• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOD of ABRAHAM is the CREATOR ("DESIGNER")

tosca1 said:
How do you know the rhinocerus isn't the inspiration for a unicorn? Your analogy is pathetic.

To bring in the unicorn as a comparison to theistic evolution, only shows that you're struggling in understanding the whole premise of the NAS statement. You're simply not getting it, Mo.
Click to expand...
I'm getting it just fine.


The NAS is saying some people believe in "theistic evolution" and those people can offer no objective proof that "theistic evolution" is a fact.

I believe in Unicorns and I can offer no objective proof that a Unicorn is a fact.


The NAS is saying "theistic evolution" doesn't contradict science.

I'm saying a Unicorn doesn't contradict science. (, which is true and I gave my reasons above.)


Seems like a valid comparison to me.
 
Last edited:
So to reiterate,

There is no actual empirical that this religious "god" concept actually exists. What was provided till now is just anecdotal evidence (i.e., unsupported with evidence opinions, be it from ancient times or some of scientists from NAS).
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm getting it just fine.


The NAS is saying some people believe in "theistic evolution" and those people can offer no objective proof that "theistic evolution" is a fact.

I believe in Unicorns and I can offer no objective proof that a Unicorn is a fact.


The NAS is saying "theistic evolution" doesn't contradict science.

I'm saying a Unicorn doesn't contradict science. (, which is true and I gave my reasons above.)

Seems like a valid comparison to me.
Click to expand...


DDD

So to reiterate,

There is no actual empirical that this religious "god" concept actually exists. What was provided till now is just anecdotal evidence (i.e., unsupported with evidence opinions, be it from ancient times or some of scientists from NAS).
Click to expand...



Oy, coincidentally.....both of you have something in common. Both of you had your case(s) closed. Here they are:

DDD, refer to posts #810 and #814(Is There a God?)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god-w-262-890-a-81.html


Originally Posted by DDD View Post

So just cause a new religion (not the Abrahamic one) agrees to reason, logic, and science, how is this to provide evidence that this "god" concept exists?


tosca1

Religion is the belief in a God/gods.

You've admitted that, "a new religion agrees to reason, logic and science." You got the evidence you're asking for.


Case closed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


tosca1 said:
blah-blah-blah-blah.......you're done, Mo. See post #718.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...l-moral-standards-and-values-man-made-72.html


You hammered yourself with your own statement. You're now simply in-denial....:lol:
Click to expand...




You think I'd forgotten about that? :lol:


Anyway, let's review the NAS statement, shall we?



many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.
Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."


WMAP Site FAQs
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Oy, coincidentally.....both of you have something in common. Both of you had your case(s) closed. Here they are:

DDD, refer to posts #810 and #814(Is There a God?)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god-w-262-890-a-81.html

You think I'd forgotten about that? :lol:

Anyway, let's review the NAS statement, shall we?


many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.
Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."


WMAP Site FAQs
Click to expand...
Appointing yourself judge and declaring a resolution --- again?!?

3/3 on the laugh meter for replaying your error ...

:lamo :lamo :lamo



Unicorns aren't in disagreement with science, either. Plenty of horned animals and plenty of equine species across the planet. No scientific reason an equine can't have a horn.
 
Last edited:
A RECAP: the following were given as evidences for the God of Abraham.


1.THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, Genesis 1:1
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator. Post #1

2. Fine Tuning post#12

3. CAUSALITY aka THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT post#46

4. ARGUMENT FROM CHANGE post#103

5. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES - (PRINCIPLE OF PROBABILITY) post#217

6. The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation: EXPANDING UNIVERSE post#227

7. The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation: STRETCHING UNIVERSE post#228

8. TESTIMONIES #231 (CS Lewis) post# 231

9. Testimonies: William Lane Craig post#248

10. Testimonies: Lee Strobel post#258

11. Testimonies: Simon Greenleaf post post#315

12. The RESURRECTION (video) post#540


----------------------------------------------------


13. MIRACLES




There are events or phenomena that science cannot explain. How many times have doctors exclaim, "it's a miracle," when someone is suddenly and inexplainably cured of an illness, or didn't die as expected? A lot of miracles were preceded by prayers.








