Is changing a physical law like changing a speed limit sign?

[Neatras]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

[Still small]

[Replying to post 109 by Still small]

Would this type of experience convince you? Would this be enough proof to satisfy you?

Nope. Not at all. None of the alleged accounts of such experiences necessitates the existence of a god or an afterlife.

Please describe the criteria you would use and how you would apply them that allow you to determine definitively that such an event is real rather than an experience generated within a brain under stress.

Exactly my point. One is continually asked to prove the existence of the Creator but no amount of evidence would convince you. Not even a personal one-on-One meeting. Because it cannot be 'measured' by the scientific method (SM), that being due to the limitation of the SM only to the physical 4D spacetime universe. It cannot determine or measure anything outside of or beyond it. As I mentioned previously, the SM cannot determine whether Shakespeare was a good playwright. You continually ask for scientific evidence for something which science cannot determine.
Even if God were to manifest Himself on Earth, once again, and perform all manner of miracles, you would probably put it down to mass hypnotism, illusion or even CGI. So, again, if you won't believe your own eyes, what evidence or proof would you accept?

Obviously, 'none'.

Have a good day!
Still small

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 111 by Still small]

Not even a personal one-on-One meeting. Because it cannot be 'measured' by the scientific method (SM), that being due to the limitation of the SM only to the physical 4D spacetime universe.

As I said, what criteria would you use to establish that this alleged one-on-one meeting actually involved God? Why should you automatically assume it is God?

It cannot determine or measure anything outside of or beyond it. As I mentioned previously, the SM cannot determine whether Shakespeare was a good playwright. You continually ask for scientific evidence for something which science cannot determine.

So exactly how do you establish that you are actually dealing with God?

Even if God were to manifest Himself on Earth, once again, and perform all manner of miracles, you would probably put it down to mass hypnotism, illusion or even CGI.

We have no evidence that he was ever here or that he performed any miracles in the first place. People are very easily fooled, in particular by those who go out of their way to fool them. If you can't rule out mass hypnotism or CGI or any of the other techniques in a magicians bag of tricks, then they are still all more likely than a god.

So, again, if you won't believe your own eyes, what evidence or proof would you accept?

Your own eyes are not all that reliable. Eye witness accounts of events have proven that time and again.

The questions that need to be answered are these:

What was it that convinced you that God exists?

Why isn't that compelling enough to convince everyone to believe?

What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?

[Still small]

[Replying to post 112 by brunumb]

[Replying to post 111 by Still small]

Not even a personal one-on-One meeting. Because it cannot be 'measured' by the scientific method (SM), that being due to the limitation of the SM only to the physical 4D spacetime universe.

As I said, what criteria would you use to establish that this alleged one-on-one meeting actually involved God? Why should you automatically assume it is God?

It is part of the nature of God, His Being, that you are aware of who He is when you are in His presence. I believe it is referred to as His 'shekhinah glory'. Can it be measured with scientific equipment? I doubt it but all that indicates is that it is not of the physical 4D spacetime universe.

It cannot determine or measure anything outside of or beyond it. As I mentioned previously, the SM cannot determine whether Shakespeare was a good playwright. You continually ask for scientific evidence for something which science cannot determine.

So exactly how do you establish that you are actually dealing with God?

Again, He makes His presence known. That's part of His nature - remember - He is not a human being and, as such, is not restricted to such limitations but His words and actions are consistent with those in the Bible. It appears you are still asking, paradoxically, for physical evidence for the non-physical.

Even if God were to manifest Himself on Earth, once again, and perform all manner of miracles, you would probably put it down to mass hypnotism, illusion or even CGI.

We have no evidence that he was ever here or that he performed any miracles in the first place. People are very easily fooled, in particular by those who go out of their way to fool them. If you can't rule out mass hypnotism or CGI or any of the other techniques in a magicians bag of tricks, then they are still all more likely than a god.

You don't read much, do you. Otherwise, if you'd bothered to do a little research, you would find that there is a great deal of historical evidence that He was here. What year is it?

So, again, if you won't believe your own eyes, what evidence or proof would you accept?

Your own eyes are not all that reliable. Eye witness accounts of events have proven that time and again.

Don't believe 'eye witness' accounts? Damn, . . . there goes all of 'history'. And, unfortunately, unlike scientific experiments (and 'the saying') history does not keep repeating itself. History is a series of 'one time','non-repeating' events. Something which the scientific method cannot measure. Get over it. History happened. Or do you also refuse to accept the existence of historical events, . . . or just the ones that don't fit your particular paradigm.

"There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach. Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[32] Professor of Classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[33] New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.[34] . . . . . . . . During modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, depending upon one's a priori view of the supernatural." (Emphasis added) Wiki

The questions that need to be answered are these:

What was it that convinced you that God exists?

My continued research brought about by my refusal to "just accept what we (lecturers) tell you and don't ask questions". Realising that there are certain things which cannot be explained by the natural realm, by science, but are real, none the less. Several elements of 'just accepted' cosmology defied what I knew of the laws of physics (nature). Also, noting that scientific organisations in programs such as SETI, recognised and accepted that repeatable sequences of information or coding, whether understood or not, were a sign of an intelligent agent. Therefore, to believe that such incredibly complex coding as DNA, for example, was supposedly produced by chance required one to 'close their eyes' to the obvious, tighter than I could possibly imagine.
Still skeptical, being an atheist, but trying to be honest to myself, I examined various areas of the 'meta-physical' including , 'God forbid', various religious accounts. As such, the accounts or explanations given in the Bible, even after researching secular history, appeared to be the 'best fit'. Still trying to be skeptical, as the nature of an atheist is, I couldn't accept the notion of the God of the Bible. To this end, a lecturer friend, who I don't believe was a Christian, mentioned that there is a challenge included within scripture, itself - Mat 7:7-8 "(7) Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: (8) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." - and he (I think jokingly) suggested I take it. Thinking on this over a few months, I realised that if I was to take this 'challenge', I needed to be genuine and honest which also requires one to be open-minded. So, I basically said an atheist's prayer, not believing anyone would respond which went something like, "God, and I don't know whether you exist or not, if you are real, show me, convince me." and left it at that, not knowing if I was to see a flash of heavenly light or a chorus of angels singing or a booming voice. But nothing happened. After a few days of 'nothing', I thought I'd check the passage again to reassure myself that I had fulfilled my part of the 'deal' before discarding the whole matter. I began to notice some passages I'd read many times before seemed to be different, I began to see a new, a different meaning than I'd seen before. The more I read, the more it became clearer, made more sense to the point that I realised that I could not deny what I was now reading. Over a few months, I realised that my challenge had been met, I asked and I received, I sought and I found, I knocked and 'the door' was opening. To be honest, this started to scare me because I was starting to be convinced. I stopped. I put it aside. But I couldn't stop thinking about it. Again, there were no big flashes of lightning or thundering voices or miracles, visions or angelic appearances. There was no 'Saul/Paul' moments (Act 9:1-8). What there was, though, was an 'Elijah moment' (1Kings19:11-13), a constant 'still small voice' (that sounds familiar) that kept challenging me. This still small voice kept challenging me as to why I was refusing to accept what I had come to know to be true. It was probably due to a mix of pride and fear. Pride, having to admit, mainly to myself, that I had been wrong and fear because of the consequences of this knowledge. Going back to find the answers, I came to John 3:16-21 and my life has changed ever since.
Now, I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers to all the questions but I am confident that, for some questions, one day I will and for others, I do not need to know. That is what convinced me God exists. I took on His challenge and He continued until His part was met.

Why isn't that compelling enough to convince everyone to believe?

