“To anyone who does not have receiver equipment, what tangible proof do we have that these waves actually exist…”

We have the tools to prove it. Just because he doesn’t have the equipment, that doesn’t mean that you or I or someone else doesn’t have it.

” … and how do you fully explain this to someone who refuses to believe that such a thing is possible when they refuse to believe in this wave technology as being possible unless they see with their own eyes that the waves themselves are indeed real and can be placed as an object in their hands.”

Then he is contradicting himself because waves of those wavelengths are by definition invisible to the human eye. This is a plain biological phenomenon and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of these waves.

If that same person refuses to accept the existence of these waves, then he would have to refute the validity of the evidence provided by the devices used. I would be delighted to read his earnest treatise on this matter. But during his research he may not use a phone or the internet. Because those are mere products of such illusions, right?

In fact, he would also need to denounce that illusion of sound waves while trying to convince me and in fact throughout his entire life. So he would by necessity need to me a deaf-mute.

He would also have to stop watching TV, listening to the radio, etc. because all those things that are only functioning through those illusory non-existing waves and thus are also mere illusions in the minds of all those foolish and gullible followers.

But hey, maybe the Lord is the medium that facilitates his cell phone conversations … :)

If you consider yourself the possibility that your model of the world may not be relevant… I’m confused how I’m supposed to interpret your philosophy then. From all your statements to date, you seem to be using this world view as a solid way to interpret the world around you…. or at least concrete enough to argue and make statements about things in the bible that you don’t understand, as well as argue against the concept that God created us and the world we live in.

I would have to argue that in your statement “I hold objective reality as the highest standard for truth, and nothing but that.”, is actually “subjective reality” because you are basing arguments and statements on YOUR OWN worldview which you now seem to be saying is possibly irrelevant.

Again, please clarify so I can understand this more….

A transmitted television signal or wave sent though the air:

These signals are completely invisible to the naked eye and cannot be discerned without the proper equipment to take these signals and transform them into something with which we can see through our televisions, etc. Invisible, yet real and surrounding us everywhere we go.

To anyone who does not have receiver equipment, what tangible proof do we have that these waves actually exist… and how do you fully explain this to someone who refuses to believe that such a thing is possible when they refuse to believe in this wave technology as being possible unless they see with their own eyes that the waves themselves are indeed real and can be placed as an object in their hands.

I never every said anywhere that MY model of the world is relevant. I am insignificant and irrelevant to reality. It would exist whether I am here or not. I hold objective reality as the highest standard for truth, and nothing but that.

I’m confused by your reply here… I simply followed up with your quotes and then responded to them. How is this a tangent when my statements above are questioning your logic and explaining what the bible has to say about this whole debate in the first place?

Please clarify… I do apoligize if I am putting words in your mouth, but I am not seeing where or how I did this.

It is unfortunate indeed that 90% of your comment consists of unrelated and tangential assertions, conjectures, and bible quotes which don’t add the slightest value to our discussion. Oh, and yes you were absolutely putting words in my mouth. I am not sure what was unclear about that since you yourself did not stand by your accusation, but rather decided to redefine it.

Isn’t this your quote here? Am I really putting words in your mouth? So this is not YOU defining YOUR worldview model… one where God CANNOT exist?

So what do you mean when you say an empty and unproven concept such as God is thus a false one… Did you redefine the term FALSE somewhere in your writing and I simply missed it?… You are stating here that just because YOU believe God to be an empty and unproven concept, therefore it MUST BE FALSE…. That is incredibly fuzzy logic…. let me give you an example of why:

Flat earth vs. round earth:
So by your logic here due to the fact that the concept of a round earth was an unproven concept centuries ago, hence it had to be FALSE…. Hmmm and how did that turn out in reality?????? Do you recall how incredibly debated that topic of round vs. flat earth was? To the point where round earth scientists were mocked and some considered to be loony??? This is where the concept that “JUST BECAUSE A THEORY IS CONSIDERED TO BE UNPROVEN BY CERTAIN PEOPLE, DOES NOT MAKE IT INHERENTLY FALSE UNTIL ALL THE EVIDENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED” God has proven Himself to be real to me and millions of others, I am sorry that you don’t believe there is enough evidence for the existence of God… in my opinion, it is because you are refusing to look at all of the evidence from an objective standpoint… you have already stated that He can’t possibly exist so to exclude even the possibility of God’s existence shows you to be unobjective about this subject. The earth has been proven to be round my friend despite centuries of staunch opinions otherwise…

God has proven Himself to be real to millions of people through His Holy Spirit including myself despite the staunch opinions otherwise.

You may consider me to unobjective as well, but I have the peace of knowing that I do not need to disprove Him when He has already revealed Himself to me and I know that He exists. For me to deny God and say that He does not exist equates to someone trying to argue again that the earth is really flat not round, when further observation and evidence (ship masts lowering on the distant horizon for example) has proven the earth to be round. The evidence was there all along for many centuries right before their very eyes, yet they missed it somehow…

“I don’t avoid your question: How do I explain Einstein’s conclusion? This question implies a few things: That I in fact do explain it. But I don’t. Since when is it my task to do this? And how does it matter??”