Thousands of miracles happen around us.....but we don't know of them. They are very personal experiences, unless they're shared of course, we wouldn't hear about them.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
A RECAP: the following were given as evidences for the God of Abraham.


1.THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING, Genesis 1:1
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator. Post #1
Click to expand...

We dont actually know it had a beggining. BBT claims it was the start of the universe we have now, not the start of all exestince, there may have been something(s) before.

2. Fine Tuning post#12
Click to expand...
only the world isnt that fine tuned for us.

3. CAUSALITY aka THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT post#46
Click to expand...
Missaplied and assumes #1 to be true in any event

4. ARGUMENT FROM CHANGE post#103
Click to expand...
Basically this is just 2 repeated using different phrasing.

5. MESSIANIC PROPHECIES - (PRINCIPLE OF PROBABILITY) post#217
Click to expand...
You have to actually prove the messianic prophesies for this to be even considered, you havent.

6. The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation: EXPANDING UNIVERSE post#227
Click to expand...
Aside from some creative interpretatiosn of the bible this, like the other claims means absolutely nothing.

7. The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation: STRETCHING UNIVERSE post#228
Click to expand...
Is the universe stretching or expanding or do they mean the same thing and this is this just a repeat of the previous claim?

8. TESTIMONIES #231 (CS Lewis) post# 231
Click to expand...
Aside from testimopny NOT being evidence of God, (they are just claims not evidence that the claims are true), it would only be worthwhile if there were no contrary testimonies so another pointless point.

9. Testimonies: William Lane Craig post#248
Click to expand...
See above

10. Testimonies: Lee Strobel post#258
Click to expand...
See above.

11. Testimonies: Simon Greenleaf post post#315
Click to expand...
See above.

12. The RESURRECTION (video) post#540
Click to expand...
For that to have any merit it must be proven, which despite your very best efforts you havent even come close to doing, there being far more likely non-supernatural explanations.
----------------------------------------------------


13. MIRACLES




There are events or phenomena that science cannot explain. How many times have doctors exclaim, "it's a miracle," when someone is suddenly and inexplainably cured of an illness, or didn't die as expected? A lot of miracles were preceded by prayers.
Click to expand...
Yup miracles are just things that havent been explained by science yet (or whose explanations have been ignored by some people)








Thousands of miracles happen around us.....but we don't know of them. They are very personal experiences, unless they're shared of course, we wouldn't hear about them.
Click to expand...
So because you dont know the explanation for something that means God, specifically YOUR interpetration fo God exists? Whjat if soemthign is later explained does that mean God doesnt exist?.
Really that is just argument from ignorance.


So basically we have 12 points (really just 5 as you repeat yourself) that are in no way evidence of your claim.
Still waiting for actual evidence for God( specifically your interpetation of God) to exist.
 
Quag said:
We dont actually know it had a beggining. BBT claims it was the start of the universe we have now, not the start of all exestince, there may have been something(s) before.


only the world isnt that fine tuned for us.


Missaplied and assumes #1 to be true in any event


Basically this is just 2 repeated using different phrasing.


You have to actually prove the messianic prophesies for this to be even considered, you havent.


Aside from some creative interpretatiosn of the bible this, like the other claims means absolutely nothing.


Is the universe stretching or expanding or do they mean the same thing and this is this just a repeat of the previous claim?


Aside from testimopny NOT being evidence of God, (they are just claims not evidence that the claims are true), it would only be worthwhile if there were no contrary testimonies so another pointless point.


See above


See above.


See above.


For that to have any merit it must be proven, which despite your very best efforts you havent even come close to doing, there being far more likely non-supernatural explanations.
----------------------------------------------------



Yup miracles are just things that havent been explained by science yet (or whose explanations have been ignored by some people)









So because you dont know the explanation for something that means God, specifically YOUR interpetration fo God exists? Whjat if soemthign is later explained does that mean God doesnt exist?.
Really that is just argument from ignorance.


So basically we have 12 points (really just 5 as you repeat yourself) that are in no way evidence of your claim.
Still waiting for actual evidence for God( specifically your interpetation of God) to exist.
Click to expand...


