, a contingent being must be different from its Cause. Since, the Cause of contingent beings must be both like and different from its effect, it is only similar. Therefore, there is an analogical likeness between the Cause of a contingent being and the contingent being it causes to exist.

NOTE: I cannot take credit for the above argument, as much of the above leans heavily upon on the writings in:

The Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics - Geisler, N. L(1999).. Baker reference library.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanfor...l/#PraReaFirPri)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanfor...ries/aristotle/)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online (http://www.britannic...le+of+Existence)

Psychology Wiki ( http://psychology.wi...wiki/Causality)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/)

Jacques Maritain Center: The First Principles of Knowledge (http://maritain.nd.e...etext/first.htm)

Jacques Maritain Center: The Primary Facts and Principles of the Logician. (http://maritain.nd.e...ext/first10.htm)

[Ron]

Now, for one of my favorite Logical arguments: The Kalam cosmological argument. This argument is made best by philosopher William Lane Craig. So I will be succinct in my explanation and post some of his comments on it as well:

Kalam cosmological argument
The aim of the “Kalam cosmological argument” (as it provides today) is to build upon the empirical scientific facts that point directly to the universe having a definite “BEGINNING” in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite regression of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause (the Theist calls Him God).

The syllogistic format of the argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Note that the key phrase here is "begins to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

The traditional atheistic counter had previously been to point at premise 2, by taking the illogical position that the universe has always existed (steady state etc…). With the advent of the preponderance of the empirical scientific evidence pointing directly to a specific BEGINNING to our universe (some call it the Big Bang), this rendering this line of defense obsolete and outdated due to said evidence. It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes the atheistic “infinite regress” knee jerk reactions from the discussion on creation involving God which when they claim "Then who created God?" (see “The Principle of Existential Necessity” - Bn exists. Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless. The Bible makes clear that God exists outside of our construct of time in many locations, including 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2.

Now, I defer to Dr. William Lane Craig. You can see some of his argumentation at: http://www.leaderu.c...h/3truth11.html (I would post more from one of his web sites, but you must be a member there <no cost> If you wish to become a member that is totally up to you)…

<excerpt>
“Now there is one form of the cosmological argument, much neglected today but of great historical importance, that aims precisely at the demonstration that the universe had a beginning in time.[ See William Lane Craig, The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz, Library of Philosophy and Religion (London: Macmillan, 1980), pp. 48-58, 61-76, 98-104, 128-31.] Originating in the efforts of Christian theologians to refute the Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter, this argument was developed into sophisticated formulations by medieval Islamic and Jewish theologians, who in turn passed it back to the Latin West. The argument thus has a broad inter- sectarian appeal, having been defended by Muslims, Jews, and Christians both Catholic and Protestant.

This argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument, can be exhibited as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its
existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an
actual infinite.

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of
events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal
regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of
the formation of an actual infinite by
successive addition.

2.21 A collection formed by successive
addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events
is a collection formed by successive
addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of
past events cannot be actually
infinite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its
existence.


The link I provided gives far more detail on the subject…

[Ron]

We can discuss other logical arguments (Such as: The Teleological Argument, The Ontological Argument and The Transcendental Argument etc…) later, as I believe you may want to take time unpack what I’ve posted already.

[AFJ]

I am in search of any evidences or logic based arguments that people here have for why the biblical God is the creator.
I am agnostic and as such I am sitting on the fence looking for some forms of evidence that will lead me to the truths that must exist. I would ask up front not to inundate me with replies as it is only me at this end and I like to take a bit of time to give proper considerations on any points be brought to the table. So if too many are posted I will simply fall behind and not be able to respond. (old people )

One other point that I will state ahead of time. I am not seeking to ridicule or denigrate anyones opinion or POV. I have at times in the past run into situations where and acceptable evidence for another was not for me. I will do my best to use logic and reason to accept a point or the same if I reject it. Either way I have no intent of belittling anyone elses choices.

Thx ahead of time for your responses.

The thing you're looking for is probably not going to satisfy you intellectually. We could start with the customs of Hebrew oral tradition, the historical line of Israel, and it's reemergence, or the history of Christianity in cultures for the last two thousand years, the archaeological backing for Bible background, the martyrdom of those that were eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection, or the prophetic writings, and why they are considered to be truly prophetic.

All that can be corroborating evidence, but for me, there has always been one thing that has left my faith unshaken. That is the Presence of Christ by His Spirit in my life, and the hearts of others I know. When God is drawing/dealing with you, there are times where it is an actual powerful, peace and life giving, overshadowing Presence. It is the secret place of the Most High. Psalm 91 speaks of it.

If you need me to give you info on other things, I/we can, and Ron has given several good logic arguments. These are wonderful for your mind, but a relationship with God comes when your spirit merges with God's Spirit in Christ. God gives his Spirit, when you accept Jesus into your heart, and that is the greatest proof. You need to accept Christ first though by faith, or you're on the outside looking in. DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL, AND IF SO WHAT IS IT? You will never have faith by looking to the natural--you must look to God Himself. He is there, even through all the muck of this present world.

[KBC id]

I admire your intellectual thirst and I understand your quest for logical integrity, but I am ultimately concerned for your soul. I hope you don't mind me praying for you. Your remind me so much of myself. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Thx for the input. Do what seems right to you.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? When you say you are looking for "evidence" how do you define it in this case?

That sir is the million dollar question... if I knew what I was looking for then I wouldn't really need to look. But, I think it worth putting out there that I don't expect to find the empirical evidence outright for God, however, an intelligent designer leaves discernable clues behind as they exist intelligently. So as I said in the OP logical arguements would be fine and if someone has seen an effect that only intelligence can cause this might play well here too.
One thing you should consider when replying to me is that I mechanically design for a living.... 30 yrs of designing mechanistic systems gives one a unique view of the world. I notice things in this world that many people overlook all the time.
Also let me point out that even if someone has even a rough bit of logic or evidence it may be worth having a second set of unbiased eyes looking it over, I might notice what you may have overlooked.
Last point here that I want to make sure gets across, I gain nothing by not looking and testing everything I can. I don't get a good feeling by denigrating others or their intellect. You will not have to worry about negative feedback just for negative feedbacks sake. If I disagree with something, I am disappointed first with failing to gain something.

First off, I would recommend looking at age determinations from geology, astronomy, paleontology (proteins in fossils), etc.
Then which God has corroborating evidence in support of him from archeology. If the God of the bible is true, then it should support what is found from historical dig sites.

My research has allowed me to conclude that life did not evolve here. Past that point I have seen nothing that can provide with certainty a tie to the hebrew God. This does not mean it can't be him and I'm open to any specific points you can bring that may provide that tie.

You're only looking for logical propositions then? It was my understanding from our previous conversation that you were looking at both the metaphysical AND physical realms.

I would hope my OP stated logic or evidences. This is kind of a shotgun blast of bring whatever your logic and reason thinks would be acceptable including anything you would consider evidence. But while I'm at it bring whatever you want.

[rico]

I am in search of any evidences or logic based arguments that people here have for why the biblical God is the creator.
I am agnostic and as such I am sitting on the fence looking for some forms of evidence that will lead me to the truths that must exist. I would ask up front not to inundate me with replies as it is only me at this end and I like to take a bit of time to give proper considerations on any points be brought to the table. So if too many are posted I will simply fall behind and not be able to respond. (old people )

One other point that I will state ahead of time. I am not seeking to ridicule or denigrate anyones opinion or POV. I have at times in the past run into situations where and acceptable evidence for another was not for me. I will do my best to use logic and reason to accept a point or the same if I reject it. Either way I have no intent of belittling anyone elses choices.

Thx ahead of time for your responses.

• 
  Where do laws originate – Laws of Logic.
  If I make a law up “don't put your hand on your head” Where did that law come from? Where do laws of logic come from?

• 
  Can you know anything – how do you know that? Faith?
• 
  You can't science your way to God.
  Human wisdom can never, by itself, discover God.
  God made foolish the wisdom of this world. (See 1st Cor 1:20-23) Reference: (http://www.icr.org/article/4654/ The Wisdom of God)

[jason777]

My research has allowed me to conclude that life did not evolve here. Past that point I have seen nothing that can provide with certainty a tie to the hebrew God. This does not mean it can't be him and I'm open to any specific points you can bring that may provide that tie.

That was sort my point. The God of Abraham can not be proven, but what are the odds that all of these things just happen to point to him by chance? Like I said, I'm not a gambling man so it's logical for me to conclude it is him.


Enjoy.

