The existence of God, Creator of the Universe and mankind.

> >> You might not like the reality that external

> >> evidence of God's existence

> >> abounds, for the patterns and the mind behind nature

> >> are obvious.

> >

> > STCLAIR

> > No, they are not obvious. The fact that patterns exist

> > in nature does not mean that "god" designed those

> > patterns. The universe clearly has patterns. That says

> > nothing about whether a creator exists. And even if a

> > creator did exist, we know for a certainty that Yahweh

> > and his bastard son had nothing to do with it. Nothing

> > so beautiful as the universe could have come out of

> > those twisted minds.

> >

>

D.Lim: Have they been schooled? Or just blinded by sin and hatred?

In detective work, patterns are searched to prove suspicion and crime. Is police work and criminal laws simply unintelligent and wrong? Are they saying nothing about creators of patterns and traces?

Are wewrongly tracing mad cows and SARS by patterns and history of patterns, because it is asserted that patterns say nothing about whether their creators exist? And these creators/sources of mad cows and SARS are so beautiful that Y��� had nothing to do with them?

So, who created mad cows and SARS? Do they randomly occur? Well, tough then. No way to avoid them! You are doomed by sudden occurrence of such mad cows and SARS and could be eliminated suddenly. Your insurance companies are fools insuring you. Their statistics of probability are all wrong. Their maths is wrong. They depend on maths. Therefore maths is wrong. Therefore, science that depend on maths is wrong. Therefore, those who depend on science and its proofs (may it be for prediction or for progress) do so putting their faith in randomness/chaos.

Any logic in chaos?

Yet pretending to be logical? Reasonable?

We often find anti-Christians and atheists jump back to their � "We do not know YET!", and "Science will lead us to the answer".

>

> BOB

> Yes, they are very obvious. They constitute evidence, and they are

> obvious. Pattern could not exist without a senior mind capable of

> creating the pattern. If you know any proof to the contrary, please

• share it.

D.Lim: The fact that patterns exist in nature indicates intelligent design. Patterns do not exist without an act of creation.

Even kids can prove that � by producing nothing and getting nothing; and producing a mess, even a mess, by acting upon something. This clearly say that a creator exist, even to create a mess.

Even in our world (not talking so far and broad as the universe) we have incest, rape, murder, deception, wickedness.. . . from population groups other than "those twisted minds". So beautiful? Minds so straight as to execute such?

Now, the creator had nothing to do with the created?

The creator cannot be proven, therefore has nothing to do with the created?

It is not the problem of the creator that the created cannot prove Him or comprehend Him. No reason to assume the creator has built into the creatures this capacity. A vehicle, may it even be the space shuttle(as a matter of comparing things with rocket science, the most advanced technology understood and created by men) cannot comprehend human thought, or animal thoughts. No shuttle claim to undertand a worm or an ant, or the factories that made it. This does not preclude the existence of worms, ants and human beings.

Do we not experience hatred here, from atheists? They run on hatred, hating the truth; rather than fair reasoning, justice and understanding.

CHUCK

Butting into you conversation here.

Following the "Big Bang matter randomly organized into quite

nice patterns.

Numerous computer progams have been devised in which

randomness results in the construction of simple patterns

which evolve greater and greater complexity.

You are obviously a devotee of "Intelligent Design."

Johnson, Behe et al have all been well debunked by people capable

of doing so. (Most of us aren't able to do so because of lack of

background in chaos theory, complex particle physics etc.)

Their supporters aren't able to understand the theory behind

the arguments either - they (you) just sieze on the conclusions

because they suit your biases.

Your thinking is somewhere in the 18th century when many

figures in the Enlightenment movement (such as Jefferson)

were Deists who referred to a "Creator" but didn't subscribe

to the biblical description of yahweh. One would think that

with all that has been learned in science since then more

progress would have been made in finally getting rid of all

superstition.

I'm glad to see you've made the progress you have (as evidenced

below), but I think you still have to be willing to shed your

final dependency of something/one up there greater than nature.

D.Lim: Supporting what you do not understand? That is religion. That is mysticism. Not Science.

Perhaps this social trend is widely termed �"Progress".

Atheists do not cease to have religion. The very opposite is true. They are very religious in their own worship.

D.Lim: Complexity of chaos or well thought out patterns? Does thoughtfullness come from randomness? Humanism a matter of randomness? Atheism a matter of randomness?

D.Lim: Computer programs are products of design. They do not occur randomly. As said, they are devised; therefore designed and controlled.

The seemingly random result is planned and executed with intelligence. Things just do not happen out of nothing.

And theories are not even laws. And laws can be overturn or disproved(may it be partially) in time.

Theories are no proof of facts or events. They are just conviction of somebodies.

Using theories as facts for support is deception.

There were atheists in the past; even before the 18^th century. Did they not hold on to their superstition?

And with whatever progress that have been made and things learnt, so many are preaching atheism with the support of theories rather than facts! This conviction made nothing of such theory factual.

The Quite nice patterns observed are not proven to occur randomly.

Maths is games(as I was taught by Mathematicians), designed by rigid intellectual discipline. Maths is no God. It serves God. What is proven by maths is not random. How many digits do you have on your hands and feet? Fixed or random? Seeing different numbers at any time?

Even statistics is not all about randomness. The formulae do not randomly interchange. Numbers do not randomly remix and come out with the same solution everytime.

Why do scientists trace tornadoes? By reason that science affirms that prediction can be made with good traces.

Another comparison with medicine � If patients get sick and get well randomly, there is no need for quarantine. Family history of mad cows need not be searched, and SARS patients can be anywhere at anytime. This is not our system of belief, our society.

