External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

lovelylil

Tuesday,
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that the fact the universe had a beginning "or cause" conclusively proves the cause was the God of the Bible. I am saying the fact that the universe had a beginning proves it had a "cause" and I believe this cause IS the God of the Bible. Why? Because since the universe had a beginning "cause", and science does not yet know for sure what the cause was, the God of the Bible cannot be ruled out as the cause.
So, in that repect we are on the same page. Because you cannot rule God out, anymore than I can rule him in.
Athiests believe a God simply is not possible. But I say that If he cannot be ruled out, he IS possible. That is the only point I was trying to make in the onset of this discussion. I knew I would not be able to "prove" God to you.
For the believer other things are taken into consideration such as faith, personal experience with God, understanding the Bible, etc. and these are things you will not accept as evidence. So if you will only let us present your "approved" evidence and these other things are evidences we possess, how can we convince you of anything?
The only reason why I went along with this mental excercise is so that you and others can see that we believers are not all morons who cannot understand the reality around them. Or, who are emotional people only that do not understand facts. I understand scientific facts very well. If there is a beginning, there is a cause, if the cause cannot be proved positively to be something other than God, then God as the cause IS possible. So believing God is possible makes scientific sense and is not just nonesense as some claim it to be!
Anyway, enough time on this.
I worked all night and have not slept yet. Hopefully this information will be useful for someone. Peace to you my friend. And thank you for explaining your side without all the name calling and put downs I am used to getting from the athiests on this board.
We will probably always disagree, but I really do respect you as a person. And I respect your right to not believe in a God. So I promise that when you come to visit in May, I will not tie you up to the chair, read bible verses to you, or throw holy water on you, o.k?
Well maybe just a few drops of water for good measure. LOL. Peace, Lilly
lovelylil

ham,
In no way by saying God is the cause of the universe am I saying that God participates in his own creation. Because God IS the Creator, he himself was NOT created. He has no beginning or end and transcends time and space as we humans know it. The only things that have "causes" are things that have beginnings. God did not have a beginning.
God caused the universe to come into existence, hence God's name Jehovah means "causes to become". Since we do not know exactly "what" God is, or how he sustains the universe, we cannot fully understand what his being "dynamic energy" means. But I was in no way implying that he used this dynamic energy to create himself. More like to "sustain all things" by being "in" and "thru" all things. Peace, Lilly
Tuesday

