Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[Zzyzx]

.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

One of the evidence is Law. Nature has laws and laws did not create nature, but a Creator predetermined its law.

It might be more accurate to say that nature / the universe operates in certain ways related to the characteristics, properties and interactions of matter and energy.

"Laws" are human statements attempting to understand the workings of nature / universe.

As it was said in the scriptures:

LEVITICUS 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle engender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

The injunction is not to mix because of a purpose. To the best of man.

Kindly identify the "purpose" of religious dictates in the following cases.

1) Crossing a horse and donkey (different species) produces a mule -- a useful animal. Crossing a bison (Bison bison) with domestic cattle (Bos taurus), produces beefalo -- a fertile offspring that is useful as food.

2) Planting different crops in the same field, intercropping ("a multiple cropping practice involving growing two or more crops in proximity. The most common goal of intercropping is to produce a greater yield on a given piece of land by making use of resources that would otherwise not be utilized by a single crop."

3) Garments of mixed fabrics are often superior in durability and other properties to single fabric.

Nature is govern by laws but nature has not the capacity to formulate the law of nature. How can something that will exist, before its existence determine the law it will follow during its existence? Who ordained the laws of nature? That is a Creator who is superior in knowledge.

Humans presently do not know how "everything" originated or how life began. Some produce scientific theories based upon study of the real world " but clearly state that knowledge is provisional and subject to modification as new information becomes available.

Others claim to KNOW that a favorite proposed supernatural entity created "everything" " based upon study of unverifiable writings by ancient unidentified people " and maintaining that their "knowledge" about "creation" is not subject to change.

Which makes is more rational?

[KenRU]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

One of the evidence is Law. Nature has laws and laws did not create nature, but a Creator predetermined its law.

Why is it perfectly reasonable for you to accept the idea that god needs no creator, but natural laws do? Other than what the holy books say, why is god exempt from this logic?

If I may, .. I have presented the evidence of our Creator as the "Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", by showing that we man, who the Creator in the Bible claims have been created in our Creators Image have a mind that scientists now are trying to capture outside of the brain.

We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?

You have not presented evidence. You presented unverified claims and specious logic at best. I was curious as to dukenha's response.

That we have a mind is proof,

No it is not. Sentience is not proof of a creator, no matter how much you wish it to be.

and that scientists are spending billions trying to capture it is another proof, both that the mind is outside of the brain, and that it is a scientific endeavor.

I have shown that our mind is both Infinite and Eternal, which can create things within (because there is nothing beside the Infinite).

You cannot verify that the mind exists outside the brain. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite.

... yet the mind remains infinite proven by the fact that we can dream and create concepts both in size and in numbers that can go on throughout Infinity.

That we can create and dream already exists in nature in many forms. All evidence points to evolution (note I did not say anything about the Big Bang Theory) being the cause of animals (including us) being able to think and create.

This also proves that man (physical body with the breath of life, or spirit that gives it life) is created IN the Creators Image.

Unfounded conclusion, based upon ...what? No evidence provided for such a claim.

Logically a CREATOR would have to be un-created, with the ability to create anything and everything without any restrictions, which I have shown is the Mind, which is Infinite.

Why? If, by your logic, man creates and imagines (like god in your analogy above) and man was created, so why not god also being created? Your logic breaks down.

And all the different scientific studies and attempts to capture the 'mind' is another proof that it is outside, or besides the brain.

You were presented with proof showing the brain in a creative mode, in other words proof that the mind can create and it originates within the brain. Please present proof that the mind is outside the body.

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence of our Creator, but that man refuses to humbly accept it.

I submit that god then isn't trying hard enough. As you say, if it is easy for him to make a donkey talk, it should be even easier for him to show me he exists. Why not a little nudge when I was still unsure about my faith? And yet .... nothing.

The only thing undeniable here is that the proof IS scientific in its absolute meaning, but because man has Free will, and can do anything with his mind, he can also refuse the truth, or that there are absolutes, but cannot honestly deny it.

Your definition of proof is different than the scientific community's.

To deny the Creator, one has to deny the created,

If, by Created, you mean original thought, I disagree. I don't believe in god, and I do not deny original thought. It is completely compatible with how I see the world working.