D.Lim: Everything draws our conclusion to tracable/reasonable patterns and creation. No creation means no pattern.

Now, with the traces in the Bible left by God the Creator, many have found God, as their loving Father and Savior.

They seem scientific rather than twisted minds.

Many after finding God�s forgiveness went on to donate their lives to science, medicine and health, education, progress, and technology.

Many reaping benefit from the Bible and these Christians try to fight God and Christians. The very Book they hate is the source and trigger of the blessings they received and and so proud of.

Many after accepting Allah dress like beggars as Mohammad did. The golden ages of Egypt are found in museums, and not with the modern muslim population. Who brought progress to our modern world?

Many after accepting Buddha lives in poverty in India and Tibet. Do you pity their beautiful poor lives?

Islamic states/countries forbid the Christian Good News touching their Muslims and natives. Beautiful patterns?

How many Arab muslims depend on TV as they cannot read newspapers and books, let alone claiming to understand Arabic Koran.

Many try to kill Christians who were originally Buddhists and Muslims. Beautiful patterns?

And the West is Democracy allowing Allah, Buddha and Satan worshippers to flourish. The numbers of Christians are statistically insignificant in the West. Yet so many have been unscientific unmathematical in naming the West as Christian countries.

And Mr Till has to spend his days and years putting down Christians and Christian beliefs.

>

> It is very clear that you are confused. You seem to think that God is

> Yaweh, and Yaweh is a whimsical, mean, vindictive God, because that is

> how the bible describes him. Are you just trying to blow off steam,

> or have you lost your reasoning faculties?

>

> There is absolutely no logical reason to think God is as he was

> described throughout the bible. The ancient Jews saw him as a powerful

> tribal deity who was jealous of the attention people gave other gods.

> Jesus seemed to think of him as a loving Heavenly Father. The bible

> records an evolution of the CONCEPT of God in the minds of the leaders

> and scribes of the evolving Mideastern Wanderers, the Hebrews.

>

> God of love, wisdom, and other good qualities. God did not evolve, He

> has always been magnificent.

>

>

>

BOB

Thanks for the recognition of my progress, Chuck. What I got from your

comments is that you intend to belittle my views because people held

similar views in the 18th century. And you contend that modern

theorists have debunked the notion of a creator by sophisticated

mathematics and reasoning, but nobody can explain it in satisfactory

terms.

So where does that leave us? Nobody really knows of a proof of God's

existence, but science points ever in that direction and it takes some

pretty convoluted thinking to reason otherwise. Why? Because of the

incredible organization of physical, mental, and spiritual reality, and

the fact that humans keep craving to know God. You can hardly prove

that individual craving to know God is not scientific, for that craving

IS a phenomenal fact. Science requires facts and phenomena for

investigation, and reasoning for compiling knowledge of how things work.

"Science" (or, rather, scientists) has many times been wrong.

Furthermore, some things are beyond science, and one of those things is

religion. What we know of religion is that it can be summarized as a

devotion to supreme values, and assuredly such devotion existed long

before there was a word for it.

What makes men accept a man-conceived, man-written work as the "Word of

God" is that same craving to know God, to make order out of apparent

chaos, to divine the personal and noble nature of the uncaused cause, to

identify with "him", to have a destiny with him, and to serve in

eternity with him. All of those yearnings, all the weird, illogical,

and convoluted beliefs, and all the dangerous, radical, or benign

behaviors they lead to are part and parcel of man's "religion".

Why do you think the world's billions of religionists should shed the

"dependency" (as you call it) up on the "greater" one? Do you think that

is even possible? Can you not see that it is NEVER going to happen?

Have you not understood it is man's nature to crave a relationship with

God? You can kill every religionist in the world today, and tomorrow

more will arise to evolve a system of wisdom, to seek the creator, and

and to express the natural "instinct" to worship that creator.

Have you not thought it strange that lower-ordered creatures (lower than

humans) do not appear to possess the instincts of wisdom and worship,

that they have few notions about "supreme" values, and that they

certainly cannot express them in terms of craving ideals?

These phenomena are FACTS. It is up to us to derive MEANINGS and

VALUES, then to experience TRUTHS associated with or derived from those

facts. Why continue to deny the obvious or try to make it seem to be

something other than what it obviously is? God does exist. Otherwise,

why does man alone, among all other creatures, crave to know and be like

him?

It is true that nobody can prove God exists. But also, nobody can

explain the urge to know, worship, and be like God. I believe a lot of

effort is wasted by agnostics and atheists who demand proof or deny

God's existence. It is perfectly natural to crave proof (as evidenced

by the crazy notion of some that the bible is the inerrant Word of God,

inspired by the Holy Spirit), though why it is needed in the face of

such overwhelming evidence that God exists. Humans naturally tend to

want to be like those they admire. and worship is the next rung, on the

ladder of human appreciation for others, beyond admiration.

It is our mission to allow that craving to know, love, and be like God

to transform us from mere humans into "souls", beings of moral and

ethical character who demonstrate the qualities we believe God has to

our fellow humans. In the process, our purpose for living, the purpose

of human life itself, should be to develop a magnificent and balanced

personality, for that is the only way humans can experess the evolution

of the divine nature we naturally crave. It is our only path to

becoming "like" God to the extent our individual capacities allow.

In my opinion, that is the inevitable evolutional destiny of humans on

this world.

Bob Hurt

D.Lim: God is a being and not a designed finite object. What is infinitely varible and self-determining cannot be proved with set experiment.

The act of setting out to prove God is itself illogical and unscientific. This is stupidity and futility.

Atheists demand proof of God, especially in scientific terms and ways. This is stupidity and futility. While arrogantly laughing at Theoists, they are themselves most pitied.