:roll:

Uh......check out post #2138, especially the last part.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...lieve-universe-created-w-1581-1781-a-214.html
 
tosca1 said:
This thread is related to the other topic that was recently created, IS THERE A GOD?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/232358-there-god.html


The purpose of this thread is to provide evidences that the God of Abraham (the God of the Bible) is the same God that Created the Universe.
He is also what is called, the Designer.

The Bible - which is authored by the Creator - will be heavily cited.




The CREATOR has intimate knowledge of His Creation. How can He not?
If He was the One who designed and created....of course, He knows everything about it!


The heading of the beginning of the Bible, is about........ the beginning. It simply states: The Beginning
The very first statement of the Old Testament - Genesis 1 - is an official declaration by the Creator.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


That first statement informs us that:
1. the universe had a beginning
2. it was Created
3. the Creator is God. God of Abraham. The Biblical God.


Science had discovered and confirmed the universe had a beginning. They've discovered it only sometime in the 1990's, please correct me if I'm wrong about the date......and yet, that fact was declared thousands of years ago (verbally passed by "primitive" ancient men for who knows how long before it got finally written down, on paper), without the use of any technology, I must add.


Beginning of the Universe - Science Confirms
Pure scientific findings consistently point to only one conclusion: the universe had a singular start, an explosion, where everything we know--the universe, time, space, scientific laws we observe--all had a beginning.

Beginning of the Universe - Beginning of Time


Where did that vital information come from?
According to the ancient folks who'd verbally passed that vital info, it came from God. The Creator.
Click to expand...

This defies the very premise of your religion, which is faith. It is not belief, it is not evidence, it is not proof, it is not coincidental extrapolation. It is not need or even hope... it is faith. I cannot say I even understand the premise of this thread.
 
Ctrl Phreak said:
This defies the very premise of your religion, which is faith. It is not belief, it is not evidence, it is not proof, it is not coincidental extrapolation. It is not need or even hope... it is faith. I cannot say I even understand the premise of this thread.
Click to expand...

This does not defy my faith. That's a misconception. Actually, far from it defying Christian faith!


Without evidences, I still believe.


However, I'm debating with non-believers who have no faith to begin with. They rely on science. I firmly believe science was given to us by God for a reason - to testify and glorify Him! AND that's what science has been, unintentionally, doing.

Statement from the National Academy of Sciences:


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs






Furthermore, Christianity is a belief that's not only founded on faith....but also with critical thinking. We are given the intelligence to discern true from false. We are told to discern! I'm simply trying to show non-believers (in my own way), the truth about Christianity.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
I firmly believe science was given to us by God for a reason - to testify and glorify Him! AND that's what science has been, unintentionally, doing.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...this is one of those cases where you make a blind guess about the REALITY...and present it as "I believe... ."

And in this case, apparently you are so anxious for people not to realize you are merely guessing blindly...you increase the disguise from "I believe..." to "I firmly believe... ."

Hummm.

I do understand why you are doing it, Tosca. It would sound weird if you presented it as it really is:

"I firmly blindly guess that there is a god...and that the god gave us science for a reason - to testify and glorify Him!"

I get it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Ahhh...this is one of those cases where you make a blind guess about the REALITY...and present it as "I believe... ."

And in this case, apparently you are so anxious for people not to realize you are merely guessing blindly...you increase the disguise from "I believe..." to "I firmly believe... ."

Hummm.

I do understand why you are doing it, Tosca. It would sound weird if you presented it as it really is:

"I firmly blindly guess that there is a god...and that the god gave us science for a reason - to testify and glorify Him!"

I get it.
Click to expand...

This is a battle between two completely different schools of philosophy.

There cannot be a winner in this debate.

tosca1 said:
This does not defy my faith. That's a misconception. Actually, far from it defying Christian faith!


Without evidences, I still believe.


However, I'm debating with non-believers who have no faith to begin with. They rely on science. I firmly believe science was given to us by God for a reason - to testify and glorify Him! AND that's what science has been, unintentionally, doing.

Statement from the National Academy of Sciences:


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs






Furthermore, Christianity is a belief that's not only founded on faith....but also with critical thinking. We are given the intelligence to discern true from false. We are told to discern! I'm simply trying to show non-believers (in my own way), the truth about Christianity.
Click to expand...
 
Bertrand Russell says he blames Plato for all the God-proving philosophies that followed for the next 18 centuries because Plato should have known what he was doing by prostituting philosophy in order to manipulate men's minds.

