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]

.
[Replying to post 57 by arian]

Although I appreciate this opportunity illuminating the difference between a Theistic and Non-Theistic viewpoint, it might be prudent to consider what Inigo Montoya and Help 3434 have said.

Arian, it would be wise to set aside any personal disapproval of Zzyzx and begin actually debating issues – starting with presenting your "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" AND starting to abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

I have ABSOLUTELY no "personal disapproval of Zzyzx", and my offer to meet you in person to further our friendship beyond the impersonal debating forum still stands.

Your offer of friendship is not a matter appropriate in attempting to debate issues.

Yes, as you can see the warning I got from Otseng, and thinking about it for an hour or so, I realize that there is a big difference between direct, and indirect personal attack, only it is not clearly defined by forum rules,

A bit more thought might lead one to observe that personal attacks are inappropriate whether direct or indirect. The effective way to avoid violating forum rules against personal attacks is to not make them.

Attempting to "walk the edge" of violation is a fool's errand and often results in repeated infractions.

But when I refer to my God, the Infinite, Eternal Creator,

When you make claims in referring to your favorite "god" as "infinite, eternal, creator" you are required to substantiate those claims. If (when) you cannot do so, your presentation is properly regarded as PREACHING – which is specifically prohibited by Forum Rules (and yet another infraction).

One can, however, preach to other believers in Holy Huddle (or in church)

and use the Bible to point out what happens to those that reject the undeniable evidence of Creator

What supposedly "happens to those who reject . . ." is pure CONJECTURE and OPINION

who is not of His creation, that they will one day be on their knees before the Great Judge, and if they haven't repented from their blasphemies, they will face eternal damnation, ..

So you CLAIM. I challenge that claim and ask for substantiation.

another words if I say: "You Zzyzx will have to face judgment for your blasphemies, and eternal punishment is waiting for you or anyone distorting the truth." Now this is considered 'personal attack',

Clarification: That would be considered preaching and personal opinion – and an improper comment to be making in honorable debate.

while being called an Ape is not?!?

Can you quote verbatim (with URL) any member calling another an ape?

If you ever do observe such comments, by all means use the report function to call it to the attention of Admin and Moderators because it would be in violation of Forum Rules.

If, instead, you take PERSONAL offense when someone says that humans are regarded by zoologists (people who study such things) as a member of the biological family Great Apes (Hominoidea), that is YOUR personal problem and is decidedly NOT an infraction of Forum rules

The Hominidae include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the family are collectively described as the great apes.[3][4][5][6] There are two extant species in the orangutan genus (Pongo), two species in the gorilla genus, and a single extant species Homo sapiens in the human genus (Homo). Chimpanzees and bonobos are closely related to each other and they represent the two species in the genus Pan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Do you dispute the zoologists? If so, based on what information?

Which "gods" are "creator gods" and which are "created gods" AND how can anyone interested verify which is which?

And this sums up your entire response (post 46) to me, as the rest of them previous to this. Twisting and turning all my clear responses into mush.

It seems ironic that you choose the term "Mush" -- with which I do not disagree.

However, I do not take credit for turning your responses into anything other than what they are initially.

And of course this too is 'not a personal remark' right Zzyzx?

Notice that YOU inserted the term "mush" and my comment was "I do not disagree."

How, exactly, do you twist the situation enough to attempt to call that a personal attack?

And you never have to have a logical response to those specific statements of mine that you find as 'mush', .. correct?

Correction again: "Mush" is YOUR term, not mine. I simply did not disagree.

When Zzyzx says they are mush, then that should be an acceptable general response

Another correction: When YOU say your comments are (or become) "mush" I do not disagree.

to everything I wrote and explained in great detail

WHERE, exactly (URL) have you explained in great detail

, .. that it is mush, period, Zzyzx has spoken. And oh yes, I am not to refer to Zzyzx as Zzyzx since he considers that 'a personal remark' which is against the forum rules.

Correction: Obsession / fixation on another person is not debate – but evasion, often employed by those who realize they cannot defend their stated position.

Why, where, how you consider it mush? It just is, .. right? Got it, everything I said was mush and nowhere have I shown scientific and philosophical proof of our Eternal Infinite Creator God that fits within your religious view where god = religion, .. religion = god/gods and worship thereof. Which means that according to Zzyzx, no one could possibly talk about God/gods outside of religion. Which also means that playing tennis religiously = god/gods.

And if I don't accept this, then I am braking forum rules, right?

Do you somehow not understand Otseng's warning? That does not come from Zzyzx but from a man that you claim to respect.

Where did I ever refer to our Creator as "creator gods"? How many posts have I posted that explains the difference between Creator and the created?

Look again, I said; "created gods are not the Creator God"

God, no 's' at the end as in gods.

For debates in this sub-forum NONE of the "gods" is given preferential treatment or assumed to be any more real or revered than any of the thousands of other "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, imagined, etc by humans – many or most of whom claim that their favorite "god" is the only "real" one and is the "creator" of the universe and its contents.

Again, for the 'I lost count how many times', .. God the Infinite, Eternal Creator of our universe and everything that has ever been created is NOT; "any of the thousands of other "gods" proposed, worshiped, loved, feared, imagined, etc by humans"

Again, your CLAIMS about your favorite "god" (singular or plural) are meaningless in debate until you can substantiate those claims. Repeating a claim is not substantiation. Repeating opinions is not either.

Nowhere in your OP did you ask me to present such god/gods, nor would I waste my time in presenting or adding more to the plethora that already exists.

The OP asks that you produce the "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" that you claim to have.

Again, you are not being fair,

Is it "unfair" when I and other ask that you actually provide "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" as you have repeatedly claimed but never produced?

this is not civil debate.

In my opinion it is not a debate at all but evasion that indicates you are unable to provide the scientific evidence that you claim to possess.

If there is any incivility or inappropirateness it was pointed out in Otseng's warning

Worshipers do not seem able to present sound evidence that their favorite "god" is any more real than any others proposed, and no sound evidence has been presented to verify that it created anything (except in human imagination).

And since "none has been presented", none will be allowed, and this according to Forum rules, .. correct?

Evidence is permitted and expected by Forum Rules. When will you start?

Just like my scientific discovery of 'nothing'.

Your "scientific discovery of nothing" is not being debated in this thread. Present it to the scientific community and become famous, respected and rich.

But so you can show your seeming almighty power in debate, you continue mocking me and everything I say, and yes I'm sure all your "let the readers decide" so called atheist friends will back you up.

Frankly, Arian, I need no back-up in our "debates" or for debates in general. I am comfortable debating whoever comes along – and I have invited famous religionists as well as divinity school faculty and students to debate here Head-to-Head or in C&A sub-forum. Perhaps debate where theism is not afforded special treatment does not appeal to them?

Again for the countless times I have said this, I am not here to present to you some religionist or divinity school faculty or student of divinity created god/gods, please re-read your OP heading.

Notice that I said nothing about your motivation for being here. Straw man.

I do not care why you are here – just debate the issues honorably.

"Power" in debate LOST when one cannot substantiate their claims and stories – as you (generic term) may have noticed.

In my opinion, one cannot "win" debates but one can certainly "lose" credibility and respect with readers and fellow debaters by failing to substantiate their claims, stories, positions.

As you (generic term) have proven this starting from the OP.

Honestly Zzyzx (in generic term) when are you going to stop trying to make me prove beyond a reasonable doubt the scientific Evidence of The Creator within your religious divinitized understanding of god/gods?

Correction: I and others have repeated asked you to provide exactly what you claimed "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator." It is becoming apparent that you cannot do so and that you probably realize that boastful claim cannot be shown to be anything more than opinion and imagination.

These are created, finite, made-up god/gods, not our Creator.

What means can be employed by anyone interested to distinguish between the "made-up god/gods" and your claimed "creator?"

They are created, not Creator.

Prove it

And when I reveal the Creator,

You keep talking about "revealing" your claimed "creator" but refuse to do so. Why?

Are you just blowing smoke – as it appears?

He just doesn't fit within your religious understanding of god/gods of which some are created by playing tennis religiously.

I have no favorite "gods" (including tennis or other activities or interests)

This poster mocks me, and yes this impersonal responder to my debates identified by the letters "Zzyzx" is mocking me, our Creator and God because he can.

Correction: "This poster" CHALLENGES your CLAIMS and repeatedly asks for substantiation (as required by Forum Rules). Those who fail to present substantiation seem to feel as though they are discriminated against.

My friend, .. please think about this; How can you challenge something you don't or cannot understand?

Does that apply when you seemingly challenge evolution (with no indication that you understand even the definition of the term (genetic change through generations)?

I practically begged to set some ground rules

List the ground rules that you beg for.

so we would not have opposing understanding of words, and 'religion' was one of them. The word gay was an example, and here you go again, back to your religious box where anything outside 'doesn't exist'.

"Ground rules" relating to "gay" or "religion" are NOT required to present "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

So have at it.

Perhaps those who attempt to promote their version of religion and their opinion about "gods" are at a disadvantage – since they repeatedly fail to present support that is something more than opinion, conjecture, testimonial, unverifiable tales, etc.

It might be wise for them to find a softer target or a "Christian friendly environment" where opposition views are not permitted. Holy Huddle comes to mind.

Yes my friend, that would be a good idea. Here, let me give you a more comfortable OP for the Holy Huddle: "The Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of divinely divined and created god/gods and their religions behind it."

Are you somehow NOT aware that posting in Holy Huddle is restricted to "Christians Only?"

Also, I do not debate in sub-forums that consider Christianity (or any religion) to be true or consider the bible authoritative or proof of truth.

In the fashion of The Snake, also called the Devil who deceived Eve with the twisting of words, this impersonal responder by the letters "Zzyzx" follows in his very footsteps.

Can you debate the issues rather than obsessing with personal comments to Zzyzx?

This thread was created specifically so you could present your "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" but you seem hesitant or unable to do so. What seems to be the problem?

My problem is that the OP Poster doesn't seem to understand what he is asking of me. He wants a religious interpretation of our Creator God who is, and can only be understood 'outside of religion and their indoctrinations, with all their god/gods'. He wants a religious scientific explanation in the line of Big-bang Evolution creators.

The OP sets NO requirements concerning religion. It merely asks that you substantiate your claims. Is that unfair to you?

He cannot seem to differentiate between Creator and the created.

Kindly DEMONSTRATE that there IS a difference (other than terminology). How, exactly, can your "creator god" be SHOWN to be different from "created gods?"

Between the Infinite and Eternal and finite trapped in time.

Distinction between infinite and eternal is NOT required to provide "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

Between the Living God and the dying, coming to an end gods of this world.[/quote]
Again, no such distinction is required to provide "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

Let God be the judge of this impersonal responder/mocker identified as 'Zzyzx', and may 'He who IS' reward him and his team of debaters accordingly.

When all else fails, play the "god card" and maybe that will intimidate someone.

What substantial evidence verifies that the "God" to whom you refer is anything more than imaginary?

Experience.

Whose experience? How can it be demonstrated that it is anything more than imagination, delusion, fantasy, fraud, etc?

Again, not religious experience, but 'observable facts I have witnessed and experienced personally', as in the definition of science.

Kindly present those "facts" for all to consider and evaluate.

Now everyone can see the debater you (plural) really are. Aaahh.. is that a 'personal remark' Zzyzx?

I am quite comfortable with "everyone" (readers and fellow debaters) evaluating what I present and comparing that to what you do (or don't) present.

I can't present something scientific, within religious views and limited understanding.

You claimed that you COULD provide "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator." You did not say that you could only do so if others agreed to your terms.

Another words, I cannot put my God the Eternal, Infinite Creator in the box of finite, decaying and dying gods. Sorry, please don't take it personal, I just can't do it.

Thank you.

That was the objective of this thread. You make my point.

Well so is when I get a warning on this forum.

The only people who receive comments, warning, probation, suspension, and/or banishment are those who repeatedly violate Forum Rules and Guidelines.

If you receive one of the above it is richly deserved.

IMHO, no one who has been here for more then a few hundred posts deserves a Warning, especially not Banishment, unless they had some psychotic attack or something and went ballistic here.

Your opinion about conduct of the Forum is noted – as a personal opinion that carries no weight. If you have suggestions about how the Forum should be conducted feel free to send them to Otseng via PM

Even that I believe we could iron out, together, humanely ether through our posts, PM, or request a personal visit; My house or yours? I would be the Christian thing to do.

Whether or not it would be a "Christian thing to do" is immaterial.

If you request a personal meeting I am willing to drive up to fifty miles to meet on neutral ground.

I agree with and appreciate Moderator comments, we need that. If someone is here mocking others and try to make them follow some limited religious viewpoint of theirs from the start, they should be talked to by all of us, and tell them we don't tolerate such behavior.

Correction: If anyone violates Forum Rules they should NOT be "talked to by 'all of us' but should be reported to Admin and Moderators (as required in Forum Rules).

But they should not be doing it thousands of posts later. Especially not requesting a fellow debater for Scientific Proof of the Creator, under their limited religious understanding. That is neither civil or rational.

When a member has boasted that s/he has "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" it is quite legitimate for others to challenge them to provide exactly that.

But of course you and your 'team' are protected, you can mock and make fun of anyone's post you choose, but would never be regarded as 'personal remarks' from you.

I am "protected" by staying well within Forum Rules and Guidelines. Moderators have no special status in their debates and are as subject to rules and guidelines as everyone else.

Shouldn't everyone have that same privilege?

Everyone has exactly the same privileges and requirements in debate. That includes all members, Admin and Moderators. Even Otseng is honor bound to abide by Forum Rules.

You know, those that know and understand the difference between religion and science. Between terms like Eternal, Infinite vs. time and finite. Those that have a basic understanding of absolutes, not abolishing them and try to make others abide by those multiple meanings of words even if they are opposing meanings.

Your point?

Those who think otherwise are entitled to contact Otseng, site owner / Christian / strong debater, by PM and voice their complaint.

IMHO anyone who complains about another fellow debater is either a wiener who can't hold his/her own, or wants absolute control over his/her debates.

Have you ever though that might apply to you?

This is debate, if you said to me; "arian you are stupid, uneducated, take some courses in this or that before you speak!" (which I got a lot of in my early debates, and never made a complaint) he should first prove to me, and point out where my fault is, and I would act on it; Study the subject more, use proper language that is more fitting to the subject, etc

Many in this thread have pointed out your fault in refusing to provide "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

But when I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person making general negative comments to me doesn't understand the subject, I should not be forced into submitting.

The understanding or lack thereof by others does NOT relieve you of the requirement to substantiate claims.

That is not beneficial to neither of us. Agreeing to disagree IMO is the major cause of wars and the mess this world is in. Jesus never agreed to disagree. Besides, why debate then? I seek the truth, and if you just agree with me, how will I ever search out the truth about a thing?

In the interest of seeking truth, kindly supply "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

But please, .. don't just tell me I'm wrong, or call me stupid, but show me I am wrong and prove my stupidity.

Okay, present your "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" and let's see if others respond.

I do not comment on or try to prove anyone's stupidity – but allow them to do that themselves if they so choose.

tell me, why are you so scared team Zzyzx?

Scared? One who assumes that I am "scared" is overworking their imagination or defense mechanisms. Perhaps if they do not fare well in debate they can hope / pray that their "gods" will intercede on their behalf. So far, that doesn't seem to have happened.

I'm just telling the way I see it, and for someone with your high intelligence to not understand the difference between finite and Infinite has to have other reasons behind it.

The difference between finite and infinite (whether you think I understand it or not) is NOT required for you to present "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

It is why people flood the churches, to appease a God they know nothing of,

Perhaps they have more knowledge of "God" than you have. Can you support your contention that they know nothing?

or care about, so they think they make Him believe they are sincere and ease their conscience. And those that don't go to church seem to be on an everlasting quest trying to prove to others God doesn't exist.

Most who don't go to church probably don't care anything about trying to disprove "God." Do you have evidence to support your claim?

First, a religion will never reveal God our Creator, but as you can see will reveal any god, even one specifically tailored to their specifications, like the homosexual Jesus.

How, exactly, do you know all that?

Second, why would anyone spend more then a few hours debating against something they don't believe exists? Why?

Some Non-Believers debate to provide alternatives and opposition to religious propaganda and pressure in their society.

Flagmack doesn't exist, I don't see people raging wars in either defense of, or against Flagmack. Not so with God and gods, for both the Creator and the created gods exist.

Flagmack has no worshipers (to my knowledge) who attempt to recruit others to join in their worship, build palaces of worship, contribute to priest benefit fund, etc.

What is so scary about me revealing God our Creator to you?

I ENCOURAGE you to "reveal" your favorite "God" and demonstrate that it is the "creator." When do you intend to start revealing your knowledge?

Soon as you can comprehend and acknowledge the difference between the Creator, and the created. Between the Infinite and Eternal vs. the finite, and time which is decay and dying..

Making your "revelation" dependent upon Zzyzx meeting your conditions is the same as refusing to substantiate your claim.

I can only think of one thing, "Because you no longer have an excuse not to believe'.

Perhaps you could expand your horizons when attempting to guess about other people (unless you are omniscient or a mind reader).

No, I just speak from experience, from what I have witnessed with my own two eyes, and heard with my own two ears.

Can you prove that you were not dreaming, drunk, delusional, drugged, or disoriented when those "experiences" occurred? Can you SHOW that you speak truth?

Debater arian has spoken the truth,

Where was that – verbatim quote, URL. How has it been demonstrated that whatever Arian presented was truth – or anything more than opinion, conjecture, imagination, delusion, and/or false claim?

Starting at defining the difference between finite and Infinite, in this I present nothing but the truth.

Correction: If you require such definitions is it your responsibility to supply them. If you ever do so there is no requirement that anyone accept them.

and because you are unable to degrade it, even by resorting to every religious atheistic debating trick in the book,

There is no need to "degrade" what has not been presented and verified / supported.

The 'truth' doesn't have to be accepted either, .. right? Not accepting doesn't mean it is not the truth, or that you really do believe it is not the truth. Free will, remember?

Try providing "truth" about "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" and see how it flies.

the undeniable scientific evidence of our Creator stands.

No such evidence has been presented. You have claimed to be able to present "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" and this thread was started specifically for you to make that presentation.

WHEN will you present the evidence for all to consider?

Once 'all' can show to understand basic, basic terminology like the difference between finite and Infinite.

No one owes you any demonstration of understanding. Once you made the claim of "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" you owe "all" supporting evidence.

And you and your team will just have to live with that until we all see Him, our Lord and Savior Jesus coming with power and might to judge the living and the dead. And no demonic symbol or tattoo can hide anyone from His presence.

Has it escaped your notice that preaching which may be acceptable (and believed) in church or in Holy Huddle is NOT acceptable or believed by all who debate in C&A – and is specifically prohibited?

Preaching? I ask you not to compare the truth to some religious church preaching.

Making unsupported statements, claims, stories about a "god" or "creator" IS preaching.

I can explain in detail why I said that, and use the Bible and other sources to back this up for supporting evidence.

You have repeated that several times – and failed to deliver.

I have witnessed (not heard in church) but witnessed the vilest of men, murderers who would kill in a drop of a hat bow their heads in shame when 'judgment of God' is mentioned to them, or just seeing the strength of faith in God in the person they are about to kill.

You have? Do you realize that your unsupported testimonials are meaningless in debate?

Please stop making everything out to be religion, or bringing everything into the comfort of your religious views.

Who, exactly, is "making everything out to be religion?" Read your comment immediately above for a hint.

So no matter what happens here Zzyzx, we will have ONE more debate on 'That Day of our Lord', where on your knees, you can use every trick you have accumulated in your entire life, and present your evidence that God, and His Son Jesus Christ 'do not exist'.

Does that imaginary scenario make you feel better about the present debates?

No, it scares me and makes me worry for you.

It would be prudent to confine your fears, real or imagined, to yourself and let others be responsible for themselves.

I ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ to be personally present when you present your case.

See comment above about preaching. That you believe in or worship (or fear) one of the thousands of "gods" is meaningless to those of us who require evidence before we commit to any of the proposed supernatural entities.

You are so tough, and I have seen many tough people tremble when facing death, either execution or dying of disease and old age whether what I tell you was in some of the sermons you heard or not?

More testimonials.

Is that the only defense you have, making everything I say out to be about religion?

I have no need to defend anything. I am not the one who claims to have "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator"

If you think that I have made ANY claim that I cannot defend, kindly quote verbatim with URL and I will either support or retract (as is honorable in debate).

You continue to insist that I accept my God as one of your imagined god/gods, a deity who resides in the supernatural realm divining to his diviners who graduated in the schools of divinity, only in an undeniable scientific manner.

I could not care less if or why you (or anyone) accepts any of the thousands of proposed "gods." That is your problem, not mine.

My God whom I can prove scientifically is not divine, nor does He divine to divining mediums, He does not reside in the supernatural realm where demons are trapped for now and reside, He is not known in any religious circles, Now He may be known of there, but He is not worshipped as He truly is but as a divining-spirit, like Lucifer, .. the god of this world, .. or as a plural demon like Legion.

Can you demonstrate that your favorite "god" is anything more than your imagination – using credible evidence (something more substantial than repeated claims, opinions, testimonials, conjecture, and further evasion)?

Sorry, but cannot do.

Thank you. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you cannot.

I will not make my God out to be a demon or one of those tens of thousands of gods you know of just to please you, otherwise you refuse to accept anything I say.

Is your "god" dependent upon my acceptance of your claims?

It's like choosing the word 'gay' to mean homosexual, and you will not accept the original definition of it. Zzyzx prefers God=religion, and religion=God and that is final.

Your point?

Sorry but no-can-do.

I do not disagree with your admission that you cannot

Either you accept scientific evidence of our Eternal, Infinite Creator God, and stick to the actual definitions of words outside of religion and their god/gods, or refuse.

If you were actually able to present "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" you might find some believers.

If you refuse, you forfeit the debate.

I'll let readers decide who "forfeits the debate."

But I will not keep repeating myself, or be pulled into debating one of your religiously created gods so you could say: "See, your god is no different than all them other gods created by mans imagination."

If (since) you cannot show that your favorite "god" is any different from "religiously created gods" there is no reason for anyone to accept that it is different.

If you really think that your favorite "god" is different, SHOW how that is true.

[arian]

God

The Infinite, Eternal, Creative Mind who Is and lives, who can be best described as "I Am Who I Am".

Observing the world around me, I look at myself and ask who am I? I am a complex awesome self contained biological unit with self awareness where I can ask; "Who Am I?"

I look in the mirror and I can see my parents in me, and so could they see their parents in them. Infinite regress tells me that there has to be someone uncreated that created man, that is us humans. So there has to be a Creator. But whoever He is, he would have to be infinite and eternal, He cannot have a creator or be of the finite.

So what in this universe is infinite and eternal?

So I look at big things for signs of infinity. Hmm, the universe looks big, but now they tell me that even space is filled with quantum stuff, so even space is created like me, not only that, space reveals entropy or time, so it is not even eternal. There goes space as being infinite and eternal, let alone reason, plan and design. And time which they tell me can evolve things, actually shows that it only destroys things. I know, it is killing me, it killed my parents and billions of other people. Time is NOT a creator, but a destroyer, so that's out. So since the universe is made of finite created stuff, and it ages with time, it cannot be the Creator.

I was running out of the possibility of finding an Eternal, Infinite Creative being that could have planned, designed and created everything in this universe, except Himself/Itself.

So where can I find something Infinite, Eternal that even time couldn't kill, that can plan, reason, create even something as complex as me, but not be of the created as I am?

Someone has suggested we were created by a finite quantum speck of whatever which 13.7 billion years ago resided in who knows what, and without any reason or plan it somehow big-banged creating the universe and us humans? But this whatever, that resided in who knows what is still of the created like me, and infected by entropy/time. it would of died a long, .. long time ago, entropied itself to death. So nope, that's out of the question.

So back again I went to and fro, who or what could have created me and this universe? I heard many other explanation from a supposedly very wise fellow human who seen humans as apes, and apes as some other creatures, all the way back billions of years where he seen man as a tiny single celled bacterium. That maybe this bacterium created me simply by just laying around wasting time!?! But this too is of the created, an unreasonable finite speck at that, from the same source as me. Nope, not this either.

As I was thinking, I read about the Blue brain project and how man is creating a new human 2.0, starting with the brain.
But here too we fall into that infinite regress, man creating man, and the brain is subject to entropy and aging. If they transfer everything from the brain on a CD disk, the disk ages, and the program itself is subject to corruption. The Matrix it may be loaded into is also subject to corruption, and the computer it is residing in needs energy to keep it alive.
So nope, that's out also.

But this triggered something, and it was not my brain. I realized that this light went off in my mind, before I even stored any of it in my brain.

AHA! I said, the mind may be it. So as any good new scientist I tested my mind to see if it is finite, or infinite, and by George I could put earth, our solar system, our galaxy, then I tried to put the entire universe inside my mind, and not only could I put the entire universe in there, I could put as many universes as I wanted to in there.

YES! Yes, my mind passed the scientific test, it IS infinite. But wait, I still don't remember creating the universe or myself!? I am still OF the created then. There has to be a Creator like my mind, but who or what?

The what was out since the Creator Mind has to be self sufficient, and be able to reason, plan design AND create. It has to be a He, the dominant one like man. It started to make sense, God must be an Eternal Infinite, Creative Mind that is alive. What would this someone refer to Himself as, I asked? I was, .. I will be, .. and of course, I Am since He is Eternal and Infinite. I Am knows He is, and wouldn't conflict with His creation like myself who asks "Who am I?"

"Who am I?" is created, and "I Am Who I Am" must be the Creator. It is the only logical acceptable scientific answer; The Infinite, Eternal, Creative Mind who Is and lives, who can be best described as "I Am Who I Am".

He is all knowing since he created everything that was created, or that we are a part of, He has all the power like my mind that can create many universes with no great effort at all, He IS, or Eternal so no need to look who created Him since all we need is One Eternal and Infinite, and everything else is the created within Him.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to arian]

Arian, if nothing else I commend you for accepting the challenge (even if it was your own) and taking what seemed a very sincere swing at it.

I imagine soon the members will come eviscerate what you've written, but at least you delivered what you thought was true, and in a heartfelt manner.

[Suzy]

I have been following this debate with great interest because this is for me is one of the BIG questions.
How on earth can anyone say with 100% certainty that an intelligent ‘something’ is not behind life, the cosmos and everything? I would admit that not even an atheist like myself would be able to say that with hand on heart.
But for me this is not the question [and I hope I am not going ‘off topic’ here] The question for me is how do you go from the belief in an intelligent creator to believing in a God from one of the religions we have?
I often see someone that claims to have proof or evidence for God and then find out he or she is a Christian?
I just don't get it?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 62 by arian]

I agree (somewhat) with IM.

Nice try

What you have presented is a personal testimonial that may be very meaningful to you and may seem like "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" but it is not. Perhaps you realize this by now.

One's personal mental / emotional / psychological processes are nowhere near being evidence in debate -- let alone "undeniable scientific evidence."

As this thread progressed I suspected ("prophesied") that your "evidence" was something like this. Though your thoughts may be absolutely convincing to YOU, they are only your thoughts. Everyone has thoughts -- in all sorts of directions. They may think that their thoughts would be convincing to others -- but they would be wrong much or most of the time. A few may accept.

Many have given the "god issue" considerable thought and have arrived at THEIR conclusion that it is all illusion or imagination. Their thoughts are just as valid for them as yours are for you -- and neither is binding upon (or convincing) to others.

What you relate does NOT assure that it is anything more than illusion or imagination (or wishful thinking or something similar).

It would have been better for credibility and respect if you had not made grandiose claims but had simply said "I think there is a god" -- which is what your statement above conveys.

[arian]

[Replying to arian]

Arian, if nothing else I commend you for accepting the challenge (even if it was your own) and taking what seemed a very sincere swing at it.

I imagine soon the members will come eviscerate what you've written, but at least you delivered what you thought was true, and in a heartfelt manner.

Thank you Indigo, I really do appreciate your kind remarks. And I do understand that you think I sincerely believe this, and I do. This does not mean that my eyes and ears are not open for some new revelation, which may come from anyone, even someone who hates the idea of a Creator God, or ID as Richard Dawkins does.

