EdGordonRN wrote:

By the very definition
and idea of God, we have to assume that all matter and consciousness
is made from God, becuase God is the only thing that can actually
exist.

You can't define god into existence.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

You can't define god into existence.

I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking (that is,
by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able to find evidence in
nature that would stick out from nature. In other words, the very existence of
a rock, or a plant, or anything else would be overwhelming proof of God's
existence. It's not the proof of God's existence we need to look for. There
can't be proof, per se. Jesus said, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door
shall be opened. We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us
in the face.

EdGordonRN wrote:
You can't define god into existence.

I'm just saying that if indeed there is a God, ontologically speaking
(that is, by the very nature of the word "God"), we wouldn't be able
to find evidence in nature that would stick out from nature. In other
words, the very existence of a rock, or a plant, or anything else
would be overwhelming proof of God's existence.

IF there is a god, then some arbitrary bit of 'evidence' would prove he
exists?!?

Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe in
god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has not
made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about the
existence of god.


We have to believe in God first, then all the proof stares us
in the face.

Do you know what "proof" means?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Are you for real? Do you realise that there are people who don't believe
in
god, and for whom all the 'proof' that every believer tried to cite has
not
made them change their minds? The rocks and plants prove *nothing* about
the
existence of god.

Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb.

Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working
thumb?".

How many generations did this small development take?

How old is the planet?



Regards


Donal
--

How many generations did this small development take?

How old is the planet?

More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track
projection.

RB

More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track
projection.


Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists. However,
after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for that argument.

In your case, you've not evolved, so I can see your point.

"EdGordonRN" wrote in message
...
More than old enough. I suggest you study an evolutionary time track
projection.


Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists.
However,
after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for that argument.

EdGordonRN wrote:

Evolution, if the theory is true, is direct evidence that God exists.

Please explain how this is so.


However, after studying its claims, I don't believe it. So much for
that argument.

After studying the claims of those who have faith, I don't believe that god
exists. So much for their arguments.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Donal wrote:

Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb.

Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working
thumb?".

How many generations did this small development take?

How old is the planet?

How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my
thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god?


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

Wally, take a minute to study your own thumb.

Ask yourself "How many genetic mutations were needed to make a working
thumb?".

How many generations did this small development take?

How old is the planet?

How am I supposed to get from a rock, a plant, the genetic history of my
thumb, or a planet that's been around for a while..., to god?

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God" becomes an
inescapable conclusion.

The current theory ... that we "evolved", is simply not possible in the
timeframes that are available. Scientists have argued that intense periods
of radiation have resulted in periods of "accelerated" mutation. However,
we have now had the opportunity to see the results of increased radiation
..... and it certainly does not result in rapid advancement of our species.

Your thumb could not have "evolved" in the history of the planet.

I've considered all the available options. Only one makes sense.


Regards


Donal
--