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?

[arian]

.

OK, so more are interested to hear and not just ZzYzx pulling my chain

Zzyzx can only pull chains if they are left dangling. Well secured chains or debate arguments do not leave loose ends.

Unless someone with ill intent puts some on us, right? It is possible.

so I repeat myself (and oh how everyone here knows I repeat myself) Like Master Spade said, I have claimed this a few times before, but actually I have explained it many, many times before, only to have you (unbelievers) refer to our "Creator" right back to the limited pre-programmed, indoctrinated world view as some old gray-haired bearded Deity who divines from the supernatural realm to a point of ad nauseam.

So if you keep referring to our Creator as the, or one of the created gods, I will stop this debate.

Threats (or promises) to stop a debate do not constitute a sound argument for anything.

If you ask me to get on the bike so we can go on a bike-ride, and then you start to lean way over on one side, then the other while I am trying hard to keep balance, I could just get off no? Why fight you, it gets tiring after a while!?

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be "the creator." Many believing that their favorite "god" created the universe does NOT make it true.

No it doesn't, that's why I asked that we keep religion with all their gods and proposed creators out of it.

None of the thousands of proposed "gods" have been demonstrated to be something other than a creation of human imagination. If you think otherwise, feel free to demonstrate which "god" created what and how that can be determined.

Please, please try to keep religions and their tens of thousands of gods out of it. If you have been so heavily indoctrinated that you can't, then I'm not going to debate with you. There are others here that seem to take me serious enough to hear me out, not continue with the same-o same-o gods/creators.

If you were a teacher/professor then I expect you to understand simple terms and their differences,

I credit fellow debaters and readers with ability to understand terms and differences (even beyond simple or simplistic) regardless of their profession.

So how is it that you keep going back to religiously created god/gods?
There is religion apart from god/gods, just as there is a God apart from religions that create god/gods.

and not make fun of my posts that I carefully, and most of the time go beyond my ability to express.

I do not intend to "make fun of" anyone's posts but I DO intend to challenge ideas presented that do not make sense or cannot be substantiated / verified.

You know I don't mind that, it is why we debate right? But when I talk outside of religious indoctrination and you keep referring/comparing what I say to other religions, it gets old.

It's like if I say "I am gay today"
you say: "Oh, I didn't know you were homosexual?"
"No, I sad I am gay today!"
"Oh, so you are a homosexual?"
"No, I said I was gay to day"
"Oh so you are a homosexual?"
"No, I said I am gay today"
"So you are a homosexual today, what about yesterday, were you hiding in the closet?"
"No, I said I was gay today, but you are ruining my joy"
"How can I ruin your joy if you admit to being a homosexual?"
"You know what, I am no longer gay, matter of fact I am getting upset! You ruined my gay moment."
"I'm sorry, I didn't mean to change you trans-gender homosexuality, I have nothing against homosexuals!"
"No, I said I was gay, that's all. But you ruined my gay moment"
"Oh I'm sorry, don't change your homosexuality because of me, Stay a homosexual, God hates homosexual so you should stay a homosexual, OK?"

To be continued, ..

The rest of your post is similar to my above example, and here is where I get off.

[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?

Hmm… if the Creator is real, then we should see things that he created. Allegedly he created Earth, animals and humans for example. If someone would see those things, then we would have some evidence, but apparently no one sees those so maybe we don’t have any evidence.

Yes, if they were as uneducated at Paul was. Paul thought that all of these things were "made" by a creator.

But today we understand how they all evolved. We understand how the earth evolved, not only as part of this solar system, but we even understand that the cloud of debris that formed our solar system had previously been a star that went nova. Otherwise the Earth wouldn't have any of the heavier elements.
So we know how the earth evolved and that it wasn't "made" by a designing creator.

We even understand how animals evolved on Earth and that Humans are just animals like all the other animals on Earth. Again none of this implies that any creator "made" these things.

"cloud of debris that formed our solar system from a star that went nova", and you seen this right? Not God a Creator, but stars going nova, .. got it.

Earth because of stars going nova, water, and biological life from stars going nova, everything except cars, or toasters, these things were carefully designed and created. All these things in the 13.75 billion year Big-banged universe 'evolved', .. and then we have all these things within the same time period, still without a Creator God that were carefully designed, .. got it DI.

So by your scientific Evolution theory, how much of the 13.75 billion year universal evolution evolved, and how much was carefully designed and created?

If a quantum speck of string can evolve an entire complex universe, then how come you guys claim it didn't evolve my toaster? Or my car from a nut? You even say that is impossible, and would be ridiculous to even suggest such a thing, .. toaster evolving. Supernova a planet like Earth into existence, .. hey no problem, but a toaster? Now that to you is ridiculous, right?

So lets see now;
The universe evolved, space evolved, time evolved, the stars evolved, the rock called earth evolved, water evolved, biological life evolved, single celled bacteria evolved, monkeys evolved, unimaginable amounts of atoms in hundreds of trillions of cells organized themselves and evolved human ape/chimps, and then evolution abruptly stopped when Ugg, cousin of Grog intelligently designed and created the first wheel.

Woe unto the earth and its inhabitants, the universe is no longer evolving because of Ugg the cousin of Grog. Now ape-man had no other choice but to take over evolution and start creating the Post-human ape man, spray the skies with chem-trails to force the Earth to evolve into Venus, and send thousands of nuclear bombs into space ready to explode it to protect us from the next human-ape/chimp extinction from our suns solar flare, while concoct a plan like Agenda 21 to kill 6.5 billion people and leave all white 500 million to keep the earth sustainable. I guess all white to help reflect our suns billions of year old deadly solar rays that's been devastating earth all these years, back into space so they could buy a measly few more billion years to live before total annihilation when our sun goes super nova also, swallowing everyone up.

Question: Will this event be the sign when evolution retakes its duty to evolve and release the evolution process from human/monkey apes? It is one hell of a job for white-man to keep the earth and the entire universe evolving properly! Damn Ugg the cousin of Grog for Intelligently Designing and inventing the wheel throwing all the responsibility of evolution upon white-man. Why couldn't they have just waited a few thousand years and evolution could have evolved the wheel herself!?

[Divine Insight]

I'll grant that by definition. The finite is not infinite. No problem there.

Excellent, so you understand and agree that when I say that my God the 'Creator' who is revealed scientifically in nature itself as we observe the world/universe around us, whether you believe the universe was created/evolved/poofed/hatched, that it is finite, and does not contain my God I am revealing to you who is Infinite, .. right?

I don't recall having ever agreed that the universe is finite. I have no clue whether the universe is finite or not.

I'm also not even sure what defines the "universe". I don't think that scientists know either. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the universe is finite.

