A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

I note that again you have only assertions and equivocations. No evidence.

What do you want for evidence? Our own intelligence is in evidence. The information in the instructions of DNA is in evidence. The physics of our known universe is in evidence.

The evidence I was claiming is what God provides in the Christian conversion for the one believing according to God's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

[shunyadragon]

What do you want for evidence? Our own intelligence is in evidence. The information in the instructions of DNA is in evidence. The physics of our known universe is in evidence.

Our own intelligence is evidence of our own intelligence. The information in the instructions of DNA is evidence of the information in the instructions of DNA, and by the way evolution. The physics of our known universe is evidence of the nature of our universe. Nothing here represents any objective evidence for the existence of God.

The evidence I was claiming is what God provides in the Christian conversion for the one believing according to God's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

Your argument needs to be convincing and understandable, but at present it is not.

[JimL]

What do you want for evidence? Our own intelligence is in evidence. The information in the instructions of DNA is in evidence. The physics of our known universe is in evidence.

You're the one who claimed to know that god exists, that you're god exists. Belief in biblical proclamations is not knowledge of the truth of those proclamations, so your knowledge of gods existence doesn't come from the bible. So I guess the question is, what actual knowledge do you have, and how did you come by it?

The evidence I was claiming is what God provides in the Christian conversion for the one believing according to God's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

And no one is refusing to understand it, what we are asking you, is to tell us what it is. What is it that you say god provides to the converted in the way of evidence, or knowledge, of his existence?

[Roy]

I note that again you have only assertions and equivocations. No evidence.

What do you want for evidence?

Evidence.

Not assertions.
Not bait-and-switch.
Not logical fallacies.

Evidence.

The thing you keep claiming to have, but then back down whenever you are asked to provide it.

Our own intelligence is in evidence. The information in the instructions of DNA is in evidence. The physics of our known universe is in evidence.

Those things are in evidence, but they are not evidence for the Christian god.

The evidence I was claiming is what God provides in the Christian conversion for the one believing according to God's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

I'm not refusing to understand it, you are refusing to provide anything that I could understand.

You said you had evidence available to anyone. But when pushed, you admit your 'evidence' is only available to those who already believe.

That's bovine faeces.

Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it. If the evidence for your god is only available if you already believe in it, then your god is not real.


Also, you are still trying to use arguments that you yourself would not accept. Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favour, and before you post something like the above, try substituting an entity you don't believe in:

The evidence I was claiming is what Shub-Niggurath provides in the Azathothian conversion for the one believing according to Shub-Niggurath's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

If the resulting argument doesn't convince you, then the original argument isn't convincing either, and you should not bother posting it, as the only effect will be to waste everyone's time and tarnish your reputation.

[37818]

So the reason of your knowing is because the bible says so? Thats not knowing, thats believing! Btw, that passage also says that we live in him, which taken literally would mean we are one and the same thing as our cause. In other words it pantheism.

What is the Bible evidence of?

There are claims found in the Bible.
For example: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the law of the excluded middle, that one statement can only be either true or false.
It would be false if there is no God. And can only be true if there is God.
It presumes God and our universe would be the created evidence. And the universe is in evidence. I identify God to be uncaused existence.

The universe is caused, created and not God.

The primary evidence is the caused universe.

[JimL]

What is the Bible evidence of?

There are claims found in the Bible.
For example: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the law of the excluded middle, that one statement can only be either true or false.
It would be false if there is no God. And can only be true if there is God.
It presumes God and our universe would be the created evidence. And the universe is in evidence. I identify God to be uncaused existence.

The universe is caused, created and not God.

The primary evidence is the caused universe.

That the Bible presumes, doesn't make the presumption true, and beyond that, believing it to be true is not knowing it to be true. Your claim was that you KNOW, and the question is how do you KNOW, not why do you believe.

[shunyadragon]

What is the Bible evidence of?

There are claims found in the Bible.
For example: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the law of the excluded middle, that one statement can only be either true or false.
It would be false if there is no God. And can only be true if there is God.
It presumes God and our universe would be the created evidence. And the universe is in evidence. I identify God to be uncaused existence.

The universe is caused, created and not God.

The primary evidence is the caused universe.

This is not evidence, it is claim of belief.

[37818]

No, the effect, i.e. the caused thing, is temporal with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to its cause. Again, the stuff you are made of is eternal, even though its particular form, i.e. you, is temporal. Just as it is the case that something can not come from nothing, nothing can not come from something.

It is your nonsensical interpretation. What is finite and temporal is caused

[JimL]

It is your nonsensical interpretation. What is finite and temporal is caused

So thats how you know that God exists? Eternality ='s God?

[shunyadragon]

It is your nonsensical interpretation. What is finite and temporal is caused

True, but the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law may be eternal. A long history here where you have failed to support your assertions with objective evidence. You have not demonstrated that this is not possible. Still waiting . . .

[Roy]

Also, you are still trying to use arguments that you yourself would not accept. Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favour, and before you post something like the above, try substituting an entity you don't believe in:

The evidence I was claiming is what Shub-Niggurath provides in the Azathothian conversion for the one believing according to Shub-Niggurath's will. But hear is the rub, you cannot believe what one refuses to understand.