I cannot answer for others, I can only answer for myself. Some people might need a 'Saul/Paul' moment (Act 9:1-8), others may need an 'Elijah moment' (1Kings19:11-13). Regardless of which, the one thing I do know to be essential is that one has to genuine and honest in their search. And be prepared to accept and deal with the findings.

What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?

I don't know because I cannot deny who I am and what I know. I realise that in this post I have opened up to my personal experience (which may be subject to mocking or ridicule) but, again, I cannot deny who I am and what I know to be the truth. Though, if you are serious, I would strongly suggest taking God's challenge for yourself. Remembering though, you must be genuine, God knows your heart, God knows your motives.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DeMotts]

Don't believe 'eye witness' accounts? Damn, . . . there goes all of 'history'. And, unfortunately, unlike scientific experiments (and 'the saying') history does not keep repeating itself. History is a series of 'one time','non-repeating' events. Something which the scientific method cannot measure. Get over it. History happened. Or do you also refuse to accept the existence of historical events, . . . or just the ones that don't fit your particular paradigm.

Still small would you say that history is best understood as a series of eyewitness accounts? Or would you say that our understanding of history is based on a combination of contemporaneous writings and corresponding archeological and physical evidence found to be mutually agreeable?

I think it's extremely unfair to take criticism of eyewitness accounts as a dismissal of all recorded history.

Eyewitness accounts have long been considered some of the least reliable evidence in a court of law due to flaws in human perception and memory, as well as inherent bias in a given individual and the implicit difficulty in confirming an independent eyewitness account.

Though it may be anecdotal, check out the doc "Murder on a Sunday Morning" to see how a man can completely misidentify his wife's murderer (whom he encountered at a distance of several feet) a mere couple of hours after the crime.

You don't read much, do you. Otherwise, if you'd bothered to do a little research, you would find that there is a great deal of historical evidence that He was here. What year is it?

Surely you're not suggesting the the invention of the Anno Domini notation in calendars, invented in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, is somehow evidence of god's actual presence on earth as jesus? It's not like they started counting up from 1 as soon as jesus was born... It happened hundreds of years later.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 113 by Still small]

It is part of the nature of God, His Being, that you are aware of who He is when you are in His presence. I believe it is referred to as His 'shekhinah glory'.

This could be nothing more than the sensed presence effect coupled with confirmation bias.

It cannot determine or measure anything outside of or beyond it. As I mentioned previously, the SM cannot determine whether Shakespeare was a good playwright. You continually ask for scientific evidence for something which science cannot determine.

The scientific method allows us to sift out the imaginary and the fake. If anything is not detectable by any means then it is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

That's part of His nature - remember - He is not a human being and, as such, is not restricted to such limitations but His words and actions are consistent with those in the Bible. It appears you are still asking, paradoxically, for physical evidence for the non-physical.

There is nothing that confirms that anything attributed to God in the Bible is true. God may be non-physical but his alleged interactions with the earth as described in the Bible should have left some evidence. There is none.

You don't read much, do you. Otherwise, if you'd bothered to do a little research, you would find that there is a great deal of historical evidence that He was here. What year is it?

Nope. None. You should try reading outside the Bible. The figure of Jesus as described in that tome is not irrefutably mentioned elsewhere. Strange considering the alleged events he was involved in.

Don't believe 'eye witness' accounts?

The Bible makes reference to eyewitnesses but we don't actually have direct, verified eyewitness accounts of anything. If I report that my cousin had a friend who knew someone who said he saw something, that does not qualify.

Therefore, to believe that such incredibly complex coding as DNA, for example, was supposedly produced by chance required one to 'close their eyes' to the obvious, tighter than I could possibly imagine.

Being incredulous is not an argument. Our inability to comprehend something does not prevent it from being true. That aside, DNA is not a code. It is a chemical template. It is very large, but it is not really all that complex.