Actually my interest in the Blue Brain Project taught me a lot. Only they are looking at the wrong part of the human, the brain. If I had such support, I would start a Blue-Mind Project, .. a 5-year mission to seek out and know our Creator better! lol.. actually I'm serious.

The idea to ask 'who is God' did not, .. I repeat; did not come from my religious Christian upbringing, back then I would not dare to ask such a question in the fear of banishment and even excommunication. In the religions that deal with god/gods, asking details of God is not something that is easily tolerated. Questions like; "Does God exist?" goes against their faith that is based solely on faith (blind faith) This now I know is not what God wants, but quite the opposite.

I do really thank you, and by all means let's seek more of this Creator? I have a few million questions (just saying) which I would love to share with you all. But for now, let's analyze what I said, tear it apart if we can, or see if my claims are justifiable, and see if there is more evidence?

Remember this is science, not church.

Thanks again, I don't get much positive acknowledgements like this, so it sure is nice.

(actually I sort of credit Otseng and his Warning to stop fighting/arguing with my friend Zzyzx that may have shocked me back on track!?! Kind of like psycho shock therapy, lol)

[arian]

I have been following this debate with great interest because this is for me is one of the BIG questions.
How on earth can anyone say with 100% certainty that an intelligent ‘something’ is not behind life, the cosmos and everything? I would admit that not even an atheist like myself would be able to say that with hand on heart.
But for me this is not the question [and I hope I am not going ‘off topic’ here] The question for me is how do you go from the belief in an intelligent creator to believing in a God from one of the religions we have?
I often see someone that claims to have proof or evidence for God and then find out he or she is a Christian?
I just don't get it?

Hello Suzy, on a personal note you look beautiful today, like a happy flower with the sun shining in your face.

"Going from believing in an intelligent Creator to believing in god/gods created by religions" Is that what you are asking?

If it is, I wholeheartedly agree, how can they?

The problem is that Creator/God gave a tiny piece of Himself into a body, so that spirit/mind within us is actually God Himself. Being that our spirit/mind is God, with free will as God, we tend to exercise that freedom. But the big problem here, is that we don't have the Infinite wisdom that God our Creator has, so we tend to step on others who were also created in Gods image.

This is very evident in our own children, sibling rivalry. I am positive that God knew this would happen before he even created us.

Being created, which is obvious since we have a body that we are stuck in that has limitations (one of the precautions our Creator took) and the need for energy to keep this body alive which God provides continuously (another precaution our Creator took) from an infinite amount of storage, we Know, just know, everyone knows deep down inside no matter how far we have strayed from our Creator, that we depend on our Creator. That we need God.

But because we also KNOW that God loves us, (like my children sometimes get me so mad, I tell them I'm gona take their phones away, no X-box which I was actually able to take away, but soon I break down, especially when the mope around, and remind me of their good grades, .. and that; "I love you daddy", boy that gets me all the time) and since His love is just so great, we test the waters and wonder farther and farther away from Him. But still knowing that we need a Parent, that is that we need God, we create delusions like ideas of gods, and even carved images as pacifiers to be able to cope with our pitiful situations. Like children that just have to have a doll or a Teddy Bear to sleep with.

As we can see, especially today, people can look up to heaven and curse God. There is many reasons for this, and the biggest one is that they have been convinced that God just don't care about them. I see this rage here on this Forum, people who swear they don't believe in God berate God, the Bible, Creation even to a point they admit that they are nothing but animals, .. evolving Apes or something.

So it is a good idea to know who our Creator is, and to know who we are, and why we are before we go on a rampage against a God we don't even know, or no longer know.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thank you Indigo, I really do appreciate your kind remarks. And I do understand that you think I sincerely believe this, and I do.

We all should be very careful to distinguish between belief and knowledge. It is easy to confuse the two. Anyone can believe anything ("the moon is made of blue cheese" for example, or "Leprechauns live in the forest" – or other things I won't mention in the spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and civility) but those beliefs do NOT constitute knowledge.

Typically, genuine knowledge (defined as: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation") is verifiable / testable by anyone interested and motivated. If one claims to know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid / ellipsoid of revolution that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, for instance, one should (must) be able to present compelling evidence that what they say is true.

Likewise, those who claim (or suggest) that the Earth does not rotate and is the center of the solar system and/or universe are responsible for demonstrating their proposals to be truthful and accurate.

Those who claim knowledge that is not demonstrable to, and verifiable by, others are "blowing smoke." This include claims of knowledge of how the universe originated or how life began. Notice that those who study such matters scientifically IDENTIFY their work as THEORY and do not claim absolute knowledge.

Many who claim to know such things from the study of theology often (usually) claim absolute knowledge – after reading a book of opinions by unidentified ancient writers, listening to sermons from the book, and/or having or hearing of personal emotional / psychological experiences.

This does not mean that my eyes and ears are not open for some new revelation, which may come from anyone, even someone who hates the idea of a Creator God, or ID as Richard Dawkins does.

Agreed. One should be open to verifiable information presented by anyone of any persuasion.

Scientific search for truth and accuracy encourages and depends upon having its conclusions challenged, disproved, modified, improved. When one's ideas are "locked in" to and dependent upon certain conclusions, they are no longer interested in truth – but are seeking confirmation of preordained conclusions.

The idea to ask 'who is God' did not, .. I repeat; did not come from my religious Christian upbringing, back then I would not dare to ask such a question in the fear of banishment and even excommunication.

That common characteristic of organized / commercial / popular religions demonstrates that proponents and practitioners fear challenge and question. Perhaps such people realize that they cannot openly and honestly answer questions about their claimed knowledge without demonstrating that it is OPINION rather than knowledge and that they cannot support what they say (other than referring to "scripture" which cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate). Which may account for Catholic elementary school authorities suggesting that I attend public school after I insisted on asking questions to which they could not supply coherent answers – even to a ten year old).

In the religions that deal with god/gods, asking details of God is not something that is easily tolerated. Questions like; "Does God exist?" goes against their faith that is based solely on faith (blind faith)

Agreed – and that really upset the Catholic school nuns and priests.

However, as famous a religious figure as Mother Teresa clearly doubted the existence of God for all her adult life – as evidenced by her letters posthumously published.

This now I know is not what God wants, but quite the opposite.

Perhaps it would be more accurate and credible to say that you THINK you know what God wants. To claim actual knowledge of God's desires invites challenge to demonstrate such "knowledge" – which cannot be done (to the best of my knowledge and experience).

I do really thank you, and by all means let's seek more of this Creator?

Why not seek TRUTH based on evidence rather that starting with a CONCLUSION that what we see is attributable to a "creator?"

When one presupposes a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support their conclusion they are NOT looking for truth but are trying to find confirmation of their already-formed conclusion. That is NOT the way to actually, honorably, seek truth (because you assume that you already KNOW truth and just want some way to prove it – which doesn't work very well in debate as you may have noticed)

I have a few million questions (just saying) which I would love to share with you all.

Questions are valid. One doesn't "share" questions, but ASKS them – without implying that they already have THE answers.

