AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Sebastian Toe]

It is pretty obvious that an ice cube needs no intelligent manipulation to help it to melt.  But when you see an ice sculpture, you could correctly conclude that some intelligent manipulation was used to form the sculpture you see.  And when you look at the human DNA molecule, the most complex thing known to exist, can you really compare it to the melting of an ice cube?

Does God make each and every beautifully sculptured snowflake?

[Alan Burns]

Does God make each and every beautifully sculptured snowflake?

There is natural beauty and complexity and there is created beauty and complexity.  We can easily recognise the man made beauty in works of art, and the man made complexity in machines and computers.  It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures.  Perhaps it was easier for our predecessors who saw the obvious link between creature and creation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is pretty obvious that an ice cube needs no intelligent manipulation to help it to melt.  But when you see an ice sculpture, you could correctly conclude that some intelligent manipulation was used to form the sculpture you see.  And when you look at the human DNA molecule, the most complex thing known to exist, can you really compare it to the melting of an ice cube?

So there we have it: ice melting looks simple to you (actually it involves some quite complex chemistry that you can't see, but let's not let the facts get in the way of your personal incredulity); ice sculptures look complicated (though snowflakes themselves appear to have remarkable symmetry and beauty, but again let's not let the facts disturb your personal incredulity); and you've made a false analogy between an evolved molecule and a non-evolved chemical process - the old Paley's watch mistake.

Apart from all that though...

Does not having the reasoning ability of a child trouble you at all?

Not even a little bit?

Nothing?   

[Maeght]

I tried to give up and call it a day after just a few days on this forum, but after receiving several PM messages of encouragement I felt God was asking me to carry on.  And when you say "Yes" to God, He will give you all the strength you need to carry out the task.

That's the sort of comment I struggle to understand. Clearly it was the people who PM'd you who were asking you to carry on. I know you believe God was working through them but I just don't understand why.

[Walter]

If I was here for an ego trip I agree I should have given up long ago.
(you may see further evidence of my persistence amongst over thirteen thousand posts on the "Searching for God" thread under the Christian topic)
But God calls me to be a witness to the truth, and despite all the negative comments and counter arguments I still have the will to carry on.  I tried to give up and call it a day after just a few days on this forum, but after receiving several PM messages of encouragement I felt God was asking me to carry on.  And when you say "Yes" to God, He will give you all the strength you need to carry out the task.

AB

its a shame he doesn't give you much help though , you'd think he would at least peep through the clouds and say 'hello, you should all be listening to AB HE'S MY WITNESS' but nothing. I admire your tenacity but there it ends my friend. Good luck, I'm OUT.

[Sebastian Toe]

There is natural beauty and complexity and there is created beauty and complexity.  We can easily recognise the man made beauty in works of art, and the man made complexity in machines and computers.  It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures. 

Unless of course they are both naturally occurring its just that you fail to see it. You being forced to shoehorn God into stuff you don't understand.
Simples.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Actually, belief would be but “faith” in its religious sense wouldn’t. In any case, being “free to choose” is fine and dandy but do you not think that this “God” of yours should at least have had the decency to make the choice a meaningful one by providing some evidence for his existence at all?

Then what would you consider as evidence?

[torridon]

If I was here for an ego trip I agree I should have given up long ago.
(you may see further evidence of my persistence amongst over thirteen thousand posts on the "Searching for God" thread under the Christian topic)
But God calls me to be a witness to the truth, and despite all the negative comments and counter arguments I still have the will to carry on.

But it seems you have zero will to actually listen to and try to understand the rebuttals of your claims from other posters.  You are plain wrong about a considerable number of points of belief imo, and you show every sign of staying wrong because of this tunnel vision of yours forbidding you to start to understand that you might actually be wrong and others might actually be right.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then what would you consider as evidence?

A statement and a method to validate it by distinguishing it from just guessing about stuff.

[Gordon]

Then what would you consider as evidence?

That is for you to propose: and don't forget the method you used to identify, categorise, describe, measure etc what you present as evidence.

The burden of proof is yours, whether you like it or not.

[jeremyp]

It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures. 

That's kind of odd, isn't it. We can identify human designed objects pretty easily, but surely, if nature was also designed, that wouldn't be possible.

If design is the quality that enables us to spot a watch in a desert as being man made or a painting in a wood, then the conclusion must be that the environment in which these objects reside is not designed, but that environment is exactly what you are claiming is designed. Paley's watch is actually an argument against a designed Universe.

By the way, the chief characteristic of a designed object is not complexity but simplicity.

[Alan Burns]

If design is the quality that enables us to spot a watch in a desert as being man made or a painting in a wood, then the conclusion must be that the environment in which these objects reside is not designed, but that environment is exactly what you are claiming is designed.

But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert.  I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.