Still skeptical, being an atheist, but trying to be honest to myself, I examined various areas of the 'meta-physical' including , 'God forbid', various religious accounts. As such, the accounts or explanations given in the Bible, even after researching secular history, appeared to be the 'best fit'. Still trying to be skeptical, as the nature of an atheist is, I couldn't accept the notion of the God of the Bible.

At the end of my examination of the metaphysical, it all went into the rubbish bin of foolish beliefs, including God. I lost my belief in Yahweh and then any godlike entity.

To this end, a lecturer friend, who I don't believe was a Christian, mentioned that there is a challenge included within scripture, itself - Mat 7:7-8 "(7) Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: (8) For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." - and he (I think jokingly) suggested I take it.

I have heard many accounts from people testifying that they got no response. I believe that it only 'works' where people already believe and they are trying to rationalise their beliefs post hoc. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of believers grow up to adopt the faith of their environment. It is the product of the powerful process of indoctrination. If it doesn't take effect in childhood, it may take subtle social pressures later in life.

That is what convinced me God exists.

Some people have a low threshold for being convinced. Strangely, they are incredibly sceptical in most other regards other than their belief in God. Believers are made first and then proceed to retrofit whatever justification they can.

There is no evidence for God. All claims made in favour of the existence of God fail to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. As far as unanswered questions go, God is nothing more than an invented answer.

(b: "Why isn't that compelling enough to convince everyone to believe?")

I cannot answer for others, I can only answer for myself. Some people might need a 'Saul/Paul' moment (Act 9:1-8), others may need an 'Elijah moment' (1Kings19:11-13). Regardless of which, the one thing I do know to be essential is that one has to genuine and honest in their search. And be prepared to accept and deal with the findings.

While others need something more than confirmation bias.

(b: "What would it take to convince you that God does not exist?")

I don't know because I cannot deny who I am and what I know. I realise that in this post I have opened up to my personal experience (which may be subject to mocking or ridicule) but, again, I cannot deny who I am and what I know to be the truth. Though, if you are serious, I would strongly suggest taking God's challenge for yourself. Remembering though, you must be genuine, God knows your heart, God knows your motives.

No. You cannot deny what you believe to be the truth.

What does being genuine have to do with taking God's challenge? If your God knows my heart he knows I don't believe. The ball is in his court to prove he exists, if he really cares that is. What has God knowing my motives got to do with anything. What negative motives could I have for taking God's challenge? This all sounds like Christian rhetoric to me. It makes no sense.

[Kenisaw]

But like you said, fossils are a fact. Radioactive decay is a fact. Genetics is a fact. A common designer? We never get evidence for that, do we. That starting point never seems to be proven by anyone...

What evidence would you accept?

Throw whatever you have at me. I'm not picky.

You continually ask for proof of God, the Creator, the Intelligent Designer. So what sort of proof would convince you? For example, humour me and try this little thought experiment -

I can't honestly say whether or not that experience would convince me or not. Given my conclusions about theism at this point in my life, I think it is entirely possible that I wouldn't even have such an experience (if it wasn't real) because my brain wouldn't run to that. In other words, the activity of my subconsciousness in a dying brain isn't going to show he something I don't consider real as a coping mechanism.

Since it is not evidence however (because no one else can experience what I experienced) it is worthless as a claim of evidence. I believe I asked for evidence, not a personal experience that cannot be verified by anyone, including even the person that supposedly had the experience while their brain was dying.

The creator being is supposed to be an all loving, all caring, all omni this and that creature. It supposedly loves everyone and wants the best for us. Why doesn't it just plop it's cosmic rear end down next to each one of us, all at the same time, and be recorded and take selfies with people, and prove beyond a doubt it is real?

We are supposedly so loved, yet there is no data that supports the existence of this thing, and it has the power to lovingly erase all doubt for us poor suffering sots, and yet I have to continue to ask for evidence and all I get is an NDE scenario...

Seriously, how pathetic is that?