But for now, let's analyze what I said,

Why start with what you said (and failed to substantiate)?

tear it apart if we can, or see if my claims are justifiable, and see if there is more evidence?

Your CLAIM to have evidence has been "torn apart" decisively, your claims have been challenged and have not been supported.

If there is "more" evidence, it has not been presented – but is the responsibility of those who claim (or think) they have knowledge of the supernatural (no matter what they call it or what beliefs they harbor).

Remember this is science, not church.

Science does NOT deal with that which cannot be detected (or even described by proponents).

Scientific study does NOT assume or start with conclusions – but starts with observation and measurement and follows wherever that leads (even though it may contradict one's preferences).

Scientific study does NOT disregard or ignore information or evidence that conflicts with any preordained ideas.

Thanks again, I don't get much positive acknowledgements like this, so it sure is nice.

One gains possitive affirmations / acknowledgments by debating honorably, stating their case clearly, avoiding evasion and other disreputable tactics (including focus on another member),

(actually I sort of credit Otseng and his Warning to stop fighting/arguing with my friend Zzyzx that may have shocked me back on track!?! Kind of like psycho shock therapy, lol)

Promoting honorable debate is the objective of Admin, Moderators, and good members.

I, for one, am willing to give you a "fresh start" and see how it goes from there.

[arian]

.
[Replying to post 62 by arian]

I agree (somewhat) with IM.

Nice try

Thanks again my friend Zzyzx, and I would like to publicly apologize for my bad behavior in those personal attacks. I did break forum rules. From now on I will make impersonal attacks, .. just kidding. No I will do as Otseng asked me to, attack the post, not the Poster. Again I am sorry, and I still love you man!

Hey thanks, I honestly couldn't have done it even at this simple level without you and the others here. And now, let's see your response which I have been anxiously waiting for.

What you have presented is a personal testimonial that may be very meaningful to you and may seem like "undeniable scientific evidence of our creator" but it is not. Perhaps you realize this by now.

Realize what? I have given you the 'tip of the iceberg', and I know what a gigantic iceberg it really is. With my human brain, I am afraid to even look how 'deep' that iceberg goes, it would blow my simple brain from overload.

One's personal mental / emotional / psychological processes are nowhere near being evidence in debate -- let alone "undeniable scientific evidence."

Show me evidence, any evidence where another scientist wouldn't have to use his "personal mental / emotional / psychological processes" to understand it?

Or, .. show me how anyone could create something without using his mind to create the concept? Before reality, comes the mind, and you need the mind to analyze evidence. So before, and after evidence, it is the mind. The brain is nothing but storage, like sheets of paper with info in a large storage cabinet. The mind has to walk over to the file cabinet and search out the info desired. My mind therefore has an easy job, because them cabinets are practically empty.

As this thread progressed I suspected ("prophesied") that your "evidence" was something like this. Though your thoughts may be absolutely convincing to YOU, they are only your thoughts. Everyone has thoughts -- in all sorts of directions. They may think that their thoughts would be convincing to others -- but they would be wrong much or most of the time. A few may accept.

I'm sure you agree on that what they are searching in quantum physics is exactly what I have shown, a scientific proof of a God or Creator concept, right? The CERN was built for this very purpose, all kinds of billion dollar government projects are now dedicated to finding 'God', or some physical evidence of THE Creator, whether it's the Higgs boson, String theory or a sign from space from some alien entity, or from holes from the middle of the earth they create by HAARP or similar Death-Ray machines. Or just a message, .. anything from anywhere and from anyone, even if it is Satan himself calling from the depts. of hell, .. anything that could be construed as evidence of, or the answer to "everything", or How were we created, and from what, so man could get rid of this pesky disease called death, or entropy.

The way I understand, that this entire project is driven by an idea, a quest for immortality. Even the basic ideas are in their infant stages, and no matter how long and how hard they try, no matter how many man hours, how much money they dedicate to this project, I can promise you one thing; they are looking in the wrong haystack, and soon they will discover that there are countless haystacks out there.

Many have given the "god issue" considerable thought and have arrived at THEIR conclusion that it is all illusion or imagination. Their thoughts are just as valid for them as yours are for you -- and neither is binding upon (or convincing) to others.

Yes, I know, .. I have spent a great deal of my life listening their 'god issue' as you said. From quantum theory, to all them New Age concepts, to all the Pied Pipers of religions that have the masses following them, to the Blue Brain projects, to the Orion and other 'system' projects. From Hindu to Egyptian myths, to the thousands of Christian theologies, even the Communist and the German/Hitler delusion which is no different and based on Marshal Applewhite's 'Let's kill ourselves before that something kills us first, and then jump on and get a ride on that comet", .. all promise that their 'illusion/delusion' has the 'god answer' or the 'answer to everything'. It's either immortality by any means (which doesn't exclude suicide) to some Utopian living for the 'pure-race' lunacy.

There are some really good ones out there who captured my attention, and I did get deeper into it, and found each one wanting.

Not only that, I have found that all, .. every one of these different concepts are driven by a deception. They seem to offer everything and deliver nothing. It's all a lie and people just keep buying into it. It's unbelievable, 6,000 years and people still fall for the same trap that Eve fell into, that man can be God, .. when as I have pointed out, man IS God, a piece of God only within a body.

Once you understand and see the obvious and undisputable PROOF of the Creator, who can be known through His creation especially man, all questions of 'god concept will start answering themselves. No one can see God, so looking at the gigantic haystack of the physical creation, you will never find God. God is Spirit, and only those in the spirit can know/see Him.

This is why you will never find demons or the devil searching for God, they are spiritual beings, they KNOW God and tremble.

What you relate does NOT assure that it is anything more than illusion or imagination (or wishful thinking or something similar).

OR, .. you just hope that's all that is!? I welcome your opinion and correction. As I said; this is science, let's see if we can tear it apart, dissect it like I did all them different religious beliefs? Even the ones that are disguised as science.

It would have been better for credibility and respect if you had not made grandiose claims but had simply said "I think there is a god" -- which is what your statement above conveys.

That there is a God is obvious to everyone, only more and more people are denying this fact because of ideas like the Big-bang Evolution Delusion. Women now can have multiple abortions without even blushing, Agendas like Agenda 21 that proposes to wipe 6.5 billion non pure-race population off of the face of the earth, and this by destroying the earth by radiation, and it's protective o-zone layer with constant bombardment are slipped in without even a fuss.

I don't think there is a God, I can prove He Is. And the proof is right here, in me, in you, in all of us. This is why this book called the Bible says; "Seek God, for He is not far from any of us." Well no kidding, our mind/spirit is of God. Only we keep distancing ourselves from Him

[arian]

.

Thank you Indigo, I really do appreciate your kind remarks. And I do understand that you think I sincerely believe this, and I do.

We all should be very careful to distinguish between belief and knowledge. It is easy to confuse the two. Anyone can believe anything ("the moon is made of blue cheese" for example, or "Leprechauns live in the forest" – or other things I won't mention in the spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and civility) but those beliefs do NOT constitute knowledge.

Knowledge without belief is like a horse without the carriage, the carriage (knowledge) just sits there. No use for anything until you attach belief to it.
What is knowledge worth if you don't believe in it?