[Alan Burns]

But it seems you have zero will to actually listen to and try to understand the rebuttals of your claims from other posters.  You are plain wrong about a considerable number of points of belief imo, and you show every sign of staying wrong because of this tunnel vision of yours forbidding you to start to understand that you might actually be wrong and others might actually be right.

I appreciate you honesty Torri.  You have at least qualified your accusation that I am wrong by saying that it is your opinion.  I hope one day your opinion will change when you come to know God.

[Sebastian Toe]

But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert.  I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.

You're fine, I don't think anyone noticed you shifting the goalposts, again!

[jeremyp]

But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert.

Do we? Always? Trees are alive aren't they? Well actually, about 98% of a tree is dead.

I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.

But we have already shown that God did not create the Universe, or if he did, he created it to look like it was not designed.

[torridon]

But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert.  I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.

The old separation of things into living and inanimate is old hat now. Rather, there is a spectrum of lifelikeness that leads from biochemstry to biology. There is no magic required, this is why we expect to find evidence for life on Mars or Europa etc.  Life is an inevitable consequence of natural law.  I think you'd be much better off therefore trying to position your God as architect of natural law, rather than some bumbling meddler intervening in the operation of natural law and getting some things right and some things wrong.

[torridon]

I appreciate you honesty Torri.  You have at least qualified your accusation that I am wrong by saying that it is your opinion.  I hope one day your opinion will change when you come to know God.

Firstly, that would be up to God, not me, and the fact that he apparently reveals himself to some and not to others does not square with the claim that god is good. Just one of innumerable inconsistencies in your thinking.

Secondly, if God does decide to introduce himself to me is that going to mean that I end up being a science denier, making all manner of claims that are not consistent with evidence ?  That would be a corrupting God, encouraging detachment from reality and truth, this again inconsistent with the claim that god is good.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

By the way, the chief characteristic of a designed object is not complexity but simplicity.

Correct.

But we have already shown that God did not create the Universe, or if he did, he created it to look like it was not designed.

Where have you shown that and you must be looking at a different Universe from the one I inhabit, this Universe is beautiful, it is all arranged to work, it is governed by four very simple laws, it is only man who complicates this very simple Universe in his ceaseless venture to know the mind of God.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

...this Universe is beautiful....

Bone cancer in children?

Parasitic worms that burrow through eyes?

Tsunamis that kill thousands?

If you're going to bring aesthetics to the table there's a great deal about the universe that's hideous too, just as you'd expect to see if there was no benevolent hand at the tiller.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

I am talking about the Universe as a whole, if you want to debate why we have such a thing as cancer, then go ahead, I don't have all the answers, what I will say is that I am told we can beat cancer, it just needs funding, well guess what! We have the funds, we are fuckin!! minted, ask any Tory politician who has a hole in his pocket when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

I am talking about the Universe as a whole, if you want to debate why we have such a thing as cancer, then go ahead, I don't have all the answers, what I will say is that I am told we can beat cancer, it just needs funding, well guess what! We have the funds, we are fuckin!! minted, ask any Tory politician who has a hole in his pocket when it comes to weapons of mass destruction.

But what does "the Universe as a whole" even mean? Pictures from the Hubble telescope for example look pretty enough, but the reality of the places in the images is that they are either blisteringly hot or incredibly cold, or howling nightmares of savage forces deeply inhospitable to life. Or look at our planet specifically - over 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, and for most of those that survive life is almost unremittingly terrifying as predators hunt down and tear apart their prey, diseases eat away at them from the inside out, they struggle to survive the climate etc.

It's all every well to be panglossian about the bits that appeal and use that as evidence for a benevolent god, but it only works if you close your eyes to the overwhelming silent evidence that suggests that any god of the omnis would actually be a scummy one. 

   

[Alan Burns]

  Life is an inevitable consequence of natural law. 

This is an assumption with no evidence.  We have yet to find any sign of life outside our planet.  It will take much more than the presence of basic ingredients to create the abundance of life as we know it.  You need the master chef.

[Sebastian Toe]

Where have you shown that and you must be looking at a different Universe from the one I inhabit, this Universe is beautiful, it is all arranged to work, it is governed by four very simple laws, it is only man who complicates this very simple Universe in his ceaseless venture to know the mind of God.

Those laws all encompassed when a nearby star goes supernova and wipes out all life, anywhere, within 100 light years of it!

[Sebastian Toe]

It will take much more than the presence of basic ingredients to create the abundance of life as we know it.  You need the master chef.

as someone once said

This is an assumption with no evidence.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

This term "benevolent God" means nothing to me, as for what's out there, we, us humans only see a small fraction of what this Universe is or its potential, what I know, we are here, for all we know in some far flung galaxy more life is forming, or it could be that other more advanced life has formed, what we do know, a fact, this Universe is a life giving Universe, we are the evidence.

Adams puddle is a very big puddle, for all I know E.T is sitting in his own puddle thinking about the mystery of this life giving Universe, hell he may even worship the same God I worship.

Gonnagle.