[Still small]

[Replying to DeMotts]

Still small would you say that history is best understood as a series of eyewitness accounts? Or would you say that our understanding of history is based on a combination of contemporaneous writings and corresponding archeological and physical evidence found to be mutually agreeable?

I believe it to be a mixture of both but without eyewitnesses, the event may not even be known.

I think it's extremely unfair to take criticism of eyewitness accounts as a dismissal of all recorded history.

That was said with a bit of 'tongue in cheek' but a lot of that which is recorded in history is from eye witness accounts.

Eyewitness accounts have long been considered some of the least reliable evidence in a court of law due to flaws in human perception and memory, as well as inherent bias in a given individual and the implicit difficulty in confirming an independent eyewitness account.

That may be true of individual or single events of recognition but less likely when the account is several events over a period of time.

Though it may be anecdotal, check out the doc "Murder on a Sunday Morning" to see how a man can completely misidentify his wife's murderer (whom he encountered at a distance of several feet) a mere couple of hours after the crime.

I may certainly do this but, again, this is a single event of recognition. When you witness a single event, your brain records small points as it is just one event out of thousands one experiences everyday. Though, upon subsequent events or interactions, the brain tends to remember more detail due to familiarity. For example, you are about to leave a building for lunch and you notice another person entering, you may step aside to let them pass, a quick 'mental note' is made of the event. You return to the building and notice, from your previously made 'mental note', that the person is sitting in the reception area, more information is stored in that 'mental note file' and so forth with each encounter. Each encounter sparking recognition from the previously stored 'mental notes' and the new or additional 'mental note' strengthening the previous ones, correcting minor details and reinforcing or 'fixing' them within your memory. Those 'mental notes' that are not 'fixed' by repeated recognitions are soon forgotten. Typical example, you know much more, now, about your partner than when you first met them.

Surely you're not suggesting the the invention of the Anno Domini notation in calendars, invented in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, is somehow evidence of god's actual presence on earth as jesus? It's not like they started counting up from 1 as soon as jesus was born... It happened hundreds of years later.

Again, somewhat 'tongue in cheek'.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Still small]

[Replying to post 115 by brunumb]

This could be nothing more than the sensed presence effect coupled with confirmation bias.

'Sensed presence effect'? Maybe so, being an inbuilt sense of the meta-physical as opposed to the physical. Maybe a God-given sense to enable an awareness of the presence of the spiritual. And your non acceptance of such an event is possibly coupled with your denial bias.

The scientific method allows us to sift out the imaginary and the fake. If anything is not detectable by any means then it is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

False, the scientific method allows us to detect and measure the physical and only the physical. It cannot make determinations regarding the non-physical or meta-physical. Your response is, again, probably due to denial bias.

There is nothing that confirms that anything attributed to God in the Bible is true. God may be non-physical but his alleged interactions with the earth as described in the Bible should have left some evidence. There is none.

Again, false. The universe itself, being 'something rather than nothing'. Also, 'life' in its essence. This being the difference between a bunch of chemicals and a living creature. Unless, of course, you can replicate the creation of the universe utilising the natural laws, as the requirement of the scientific method, without first appealing to the meta-physical. Or maybe you can transform, purely by natural means, a pile of chemicals into a living creature. The evidence is all around you - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"  Rom 1:20
Maybe your denial bias prevents you from 'seeing' it.

Nope. None. You should try reading outside the Bible. The figure of Jesus as described in that tome is not irrefutably mentioned elsewhere. Strange considering the alleged events he was involved in.

I have read outside of the Bible, extensively, that was part of my research. Is it so strange that the account of Jesus is not mentioned to a great extent elsewhere? When you consider that at the time of Christ, Galilee was merely a backwater Eastern Mediterranean outpost of the Roman Empire occupied for the purpose of collecting taxes. Yet the historians such as Tacitus and Josephus, to name a few, mention him. Also, from the four biographies, highlighting four sides of His life, King (Matthew), Servant (Mark), Son of Man (Luke) and Son of God (John) and a few simple followers, the knowledge of this remarkable life was spread throughout the Roman Empire and continued beyond to grow to that which we have today. All without a Facebook account, Twitter, Snapchat, Wikipedia, not even a newspaper route.