Also, I may have spoken too soon in saying that there is a difference between the finite and the infinite by definition. When we think in terms of mathematics this is certainly not the case. For example, the set of natural numbers contains numbers, each of which is clearly finite. Yet the set itself is necessarily infinite. So here is a specific case where the finite becomes infinite naturally. But there is still a distinction be definition between what is finite, and what is infinite.

So my Infinite God, the God who is also revealed in the Bible is NOT part of the finite created/evolved/poofed/hatched physical universe, .. agreed?

Why should I agree to this?

You haven't even demonstrated that your God revealed in the Bible exists, much less that its infinite. Infinite in what way? What does it mean for God to be infinite?

So unless you can prove that I am revealing some finite, part of this universe physical god, or some created entities like angels or demons, He is not finite, .. agreed?

I reserve the right to decide that until after you have "revealed" a God.

Great, and I also agree that there is other definitions of 'time'. I understand this entropic time only relates to decay from something that was originally perfect and built to last throughout IN eternity.

I certainly don't agree that we can know this to be true, but I'll entertain the possibility that something eternal may indeed exist that gave rise to our physical existence. And our physical existence does appear to be finite. I'll grant this appearance as well. Even though we can't actually know this to be fact.

It could never be part of your 'evolving universe (Big Bang) theory since it effects the most quantum particles which observably have a very short lifespan. The universe had to be created without entropy time because even after only 6,000 years of its introduction, the universe with everything in it, stars, planets biological life is dying, falling apart, burning out.

Nothing you said in your above paragraph makes any sense to me at all.

I have no clue why you are suggesting that an eternal source of the universe could not have created the Big Bang to evolve precisely as we have observed this universe to have evolved. And over the time scales of billions of years.

I also see no justification for your claim that the universe had to have been created without entropy time. I also see no justification for your reference to 6000 years. And I see no justification for your claim about stars planets, and biological life falling apart. Sure stars are born and die all the time. Some stars are burning out, some stars are just being born, and clearly there are nebula and clouds of gas where new stars will form far into the future. These processes also take millions or billions of years, not merely 6000 years which would be a blink of an eye in cosmic time.

Our planet Earth contains heavy elements. Therefore some star had to have lived for millions or possibly billions of years before exploding and making heavy elements available for the Earth to form. Then it would have taken even many more millions of years for that material to form our sun and earth.

Clearly the universe is far older than 6000 years. The scientifically discovered age of about 13.7 billion years makes the most sense in terms of physics.

I don't see the importance of the term "religion" or "religious". I can accept your semantic meaning of the term 'religious' to simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully" if you like.

Exactly, .. so 'religion' does not automatically mean God/gods, agreed? Another words as you said; 'religious' can simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully", but somehow God/gods were erroneously introduced to mean 'religion', like homosexuality was tagged to 'gay'. Agreed?

I don't know why you are even talking about the term "religion".

Aren't you supposed to be making a case for the Biblical God?

Again, in another words I could say: "I feel very gay today" which today with these confusing terms could mean two things, either that I am happy, or that I feel like a homosexual to day, .. right? But the true meaning of being gay is happy. Another words if I was dying of AIDS and said; "I feel like a homosexual today!" would not necessarily be understood that I was happy/gay.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with a supposed proof of the Biblical God.

Again, I am here to reveal scientifically and philosophically "My God of the Bible" NOT that I am here to reveal Bible-God. There are literally tens of thousands of churches dedicated to that, and they each define the God of the Bible within their own religious doctrines. God is real, the Creator of all that is visible and invisible. Both powers, principalities AND the universe/world we observe through science, and it is This God that I am revealing. I am not debating religion here, or whether or not my God is more real than the other gods in other religions.
No religion, please.

Fine. So are you ever going to get around to "revealing" this God that you claim has nothing to do with religion?

So far I haven't seen anything "revealed".

I am here to reveal to you God, the Creator of all things. I read this Book called the Bible, and by George it is the very God I imagined. Only this God whom I imagined as the Creator seems to have sent messages through some people which they recorded in there. The message must be from My God as I have imagined Him, because everything that I understand in there makes perfect sense. The history with all those nations coming and going makes sense, the perfect creation makes sense, the fall and the introduction of entropy/decay and death makes sense, man created from dust and back to dust he goes makes sense, .. so I am convinced by all that verifiable evidence in the Bible that the God of the Bible is God, the Creator of all things.

The fact that you have been convinced by Hebrew mythology that some God exists does has not "revealed" anything to me other than the fact that you appear to be easily impressed by Hebrew mythology. I have read Hebrew mythology too and I am not impressed.

In fact, I am extremely convinced that it is indeed nothing more than man-made superstitious mythology. It isn't even moral, IMHO.

So do you have something to "reveal" or not? So far I haven't seen where you have revealed anything.

So my quote from Wikipedia about the Higgs boson doesn't sound like 'true logical science to you'?

What I said was,

That dosen''t sounds like "true logical science" to me. Especially concerning your comment: "And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory."[/quote]

My comment was regarding something they never observed through science, but just imagined by God knows what, yet 40 years later they claim they found it, and it is everywhere, only they still don't know if 'multiple Higgs boson's' exist or not? I agree, it doesn't sound very scientific at all.

Actually in Quantum Field Theory the Higgs "boson" is a disturbance in field. It's not actually a particle. They call it a "particle" because that's a hangover from tradition. The field can act like a particle in certain situations.

It's extremely scientific.

I don't believe that any attempt was made to find something that wasn't there. Many physicists would be just as happy without a Higgs particles. Also the Big Bang theory is not dependent upon the Higgs particle. However, the Higgs particle does fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics so I'm quite sure that many physicists are pleased to see it found.

That's right, if I was to take science and become a Physicist, and proved that the Higgs boson is a fairytale like 'special relativity is', it would not change or effect the Big-bang Evolution theory, which was also invented hundreds of years ago by a religious Priest/Monk.

So you don't believe in Special Relativity either? Does this also conflict with your God of the Bible?

Why do you feel that science has to be all wrong? You seem to be implying that science must be all wrong in order for the God of the Hebrew Bible to be true.

If that's the case then you aren't doing very well at "revealing" this God. Instead all you are doing is confirming that it most certainly does not exist.

Why?
Because it was invented and created by religion, by religious people believing in their own versions of god/gods. These are all inventions to distract people from the actual Creator, you know, .. in case Catholism failed or something. And as we all know by now, that religions that are involved in gods do not vanish or change easily because of all the diversions they create to defend their religion, .. Like the Trinity Doctrine for example.