Alrighty well I have to be quick because I need to throw some purple streaks in my hair before my show tonight but I find myself compelled to comment.
The problem with the cause and effect analogy is that you're taking it into account for the universe but throwing it out for God. Science states that the universe had a beginning, but it also states that everything has a beginning. If I may use your quotes
I am saying the fact that the universe had a beginning proves it had a "cause" and I believe this cause IS the God of the Bible. Why? Because since the universe had a beginning "cause", and science does not yet know for sure what the cause was, the God of the Bible cannot be ruled out as the cause.
That's the proof of God using the Cause and Effect...
In no way by saying God is the cause of the universe am I saying that God participates in his own creation. Because God IS the Creator, he himself was NOT created. He has no beginning or end and transcends time and space as we humans know it. The only things that have "causes" are things that have beginnings. God did not have a beginning.
And here you throw out that same proof in the case of God. That's a logical fallacy called Cherry-Picking the evidence. Either cause and effect applies to everything in the universe or it doesn't. You seem to say that I have to disprove this cause and effect to show there is no God, but when the same principle you're applying to the Universe then applies to God it can be thrown out. It's either one or the other, you can't have it both ways.
For the believer other things are taken into consideration such as faith, personal experience with God, understanding the Bible, etc. and these are things you will not accept as evidence. So if you will only let us present your "approved" evidence and these other things are evidences we possess, how can we convince you of anything?
I didn't arbitrarily choose the things I did in order to inhibit you. Faith is Faith, Faith is strong and there's no rhyme or reason behind it, you have faith because you do. People have faith in lots of things, it doesn't prove anything. Personal Expirience with God is the same thing, why should I accept the personal expirience of someone with a Christian God any more than I should accept the personal expirience of someone with Allah, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Baal, etc. Personal expirience is subjective, it's basically assuming that someone can't have a personal expirience of something which draws them to a conclusion and that conclusion is wrong. Once again this is a board of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses I'm sure they'll tell you that they've had personal expiriences that brought them to a completely false conclusion. It doesn't mean a thing. Understanding the bible, that means that I have to discard other Holy Works and only accept yours as truth, and we could be here all day discussing the meanings of various passages, contridictions and so forth, we both were in the same faith, I spent 20 years in it, I guarantee I can make just as many points using the bible as you can. It was External, Observable, Verifiable, none of the things you've listed can be considered as such. Sorry, just isn't going to do it no matter how many appeals to emotion or otherwise you would use.
The only reason why I went along with this mental excercise is so that you and others can see that we believers are not all morons who cannot understand the reality around them.
I'll state for the record I do not think you are a moron, or any believer for that matter.
I understand scientific facts very well. If there is a beginning, there is a cause
Unless we're talking about God, then you throw out that proof. And the proof God didn't have a beginning is because the Bible said so. External, Observable, Verifiable.
if the cause cannot be proved positively to be something other than God, then God as the cause IS possible.
Many things are possible, insert any imaginary all-powerful, omnicient being into the equation. There are lots of possiblities, it doesn't mean that God is the right one. Once again I'll bring the First Law of Thermodynamics, it always was there. If you want to say that God is energy or matter, it also means we are all God because we are matter and energy. I didn't think the point of the bible was to worship myself though.
Peace to you my friend. And thank you for explaining your side without all the name calling and put downs I am used to getting from the athiests on this board.
I figured since I don't like being called names you wouldn't either. If there were name-calling and so forth I'm sure this dialogue would've ended alot sooner.
I will not tie you up to the chair, read bible verses to you, or throw holy water on you, o.k?
Well maybe just a few drops of water for good measure.
That is hilarious, if the water starts boiling we're all in for trouble
lovelylil

Tuesday,
Oh no..........I read your last post again and you are mistaken about something. The first law of thermodynamics ( I looked it up) is that "something cannot come from nothing". If that is the case then niether matter nor energy could have always existed like you claimed in your last post. Because the matter and energy must have come from something.
Matter and energy if it came from something, then also had a beginning, and if "they" had a beginning,which thermodynamics says they must, (something cannot come from nothing) they must also of had a cause, (cause and effect) and now, we are back to square one. Good thing I took a second look before my nap.
I now have 2 scientific principles to back up my theory of God. Thanks for the 2nd one.
All three, matter, energy and the universe Must of had a beginning, and thus a cause to come into existence. Mankind's science proves this statement as fact. But scientists admit that current science does not explain what the "cause" was. So they must stop at this point and cannot exclude that God is that "cause".
Since we cannot turn to science to find the "cause", we must turn to another source. And this source is the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". So the "cause" according to the Bible is God. Since no contrary evidence from science can be advanced to prove God cannot be the cause for the universe, then the Bible's claim must stand.
We can pick up after my nap, if I am up too late and have to work, we will pick it up tomarrow. Peace, Lilly
lovelylil

btw: do not say the big bang is proof of how the universe came into existence. It is not according to scientists themselves. The big bang does not explain the 'origin" of the universe, it only explains the expansion of the universe. In order to see what was there before the big bang, you would have to go back into time to the beginning of the universe. Lilly
BurnTheShips

These threads are such a waste of time.
hamilcarr

lovelylil,
I'd like to say I appreciate your comment, but I wonder, do you also think these threads are a waste of time?
regards, hamilcarr.
lovelylil

ham,
I think these threads a an intellectual excercise. Once in a while, I like to do threads like this. In one way, I get to learn what others believe and understand their views better and why they hold to thier view. Also, as a Christian, I learn how to make a defense for my beliefs. This is important because we are often Q about why we believe what we do. Some think we are foolish and do not understand science and the world as well as they do. I personally feel you can be intellectual, understand science well and still be a Christian. Peace, Lilly
Tuesday

I'm going to apologize in advance to everyone here if what I type doesn't make perfect sense. I got kicked in the head rather hard at my show yesterday and knocked out for a good 10 seconds. Concussion number 9 for me...
For everyone who thinks this is a waste of time, it basically is an exercise. I'm trying to show that there is no External (oustide the bible), Observable (seen with the naked eye or with use of an enhanced machine), or verifiable (can be proven through expiriments or otherwise) proof of God. In essence it either falls in the terms of faith in which you believe what you believe because you believe it, or in the God of the Gaps principle which is basically "we don't know the answer so I insert God there". Lil is using the second God of The Gaps principle here mostly in that I cannot rule out God because no one knows the answer. To me not knowing the answer doesn't make it God, it could equally make it God, Allah, Vishnu, Odin, Zeus, Hercules, Hera, The Great Spirit, Steven Speilberg, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Seth Green, a giant taco that poops ice cream, etc. You can't rule any of those choices out either because it's the God of the Gaps...no one knows the answer so it could be any of those preceding answers. To respond to Lil's last post:
Oh no..........I read your last post again and you are mistaken about something. The first law of thermodynamics ( I looked it up) is that "something cannot come from nothing". If that is the case then niether matter nor energy could have always existed like you claimed in your last post. Because the matter and energy must have come from something.
No it doesn't, it actually says
a thermodynamic system can store or hold energy and that this internal energy is conserved. Heat is a process by which energy is added to a system from a high-temperature source, or lost to a low-temperature sink. In addition, energy may be lost by the system when it does mechanical work on its surroundings, or conversely, it may gain energy as a result of work done on it by its surroundings. The first law states that this energy is conserved: The change in the internal energy is equal to the amount added by heating minus the amount lost by doing work on the environment.
So it's about energy being conserved, I mistook this Law for the Conservation of Energy Law which says:
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in any isolated system remains constant but cannot be recreated, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy.
This is saying energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed, it can only be redistributed. The way you used it is somewhat misleading, "something cannot come from nothing" in a way that's what the law says but once again the principle is for God to have created them, but because "something cannot come from nothing" he must've used something to create it according to this principle. So if "something cannot come from nothing" where did God get the stuff he used (since energy can only be redistributed) to create the Universe, it must've already been in existence. Using your own words "something cannot come from nothing" the Universe is something, so what was in existance before the Universe was created that God used to (redistribute) create the universe. Then you can go one step further God is something, if "something cannot come from nothing" then what created God, what materials were in existence which created him. Then one step further since "something cannot come from nothing" what was in existence before to create the materials that created God. We can go on and on and on. "Something cannot come from nothing" only leads us to another answer of "no one knows".
Since we cannot turn to science to find the "cause", we must turn to another source. And this source is the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". So the "cause" according to the Bible is God. Since no contrary evidence from science can be advanced to prove God cannot be the cause for the universe, then the Bible's claim must stand.
This was another paragraph, once again this is EXTERNAL... you said in a previous post:
You wanted proof and I have kept it to science. It is a verifiable, external and observable fact that 'cause and effect" is a universal law and that if science says the universe had a beginning, which they say it did, then it must of had a cause.
Once again you have brought the bible into the discussion. Please stop, according to hieroglyfics in pyramids Ra created the universe, according to greek scrolls Zeus created the universe, according to Native American oral tradition the Great Spirit did, according to the Qu'ran Allah did, according to a thousand different written accounts of the creation of the universe a thousand different entities have created the universe. This is not an argument in who's mythology I should believe. If you want to debate that open a thread which says "The Bible is more accurate than all other ancient texts because..." I'm not interested in debating why your God is better than everyone else's God, or why your God "truly" created the universe instead of all the other dieties that supposedly created the universe. I'm interested in actual, factual, EXTERNAL, OBSERVABLE, VERIFIABLE evidence.
I'm not interested in God of the Gaps, "We don't know, so we can insert God here". There's a great quote that I've heard, and I'm sure someone here will know who said it "I'd rather have questions I can't answer instead of answers I can't question." There's no proof of why I should fill in God for the unanswerable question, so I don't. If there was actual evidence of WHY I should fill in God for the unknown answers in the universe then I would, but there isn't THEY'RE UNKNOWN. Unknown answers are unknown answers no matter how many things you want to plug into the equation. God is no more the answer than any of the ridiculous examples I have used previously. If you are going to continue to says "no one knows so I you can't rule out God" then I'm going to continue to say "no one knows because the answer hasn't been proven" and we're at an impass. You have shown that every effect (every existance) needs a cause (to which I say God is an effect and therefore would also need a cause to exist), and I have shown through 2 principles that energy cannot be created nor destroyed only redistributed (to which I say if this is the case where did the materials that were redistributed harvested to create the universe, and therefore where were the materials harvested that were redistributed to create God?). If you cannot answer these difinitively without using a "holy" book then we agree that "no one knows", no matter how you slice it there is no answer here. One more time, I am comfortable in saying "no one knows" the point of this post was to PROVE externally, observably and verifiably that the answer is God; the point of this thread is not to PROVE that BECAUSE no one knows it COULD BE God.
I'm sure we'll pick up tomorrow where the God of the Gaps is once again brought into play, Genesis 1:1 is quoted yet again or some other scripture, and I once again attempt to type with one hand because I'm using the other to ice the back of my head.
lovelylil