Don't believe 'eye witness' accounts?

The Bible makes reference to eyewitnesses but we don't actually have direct, verified eyewitness accounts of anything. If I report that my cousin had a friend who knew someone who said he saw something, that does not qualify.

Matthew was an eyewitness, as was John, both being apostles. Mark was the scribe for Peter, the apostle and I've spoken of Luke elsewhere. As for accuracy, applying the processes of textural criticism, it shows that there is far greater evidence for the accuracy of the records in the four gospels than for any other historical records of the time, accepted as fact.

Being incredulous is not an argument. Our inability to comprehend something does not prevent it from being true. That aside, DNA is not a code. It is a chemical template. It is very large, but it is not really all that complex.

"DNA is not a code"! ***WARNING WARNING - super burst of denial bias ****
Call it what you like, a template, recipe or code, it is undeniable (except maybe by you) that DNA is a set of instructions for the reproduction of living cells, a set of instructions so complex, it is comparable to nothing of human construct. Your assertion that it is not complex would be surprising news to a great many geneticists.

Still skeptical, being an atheist, but trying to be honest to myself, I examined various areas of the 'meta-physical' including , 'God forbid', various religious accounts. As such, the accounts or explanations given in the Bible, even after researching secular history, appeared to be the 'best fit'. Still trying to be skeptical, as the nature of an atheist is, I couldn't accept the notion of the God of the Bible.

At the end of my examination of the metaphysical, it all went into the rubbish bin of foolish beliefs, including God. I lost my belief in Yahweh and then any godlike entity.

You obviously missed something then, didn't you?

I have heard many accounts from people testifying that they got no response. I believe that it only 'works' where people already believe and they are trying to rationalise their beliefs post hoc. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of believers grow up to adopt the faith of their environment. It is the product of the powerful process of indoctrination. If it doesn't take effect in childhood, it may take subtle social pressures later in life.

It must surprise you, then, that I grew up in a very atheistic family. In fact, my father virtually disowned me when he learnt of my change of beliefs. Along with this is the fact that all my formal education only taught naturalistic/evolutionary concepts. At this point, I was basically a staunched atheist (maybe not to the the level of Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss but I accepted all they said without question). It was only when doubts arose which I couldn't answer and when I enquired through the 'formal channels', I was basically given the "just accept what we (lecturers) tell you and don't ask questions" response.

That is what convinced me God exists.

Some people have a low threshold for being convinced. Strangely, they are incredibly sceptical in most other regards other than their belief in God. Believers are made first and then proceed to retrofit whatever justification they can.

And some people have a very high level of denial bias.

There is no evidence for God. All claims made in favour of the existence of God fail to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. As far as unanswered questions go, God is nothing more than an invented answer. (Emphasis added)

This is simply your failure to distinguish between the physical and the meta-physical.

(b: "Why isn't that compelling enough to convince everyone to believe?"

I cannot answer for others, I can only answer for myself. Some people might need a 'Saul/Paul' moment (Act 9:1-8), others may need an 'Elijah moment' (1Kings19:11-13). Regardless of which, the one thing I do know to be essential is that one has to genuine and honest in their search. And be prepared to accept and deal with the findings.

While others need something more than confirmation bias.

Maybe some need to lower their level of denial bias. It is a waste of time and effort to search for something when you are already convinced, to the point of denial, that you will not find it.

What does being genuine have to do with taking God's challenge? If your God knows my heart he knows I don't believe. The ball is in his court to prove he exists, if he really cares that is.

It appears that you have already chosen to deny any evidence which He might present. That is another aspect of God, He has given each of us freewill and will not override our decisions. He may attempt to induce you to change your mind but, again, He will not override your freewill choices.