If the resulting argument doesn't convince you, then the original argument isn't convincing either, and you should not bother posting it, as the only effect will be to waste everyone's time and tarnish your reputation.

What is the Bible evidence of?

There are claims found in the Bible.
For example: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now the law of the excluded middle, that one statement can only be either true or false.
It would be false if there is no God. And can only be true if there is God.
It presumes God and our universe would be the created evidence. And the universe is in evidence. I identify God to be uncaused existence.

The universe is caused, created and not God.

The primary evidence is the caused universe.

What is Winnie the Pooh evidence of?

There are claims found in the Winnie the Pooh.
For example: Once upon a time, a very long time ago now, about last Friday, Winnie-the-Pooh lived in a forest all by himself under the name of Sanders.
Now the law of the excluded middle, that one statement can only be either true or false.
It would be false if there is no Winnie-the-Pooh. And can only be true if there is Winnie-the-Pooh.
It presumes Winnie-the-Pooh and a forest would be the residence evidence. And a forest is in evidence. I identify Winnie-the-Pooh as a resident of the forest.

The forest exists and is not Winnie-the-Pooh.

The primary evidence is the forest.

The Bible says god created the universe. The universe exists. Therefore God exists.
A.A.Milne says Winnie-the-Pooh lives in the forest. The forest exists. Therefore Winnie-the-Pooh exists.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot apply your arguments for God to Shub-Niggurath, Eledumare, Ptah or Winnie-the-Pooh?

[37818]

Well, I would disagree with the idea that our intelligence came "easily" from non-intelligence, but otherwise: yes. The fact that biology brought us to our current state does not imply that biology can therefore bring about any given state, with enough time.

Yes. But it also does not rule it out.

Claims about a "lack of evidence for God" are a whole different subject. We are talking about the idea that intelligence can arise from non-intelligent components. No one said that a lack of evidence for God implies that intelligence came from non-intelligence. We've said that biochemistry implies that intelligence comes from non-intelligent components.

Biochemistry is from chemistry from physics . . . . its cause. There is an underling uncaused order. Which is contingent on an uncaused existence.

When I was a Christian and believed that I had a personal relationship with God, I recognized that it would be impossible for me to "provide a non-Christian with the means to actually know from God Himself." When I was a Christian, I would have said that only God could provide such means to someone.

Well I contend that means is stated explicitly: ". . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, . . ." by Jesus Himself. -- John 7:17. Furthermore the writer John makes the argument, ". . . If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ." -- 1 John 5:9.

The problem is two fold for the non-Christian: Being willing to hear truth claims, and to be willing to do God's will. God does the rest.

One cannot begin to believe what one refuses to hear.

I see no reason to think that it is impossible. I just don't see any reason to think that human intelligence derive from some other source than nature.

Even assuming a TE, it would then be according to natural revelation (Psalm 19:1-2; Romans 10:17-18). The reason everyone has belief on the account of nature.

Who here has claimed that it "must not be impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence?"

No one has said so. My point of view is that it is impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. But it also does not rule it out.
Biochemistry is from chemistry from physics . . . . its cause. There is an underling uncaused order. Which is contingent on an uncaused existence.

Yes, there is an underlying uncaused order, and you have failed to provide any objective evidence that this must be God. The nature of our physical existence and Natural Law can possibly be eternal.

No one has said so. My point of view is that it is impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence.

You have failed to provide objective evidence for this assertion. The objective evidence demonstrates it is possible that intelligence can come from non-intelligence.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Yes. But it also does not rule it out.

If you want to argue that such an intelligence is possible, let alone likely, then you'll need to do better than bald assertion.

Biochemistry is from chemistry from physics . . . . its cause. There is an underling uncaused order. Which is contingent on an uncaused existence.

If it is physics which you think requires an underlying intelligence, rather than human intelligence directly requiring it, then why start this thread? Why not start a thread asking whether atheists think physics can come from non-intelligence?

Well I contend that means is stated explicitly:

So in order to know God, we have to trust Scripture. But in order to trust Scripture, we first have to believe God exists. Seems fairly circular, don't you think?

The problem is two fold for the non-Christian: Being willing to hear truth claims, and to be willing to do God's will. God does the rest.

Interestingly, it was precisely this willingness which led me to lose my faith in Christianity, so your claim seems empirically incorrect-- at least, in my case.

My point of view is that it is impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence.

Well, if you would like any of us to be convinced of this claim, you are going to need to argue for it, rather than baldly asserting it.

[37818]

I want to stop wasting time. Yet again you claim to have evidence of 'God', but you still haven't actually produced any.

The evidence is at least three fold: 1) A caused univese. 2) An uncaused cause. All causes are finite and temporal. An uncaused existence. What is uncaused is eternal. 3) God has and reveals Himself.

This universe is the primary evidence. The universe as we can observe it is finite and temporal and therefore caused. An infinite regress of causes and effects requires some kind of infinite past. An uncaued existence. What is uncaused needs no God. The uncaused existence is God's identity.

Item 3 is what you lack. My guess you do not have a clear understanding on how you personally know anything.