You won't find God in the dictionary.

[IvyParticipant]

I absolutely am not. I don’t know how you got there. How many times do I have to say that I am never looking for definitive proof, only a sliver of evidence to suggest what theists claim might be true.

All the evidence is in front of you. Is your perception of that evidence that leads you to your conclusion.

You say that you are only looking for a sliver of evidence. Did I not just provide you with a couple of rudimentary examples? Shall I keep going? What kind of evidence are you looking for? I provided you with academic papers outside of the Bible. What precise type of evidence would you like?

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Did I not just provide you with a couple of rudimentary examples..

No you did not. You provided articles that argue for the existence of a god. Again arguments are not evidence. These arguments, especially the Creationists ones have all been debunked. but if you have evidence yes please do keep going and enter it as an exhibit that we can argue the merits of. What “evidence” is in front of me?

[IvyParticipant]

@Reg

I don’t. I simply ask that people who make the positive assertion that “god exists” to explain what they mean by the term “god”. They don’t or can’t offer me one and when they try to they then support it with arguments that are not consistent with the god they describe.

It’s really simple Reg:

God is the source from which everything in the universe came to be. Human beings have always tried to personify him (it, she, whatever, god is genderless)….Jesus claimed to be THE personification of “it”…And whether or not you believe that is completely a matter of faith. Yes, throughout our existence we have named and personified Gods as an attempt to understand it. I don’t think our primitive explanations were a complete waste of time, but more like a small piece of a really big puzzle. I don’t think it’s easy to fully conceptualize God which is why it is hard to pinpoint a definition. But I do think God speaks to us and is involved in our lives. I do think God is personal. Even if scientifically it can only be examined as circuits firing in our brain. We are deeply connected to this universe. I think we are deeply connected to God which is why our brains evolved to believe in God.

[IvyParticipant]

@Reg

Have you read

Return of the God Hypothesis

Stephen C Meyer
HarperCollins Publishers, 2019

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.308.7912&rep=rep1&type=pdf

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Ivy.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Have you read – Return of the God Hypothesis by Stephen C Meyer.

No Ivy, I have not and I will not. He is a proponent of Intelligent Design. He works for the Creationist Discovery Institute (or did at some point). He does not understand Evolution which was very evident in the errors he made when he excreted his “Darwin’s Doubt” book. This latest offering is just as bad.

[Glen DParticipant]

“…And whether or not you believe that is completely a matter of faith.”

Finally.

I had not realised I was dealing with a disingenuous/wilfully ignorant theist apologist. Such people are usually impervious to reason or facts.

Usually I won’t engage with such people. It’s not only a waste of time, but if I try to persevere, I usually end up saying something very unkind.

A big thank you to Reg and his patience.

 

 

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Glen D.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I see that Meyer’s teaches in Whitworth College. It has an interesting course in Physics:

As a Whitworth physics major, you will study the fundamental physical laws of the universe. You will develop a deeper understanding of how the world around you works, as well as a sense of excitement about how much remains to be discovered.

The study of physics opens the doors for you to contribute to society in many ways. Whitworth prepares physics students for lives of meaningful work in which they will explore the laws of the natural world that God has made and will design solutions to meet the needs of humanity.

[IvyParticipant]

@Glen

Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed on the site.

[IvyParticipant]

@Reg

if you are unwilling to read it then it leaves little options or point in continuing this never ending circle.

You say you are open to debate and then back off….tells me you aren’t as “open to changing your mind” as you claim to be.

It amazes me how atheists claim to be open to all and all for human rights and stomping out oppression….yet anyone who tries to disagree in the slightest is mocked, belittled and dismissed on finicky arguments. Duck, evade, twist, dodge the question…..you play the SAME  game that you accuse theists of playing. Projection at its finest.

[Glen DParticipant]

“@Glen

Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed on the site.”

Mea culpa.My bad.  I  was provoked.  Will try not to do it  again. Will say nothing further to you or about you on this topic.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

“positive” in this case is related to the positive properties of a godlike entity

You still haven’t defined the word “positive”.  It has a number of different meanings, perhaps one of these is a specialised one within this kind of logic.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Dr Bob used to say that Creationists are an embarrassment to “mainstream” Christians and it is a relatively young movement.  There’s no reason why God is incompatible with evolution.

[Glen DParticipant]

“Dr Bob used to say that Creationists are an embarrassment to “mainstream” Christians and it is a relatively young movement. There’s no reason why God is incompatible with evolution.”

 

Just so

At the catholic school I attended, we were told the Church has no problem with evolution.

The reason is because we have no idea of how long a day was as mentioned in Genesis.One of God’s days could well be eons. That’s all I remember, it never came up again.

This a beliefs shared with Hindus.Their cosmology covers many hundreds of thousands of years. .

 

 

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Glen D.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Glen D.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@simon I feel that relying on the adjective “positive” is a flaw at the beginning.  “Positive” is a concept limited to human beings, or at best, living things…

Simon first you say “positive” is limited to human beings. I explained it was related to the “positive” properties of the experiment into the godlike existence of an entity. I am not going to explain why I think some of the assumptions made about the axioms used to base the computer generated “positive” results on that forcibly try to prevent a modal collapse are based upon. It is enough to say that trying to introduce a computer experiment as evidence for a god existing is clutching at straws.

In your reply you then say It (positive) has a number of different meanings, perhaps one of these is a specialised one within this kind of logic.

You cannot claim that positive is “limited to human beings” and then claim “it has a number of different meanings”. It cannot be both……even if 2 positives make a positive it is not logical.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

the “positive” properties of the experiment into the godlike existence of an entity

Do you know what “positive” means in this context?

[Author]

Posts