With all due respect you're starting to sound extremely paranoid that everyone, including Christians and religious people are out to purposefully distract people away from God. Why should that be?

I also don't understand how any of this is going to relate to evidence for THE Creator. What difference would it make whether the creator had used a Higgs field or not?

I agree absolutely. God could have created the Universe with a Big-bang, using a Higgs boson, or a quantum string, or hatched an egg, or , .. whatever, but I have read as much as I could, and our Creator God is somehow not part of these religions like the big-bang theory, Evolution theory. And if you listen to the Priest/prophets of these theories like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking for instance, they are actually very clear against any Creator-God concept. One even calls it a delusion.

Fine. So, are you going to "reveal" your God of the Bible or just rant about people who evidently have a bone to pick with?

Also, the Bible doesn't mention any chaotic purposeless accidental creation of the universe, but quite the opposite, it reveals a planned, designed creation with intent and purpose.

So what? It also describes an mentally and emotionally unstable God who failed to solve every problem he ever attempted to solve. And for someone who is supposed to be infinitely wise and infinitely intelligent why does he insist on using barbaric tactics similar to those used by the ancient cultures that actually wrote the Biblical myths?

As far as I'm concerned that's all the proof we need to know that there is no intelligent God associated with the Bible.

Have you ever noticed that nothing this God has ever done in the Bible has ever solved a problem?

So we have Bible History, and stories made up from observing dried bones, bird watchers, and different fossils with some details thrown in there from 'cave-paintings'.
Again, I am not here to debate religions and their gods, or creation stories, but to reveal our Creator God to you.

And I'm still waiting on that. Do you ever plan on actually doing this, or are you just blowing a lot of hot air because you enjoy typing?

I haven't heard anything even remotely convincing yet.

I would imagine you have an argument along those lines, but at the current time there's certainly no indication of how the Higgs (or the absence of the Higgs) is going to be evidence or not of a God.

I was setting the stage, to differentiate between the reality I am proposing verses creation/creators created by religions outside of actual scientific observation.

You haven't convinced me that there is anything wrong with the current findings of science. Thus far you seemed to have simply ranted about it in the same way that you ranted about religions and religious people trying to lead people away from God, and that you don't think much of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

The Bible does not = religion. It reveals religious practices, laws, doctrines, and how religion can never reveal God to a person.

Fine. So are you ever going to keep your promise to reveal God to me, or are you just leading me on with no intention of ever following through?

Also, .. people can create a religion out of a piece of carved wood, right? Or a tennis ball and racquet as I have shown. I am still hoping to set ground rules, not by hearsay, or what's popular today like gay meaning homosexuality, but a fresh logical start eliminating thousands and thousands of years of religious doctrines and their destructive influence on the truth.

Ground rules?

I thought you were going to reveal the God of the Bible?

You don't need any rules. Just state your case.

I need your imagination DI, I really love your powerful imagination. But let's not have religious doctrine whether science fiction, or gods, to fog what we are aiming at, the absolute truth. Let's start with a clean sheet, using everything we have learned so far using proper meanings instead of what is popular now.

With all due respect Arian, I would appreciate it very much if you would take a crash course on writing. At least in terms of HOW TO STATE YOU POINT CONSISELY.

In all of your ranting in this post you haven't even remotely suggested an revelations that might reveal the existence of any God, much less the God of the Bible.

Is this the "Specific God" that you are calling THE Creator?

Yes sir, I am talking about the 'Creator', but we have to agree on certain things first, like that the brain does not create the mind. That it is the mind that controls the brain, and reads the info the brain is sending, and then analyzes it and responds accordingly.

I have no problem with that fantasy. I'll even grant that there could be physical reasons to back that up. However, those physical reasons require that we are this mysterious being that we call "God".

I don't know if you realize this, but a God that is totally separate from us is far more complicated than a God-concept like is proposed in Eastern Mysticism.

That would require that we are actually "individual spiritual souls" that are not only separated from each other, and separated from God, but also separated from physical reality. With all due respect that's a hell of a lot of separating.

Moreover, if we are conscious entities that are totally separate from God, then clearly we are just as sovereign as God is. Otherwise we couldn't be separate from God and still exist. The whole scenario of a "personified egotistical Godhead" that is completely separate from us is flawed in major ways.

For example, the mind creates an electrical impulse to the brain to lift the persons hand, right? The brain responds. But we can do the same to another person, surgically remove his scull-cap and administer a small charge to that part of the brain and he lifts his arms, .. correct?

Yes that's correct. But just because this can be done doesn't mean that the mind is separate from the brain. It simply means that the brain can be forced to do things whether it wants to or not.

I mean, you give the example of placing an electrical charge to part of the brain forcing the body to lift an arm. But really that's not much different simply physically grabbing your arm and forcing you to raise it. In both cases your free will is being overridden. Neither case proves, nor even indicates that the mind cannot be a product of the brain.

You see, the brain does not create that charge, the mind does. Or another person. The brain just reacts to the minds instruction, and other times the mind receives and reads the brains activity like sensory perception. "Ooh, that's smooth', or 'Ouch, that's sharp!'

This doesn't mean that the mind can't still be a function of the brain.

If you've read many of my posts you should understand by now that the important question is not what is "controlling" the brain but rather what is it that is having an experience?

This question remains even with the idea of a God that is totally separate from us. If we are a "soul" that is separate from God, then it must be this soul that is having an experience. The problem here is that this "soul' must then be as sovereign as God in terms of it being an individual entity that is capable of having an experience.

These religions that have an external Godhead that is totally separate from us do not resolve this problem. On the contrary, they actually make the problem far more complicated.

You've already mentioned the Higgs boson. So you're going to work up from the Higgs Boson and show that the God of the Bible has to be true?
Personally I think you've got one whale of a job cut out for you.

Just as you couldn't build an entire car from a single bolt, you could never create an entire complex universe from a speck of quantum string, from a gravitational wave, or a Higgs boson.

Actually this isn't true. Quantum Field Theory is far more interesting and dynamic that you apparently realize.

I was pointing out how ridiculous 'Creators' religions could create, before they even see a hint of evidence of their creator. Religion can take an entire universe and take one real or imaginary speck from it like this Higgs boson and say; "Here is the Creator of the universe! It created all this we observe through science by no will or plan, but created itself the very space it supposedly expands into. Oh yea, it only created the space it will need to create galaxies and everything else we observe in the universe today within itself. Where this universe is expanding is almost never talked about. The best answer so far; "It is not expanding into anything", and this has sufficed since the invention of the Big-bang theory, since everyone seems to be suffering from religious-phobia; "ask not, question not!" Or suffering from 'heavy indoctrination'.