Einstein’s conclusions (and yes they are clearly conclusions as he spoke substantially about what he studied / saw / and determined to be the work of a Creator) are completely relevant to this discussion as you are trying to refute the existence of God!!!!!
You dismissing it does absolutely nothing to strengthen your own theory… as it is clear evidence which supports the existence of God.

“It also implies that Einstein ever considered his fuzzy speculations about some higher being a “conclusion” in any way, shape or form. But I do recognize one thing: The fact that you as a Christian keep bringing up Einstein when he has called your holy book childish and primitive and the notion of a personal god illusory.”

Again.. like I stated in a previous post, this is EXACTLY why I like to use Einstein as an example… he was not a Christian man out to prove the bible right or wrong, simply observing scientific facts from his research. To believe in God requires the belief in a supernatural being… Einstein at least believed in this supernatural being as the reason for the order of the universe. If I was to quote brilliant Christian men like Pascal… then you would immediately eliminate them as invalid because he is biased towards Christianity by coming to believe in Christ… just as you eliminate the validity of any witnesses of Christ and the events of what occurred 2000 years ago as invalid because you need an “uninterested party” as you previously put it.

Einstein’s quotes concerning the bible and Christianity are excellent points and so are his points on atheism as well…

Einstein:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”… “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres”

LOL… well in my case, I went from dogmatic atheist to God revealing Himself to me through the Holy Spirit and me surrendering my life to Christ, so I guess this is a double whammy for me. Is it possible he may also be describing you when he mentions one trying to unfetter himself from religious indoctrination received in youth?
… but I can understand exactly where Einstein is coming from with a personal God being a childlike idea because I myself (like you) believed the bible to be a bunch of fairy tales before having my personal encounter with Him… Jesus even says as much when He said this:

Matthew 18:2-4 (NIV)
The Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Paul also concludes that the Gospel is foolishness to many and sums up God’s wisdom rather nicely here also:

1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Christ the Wisdom and Power of God

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

I do not blame you or Einstein or anyone else for concluding that the Gospel is foolishness or that it is frustrating just as Paul states; however, I am presenting you with basic observations from someone who we humans consider to be one of the most intelligent men to ever live… and there was enough evidence from these observations concerning the order of the universe Einstein examined thoroughly and scientifically to at least come to the conclusion that a Creator HAD to set this order in place…and he presented no other logical explanation for this phenomenon. I am asking you if you have that logical explanation to refute Einstein’s conclusion… I am simply asking you to justify your theory that God cannot exist by giving me a logical explanation.

To argue that this was something fuzzy and not a conclusion by Einstein is baseless, because he was not in the least bit fuzzy about sharing his amazement and awe of this order, he was rather outspoken about it.

Hmmm… again, maybe you should write an article titled: “Science Gone Wild” about Einstein’s fuzzyness… and how can we possibly take Einstein seriously when he spoke his mind about such unproven and fuzzy ideas.

- That would indeed be an erroneous thing to say. Luckily I’m not saying it anywhere and you are back to the boring game of putting words in my mouth. Yaaawn.

“So by your very definition there is no such thing as wind… because you cannot see it with your eyes, you only know it exists because you see how it impacts the earth by moving objects…”

- It is really (really, really, really) hard to take you serious, my friend. The wind is a very clearly visible, measurable, and definable phenomenon. It is the motion of air particles brought about by air pressure discrepancies in different regions.

“Now that I’ve answered your request, why do you continue to avoid my basic question for how you explain Einstein’s conclusion that the order of the universe itself testifies to the existence of an intelligent designer.”

- I don’t avoid your question: How do I explain Einstein’s conclusion? This question implies a few things: That I in fact do explain it. But I don’t. Since when is it my task to do this? And how does it matter? It also implies that Einstein ever considered his fuzzy speculations about some higher being a “conclusion” in any way, shape or form. But I do recognize one thing: The fact that you as a Christian keep bringing up Einstein when he has called your holy book childish and primitive and the notion of a personal god illusory.

Your inability to even remotely refute what I wrote above speaks for itself.

OK very well… how can you say a concept that doesn’t fit your model of the world is false. So by your very definition there is no such thing as wind… because you cannot see it with your eyes, you only know it exists because you see how it impacts the earth by moving objects… yet it still exists. By the very same concept, just because you cannot visibly see God does not mean he exists… there is plenty of evidence that he exists however when you observe the earth and creation.

This is exactly what Einstein did… he observed the evidence of the universe and creation and concluded that it had to come about by an intelligent designer. Just because you cannot place this intelligent designer in your own box that you call reality does nothing to refute that this Being does not exist. The Holy Spirit is also a real being who obviously as the name implies is a spirit that does not fit neatly in your view of reality… your view of the world does nothing to refute the existence of the Holy Spirit just because you personally cannot see Him and do not believe that spirits exist.

Now that I’ve answered your request, why do you continue to avoid my basic question for how you explain Einstein’s conclusion that the order of the universe itself testifies to the existence of an intelligent designer. Are you willing to state that your philosophical theory is enough to disprove Einstein’s conclusion on intelligent design?