.. and that is exactly what we have in this Big-bang Evolution fairytale. The word 'created' is slowly being removed from creation and replaced with: "It just happened!" Now how it happened is replaced with stories of assumptions which could never be proven since it happened billions of years ago. Hey, .. it's not the scientists fault for not being able to live for 14 billion years and to have observed and document the Big-bang,

The only assumption I see here is yours linking Big Bang and Evolution. This shows you don't understand either.

The circle continues ...

[dianaiad]

arian wrote:

Sorry but I placed my old buddy Clownboat on 'ignore' for now...

Moderator Warning


Do not make negative personal comments about posters on this forum. If you choose to put someone on your 'ignore' list, please do so without fanfare, notice...and especially without insults.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dukekenha]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

One of the evidence is Law. Nature has laws and laws did not create nature, but a Creator predetermined its law.

Why is it perfectly reasonable for you to accept the idea that god needs no creator, but natural laws do? Other than what the holy books say, why is god exempt from this logic?

My basis of God is in the scripture. In the scripture God is the Creator it doesn't say that He is a creature. In the scripture, worshiping a creature would be a lie. So scriptural speaking God is not a creature, but as you say other than the scripture what the logic is? Can I also ask other than the books that you read, what is the logic that there is no Creator?


Big Bang a large pack of "nothing", suddenly "decided" to pack tightly together. Where is the logic of nothing deciding? But your question is on logic about God or a Creator. Let me set my side.


A "computer" - Computer manage almost everything in the world. Our conversation is at the mercy of a computer, banking system, manufacturing, market... etc. Practically computer manage the entire world right now. You can store a large amount of memory to a computer, but there is no way for a computer to analyse why it exist as we have the capacity to know why and how we exist. Unless someone told us that we were. Now the question is the credibility of who told who. No atheist in this world would believe that the computer pack themselves together and the computer were made. There is a creator or an engineer or a designer of the computer and that is also my logic that there is a Creator.

[Danmark]

My basis of God is in the scripture. In the scripture God is the Creator it doesn't say that He is a creature. In the scripture, worshiping a creature would be a lie. So scriptural speaking God is not a creature, but as you say other than the scripture what the logic is? Can I also ask other than the books that you read, what is the logic that there is no Creator?

That your evidence is what the bible says is exactly why your 'evidence' fails. The words of the Bible are taken as absolute truth by a certain fraction of Christians which in turn comprise a fraction of other religious people, among whom are millions who don't believe that 'scripture,' but believe another. THen there are millions, billions more who don't believe anything just because it is written down and proclaims itself to be from a god.

Since the bible is full of self contradictions and claims that any schoolboy knows falsely misrepresent the natural world, AKA 'reality,' to claim something is true just because 'the bible tells me so' is not persuasive.

For many, one of the issues is to what extent the Bible reflects what actually makes sense or otherwise corresponds to reality and natural phenomena. We do not start from the point of view that the Bible absolutely represents truth simply because it claims to be self authenticating.

[dukekenha]

My basis of God is in the scripture. In the scripture God is the Creator it doesn't say that He is a creature. In the scripture, worshiping a creature would be a lie. So scriptural speaking God is not a creature, but as you say other than the scripture what the logic is? Can I also ask other than the books that you read, what is the logic that there is no Creator?

That your evidence is what the bible says is exactly why your 'evidence' fails. The words of the Bible are taken as absolute truth by a certain fraction of Christians which in turn comprise a fraction of other religious people, among whom are millions who don't believe that 'scripture,' but believe another. THen there are millions, billions more who don't believe anything just because it is written down and proclaims itself to be from a god.

Since the bible is full of self contradictions and claims that any schoolboy knows falsely misrepresent the natural world, AKA 'reality,' to claim something is true just because 'the bible tells me so' is not persuasive.

For many, one of the issues is to what extent the Bible reflects what actually makes sense or otherwise corresponds to reality and natural phenomena. We do not start from the point of view that the Bible absolutely represents truth simply because it claims to be self authenticating.

I'll give you one truth in the bible that can't be denied.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

With the advance technology today can anyone claim this to be wrong? Can anyone create a genuine hair? None that I know can, unless I missed it. Because definitely I need to add some of it to my head.

[Clownboat]

A "computer" - Computer manage almost everything in the world. Our conversation is at the mercy of a computer, banking system, manufacturing, market... etc. Practically computer manage the entire world right now. You can store a large amount of memory to a computer, but there is no way for a computer to analyse why it exist as we have the capacity to know why and how we exist. Unless someone told us that we were. Now the question is the credibility of who told who. No atheist in this world would believe that the computer pack themselves together and the computer were made. There is a creator or an engineer or a designer of the computer and that is also my logic that there is a Creator.

Hey dukekenha, did you know that computers don't self replicate like animals?
Do you know where your analogy fails?
Do I know what a rhetorical question is?

[Blastcat]

Since religion took over science, where all science is interpreted by and through the Big-bang Evolution religions indoctrination, you will most likely never hear a headline "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator", but you still have no excuse, because the evidence is right before you!

So, not only are most scientists in on the global conspiracy, but all the news media as well. Gotcha.

And since I have never seen, nor has anyone claimed to see things popping out of nothing and just creating itself, only can mean one thing; everything was created, even if we don't see them Japanese make the cars, .. most likely they too designed it like we do here in US.

You don't like the idea that things can pop out of nothing. I feel for you.
But just because you don't like some idea, means NOTHING about any other idea. Sorry, kid. That doesn't add up. You are making a huge non sequitur leap of logic that cannot be followed. Would you LIKE to make a reasoned argument?

So these religious people come up with some really laughable billions of years ago, before time existed, in a point in space before space existed and BANG! A Really BIG BANG stories and pass it off as scientific observation

So, no. You don't understand the science you want to talk about.

[KenRU]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

One of the evidence is Law. Nature has laws and laws did not create nature, but a Creator predetermined its law.

Why is it perfectly reasonable for you to accept the idea that god needs no creator, but natural laws do? Other than what the holy books say, why is god exempt from this logic?

My basis of God is in the scripture. In the scripture God is the Creator it doesn't say that He is a creature. In the scripture, worshiping a creature would be a lie. So scriptural speaking God is not a creature, but as you say other than the scripture what the logic is?

Thank you for the honest answer.

Can I also ask other than the books that you read, what is the logic that there is no Creator?

Sure, the logic is simple. There is no reasonable evidence to believe in such a being. In fact, science and evidence lends one to believe that the holy books are simply wrong about so many things.

Science is how one learns about the natural world, so without it, we would still be living in the dark ages or still worshipping Zeus.

In essence, I find it more reasonable to say, "I don't know" than to make unsupported leaps of logic.

Big Bang a large pack of "nothing", suddenly "decided" to pack tightly together. Where is the logic of nothing deciding? But your question is on logic about God or a Creator. Let me set my side.

I believe turnabout is fair play, so feel free to ask me my own questions. Nothing wrong with that : )

As for the Big Bang or the many other explanations on how everything started, honestly, I know not that much. I do know there are models that do explain "something from nothing" (as you say), and if I wanted to know more, I would pick up a book by Krauss (or another well trained physicist) and find out what the evidence is. Then I would make up my mind whether I believed it or not.

A "computer" - Computer manage almost everything in the world. Our conversation is at the mercy of a computer, banking system, manufacturing, market... etc. Practically computer manage the entire world right now. You can store a large amount of memory to a computer, but there is no way for a computer to analyse why it exist as we have the capacity to know why and how we exist. Unless someone told us that we were. Now the question is the credibility of who told who. No atheist in this world would believe that the computer pack themselves together and the computer were made. There is a creator or an engineer or a designer of the computer and that is also my logic that there is a Creator.

Why is evolution not sufficient enough to answer to the why? There is ample evidence to support it occurs.

Also, shouldn't we be the ones to give meaning to our lives?


All the best,

[arian]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

One of the evidence is Law. Nature has laws and laws did not create nature, but a Creator predetermined its law.

Why is it perfectly reasonable for you to accept the idea that god needs no creator, but natural laws do? Other than what the holy books say, why is god exempt from this logic?

If I may, .. I have presented the evidence of our Creator as the "Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", by showing that we man, who the Creator in the Bible claims have been created in our Creators Image have a mind that scientists now are trying to capture outside of the brain.

We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?

No, .. no sir I do not wish another go round, .. I'm getting dizzy. I was hoping to debate, you know where you prove to me where I am wrong, just as I prove to you where you are wrong, especially in your understanding of Infinite, Eternal, 'nothing', brain vs. mind, and the plethora of other definitions that you religiously (on faith alone, not on evidence) hold on to, which I explained exhaustibly to you (and others here)
Please forgive me, but I'm here to debate and have fun learning, not dancing in circles with you, .. even as tempting as that may sound.

You have not presented evidence. You presented unverified claims and specious logic at best. I was curious as to dukenha's response.

I did not answer for dukenha, he is more than capable to answer for himself. I responded to your comment.
"You have not presented evidence arian"
"We have already gone round in a circle numerous times, Arian. Did you fancy another go round?"

This reminds me of the recent Manny Pacquiao vs. Mayweather fight; "You lost graciously Manny, you did your best but Mayweather is just a better fighter than you. Want another go round, .. Mayweather is a better fighter than you, you getting our drift? .. better fighter, .. you tried your best, .. you keep going in circles Manny, that's practically is all you did because of your arm injury, .. you robbed your fans Manny, .. you just went round and round, .. and this Warning will cost you 5 million $$".

Now you see the similarity?
Arian claims "Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of The Creator", and after presenting hundreds of undeniable scientific evidences, "we are still waiting for evidence".

Next post should be something like; "Can the undeniable be denied?"

That we have a mind is proof,

No it is not. Sentience is not proof of a creator, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Yes sir, sentience is not proof of a creator;

Sentience: In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind.

Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained.

.. it says it right there, sentience will never be understood, .. subjective experiences will never be explained, .. so arian, do you really want another go round?

I don't think so, I realize it is futile to argue against blind faith.

and that scientists are spending billions trying to capture it is another proof, both that the mind is outside of the brain, and that it is a scientific endeavor.

I have shown that our mind is both Infinite and Eternal, which can create things within (because there is nothing beside the Infinite).

You cannot verify that the mind exists outside the brain. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite.

Ah.. but, .. but, .. yes sir, evidence of something that can never be understood, or could ever be explained can never be verified to exist outside the brain, .. got it.

(unless science downloads it on disk, puts it in a program where the individual can now live eternally outside the body/brain in a robot or a computer Matrix) Sorry again, I was just thinking aloud.

... yet the mind remains infinite proven by the fact that we can dream and create concepts both in size and in numbers that can go on throughout Infinity.

That we can create and dream already exists in nature in many forms.

Yes, I have read of the stories the 40,800 year old cave-paintings nature has created, many forms indeed.

All evidence points to evolution (note I did not say anything about the Big Bang Theory) being the cause of animals (including us) being able to think and create.

Yes, i understand, evolution happens whether or not the universe was created by a Big-bang, so the Big Bang eventually creating the Earth is not a necessary part of Evolution. If all we had was 'nothing', Evolution will still find a way, .. got that too, just as you guys taught me.

This also proves that man (physical body with the breath of life, or spirit that gives it life) is created IN the Creators Image.

Unfounded conclusion, based upon ...what? No evidence provided for such a claim.

I explained this in detail remember, .. many times. Observing the created creator man reveals two things;
1. there is a physical/biological element, and
2. there is a spiritual, limitless, unmeasurable element, the mind.

Upon analysis we notice that the physical body responds to the spiritual commands of the mind. Stephen Hawking's is a good example what dominates, or rules, but I know, .. I know, no evidence provided.

Logically a CREATOR would have to be un-created, with the ability to create anything and everything without any restrictions, which I have shown is the Mind, which is Infinite.

Why? If, by your logic, man creates and imagines (like god in your analogy above) and man was created, so why not god also being created? Your logic breaks down.

No, my logic never past stage one with anyone here, even though I explained it many times remember, in the difference between the Creator and the created creator. But we would have to pass the "ladder going into infinity being called an infinite ladder (numbers, sets, etc), or the universe expanding into infinity being called Infinite.
Or the hands on a clock rotating keeping time throughout eternity being called Eternal clock.

And all the different scientific studies and attempts to capture the 'mind' is another proof that it is outside, or besides the brain.

You were presented with proof showing the brain in a creative mode, in other words proof that the mind can create and it originates within the brain. Please present proof that the mind is outside the body.

And remember I refused that 'brain created mind' as an erroneous claim, because the brain is connected to all the organs, muscles, extremities, which would mean that they too would have to have individual memory, to be able to reason and express their desires and send it to the brain. Like I said if the hand wanted to create something, it would have to tell the brain, and the brain would then have to summon all the other parts to help out the hand.

I'm sure they are NOT spending billion$ on such nonsense concept in the Blue-Brain Project and all those other 'Transhumanist' projects, .. or wait, .. are they? Oh my, what a waste of resources. I guess this is why they are exchanging human body parts with robotic parts. This way they can just put a central control with a program (brain) into each extremity, where the humanoid robot (or the downloaded human) could be watching a movie and the hands could be working away independently, like cooking, stirring the pot with one hand, and cutting up onions and getting all the other stuff ready with the other. While the legs could be performing different feats also at the same time, like playing the piano with the toes.
Heck, they could just make them detachable with its own wheels, so the other leg could take the dog out for a walk, while the other one is playing Mozart.

I said the mind is separate from the body, not actually outside of it. Also, because the mind is spirit, you could put a thousand minds/spirits into a body.

The problem is not that there is not enough evidence of our Creator, but that man refuses to humbly accept it.

I submit that god then isn't trying hard enough. As you say, if it is easy for him to make a donkey talk, it should be even easier for him to show me he exists. Why not a little nudge when I was still unsure about my faith? And yet .... nothing.

That's exactly how I used to think, until I realized that He was always 'nudging' me, and He is also nudging all of us. Only it's not to a point to interfere with our free will, that would be annoying. Even though God is not pushy, He gets blamed for it anyways, even from those that swear up and down that God does not exist.

Oh yea, .. maybe you're waiting for a physical nudge? He used to do that too, only people were terrified of Him. So now (after He sent His Son to reveal God to us) He comes to those that seek Him in their mind, with their mind, .. or that 'Newness of their mind', this way the experience is delightful and productive, and not frightening.

The only thing undeniable here is that the proof IS scientific in its absolute meaning, but because man has Free will, and can do anything with his mind, he can also refuse the truth, or that there are absolutes, but cannot honestly deny it.

Your definition of proof is different than the scientific community's.

I don't know, I don't see it much different then quantum theory, or those other Eastern religions, except my definition includes the universe as a whole, the physical and the spiritual. Just like our human body, even though we too are creators, created in Gods image, I can understand the difference between the Infinite Creator and the finite created creator man, as I have explained hundreds of times.

Yes, it is very different then the scientific communities, since science observes the world around them, but completely ignore the spiritual part, the most important part, and the Bible explains this;

1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy[d] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Just look how long we can debate, .. yet we never even seen each other, it's all done with our mind/spirit.

To deny the Creator, one has to deny the created,

If, by Created, you mean original thought, I disagree. I don't believe in god, and I do not deny original thought. It is completely compatible with how I see the world working.

Yes, .. you are correct that you only see the world, like you can only imagine the brain, .. and you are OK with that. Just like Newton's gravity, people have lived out many generations before gravity was identified, and if we took the word gravity out of the universe, what would change?

Describing gravity is only useful, or of any worth to those that work with it, consider it, use it, .. the same with God. People can go on living without the knowledge of God,

.. and that is exactly what we have in this Big-bang Evolution fairytale. The word 'created' is slowly being removed from creation and replaced with: "It just happened!" Now how it happened is replaced with stories of assumptions which could never be proven since it happened billions of years ago. Hey, .. it's not the scientists fault for not being able to live for 14 billion years and to have observed and document the Big-bang,

The only assumption I see here is yours linking Big Bang and Evolution. This shows you don't understand either.

The circle continues ...

For the life of me I don't see how the gasses that you guys claim evolved our universe and Earth within the 14 billion years cannot include biological evolution?
When you say 4.5 billion years ago that life appeared on earth, is that 9.5 billion years 'after the Big-Bang'? Or it really has no connection with the expansion and the evolution of the universe? Like could we say; "2 billion years after the Big Bang biological life appeared and time passed at different speeds for the universes evolution and biological evolution, and that's why it is not a good idea to conflict the two?