Tuesday,
I appreciate your replies.
The main reason why people like me continue to believe in God is this;
We are ALIVE and LIVE in this universe that current science says "had a beginning", if it began "something" caused it to begin. Because science says there must be a "cause" if there is a beginning. I know we are going in circles on this, but this is a main point for believers, what was this "cause?". Science readily admits, it does not know.
You may argue that energy was always here, but that still does not explain what set this energy in motion (expansion of the universe),which is "cause and effect" Nor, what harnessed this energy for use in bringing forth the abundance of different types of living forms that now exist on our earth. The chances of this happening on its own are astronomical, and science agrees "life cannot come from nothing" (or nonliving matter). This "evidence" points to some type of cause and "intelligence" really behind all living things.
And when you look at living things and how they are made, you cannot wonder about the intelligence in their design. If even a simple structure (say a house) must have a designer, how can a more complicated "thing" such as a human body not have one?
Some say this intelligence is in Nature, not God but then again, nature acts too within "laws of nature". Someone had to create laws for humans, so "who" or "what" created laws of nature? Since we need "intelligence" behind our laws, and we see intelligence behind natural laws, how can we think they came about on their own?
The biggest proof of God is everything around you; Paul used a similiar point to the men in Athens;
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
So forgetting the Bible for a minute, the ultimate proof of God you are seeking is in his creation. But since you do not accept "creation", God cannot nor will ever be proven to you. So we will just go back and forth on the same few points. However, Please think about this one thing, if you will and I will happily admit my defeat that I could not "prove" God to you.
This intelligence, or "cause", behind all living things and the universe, you are right to say May not have been God of the Bible. Although believers firmly disagree, you are entitled to your view also. But since science has never been able to fully rule out God, how can you and your fellow athiests, rule him out completely?
I guess its because not accepting God is a belief, that is as firm as the belief I have in accepting him? Anyway, since both sides are firm in their own belief system, the is there a God/ is there not a God is just an intellectual exercise. Since both sides are based on "faith" that what we believe is true, niether can provide any absolute evidence to convince the other.
Anyway, thanks for all your time. On to more topics now. Peace, Lilly
Here are 2 proverbs to ponder:
There is a Native American proverb that goes something like this: White men find God in words written down in books, WE find God in the air, rain and the trees.
This is my own personal proverb I recently wrote;
It is because the Bible can be interpreted in many different ways by many different people, that God in his infinite wisdom gave us an abundance of creation. So that despite man, we can still find our way to him. Lilly Cruz (written 2008)

External, Observable, Verifiable Evidence Of God...

Share this