Other than to demonstrate your lack of understanding of just how rich physics truly is, you haven't done much in this paragraph.

And you have certainly don't NOTHING toward revealing any God. Especially not the God of the Bible.

But taking it one step at a time, I hope you're going to make a case for why there needs to be a Creator of any kind at all. And I imagine this is going to have something to do with the Higgs Boson, otherwise why bother to even mention the Higgs Boson?

Why the need for a Creator? Well it just seems that all we humans ever do is contemplate, plan, design, create. I mean I know enough about computers to know the work that goes into even the simplest apps on our phones, and some are truly amazing. I also worked as a CNC Machinist, and just to machine an impeller, it takes dozens of engineers, programmers, brilliant machinists to set up and make those programs work creating some truly amazing parts for the Jet Engine. So I don't know, but just maybe observing ourselves always dreaming up concepts, then watching ourselves creating all the time may have been the cause for the idea of a 'Creator'. We humans create, then who created us and the things we didn't, you see what I mean?

Yes I do see what you are saying. And I have argued many times that this universe seems to be quite profound for having just been an accident that happened to evolved into sentient creative beings such as us.

However, this is not proof that a God exists. After all, if a God exists surely it would be far more intelligent and creative than us. Therefore we must apply the same reasoning to it. How could it have come to be if it hadn't been "designed".

That argument seems to fail when taken to the ultimate conclusion. And I tend to agree with the secular atheists on that one. Something had to be first, why not us?

But secondly, this line of reasoning would never point to the God of the Bible anyway. The God depicted in the Bible is anything but creative. Everything he is said to have done is extremely mundane, and pretty much par for the course as ancient mythologies go.

The very idea of being appeased by blood sacrifices is a very common superstitions common to almost all ancient god myths. Nothing creative there.

Having a demigod son to a virgin human female is also old hat in terms of ancient mythologies. That was even done in Greek mythology long before Christianity.

I don't see a particularly creative God in the Bible.

I don't see animals worry about things like that, it seems to be a human problem only; "Hmm, .. I just have this deep-gut feeling someone like us created us and everything we didn't?" I mean come on DI, you never get this feeling? If not, can you explain why not?

Sure, I've had those thoughts. But again, nothing that would point me to the Bible. In fact, when I think about an intelligent God I typically think of one that would be far more intelligent than the Bible. Nothing in particular. Just my own abstract intuition. But then if I go read the bible my very first thought is, "This book is not describing the God I had intuitively imagined."

I have no problem with a God existing. In fact, if a genuinely intelligent God actually exists I can't imagine that God having any gripes with me. There is absolutely no reason why a seriously intelligent God who is compassionate, understanding, and loving, should have any bone to pick with me.

On the contrary I would imagine that such a God would be well-pleased with me.

So I have no problems with a truly decent God existing.

I just don't see that scenario in Hebrew Mythology.

The Bible mentions this guy named Abraham, who didn't have the Bible, yet as he observed nature, the best answer he came up for the universes, the earths and natures existence was an all powerful Creator God. So I guess I am not alone on this crazy idea that since we man create, there must be a Creator who created everything we didn't. And this deep rooted feeling seems to be mutual with both the learned (literate) and the unlearned (illiterate) from the deserts, to the deepest jungles, they all seem to look up towards Heaven and give thanks to some imagined form of God or gods.

I have no problem with you believing in a God. Why you want to believe in Hebrew mythology is beyond me. But if you think you can make something positive out it for yourself that's fine.

In the meantime I don't see where you have "revealed" any God to me. Nor have you said anything that would convince me that Hebrew mythology describes a viable creator.

Those that make themselves believe they are wise, create another form of Creator, they imagine some idea, and they get together every day, for hundreds of years and build on these ideas so religiously, until they finally convince themselves that this whatever like the Higgs boson for instance, that it created the universe. That IT is the Creator. Now of course, this takes a lot of faith based on faith alone. Like you guys told me many times; "Even if the BB theory is false, Evolution happened."

I'm not aware of anyone who suggested that a Higgs particle created the universe.

I also don't understand why a God couldn't have created the universe using a big bang. Doesn't the Bible itself say, "God said let there be light and there was light?"

Sounds like a Big Bang to me.

I don't have a problem with that particular verse in the Bible. Had they stopped writing right there they might have had a good book.

If it wasn't a quantum string that created the universe, then it may have been a quantum gravitational wave, or a Higgs boson, but what you guys are absolutely sure of is that a Creator God, in whose image we may have been created could in no way have created the universe. Or that a Creator is not necessary, since you believe, for some unknown and unobserved reason that things just happen, and in time get better and better, more and more complex through chaos and entropy which is against logic. Against everything we have ever observed through science.

I personally don't have a problem with a Creator God. In fact, if you've read any of my posts you should be aware that I actually believe that Eastern Mystical views of God are pretty good and potentially plausible.

I don't have a problem with the concept of a Creator God. But I have tons of problems with the Biblical descriptions of God.

But a Higgs boson, without any outside influence, actually without even a concept of 'outside' since you guys say there is no-thing outside, can evolve into our universe. This is why I ask that we leave senseless religions out of this debate.

I don't know of any science that claims that the universe arose from a Higgs particle. The Higgs field would simply be one aspect of the universe. An important property to be sure, but I don't think anyone is holding up the Higgs field as being the sole substance that created the universe.

The Higgs field is just one of many quantum fields.

~~~~~

Just to summarize and part with some comments:

1. You haven't "revealed" the God of the Bible as you promised that you would.

2. I have no problem with you believing in a God. But you'll never convince me that Hebrew mythology describes the God of reality (if one exists at all)

3. I'm not a pure secular atheists. I am a biblical atheist (i.e. I don't believe in the God described in the Bible). I'm actually agnostic when it comes to the concept of a mystical essence to reality and or a concept of a "God".

4. Thus far, in my studies of physics and "religions" (or spiritual and mystical philosophies) I have personally come to the conclusion that if there is a mystical or spiritual essence to reality it's probably something along the lines of Taoism.

5. There could potentially be some sort of "Godhead". And this Godhead could potentially "resurrect" us individually as egotistical beings after physical death. We actually have "theories" of how this might be done using technology. And it may even be possible that this Godhead will "save" some of our egos to experience some better incarnation than this life.

It would certainly be nice if this last item is true. That's obviously a wonderful dream that is very appealing to our egos. I would love to be resurrected as myself again. Especially if I could be resurrected in my body as it was when I was 20, but with my current mind, wisdom and education.

That would be really cool.

But I also realize that such a dream is either going to be reality or not. Whether I believe in it or not isn't going to make one iota of difference. I would even argue that even if the "Biblical God" is true (which is impossible in terms of being true verbatim) that I would still be totally "saved". And I base this on the teachings of Jesus.

So it doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

My current view of life is very simple. "Que Sara Sara", whatever will be will be.

It doesn't matter what I believe. My beliefs aren't going to change reality.quon4store

[Divine Insight]

So by your scientific Evolution theory, how much of the 13.75 billion year universal evolution evolved, and how much was carefully designed and created?

It's not a theory. It's observational facts. And don't forget, when we look out into the universe we ARE looking back in time. So yes are there to see it happen.

Besides, even if there was a "Creator" behind the universe, that still doesn't point to Hebrew mythology.

To put it bluntly Arian, Hebrew mythology is simply too stupid to be describing an entity that supposedly "designed" the universe.

It's that simple.

I have no problem with the possibility of a creator God, by I do have a problem with insulting that creator by suggesting that Hebrew mythology describes the creator. If there exists a "Creator" it's not the creator described by Hebrew mythology. That we can know with absolute certainty.

[1213]

[Replying to post 16 by 1213]

So we agree? All living things were created by Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl, right?

It depends on how you define Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl.

[1213]

But today we understand how they all evolved.

If someone is able to make explanation, it does not mean automatically that it is also the truth and things went according to that explanation.

So we know how the earth evolved and that it wasn't "made" by a designing creator.

To me that sounds more like guess, not knowledge.

[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?

Hmm… if the Creator is real, then we should see things that he created. Allegedly he created Earth, animals and humans for example. If someone would see those things, then we would have some evidence, but apparently no one sees those so maybe we don’t have any evidence.

[Replying to post 16 by 1213]

So we agree? All living things were created by Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl, right?

It depends on how you define Ometecuhtli/Omecihuatl.

Ometeotl is the supreme creator deity.

But then again, I don’t see any criteria in the argument you presented above that necessitates a definition. By the logic you supplied, any deity could suffice.

[ThePainefulTruth]

.
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?

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever as to how the universe could have been divinely or spontaneously created. The Big Bang is an information firewall...I believe, by design, but that's just me.

[Divine Insight]

But today we understand how they all evolved.

If someone is able to make explanation, it does not mean automatically that it is also the truth and things went according to that explanation.

So we know how the earth evolved and that it wasn't "made" by a designing creator.

To me that sounds more like guess, not knowledge.

To say that it's a guess and not knowledge is to blatantly refuse to acknowledge what is actually known.

Either that, or to display a total inability to comprehend the current state of knowledge.

When you make claims like these you are basically telling me that to believe like you I must totally ignore the overwhelming evidence of physical reality.

Your argument is not merely unreasonable, but it's actually so unreasonable and in denial of known facts, that I can only conclude that it is either based upon extreme ignorance, extreme denial, or mental incapacitation.

No derogatory or uncivil intent is meant. It's just that your arguments aren't even worthy of consideration in light of the factual evidence that you are clearly ignoring.

You may as well be claiming that the Moon is made of blue cheese. That's how outrageous your position truly is.

[arian]

I'll grant that by definition. The finite is not infinite. No problem there.

Excellent, so you understand and agree that when I say that my God the 'Creator' who is revealed scientifically in nature itself as we observe the world/universe around us, whether you believe the universe was created/evolved/poofed/hatched, that it is finite, and does not contain my God I am revealing to you who is Infinite, .. right?

I don't recall having ever agreed that the universe is finite. I have no clue whether the universe is finite or not.

The universe had a beginning and it was either Created (my claim) or it Big-banged (your understanding). Eternal can't have a beginning nor an end, or it is not eternal.

I'm also not even sure what defines the "universe". I don't think that scientists know either. But I have absolutely no reason to believe that the universe is finite.

It may go on forever, but if it had a start as I said was Created, or it big-banged, it is finite.
Look, we will have 'eternal life', either in hell, or in Heaven in the presence of our Creator God. Having been created, then given to live throughout eternity does not make us Eternal or infinite. It only allows us to live on throughout eternity.

Also, I may have spoken too soon in saying that there is a difference between the finite and the infinite by definition. When we think in terms of mathematics this is certainly not the case. For example, the set of natural numbers contains numbers, each of which is clearly finite. Yet the set itself is necessarily infinite. So here is a specific case where the finite becomes infinite naturally. But there is still a distinction be definition between what is finite, and what is infinite.

This is exactly what I am talking about, that if finite could become infinite, then we no longer could see any distinction, right?

Look, is the number '1' finite or infinite? You agree it is finite. Now let's roll these numbers at the rate of an atomic clock, for lets say billions and billions of years.

Then stop.

Lets say the number is something like 10^2,000,000,000 power (too long to list here) no matter how big, but we still have a number, correct? Is this number finite or infinite? There cannot be 'more then ONE Infinite, one is all we need, and One is all we have.

See what I mean? A finite no-matter-what could never become infinite, nor could the Infinite become finite. This is how I see and understand our 'Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind I Am Who I Am God'. There can only be ONE, and we were created in His image.

So my Infinite God, the God who is also revealed in the Bible is NOT part of the finite created/evolved/poofed/hatched physical universe, .. agreed?

Why should I agree to this?

You haven't even demonstrated that your God revealed in the Bible exists, much less that its infinite. Infinite in what way? What does it mean for God to be infinite?

This is exactly why I asked that we agree on some ground rules. We have to establish a permanent definition for 'finite' and 'Infinite'. We cannot have them finite at one time and Infinite at other times. I believe you agreed that there must remain a distinction between the two, isn't that right?

Again, ... I am NOT, I repeat; "I am NOT revealing the God of the Bible". Do you see me use scripture? We are talking science and mathematics so far, I did not use Scripture. I was just telling you that the Bible describes a God who is One as I have imagined.

For now let's just stick with science, mathematics, philosophy, and once we reach a common ground on definitions of words, we can go into the deeper wisdom of God, or knowing God as Creator, and if it is possible for an Eternal and Infinite being to exist, and to create? And how is it that He can create since He is invisible? For now, lets establish some basic rules so we don't flip-flop back and forth on definitions.

(I know, some Christians will say or quote scripture where it say that we are not to argue, debate, quarrel about 'definitions of words', and if what I am doing here is what that really means, then Lucifer IS God, since the Bible even says he is the god of this world. So why argue about it right? Just accept that Lucifer is God so you don't go against Gods Word right? .. oh yea, they already did accept Lucifer, in the form of the Trinity, and in the plural demon form the one called; Legion.)

So unless you can prove that I am revealing some finite, part of this universe physical god, or some created entities like angels or demons, He is not finite, .. agreed?

I reserve the right to decide that until after you have "revealed" a God.

Oh boy, .. now you make me wish I had more schooling where I could use bigger words to cover a greater area. But I still believe that the simple way is the best and the only way we can cover this.
DI, if I revealed 'a' God, it would be finite. You are still waiting for me to pick from one of your tens of thousands of gods that you have heard of and understand as gods.
You are supposed to make sure that I am revealing an Infinite, Eternal God as I promised. If we don't have a common understanding and agreement that finite can never be Infinite, then ANY god/gods will suffice. And then what? Then we're back to square one.

Great, and I also agree that there is other definitions of 'time'. I understand this entropic time only relates to decay from something that was originally perfect and built to last throughout IN eternity.

I certainly don't agree that we can know this to be true, but I'll entertain the possibility that something eternal may indeed exist that gave rise to our physical existence. And our physical existence does appear to be finite. I'll grant this appearance as well. Even though we can't actually know this to be fact.

You agree to this DI because it is the only thing that makes any sense, .. for now anyways, right? That something Eternal which would eliminate infinite regress, must have created the finite. This is logic, and science should be logical. We are not using religion, or the blind faith religions require for their followers to worship their god/gods and creators.

And here is where my claim has to come true, that I CAN and will reveal to you a scientifically and mathematically possible Eternal and an Infinite God, as Zzyzx Post says, arian to present; "Undeniable and Scientific evidence of the Creator". A logical scientific explanation as I said many times; "Just as Newton did for 'gravity'."

It could never be part of your 'evolving universe (Big Bang) theory since it effects the most quantum particles which observably have a very short lifespan. The universe had to be created without entropy time because even after only 6,000 years of its introduction, the universe with everything in it, stars, planets biological life is dying, falling apart, burning out.

Nothing you said in your above paragraph makes any sense to me at all.

I have no clue why you are suggesting that an eternal source of the universe could not have created the Big Bang to evolve precisely as we have observed this universe to have evolved. And over the time scales of billions of years.

WHO, .. who observed a 13.5 billion year evolution?
Outside of religious claims, please my dear friend (even if you do refuse to come and party with me, I'll even cook. And get Joey K to come too and we could share some of his 'private stash moonshine', umm, .. not that he has a still or anything!!! , .. please show me how someone so Intelligent and powerful would create a quantum speck of whatever and just allow it to be as it may, and create what it will through no plan or design of His. Why would an Eternal Creator build in entropy and chaos into this quantum speck and wait for chance and time to see what will happen to it? It doesn't make any sense? This is not how even a simple man like me would give 'evolution' even the slightest chance. Entropy, chance, chaos and time does NOT make 'evolution', quite the opposite. But entropy, chaos, chance in time WILL destroy a well designed universe and everything in it.

And entropy starting from where? From the Planck Epoch for 13.75 billion years? Come on, now that takes some really blind faith to swallow.

I also see no justification for your claim that the universe had to have been created without entropy time. I also see no justification for your reference to 6000 years.

OK, I'm just going by what I can observe scientifically, and I have observed that things rust, decay and die in time. Now if we took entropy out, well things would remain as they were created. If things improved, it would be because of what we do from intelligent design as we see to day, cities, phones, TV's, cars, plains etc. Or if God intervened and made things better. Other wise even the things we create in hopes to last eventually fall apart, .. in a very short time at that.

We have no idea how long the universe existed before the Creator introduced entropy (Fall of Adam), all we have is that it was introduced about 6,000 years ago, or after the fall. But because this is not about time and entropy and whether or not there is a purpose for the universe, but to reveal our Creator, well have to let this go for now.

And I see no justification for your claim about stars planets, and biological life falling apart. Sure stars are born and die all the time. Some stars are burning out, some stars are just being born, and clearly there are nebula and clouds of gas where new stars will form far into the future. These processes also take millions or billions of years, not merely 6000 years which would be a blink of an eye in cosmic time.
Our planet Earth contains heavy elements. Therefore some star had to have lived for millions or possibly billions of years before exploding and making heavy elements available for the Earth to form. Then it would have taken even many more millions of years for that material to form our sun and earth.

Again, this is not about religion and what you believe may have happened, and why you believe stars are being born all the time without evidence, this is about me proving that a Creator exists, and that He is Infinite and Eternal.

This is about observation remember, scientific observation. In the past 6,000 years we know of entire nations/cities disappearing off the face of the earth to decay, and even in my short lifetime I have observed the effects of entropy. My parents are long dead, and so are all their ancestors. We have to work real hard to keep entropy destroying our homes, our cars, and ourselves, and even with all the hard work of upkeep, it prevails. So why would this observable fact be limited to this tiny rock called Earth?

Again, neither of us can claim what happened billions of years ago, or what will happen billions of years from now, .. but have to go by what we have observed so far and what has been recorded in history.

Clearly the universe is far older than 6000 years. The scientifically discovered age of about 13.7 billion years makes the most sense in terms of physics.

The age of the universe and the earth is from the moment entropy was introduced, and according to history and honest scientific observation, it is about 6,000 years ago, so the earth and the universe is 6,000 years OLD. Not that it couldn't of existed tens of thousands of solar years before that, but before the fall it wasn't getting old. I am looking at this from actual verifiable evidence, evidence that even in my lifetime I have observed.

Now if you say that some physicists claim that they have 'observed' billions of years of evolution, I will honestly have to say it cannot be true. (religionists don't like to be called liars. It is hard to accept fallacy in something you worked so hard to convince yourself to believe!) It is based on faith derived from religion. Remember religion doesn't have to do with God or gods. These religious guys make up godless creators for the universe with billions of year old stories.

I can point to a bird flying in the sky and claim it used to be a cow. then make up a story from the cow to the bird and have my fellow church members who are with me on this within our so called; scientific circles add and build more to it. Let's keep fairytales and religious dogma out of this, please?

I don't see the importance of the term "religion" or "religious". I can accept your semantic meaning of the term 'religious' to simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully" if you like.

Exactly, .. so 'religion' does not automatically mean God/gods, agreed? Another words as you said; 'religious' can simply mean to do something with consistency, dependable repetitiveness, or even "dutifully", but somehow God/gods were erroneously introduced to mean 'religion', like homosexuality was tagged to 'gay'. Agreed?

I don't know why you are even talking about the term "religion".

Aren't you supposed to be making a case for the Biblical God?

Yes, and I suppose you no longer attribute religion to Bible, or to God, correct? If so, we may proceed.

Again, in another words I could say: "I feel very gay today" which today with these confusing terms could mean two things, either that I am happy, or that I feel like a homosexual to day, .. right? But the true meaning of being gay is happy. Another words if I was dying of AIDS and said; "I feel like a homosexual today!" would not necessarily be understood that I was happy/gay.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with a supposed proof of the Biblical God.

Lol, .. good one. You got me. Even though up until now you guys attributed God to religion and even said that how could I refer to the Bible outside of religion, when I try to set the stage that we are not to assume that the God, the Creator I am describing is of the religious variety, you make it sound as if you never did.

Again, I am here to reveal scientifically and philosophically "My God of the Bible" NOT that I am here to reveal Bible-God. There are literally tens of thousands of churches dedicated to that, and they each define the God of the Bible within their own religious doctrines. God is real, the Creator of all that is visible and invisible. Both powers, principalities AND the universe/world we observe through science, and it is This God that I am revealing. I am not debating religion here, or whether or not my God is more real than the other gods in other religions.
No religion, please.

Fine. So are you ever going to get around to "revealing" this God that you claim has nothing to do with religion?

So far I haven't seen anything "revealed".

Really? Oh my God. After all the arrows I have created pointing to our scientific and not from religious indoctrination Creator God, and you still looking for a revelation?

What exactly are you looking for if you haven't already get a good picture of our Creator God? What, you want me to put Him into your hand and say: "Here, here is our Creator"??

I am here to reveal to you God, the Creator of all things. I read this Book called the Bible, and by George it is the very God I imagined. Only this God whom I imagined as the Creator seems to have sent messages through some people which they recorded in there. The message must be from My God as I have imagined Him, because everything that I understand in there makes perfect sense. The history with all those nations coming and going makes sense, the perfect creation makes sense, the fall and the introduction of entropy/decay and death makes sense, man created from dust and back to dust he goes makes sense, .. so I am convinced by all that verifiable evidence in the Bible that the God of the Bible is God, the Creator of all things.

The fact that you have been convinced by Hebrew mythology that some God exists does has not "revealed" anything to me other than the fact that you appear to be easily impressed by Hebrew mythology. I have read Hebrew mythology too and I am not impressed.

In fact, I am extremely convinced that it is indeed nothing more than man-made superstitious mythology. It isn't even moral, IMHO.

But some scientists claiming they observed stars being born and dying, you believe? Or that they have evidence of a big-bang that happened exactly 13.75 billion years ago and can tell you how and what happened within microsecond of it's creation? Is this big-bang creator moral? Nope, it is called chaotic unplanned event without a purpose or will on anyone or anything.

I wanted to set a stage with our debaters help, where we call a spade a spade, not that lizards are birds, God can only be referred to in religion, the Bible is a religious book, .. and so on.

So do you have something to "reveal" or not? So far I haven't seen where you have revealed anything.

you'll have to come on stage first. I will not be pulled into your rabbit hole where after all this you just erroneously refer back to religion. You see on this stage you have to admit that God or the Bible does not equal to religion, and that religions will use whatever, including a piece of firewood to represent their god that laid an egg and created the universe.

So my quote from Wikipedia about the Higgs boson doesn't sound like 'true logical science to you'?

What I said was,

That dosen''t sounds like "true logical science" to me. Especially concerning your comment: "And I just have this deep feeling that the Higgs boson they study in the Large Hadron Collider will match the 40 years ago Predicted model since they cannot afford to pull any more bricks out of the very tall-tale and teeter tottering Big bang theory."

I know what you said, and you just said it again, .. ??

My comment was regarding something they never observed through science, but just imagined by God knows what, yet 40 years later they claim they found it, and it is everywhere, only they still don't know if 'multiple Higgs boson's' exist or not? I agree, it doesn't sound very scientific at all.

Actually in Quantum Field Theory the Higgs "boson" is a disturbance in field. It's not actually a particle. They call it a "particle" because that's a hangover from tradition. The field can act like a particle in certain situations.

It's extremely scientific.

Do you mean 'extremely difficult'?
Extremely religious?
Extremely protected? You know, like the Trinity Doctrine.

I understand, don't think I don't. Its a particle that acts like a particle at times, and a disturbance field at other times. It is everywhere but they don't know how many exists.
My question would be; Exists in where, in this already created universe where they are observed everywhere? Or in that space before space existed? I too would be interested as to how many Higgs bosons exist out there beyond our universe getting ready to Big-bang? and if we should be worried about their sudden expansion in 'no-thing' and suddenly find ourselves in duel dimensions where our Spacetime is suddenly injected with another Spacetime!
OR, .. if they are everywhere within our universe, there may be danger they may BB here? We have to do something about all these Higgs bosons because we KNOW, we know that if we don't do anything they will Big-bang. That the only way they Big-bang is without any will or act or plan on anyone or anything. So quick, do something anything just keep them from Big-banging!

I don't believe that any attempt was made to find something that wasn't there. Many physicists would be just as happy without a Higgs particles. Also the Big Bang theory is not dependent upon the Higgs particle. However, the Higgs particle does fit into the Standard Model of Particle Physics so I'm quite sure that many physicists are pleased to see it found.

That's right, if I was to take science and become a Physicist, and proved that the Higgs boson is a fairytale like 'special relativity is', it would not change or effect the Big-bang Evolution theory, which was also invented hundreds of years ago by a religious Priest/Monk.

So you don't believe in Special Relativity either? Does this also conflict with your God of the Bible?

We have debated that out of the water already in my post "Theory of Relativity", it flickered a few times, then just died.

Why do you feel that science has to be all wrong? You seem to be implying that science must be all wrong in order for the God of the Hebrew Bible to be true.

Science is the observance of the world and the Universe around us. I see nothing wrong in or with science observing the world around us and reporting on the beauty, complexity and wonder of its creation. But when some religious folk who worship Deities, and plural gods come up with a story that what I am observing is really a quantum speck of Higgs boson that is expanding in "No-Thing", and that these Higgs bosons are 'everywhere', I say; "This is no longer science." I love science, but this is not science, just like the same religious folk invent gods that are not God.

I ask that we leave religion out of it, but you keep bringing it right back into our debate, and even expressing how you believe in these myths and fairytales.

God can ONLY be true through science. But you know, you all know every religious one of you that if you admit to the existence of THE Creator of the Universe, Earth and man, then your religion is dead. So since you cannot abandon your religion and their billions of year old make believe stories that you have been propagating all these years.