What has God knowing my motives got to do with anything. What negative motives could I have for taking God's challenge? This all sounds like Christian rhetoric to me. It makes no sense.

Simply a matter of knowing whether you are genuine in your search for the truth.

Have a good day!
Still small

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 118 by Still small]

'Sensed presence effect'? Maybe so, being an inbuilt sense of the meta-physical as opposed to the physical. Maybe a God-given sense to enable an awareness of the presence of the spiritual. And your non acceptance of such an event is possibly coupled with your denial bias.

Feelings of "God" can be induced by electrical stimulus of the brain. You should look it up along with the sensed presence effect. No actual gods necessary.

False, the scientific method allows us to detect and measure the physical and only the physical. It cannot make determinations regarding the non-physical or meta-physical. Your response is, again, probably due to denial bias.

If the 'metaphysical' cannot be detected then it is no different from the imaginary, the made-up and the non-existent.

The universe itself, being 'something rather than nothing'. Also, 'life' in its essence. This being the difference between a bunch of chemicals and a living creature. Unless, of course, you can replicate the creation of the universe utilising the natural laws, as the requirement of the scientific method, without first appealing to the meta-physical. Or maybe you can transform, purely by natural means, a pile of chemicals into a living creature. The evidence is all around you - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Rom 1:20

The universe is evidence of itself, not God. Living things are essentially organised chemical structures capable of self-replication among other characteristics. They are produced every day in their trillions by utilising chemicals and energy in the environment. Add other chemicals to the mix and the process can be seriously disrupted forming all sorts of faults in the organism produced. Remove some chemicals and life fails completely. The universe is all around you, but there is no actual sign of God. Only wishful thinking and incredulity. Maybe your denial bias prevents you from 'seeing' that.

I have read outside of the Bible, extensively, that was part of my research. Is it so strange that the account of Jesus is not mentioned to a great extent elsewhere? When you consider that at the time of Christ, Galilee was merely a backwater Eastern Mediterranean outpost of the Roman Empire occupied for the purpose of collecting taxes. Yet the historians such as Tacitus and Josephus, to name a few, mention him.

Given the incredible events attributed to Jesus over a period of about 3 years it is incredible to think that barely a mention of him was made. So much for him having multitudes following him or his creating such a fuss that he had to be removed from the scene. The authors you quote provide negligible, and questionable, reference to Jesus.

Matthew was an eyewitness, as was John, both being apostles. Mark was the scribe for Peter, the apostle and I've spoken of Luke elsewhere. As for accuracy, applying the processes of textural criticism, it shows that there is far greater evidence for the accuracy of the records in the four gospels than for any other historical records of the time, accepted as fact.

The authorship of the gospels is unknown. None of it is direct, eyewitness accounts of anything.

"DNA is not a code"! ***WARNING WARNING - super burst of denial bias ****
Call it what you like, a template, recipe or code, it is undeniable (except maybe by you) that DNA is a set of instructions for the reproduction of living cells, a set of instructions so complex, it is comparable to nothing of human construct. Your assertion that it is not complex would be surprising news to a great many geneticists.

My background is in chemistry. DNA is a chemical. It occurs as incredibly long strands, but there are only six basic components. It does not 'instruct' anything. It affects the chemical environment around it and everything that happens is the result of electrochemistry. We can even multiply DNA in the laboratory as is done with small samples to help with identification in criminal investigations.

It must surprise you, then, that I grew up in a very atheistic family. In fact, my father virtually disowned me when he learnt of my change of beliefs.

Yes, that does surprise me. Not a claim I readily accept. It is a common tactic used to somehow show that the shift from atheist to theist is somehow attributable to rational thought rather than indoctrination. The latter is the most recognisable method of propagating any religion. The evidence is all around you. As for shunning, that is particularly associated with the religious who have little tolerance for unbelievers, even in their own family.