That in fact is why the Athenians condemned Socrates to death by poisoning.

And Socrates knew he was guilty so he took his punishment like an ethical philosopher would.

Fortunately Aristotle did not follow the same B/S thinking as Socrates and Plato did.

This gave us two opposing schools of philosophy early on, both of which taught that doing what is best for the city state at the self sacrifice of one's self was good.

However when Alexander the Macedonian extinguished the city state, and the Romans later made it final as well, much of ancient Greek philosophical though was no longer valid -- at least according to Bertrand Russell in his book "The History Of Western Philosophy."

You can get a copy at your local Barnes & Noble and also probably online.
 
Last edited:
Ctrl Phreak said:
This defies the very premise of your religion, which is faith. It is not belief, it is not evidence, it is not proof, it is not coincidental extrapolation. It is not need or even hope... it is faith. I cannot say I even understand the premise of this thread.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of evidence that can be used as a foundation for faith. You should read about it in the following work.

f851c2befc8900ce226b356bc088b8c2.webp
 
tosca1 said:
This does not defy my faith. That's a misconception. Actually, far from it defying Christian faith!


Without evidences, I still believe.


However, I'm debating with non-believers who have no faith to begin with. They rely on science. I firmly believe science was given to us by God for a reason - to testify and glorify Him! AND that's what science has been, unintentionally, doing.

Statement from the National Academy of Sciences:


"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs






Furthermore, Christianity is a belief that's not only founded on faith....but also with critical thinking. We are given the intelligence to discern true from false. We are told to discern! I'm simply trying to show non-believers (in my own way), the truth about Christianity.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I said. Faith is belief without needing evidence. You cannot make someone "feel" the holy spirit. Certainly not by throwing God at the gaps. I would suggest the only hope you have is challenging their bravery. To open themselves to the messages waiting to be revealed. It is an exercise in futility otherwise. You cannot imbue faith... certainly not with evidence.
 
Ctrl Phreak said:
Exactly what I said. Faith is belief without needing evidence.
Click to expand...

Ummm...serious question here:

Isn't it possible that "faith" is just insisting that a blind guess about REALITY is correct.

Granted, the "blind guess" has been disguised, so to speak, by calling it a "belief"...but it really is nothing more than a blind guess.

Isn't it possible that "faith" is nothing more than an insistence that the blind guess is correct?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Ummm...serious question here:

Isn't it possible that "faith" is just insisting that a blind guess about REALITY is correct.

Granted, the "blind guess" has been disguised, so to speak, by calling it a "belief"...but it really is nothing more than a blind guess.

Isn't it possible that "faith" is nothing more than an insistence that the blind guess is correct?
Click to expand...
I think it certainly can be.
The ego likes to insist upon itself.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Ahhh...this is one of those cases where you make a blind guess about the REALITY...and present it as "I believe... ."

And in this case, apparently you are so anxious for people not to realize you are merely guessing blindly...you increase the disguise from "I believe..." to "I firmly believe... ."

Hummm.

I do understand why you are doing it, Tosca. It would sound weird if you presented it as it really is:

"I firmly blindly guess that there is a god...and that the god gave us science for a reason - to testify and glorify Him!"

I get it.
Click to expand...


The Creator has intimate knowledge of His creation. I gave an awesome example of that, showing the "expansion" and "stretching" universe had been aptly described in the Bible - within the right context!

My position isn't weird....

What is the definition of a guess? an estimate or conjecture.


My belief that science was created to testify and glorify God wouldn't be considered a "blind" guess now, would it?
I have something to substantiate what I claim to believe.
Hasn't modern science discovering things - affirming what's been written in the Bible ages ago?
What did the NAS statement say?

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious.

But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

WMAP Site FAQs


Actually, it's your position - your claim to be agnostic -that's indeed weird.


Those who'd ignore the full implication of such a public statement from the NAS, and would still insist on putting theism on par with atheism, would be the ones who not only can be said to be blindly guessing, but also can be rightly questioned as to how they came up with such comparison!

That would kinda be like you, a referee, calling the game between two competing sport teams having a score of 10 to 0, a tie! :lol:

The referee's credibility (at the very least)....is questioned, wouldn't you say?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom