Posted: 2017-11-07 09:53
I say all that to tell you that there is a way for you to know, but most of Christianity or any other religion denies the possibility of such revelations, of a man looking at the face of His Creator and receiving a knowledge that is purer and higher the all the science and religion combined. They understate the power of God that they may continue to influence mankind to follow their creeds, saying that we must have a blind faith and hope for a better future. But I tell you, that is not the case! In contrary, God wants us to know Him personally, independently of all other beings that we may testify of His glory and witness the majesty of His power and love. Man can truly, in a physical sense, in a complete sense, see God, and touch the body of His Spirit, and commune with Him and taste of His glory and gaze upon the future, and the past, and the vastness of His wonders.
In summary, you claim that most (if not all) scientific findings are all invalid since most scientists are atheists. Also, that the reason for children abandoning the Christian faith is because of science. I would agree with the later if they are exposed to 8775 Alternate Science 8776 that has little (if any) scientific basis. When I first started my science-faith journey, I was excited about creationism UNTIL I tried to explain it an impossible task given the convoluted logic of their various 8766 alternate explanations 8767 .
But again, in the broad sense of communication, what Mr. Marshall meant is that, today, rocks are not exchanging messages between themselves for a given purpose, or at least it has not been proven that they actually do what if proven that they do exchange messages it would be a greater proof of design and an intelligent mind working on or upon them. What would make the very concept of a such personal God much more important that now without such knowledge of such widespread inteligence and purpose and design.
Anyway, heres a few current objections I 8767 ve ran across at EvC. I myself am still trying to nail down your argument, not sure if I correctly understand it. Some of these objections cause me to wonder myself. I 8767 ve invited them to your debate at infidels and to come here etc,. But as usual, when it gets tuff, it 8767 s the same old 8775 no no no, we want it in your own words, leave Perry out of it. 8776 Which of course, can 8767 t blaim them, it 8767 s much easier to twist the debate with me. Anyway heres a few, if you don 8767 t mind.
Firstly, let me see if I have your Athiest 8767 s Riddle right: You ask to be shown where in 8766 nature 8767 there is a process that has evolved a language spontaneously, outside of living organisms. Is that right? You want to be pointed to a non-life process with language in it and hope in remaining unanswered to demonstrate that the fundamentally language-based processes of life require that a mind initially invoked them?
Being unable to show you information that didn 8767 t come from a mind doesn 8767 t demonstrate a god, it could be super intelligent being that has capabilites to recognise a paradigm beyond our own. Also you 8767 re shifting the burdon of proof we have no examples of a God existing. We can 8767 t prove a negative I could argue that a mind coming in to existence in the beginning is just magic and not a 8775 god 8776 . We do have examples of language and minds existing. What was there before a God and which mind made God arise?
I just have to add one more thing God is great come God is so great X offended t x Cosmos X forever plus so much more than you could ever imagine. Why do we have to limit so much about God? Why are we so limited in our thinking? It 8767 s time that we take a very much deeper look into everything. It 8767 s time that we explore our true Natures the true stories but that we keep one very small and large simple fact at heart and that is God exists God is a Creator and no matter how many times the story changes he is at the base the route the beginning of everything.
The thing about science is it doesn 8767 t claim to absolutely know as we can never absolutely know anything at all. Science gives us our best model based on what we currently know and thankfully as we learn more we can gradually make more accurate models as time goes on. What has become apparent is that over time the amount of Gods have diminished the further that we 8767 ve found scientific answers for things. Eg. Zeus producing thunder, then we worked out the mechanics of weather and discounted it.
The point is this: When there are rules in place (., gravity, planck 8767 s constant, thermodynamics, physics, etc.), the universe HAS to follow those rules. In a hypothetical situation, where a literal 8775 nothing 8776 could exist (btw: We don 8767 t know that there ever WAS a literal 8775 nothing. 8776 It cannot be proven nor disproven. We 8767 ve never seen a 8775 nothing. 8776 ), there is NOTHING including no laws of physics. Without those laws, the universe could simply come into existence by itself because there 8767 s nothing preventing it from doing so.
Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right !? and far as it may seem we will be one with this world. Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator ? ! A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes. Why!? simply because a creation cannot comprehend completely what or how or Why the creator created it in the first place.
But thinking capacity and creative thought can only function constructively for the well being and harmony of the universe only when emanating from consciousness (by being in the here & now) and not from the EGO (which tides the waves of space & time and hence reside in the relative time frame – this produces varied behavior with different people in different situations depending upon class, racial, financial and religious status.)Ego develops duality (I, me , myself & you, us & them, they, GOD) keeping one separate from the rest of the universe and dreaming a dream(for himself) inside a dream(universe).
The term you 8767 re looking for is 8775 Special Pleading, 8776 and it happens all the time on this forum. Everything that we 8767 ve seen from humans has been designed, so naturally, we look at the universe, and assume it must have been designed also. Only human minds can create other human minds so our minds must originally have been created by another mind except for God, of course. This form of special pleading means that the rules apply to everything EXCEPT God.
It wouldn 8767 t suffice to simply find another example of a code. One would also have to find the genesis of that code by natural means, and EVEN THEN, there is no reason not to say, 8775 Well, sure, it could have happened naturally, but life has purpose beyond mere reproduction, it has a plan, a goal, a moral condition. Therefore, although it could have arisen without conscious intent (in my hypothetical) the result is obviously more than a mere flexing of undirected natural law. 8776
This is another example of the relentless confusion typically expressed by atheists. Specificly , external things that are not minds cannot give you information. Any information you may have that was not transmitted from another mind could only be created by YOUR MIND. Perry has been adamant about this point. Your information that God does not exist was either transmitted to you by another mind or you created it. Either way , Perry has revealed over the span of numerous discourses that the validity / truth / factualness of the infogram 8776 God does not exist 8776 cannot be scientificly ascertained and is in fact a scientificly invalid assertion. Please do not confuse the controversy over the existence of God with the controversies over the multitude of religious concoctions pertaining to God.
No, I think we agree on the same definitons.
The recorded history in the Bible is all we have to account for God 8767 s dealing with His creation.
God will only intervene as we humans allow Him.
Mr. Marshall makes excellent points for intelligent design. All DNA and RDNA cells have their own language to create our body parts. Bacteria seems to be the catalist that gets everything started. Watch Bonnie Bassler on .
I read somewhere that we the creation are God 8767 s members today to carry on His work. Unfortunately we don 8767 t always get things correct.
The Bible is an excellent roadmap, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at mans 8767 intent wasn 8767 t to explain creation but to be slain for humanities sin nature. It 8767 s called atonement. The Holy Spirit has a roll in everything today. Read the Bible and you will find answers, unfortunately we can 8767 t inspect with chemical reaction everything in the Bible and proof its authenticity. The Bible is written on a 6 to 7 grade level and therefore its easy to understand. It is no scientific book that offers proof. It offers an answer to communicate with God.
My previous post stated that there are hundreds and hundreds/thousands of clocks in the earth and the universe – and – there are NONE that show the earth or universe to be less than 6555 years old. Even tree rings (. Bristlecone pine) are over 8555 years and other trees are over 67,555 years old. Another ‘clock’ is the layers of earth. I have a whole presentation on these/other simple clocks so I can give more examples if needed.
I didn 8767 t make an intelligent deal with the cloud to offer this information the cloud would offer this information even if I wasn 8767 t there to see it. It is a different kind of information to a language, but it 8767 s information all the same the only symbols in this code are 8775 dark cloud = wet stuff 8776 and 8775 white cloud = no wet stuff 8776 . A small alphabet with just two letters.
But this knowledge means nothing to him because he has decided truth for himself. In the end science is beside the point, we all have to die and we all face our maker Jesus Christ. He said the flood was a real event, that humans and animals were created the same day and how anyone can disagree with God , and that is who Jesus is, and can still convince themselves He will save their souls is beyond me.
If He lied about Adam and Eve He is not God.
It 8767 s the fact that a large part of that moral code abides strictly to a religious belief and not a humanitarian perspective. It 8767 s not the idea of MORAL LAW, it 8767 s the idea that it includes a religious ideology. I can see that saying secularists attack moral law, and then including 8766 of any kind of god 8767 takes quite a bit away from them attacking the god and instead makes them appear to attack the ethics/morality. This method of arguement is not only an easy way to avoid by claiming the reader has a misinterpretation, it 8767 s a great way to confuse the readers into thinking the point is valid.
So I first began reading about math, its history. Then about science, its history, and especially its philosophy. Then I moved on to books like 8775 Decoding the Universe 8776 , and 8775 Programming the Universe 8776 . The concept of 8775 information 8776 thoroughly penetrated my thought processes, and it seemed to appear everywhere in everything I read or physically observed.