Also, I try hard not to store my brain with false knowledge, but only verified knowledge. So when I say I believe in something like God for instance, I don't want people to think that; "Oh he said he believes in God, so he must be thinking of Leprechauns or something, lol.. What a dumb ass!"

Typically, genuine knowledge (defined as: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation") is verifiable / testable by anyone interested and motivated. If one claims to know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid / ellipsoid of revolution that rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, for instance, one should (must) be able to present compelling evidence that what they say is true.

Do you know anything about the Theory of Relativity? About observers, reference points, frames of reference, etc.?
OK then go out into space with a rocket ship, look at the earth and prove to me it is spinning? Maybe it's just going up and down?

Same with a heliocentric and geocentric universe, or that the earth is rotating around the sun, or the sun around the earth. If you were on the sun observing earth, the earth would be rising and setting everyday.

What I am trying to point out is that what you might think as verified and tested knowledge could be a bunch of hocus-pocus. So no matter how much education one may have had, or what quality college they went to doesn't mean the knowledge they poses is correct!?

Likewise, those who claim (or suggest) that the Earth does not rotate and is the center of the solar system and/or universe are responsible for demonstrating their proposals to be truthful and accurate.

you mean like the Big-bang Evolution fairytale, only they moved it up to a theory, and to no surprise, today it is referred to as fact. So I guess; "I Am An Ape" who am I, just an animal, a chimp, with no college, 3 years of sporadic grade school to be allowed to debate hundreds of years of accumulated religious fairytales by scientists that have been elevated to the pinnacle of scientific discoveries, masters, geniuses, gods!?

Besides I wouldn't waste any more of my time on these things, I have bigger fish to fry, like hoping to convince others of the fact that there IS a God, and now they too can prove it. Also that 'nothing' does exist which proves without a shadow of a doubt that the BB theory is built on a malicious lie to keep people from seeing, knowing simple facts like that not only does God their Creator exists, but they have a part of Him, their 'mind/spirit'.
They no longer have to accept lies, unless they prefer to believe the lies?

Those who claim knowledge that is not demonstrable to, and verifiable by, others are "blowing smoke." This include claims of knowledge of how the universe originated or how life began. Notice that those who study such matters scientifically IDENTIFY their work as THEORY and do not claim absolute knowledge.

The Big-bang is NOT a theory, come on now let's be honest here. And neither is picking up and looking at a fossil and making up billion year old stories to prove the evolution religion, and that is all it is, a religion. No substance and no evidence, just faith in whatever religion you are worshiping at that time.

Look, the universe and the world is a fact, right? We can see, feel and observe it.

We create with our mind first, this too is fact - Dream, contemplate, come up with a concept, how, where everything goes, the materials that will be needed etc. all in our mind, while the brain is just waiting to get information what parts of the body to move next.

Our mind then creates signal, and sends these signals to our brain which is physical,
which then maneuvers the body, extremities, fingers to do the required tasks, and takes whatever physical things it needs to create the concept. If this is how we the created do it, it must be because it is the way our Creator does it. Since we the created are not the Creator, then we can rest assured that what we have is from our Creator. There is nothing that we do that could be different from what our Creator does.

This is not a theory but a fact, .. unless you believe the hand decided to create the 'concept' and sent information to the brain to tell the hand to create the concept? Now that wouldn't even make a good hypothesis, let alone a theory. That would also mean that the created is creating the Creator. Well, actually they do try, they are called idols.

I have found some detailed information how God creates, and looking at how we create as evidence of this, it makes perfect sense. It is all done through Gods Word.

Many who claim to know such things from the study of theology often (usually) claim absolute knowledge – after reading a book of opinions by unidentified ancient writers, listening to sermons from the book, and/or having or hearing of personal emotional / psychological experiences.

I know, I know, .. that's why I'm not a theologian, nor do I claim to have absolute knowledge. If I did, I would not had to work so hard to search, seek and knock for my Lord to give me this information? and then sift through the garbage that comes from the supernatural realm with all that false info. mixing in with the truth. Not all spiritual info is true, so we have to figure out which one works and what don't.

I still listen to some good preaching that is not too opinioned or interpreted through religious doctrine.

God reveals step by step, but Satan divines and offers it in a pretty package, all complete so you would just accept it and not worry about minor details. Many, many accept the package. I know this from experience also.

This does not mean that my eyes and ears are not open for some new revelation, which may come from anyone, even someone who hates the idea of a Creator God, or ID as Richard Dawkins does.

Agreed. One should be open to verifiable information presented by anyone of any persuasion.

Scientific search for truth and accuracy encourages and depends upon having its conclusions challenged, disproved, modified, improved. When one's ideas are "locked in" to and dependent upon certain conclusions, they are no longer interested in truth – but are seeking confirmation of preordained conclusions.

Exactly, this is why I would not expect verifiable information from Dawkins since he is so 'locked in' as you said. Instead, I would use his ideas in the correct logical sense, like I did with the Blue brain Project idea.
Have you seen when Dawkins makes a presentation, his initial comments are always against the idea of ID or a Creator, and he waits for that laughter and cheer from the crowd because as you said; "they are no longer interested in truth – but are seeking confirmation of preordained conclusions."

The idea to ask 'who is God' did not, .. I repeat; did not come from my religious Christian upbringing, back then I would not dare to ask such a question in the fear of banishment and even excommunication.

That common characteristic of organized / commercial / popular religions demonstrates that proponents and practitioners fear challenge and question. Perhaps such people realize that they cannot openly and honestly answer questions about their claimed knowledge without demonstrating that it is OPINION rather than knowledge and that they cannot support what they say (other than referring to "scripture" which cannot be shown to be truthful or accurate). Which may account for Catholic elementary school authorities suggesting that I attend public school after I insisted on asking questions to which they could not supply coherent answers – even to a ten year old).

Well if you were then as you are now, I could see that, lol. Didn't they paddle back then? I could just see the nun stalking you in class with her paddle in hand, or under her arms.

I agree that they use the Bible selectively to use sections that support their religious doctrines. We can use the Bible either as supporting evidence, or use pieces of it to support some man made doctrine.
I use it as supporting evidence, to see what it has to offer in support of the evidence I already have proof of, like God our Creator in this case.

In the religions that deal with god/gods, asking details of God is not something that is easily tolerated. Questions like; "Does God exist?" goes against their faith that is based solely on faith (blind faith)

Agreed – and that really upset the Catholic school nuns and priests.

However, as famous a religious figure as Mother Teresa clearly doubted the existence of God for all her adult life – as evidenced by her letters posthumously published.

Woe, .. that's not something you hear every day, right? Poor woman, she must have gone through hell being a religious icon of the Catholic Church, and the wrong she seen in the churches doctrines and practices, which she obviously had to hold back. Hey, maybe that's why they performed exorcism on her a few times, maybe they thought that she had a demon in her for doubting the churches god/gods?

Like I said, poor woman, the truth was calling her, it must have been tearing her apart. But she was stuck between a rock and a hard place. She should have chosen either one, the truth, .. or the Catholic Church and not fight her. It is better to be either hot or cold, but being look warm is already hell.

Now they have her petrified in a glass coffin with worshipers rubbing handkerchiefs on her coffin for souvenirs. I remember seeing it live on TV, and what a line, wow!

This now I know is not what God wants, but quite the opposite.

Perhaps it would be more accurate and credible to say that you THINK you know what God wants. To claim actual knowledge of God's desires invites challenge to demonstrate such "knowledge" – which cannot be done (to the best of my knowledge and experience).

Come on, do you think when Darwin came up with the Evolution theory that no one was calling him, instructing him what explanations he should use for the huge gaps in his theory? I mean I doubt he witnessed even one species change into another, right?

He must have had a lot of sleepless nights being tormented by such outrageous claims. I'm sure the Devil came giving him his divinations on how to fill in those gaps to make it somewhat believable.

Who do you think instructed Dahmer in killing all those young men? Who his dad, or his upbringing? I don't think so. I strongly doubt that is how his parents brought him up, or what he learned in school?
The devil instructed him, warned him and this is how he got to do it for so long, and to so many without getting caught.

But I doubt the devil would want me to reveal the Undeniable and scientific Evidence of the Creator.

I do really thank you, and by all means let's seek more of this Creator?

Why not seek TRUTH based on evidence rather that starting with a CONCLUSION that what we see is attributable to a "creator?"

When one presupposes a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support their conclusion they are NOT looking for truth but are trying to find confirmation of their already-formed conclusion. That is NOT the way to actually, honorably, seek truth (because you assume that you already KNOW truth and just want some way to prove it – which doesn't work very well in debate as you may have noticed)

I am and have been convinced of this for some time now because of solid evidence, or the evidence I have seemed solid enough. If you have any disagreement with the evidence, by all means point it out? I welcome correction as I said. Faith is built on evidence, the more evidence the more faith.

You don't have to show me physical evidence, if it is the truth, I will search it out and add it as more evidence. If it sounds wrong, I just discard it. Do you want me to live in error? So please point out the flaws, not just keep saying there may be flaws. Like I said, I know all about living a lie, when I was attending church, remember me telling you that?

Zzyzx, I mean what you just said here (in green) is so beautiful and true, how is it that you have not used it to proof the Big-bang and evolution theories? Or what Hawking's teaches, or what Einstein claimed? Or is this only when it comes to our Creator? Scientist talk a lot about all kinds of concepts that are not seen and as knowledge grows in these quantum fields, we may never see them. yet (maybe not you) but every unbeliever seems to simply accept their claims.

I have a few million questions (just saying) which I would love to share with you all.

Questions are valid. One doesn't "share" questions, but ASKS them – without implying that they already have THE answers.

No, I wanted to share the questions to see if you found them solid, or good questions? Besides, you may have much better and improved question I may not have considered.

I mean there are things like 'smart questions' right? What are 'smart questions'?
Smart questions are informed questions, as if the person knew the answer already, right? I mean you are the teacher, so I'm sure you know all about questioning.

Besides, even if I did know the answers to my questions, by sharing them with you shows the validity of my claim, no? You may not have even thought to ask that?

But for now, let's analyze what I said,

Why start with what you said (and failed to substantiate)?

I said and revealed a lot, which part did I fail to substantiate? The OP?

tear it apart if we can, or see if my claims are justifiable, and see if there is more evidence?

Your CLAIM to have evidence has been "torn apart" decisively, your claims have been challenged and have not been supported.

If there is "more" evidence, it has not been presented – but is the responsibility of those who claim (or think) they have knowledge of the supernatural (no matter what they call it or what beliefs they harbor).

Torn apart decisively? Challenged?? Where? Can you at least show me which part? Is it because you don't believe we have a mind, or that you believe it is just part of the brain? That's fine, we can debate that? I already gave a few alternatives if you don't believe the mind is separate from the brain!?
Well, .. so is that it?
You keep telling me I have no evidence, yet I present undeniable evidence. What, do you want me to point out some supporting evidence from scripture? I can do that! I was just holding back since that answers everything else we could ask about God. Maybe not verbatim, but close enough to proof the answers.

Remember this is science, not church.

Science does NOT deal with that which cannot be detected (or even described by proponents).

Tell me please, which part of our Eternal Creator did I leave undescribed?
And be serious, science doesn't deal with that which cannot be detected? really?

So they have detected quantum gravitational waves? Not just the gravitation, but it's waves?

Quantum theory, is it about all them tiny things floating around the room after I finish my laundry?

Scientific study does NOT assume or start with conclusions – but starts with observation and measurement and follows wherever that leads (even though it may contradict one's preferences).

The OP clearly states: "Undeniable and Scientific evidence of The Creator", and I have shown it.

It is not about; "IS THERE Undeniable Evidence of The Creator?" Maybe that's what you should have called the OP?

I was just giving you a chance to be part of this evidence, and see if we could build more on this undeniable truth so everyone could understand it better? You know, like all them Big bangers continuously building on their lies. Why should they be allowed to build on lies, and us not build on the truth?

Scientific study does NOT disregard or ignore information or evidence that conflicts with any preordained ideas.

That's great, so do you have any information or evidence that would conflict with my answer to the OP, .. or not?

Thanks again, I don't get much positive acknowledgements like this, so it sure is nice.

One gains possitive affirmations / acknowledgments by debating honorably, stating their case clearly, avoiding evasion and other disreputable tactics (including focus on another member),

Yes, I have apologized, and do apologize about that focus.

But you do find fault in just about everything I say Zzyzx, right? One time I started a long sentence with: "I am confused.", and you cut that out and responded to it, apart from the following sentence I was referring to. You have a habit in cutting up my sentences and respond to them incomplete like that. Others have done the same, I guess that is not a personal attack, right?
I mean it's not like you were trying to make fun of me, or degrade my answers/comments right old buddy?
I didn't think so.
And it's not like you have a preordained conclusion in you heart regarding any evidence of a Creator either?! Richard Dawkins comes to mind, a true, unbiased evolutionary scientist. You not going to see any preconceived notions in him when he presents his biological Evolution facts, right?

(actually I sort of credit Otseng and his Warning to stop fighting/arguing with my friend Zzyzx that may have shocked me back on track!?! Kind of like psycho shock therapy, lol)

Promoting honorable debate is the objective of Admin, Moderators, and good members.

I, for one, am willing to give you a "fresh start" and see how it goes from there.

Thank you my friend.

May I ask you for a favor though? you know as a precaution so it won't happen again. Can you not drag me into saying personal comments like that? It really does make me feel bad after I read it, and especially after I get a warning like that. I mean I admit I am nowhere as educated as you, I struggle with words that I want to say, and maybe you didn't know, but I still have to look up a lot of your and other fellow posters words to answer your posts, so really I am trying.

I am not asking you to ease up on your opinions, or except a poorly researched response. I am not seeking any handicap by all means. What I ask is if you could ease up on your indirect tactics that bring me down to such level to respond to you with disrespect. That's all.

A direct insult would be telling someone to f-- off, right? An indirect insult would be to shove a middle finger in their face. Sorry, but I don't see the difference?

And I have asked you many times, if you find fault point it out, not just say 'that is false' which when repeated can cause annoyance which eventually could result in a disrespectful comment from me, as I have seen from other posters to you. I'm just asking?

Thanks again.