[AFJ]

Shouldn't there be some kind of present day tangible supernatural evidence for God? Natural evidence, and logic are good, but you have to believe what you hear first, then you seek what you've heard. For instance, I wouldn't go to a biology class, if I wanted to find out if there was a God. The supernatural does not work like the natural, you can't "can" it logically sometimes. Why do you think Proverbs 3:5,6 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and LEAN NOT TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING....Acknowledge him in all your ways and HE shall make your paths straight...?"

To the point of direct evidence for God. Since you can look at cellular systems, and see nothing in common with designed systems, I refer to direct evidence for supernatural occurances in the Name of Jesus Christ. It is not uncommon in outdoor, or street preaching to see people come for prayer and be healed. This is in accordance with the pattern and promise of Jesus Christ to his disciples, that he would confirm his word with signs and wonders following. I have known several people personally, and have heard numerous testimonies of Christians, who had cancer, who, when returning for a check up were completely healed.

I have known two different people, in two different locations and times, who did not know each other, who told me in amazement, that they felt heat go into their bodies, as elders prayed for them.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. James 5:14,15

I used to be involved in a prayer ministry in a church. The pastor literally had a list of everyone in the church and their prayer concerns, and they would be prayed over everyday by different people. There was a main concern list, like people who were really sick, or family problems, or such, that would be in the church bulletin. The pastor would spend 5 minutes or so praying over these in the service every Sunday. And there was a small group of retirees that would meet every morning to pray over this list. The list had a "Prayer Concerns" section, a "The Sick," and a "Praises" section. The "Praises" section was for answered prayers. The church was one of the most healthy, loving, and vibrant churches I had ever been to, and we saw a pattern of people go from the "Prayer Concerns" to the "Praises." This was for all kinds of serious problems like sickness, marital problems, family and child problems, educational problems, and all sorts of other concerns. Many would get up and thank the church for praying for them in the church.

[ikester7579]

I am in search of any evidences or logic based arguments that people here have for why the biblical God is the creator.
I am agnostic and as such I am sitting on the fence looking for some forms of evidence that will lead me to the truths that must exist. I would ask up front not to inundate me with replies as it is only me at this end and I like to take a bit of time to give proper considerations on any points be brought to the table. So if too many are posted I will simply fall behind and not be able to respond. (old people )

One other point that I will state ahead of time. I am not seeking to ridicule or denigrate anyones opinion or POV. I have at times in the past run into situations where and acceptable evidence for another was not for me. I will do my best to use logic and reason to accept a point or the same if I reject it. Either way I have no intent of belittling anyone elses choices.

Thx ahead of time for your responses.

How do laws just come into existence fully balanced to work with one another to create order instead of chaos without the works of an intelligent being?

How does something come from nothing in the big bang when matter just appeared and exploded?

In the human body there are several systems and organs that are interdependent upon one another to function. What this means is that not one system or organ can exist or function without the other systems and organs in place functioning also. Which supports a quick creation that would allow all that to happen. A slow evolution process would have everything separated, evolving to work at different time periods. Basically creating a multitude of problems.

Without going into the complexity of the eye, let's approach from a different angel.
1) The eye is filled with a "clear" fluid. Why not a colored fluid or blood?
2) The eye has to keep it's shape by having the fluid at a certain pressure. To much pressure and the eye will be damaged. Not enough and the eye deflates. So how does the evolution process just "know" how to evolve the correct pressure and maintain it?
3) The eye requires the vision center of the brain in order to work. The eye without this is useless. And the vision center of the brain is useless without the eye. So which evolved first and why?
4) The vision center of the brain has to process the information it receives from the eye very quickly. In fact the process of what we see is only delayed by less then 1/2 a second. How did evolution know to evolve the vision center of the brain to process things so quickly? You see if the delay in processing were like 2 seconds, we could not drive a car safely, or hit a fast ball in base ball.

The heart:
1) The first lifeform that requires a heart in order to live. The heart has to be made of a special muscle that never gets tired. If the heart does not evolve with this special type muscle it will stop and lifeform dies.
2) The body has to keep a certain balance of chemicals that the heart muscle requires in order to not get tired, and to beat correctly.
3) The heart comes with it;s own electrical pace maker. How does this little pace maker know just how the heart should beat? To fast can kill, to slow can kill. Not the right type of beats can be deadly as well.
4) the heart valves are special one way valves that have to be in place the exact moment the heart is beating. If not the the heart beats in vain because the blood it pumps forward would return because there is not valves to stop it form doing that.
5) The heart valves have to be precisely made, and open and close precisely. If the blood cells are damaged during the opening and closing process, this will cause clots to form in the blood which are deadly.
6) How does the heart beat so precisely that our blood pressure is normal as long as nothing is wrong?

And I could go on about the lungs, kidneys, liver, pancreas, digestive system, etc...

When you study anatomy you soon realize that these things just don;t come about by chance and accidents. And when you also weigh out the facts that evolution would have to have perfect timing in the evolution process in order for these things to work, you soon realize that does not happen either. Timing takes intelligence. And when you also realize that the parts of the body are in sync and rely on one another in order to work you realize that a complete created package is the only way. And if there were a detailed explanation on how this works otherwise, no one has been able to tell me or show me yet.

[KBC id]

Alright everyone..... This is not pig pile on the agnostic time.

There is so much here to look at and I love that all of you are expressing your understandings and rationales. But, darnit I am one person at this end. How can I reply to everyone?
I will answer a few of the simpler things right away and work on the ones I havent answered yet.

The God of Abraham can not be proven

Hmmm. I think I must call you out on this. My basis of refute will be from the biblical text itself;

Psalm 19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
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...

It would appear that from a biblical standpoint there is an assertion being made that there is in fact observable evidence to be observed, if I understand those texts correctly. Therefore I can ask to see these things and one should be able to show them. I firmly know that an intelligent designer leaves a trail behind himself that can be seen and understood by other intelligent agents. The biblical text states essentially the same thing. So if the hebrew God is the designer then there will be evidence discernable by us as intelligent agents.

If you hold a belief in God then you must also believe that these texts are correct. Remember I am not asking for you to have God act in front of me for evidence, I am simply asking for evidences that already are proposed to exist within the remnants of his past actions.

The thing you're looking for is probably not going to satisfy you intellectually.

If the hebrew God is the designer then how could I not be intellectually satisfied? Who would search for less than what would cause satisfaction?

You need to accept Christ first though by faith, or you're on the outside looking in. DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GOSPEL, AND IF SO WHAT IS IT? You will never have faith by looking to the natural--you must look to God Himself. He is there, even through all the muck of this present world.

I will also direct you the 2 verses noted above. The assertion is made that there are evidences and it doesn't say that faith is required first. Don't take this as a belittlement of your testament. It is not. It may be that you simply have not needed to see this evidence to believe so you may as yet not actually see them for what they are.

Do I have an understanding of the gospel.... If memory serves the gospel is the good news... that news is essentially that a path has been made to reunite those who are lost with their maker. So I would say that I have as fair an understanding as my parents could muster from their understanding. But pls. realise I am not asking about the personal attributes of God. Everything written is indeed quite wonderful if true.

Essentially you don't need to impress on me in a testifying manner, my parents beat you to it and they were persistent. I would say at this point I have a very good grasp of the written record and you will probably find that I can hold pace with you if we delve into the record. For now I simply wish to define what it is that is asserted to exist in God's handiwork that implicitly identifies him as the maker. Ask and you shall receive correct?

Let us consider it this way, those 2 verses make an assertion, so let us as friends explore what they point to with the intent of decisively pointing to what they meant. Consider me a co-investigator who is as anxious as anyone to find the answer. My parents said many times if it is God's word then you can count on it to be true. So let us not question 'if' it is true. Let us question what truth it is pointing to. Can we rightly divide the words together?

[KBC id]

Shouldn't there be some kind of present day tangible supernatural evidence for God?

It is written that there is evidence contained in the past works

Natural evidence, and logic are good, but you have to believe what you hear first, then you seek what you've heard.

I know that intelligence leaves a trail. The bible asserts that evidence of God is contained in his past works. So I don't need to believe its true for it to be true. I am seeking that evidence which is attested to not by my hearing but rather by my reading of the text.

Why do you think Proverbs 3:5,6 says "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and LEAN NOT TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING....Acknowledge him in all your ways and HE shall make your paths straight...?"

Because even those who believe may not understand why he may be directed to do things a certain way. The intent of this verse is to essentially tell a believer that they may not always understand the why of things but if they always have faith in what God directs them to do then they will be fine.
Does that sound about right?

To the point of direct evidence for God. Since you can look at cellular systems, and see nothing in common with designed systems, I refer to direct evidence for supernatural occurances in the Name of Jesus Christ.