Along with this is the fact that all my formal education only taught naturalistic/evolutionary concepts. At this point, I was basically a staunched atheist (maybe not to the the level of Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss but I accepted all they said without question). It was only when doubts arose which I couldn't answer and when I enquired through the 'formal channels', I was basically given the "just accept what we (lecturers) tell you and don't ask questions" response.

That whole paragraph beggars belief. I don't accept a word of it. You may call it denial bias but I woukld call it lying for Jesus.

b: "There is no evidence for God. All claims made in favour of the existence of God fail to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. As far as unanswered questions go, God is nothing more than an invented answer. (Emphasis added)"

This is simply your failure to distinguish between the physical and the meta-physical.

Unless you can distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary/made-up, the latter is the equivalent of non-existent and hence totally irrelevant. . There is no supernatural or metaphysical unless you can show that it exists.

Maybe some need to lower their level of denial bias. It is a waste of time and effort to search for something when you are already convinced, to the point of denial, that you will not find it.

Once you lower your credibility threshold far enough you can find yourself believing anything, even things that have actually be proven false. No, scepticism should be the default position in all things.

It appears that you have already chosen to deny any evidence which He might present.

Nope. I have yet to be presented with any credible evidence for the existence of any god.

That is another aspect of God, He has given each of us freewill and will not override our decisions. He may attempt to induce you to change your mind but, again, He will not override your freewill choices.

All attributes of God that have merely been defined by humans. In fact all of the attributes of God have come from the imaginations of human beings. They are simply what humans think that a god should be like. At no time have any of these attributes been irrefutably demonstrated.

b: What has God knowing my motives got to do with anything. What negative motives could I have for taking God's challenge? This all sounds like Christian rhetoric to me. It makes no sense."

Simply a matter of knowing whether you are genuine in your search for the truth.

Why would I not be genuine in my search for the truth? What would I have to gain? Your answer seems to be another one of those loopholes that allow for a non-response for your alleged God.

Nothing you have said offers any compelling reason to believe that there is any god, and certainly nothing for the existence of the Christian God.

[Still small]

[Replying to post 116 by Kenisaw]

I can't honestly say whether or not that experience would convince me or not. Given my conclusions about theism at this point in my life, I think it is entirely possible that I wouldn't even have such an experience (if it wasn't real) because my brain wouldn't run to that. In other words, the activity of my subconsciousness in a dying brain isn't going to show he something I don't consider real as a coping mechanism.

Hence the reason it is called a 'thought experiment'. It wasn't a question as to whether or not you would have this experience but, rather, if you had this experience, how would you react.

Since it is not evidence however (because no one else can experience what I experienced) it is worthless as a claim of evidence. I believe I asked for evidence, not a personal experience that cannot be verified by anyone, including even the person that supposedly had the experience while their brain was dying.

Is not a personal experience evidence to you personally?

The creator being is supposed to be an all loving, all caring, all omni this and that creature. It supposedly loves everyone and wants the best for us. Why doesn't it just plop it's cosmic rear end down next to each one of us, all at the same time, and be recorded and take selfies with people, and prove beyond a doubt it is real?

Would that not be a personal experience? One must also remember that the One you are expecting to do such appearances is the Creator God of the entire universe and deserving of suitable respect, not some clown to perform tricks at your command.

We are supposedly so loved, yet there is no data that supports the existence of this thing, and it has the power to lovingly erase all doubt for us poor suffering sots, and yet I have to continue to ask for evidence and all I get is an NDE scenario...

Seriously, how pathetic is that?

Ah . . . you automatically assume it is a NDE but it may have been a real death experience. A one-on-one meeting with God but you would even pass that off as not real. Again, seeing as you would not accept a personal experience, what evidence would you accept? It appears that you don't know what evidence you would accept and that which you would reject. So help me here, what evidence are you not going to write off as just illusion?

Have a good day!
Still small