If that's the case then you aren't doing very well at "revealing" this God. Instead all you are doing is confirming that it most certainly does not exist.

Again, .. the stage. If we cannot agree that there is science and religious science which propagates another creator by religious fairytales, and you keep everything I say within this religious mindset, it is useless for me to go on.

Why?
Because it was invented and created by religion, by religious people believing in their own versions of god/gods. These are all inventions to distract people from the actual Creator, you know, .. in case Catholism failed or something. And as we all know by now, that religions that are involved in gods do not vanish or change easily because of all the diversions they create to defend their religion, .. Like the Trinity Doctrine for example.

With all due respect you're starting to sound extremely paranoid that everyone, including Christians and religious people are out to purposefully distract people away from God. Why should that be?

Christians are religious people, and as I have shown they worship other gods that are not God. I am not paranoid, but religions are paranoid of the truth that reveals who their gods really are. The Christian Pope Francis has clearly announced who the god is, it is no longer kept as a secret of the church.

I also don't understand how any of this is going to relate to evidence for THE Creator. What difference would it make whether the creator had used a Higgs field or not?

I agree absolutely. God could have created the Universe with a Big-bang, using a Higgs boson, or a quantum string, or hatched an egg, or , .. whatever, but I have read as much as I could, and our Creator God is somehow not part of these religions like the big-bang theory, Evolution theory. And if you listen to the Priest/prophets of these theories like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking for instance, they are actually very clear against any Creator-God concept. One even calls it a delusion.

Fine. So, are you going to "reveal" your God of the Bible or just rant about people who evidently have a bone to pick with?

Setting the stage buddy, just setting the stage. You ask regarding those basic steps I ask that we agree on, and I just answer, with hints toward THE Creator.

Also, the Bible doesn't mention any chaotic purposeless accidental creation of the universe, but quite the opposite, it reveals a planned, designed creation with intent and purpose.

So what? It also describes an mentally and emotionally unstable God who failed to solve every problem he ever attempted to solve. And for someone who is supposed to be infinitely wise and infinitely intelligent why does he insist on using barbaric tactics similar to those used by the ancient cultures that actually wrote the Biblical myths?

As far as I'm concerned that's all the proof we need to know that there is no intelligent God associated with the Bible.

Have you ever noticed that nothing this God has ever done in the Bible has ever solved a problem?

"Dr. I have a problem, and it itches and burns!"
Dr.; "Here take this bottle of pills, and take one every four hours till you finished them all. When your done, come and see me!"
Two weeks later: "Dr. I have a problem. Not only does it itch and burn, I now have blurry vision too, and loosing my hearing."
Dr. "Did you take the pills like I instructed you to?"
"No, what pills? Sorry I wasn't paying attention!? Please, you are a Doctor you just got to help me! Please?"

A few moths later the guy goes blind and looses his penis. He is laying in bed dying and cursing the doctor; "he is a doctor and wouldn't even help me, wouldn't lift a finger. Just gave the nurse a bottle of pills to give me, and she told me something the doctor said, but I was hurting so I didn't listen. What a worthless no good doctor, a murderer if you ask me!"

So we have Bible History, and stories made up from observing dried bones, bird watchers, and different fossils with some details thrown in there from 'cave-paintings'.
Again, I am not here to debate religions and their gods, or creation stories, but to reveal our Creator God to you.

And I'm still waiting on that. Do you ever plan on actually doing this, or are you just blowing a lot of hot air because you enjoy typing?

I haven't heard anything even remotely convincing yet.

It is because you refuse to listen, You have ears to hear but do not hear. Well actually we were doing great so far.

So far I said that "God is Infinite" but you still can't differentiate between finite and infinite. You mentioned the infinite numbers. I am still waiting on that answer that I just gave you on that above. The rest are your requests, comments and I answer them.

I don't enjoy typing with one finger and two hands, no. Especially when I hit multiple keys at once.

I would imagine you have an argument along those lines, but at the current time there's certainly no indication of how the Higgs (or the absence of the Higgs) is going to be evidence or not of a God.

I was setting the stage, to differentiate between the reality I am proposing verses creation/creators created by religions outside of actual scientific observation.

You haven't convinced me that there is anything wrong with the current findings of science. Thus far you seemed to have simply ranted about it in the same way that you ranted about religions and religious people trying to lead people away from God, and that you don't think much of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.

Again, I never ever said there was anything wrong with the current finding of science. There is the universe, stars, galaxies, all them beautiful pictures, then we have all these different fishies, animals and creatures after their kind, humans with hundreds of billions of cells that multiplied from one cell, it's all good and marvelous.

But then you have these religious fanatics come in with some wild billions of year old stories, and you expect me to accept that as science!? I said no religion please?

The Bible does not = religion. It reveals religious practices, laws, doctrines, and how religion can never reveal God to a person.

Fine. So are you ever going to keep your promise to reveal God to me, or are you just leading me on with no intention of ever following through?

I was answering you post. We have not yet agreed on some terms like the true meaning of Infinite and Eternal to start with. Since so far all you can do is understand me through indoctrination-blinders, or fogged up glasses and think everything I am saying is religion or from religion, you are still under their spell. No matter how many times I told you who God IS, you revert back to understanding it as religion, or just another religious view amongst tens of thousands, like Zzyzx did.

I said no religion!
You keep saying and repeating your religious understanding of what I said.

Oh boy, this going to be a long one Elizabeth!

Also, .. people can create a religion out of a piece of carved wood, right? Or a tennis ball and racquet as I have shown. I am still hoping to set ground rules, not by hearsay, or what's popular today like gay meaning homosexuality, but a fresh logical start eliminating thousands and thousands of years of religious doctrines and their destructive influence on the truth.

Ground rules?

I thought you were going to reveal the God of the Bible?

You don't need any rules. Just state your case.

I did in at least 50 other posts, may be five times more, I didn't keep count, but you always understood it through your own religious world view.

Do you know what an Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind God is?
No, .. not like the other created gods, He IS One, and can only be One. Got it so far?

I need your imagination DI, I really love your powerful imagination. But let's not have religious doctrine whether science fiction, or gods, to fog what we are aiming at, the absolute truth. Let's start with a clean sheet, using everything we have learned so far using proper meanings instead of what is popular now.

With all due respect Arian, I would appreciate it very much if you would take a crash course on writing. At least in terms of HOW TO STATE YOU POINT CONSISELY.

In all of your ranting in this post you haven't even remotely suggested an revelations that might reveal the existence of any God, much less the God of the Bible.

Ouch, .. that hurt. OK DI, put up your dukes, .. sniff, .. sniff, .. come on, you see this chip on my shoulder? Huh, .. huh, .. do you?

Seriously, here I am doing my best answering you, and this is what I get.

OK DI, I honestly thank you so far. Love you man. I just read what you said next, and will separate that from this book we are writing, OK? I believe I can reveal God in what you said next.

End part one of two.

Unless you want to, please don't answer this post. Instead the next one OK?


Thanks