Actually I see a ton in common with designed systems which is one of the reasons I reject the evolutionary hypothesis. Those evidences you refer to are ones you may have seen and others have experienced but are quite hard to pass on through a forum.
Don't be discouraged by me not accepting your testament as evidence of God. The entirety of your testament may well be true but from where I sit it is strictly a form of hearsay that would require me to simply believe since I have not personally experienced any of what you have testified to.

If at all possible let us try and identify what the biblical text has asserted is there to be found. We are both intelligent beings and neither of us is greater or lesser than the other. The text was given for everyones benefit right? Both of us are part of everyone and the fact that I am not coming in with an established belief should not detract from the truth of the written text right?

Pharoah was not a believer right? but Gods words as revealed to him through moses came to pass and he seen the evidence right? A disbeliever was told his immediate fortune multiple times and got to see it occur. If I were able to approch someone on the street and tell them every day what would happen the next day how long would it be before he would believe anything I told him? Belief can come from immediate evidences as recounted in the biblical stories and denial of those evidences is also recorded. But be rest assured that I don't need this form of evidence to move forward here. God says there is evidence. Here is a snip and link I want you to consider. I would say this site sums up my sentiment exactly;

It is popularly believed that faith is antithetical to evidence and reason; that reason is opposed to, and leaves no room for faith. Interestingly, it is thought that this is the view of Scripture. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Biblical notion of faith involves placing trust in what we have reason to believe is true. We are not commanded to believe in the absence of evidence, but based on the evidence. We are even commanded to be prepared to give a defense (an apology) for our Christian faith when asked by non-believers why we believe as we do (Colossians 4:6; I Peter 3:15-16). Paul regularly engaged in apologetics (Acts 17:7, 22-31; 18:4, 19, 28). Even the Almighty has done so. Consider the following examples in which God plays the role of apologist:

Exodus 4:4-5 Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. This," said the LORD, "is so that they may believe that the LORD, the God of their fathers-- the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-- has appeared to you."

Why did God give Moses the miracle of turning the rod into a snake? It was so the Israelites may believe. God didn't expect them to believe His word through Moses apart from any evidence that Moses was speaking the Word of God. God supplied good reason to believe His Word was true.
Not only was God acting rationally toward His creation, but He invited them to participate in a rational discussion with Him about what it was that He was going to do. No hint of anti-rationalism here.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Are we to put our faith in the Word of God when it is first spoken to us? No. We must first identify that it is the Word of God before we believe it. How do we do that? We do so by testing it: we wait to see if what was spoken comes true. If it does, then the word was from the Lord and it is worthy of belief. If it does not, then it was not from the Lord and we should not believe it. There's no hint of "you just need to believe the Bible because the Bible is the Word of God" found here. The Word of God needed to be demonstrated to be the Word of God before the hearers were obligated to accept it as trustworthy and divinely authoritative.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father.

Why did it matter that they had seen the works Jesus did? Why did their viewing of Jesus' miracles cause them to be guilty of sin where there previously had been no sin? It was because the miracles gave divine confirmation of the truth of Christ's message. Apart from that confirmation their lack of belief might be understandable. Once the truth had been confirmed, however, they were without excuse for their rejection.

These passages, while not exhaustive, serve to demonstrate that God does not expect us to blindly place our faith in His Word. He gives evidence to confirm that what He has spoken is indeed the Word of God, and allows us the epistemological liberty of proving it before expecting us to believe it. If apologetics are good enough for God, they're good enough for me as well!
http://www.onenesspe...odapologist.htm

[Ron]

You're only looking for logical propositions then? It was my understanding from our previous conversation that you were looking at both the metaphysical AND physical realms.

I would hope my OP stated logic or evidences. This is kind of a shotgun blast of bring whatever your logic and reason thinks would be acceptable including anything you would consider evidence. But while I'm at it bring whatever you want.

_{Ummmmm... Actually, I did, in the very next two posts a couple of days ago. I could have brought a lot more, but I didn't think it would be fair, as what I did post is quite a lot by itself. I'll save the rest for later.}

[JayShel]

seems to be a misquote Ron, I don't remember typing that reply.

[Ron]

seems to be a misquote Ron, I don't remember typing that reply.

What are you talking about Jay???




















Just kidding, I don't know how that happened. But its fixed now.

[JayShel]

What are you talking about Jay???



Just kidding, I don't know how that happened. But its fixed now.

I didn't see the just kidding and I was thinking "well I guess it was just a weird forum glitch...you got me