• 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")

Riveroaks said:
Correct. Dear sweet Tosca is quoting speculation and hypotheses of philosophers and physical scientists.

The fallacy here from my list of fallacies in my fallacy thread is affirmation of the consequent.

I think this thread is probably over now.
Click to expand...

I would hope it is, at least until something is offered that really bridges the gap between systems of process (science) and systems of belief (religion.) I've have held the contention for a while now that the two are inherently adversarial for a ton of reasons. Even the most far out there Quantum Sciences theories and models that point to what *might* be the case before Singularity (example, the collision of alternate universes... or realities) still do not point to an old white haired guy sitting in the dark creating everything that is our universe from absolutely nothing. We have inherent problems getting from the reasons for Singularity, or what was before it, to the idea of "designer" only made possible by systems of belief.
 
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 isn't particularly useful information, though. Ok, God created everything...now what? How does that help me in any way?
 
OrphanSlug said:
There is zero, and I mean zero, evidence of a Creator nor is there evidence of a God. There is no accepted peer-reviewed model from any flavor of science that concludes with "the Creator/Designer is the God of Abraham." Not a single model from any science based academia, not a one.
Click to expand...

I'm actually a bystander here, but be careful about absolutes. Remember someone believed the Earth was flat at one time, and before that they had no clue its shape. So science has not discovered any evidence of a creator, not that there is zero evidence.
 
American said:
I'm actually a bystander here, but be careful about absolutes. Remember someone believed the Earth was flat at one time, and before that they had no clue its shape. So science has not discovered any evidence of a creator, not that there is zero evidence.
Click to expand...

I did not issue an absolute that there *could never be* any model that points to the Creator in the sense the OP would have us believe, I said in today's terms there is *no accepted peer-reviewed model from any flavor of science that concludes* with what the OP would have us believe.

It is always possible that some one down the road will bridge the gap between systems of process and systems of belief, but to date no one has done so in the manner the OP is trying to suggest has.

In that sense the absolute still holds for now, and I continually challenge the OP to find that system of process that concludes with "the Creator/Designer is the God of Abraham." Until then, the matter comes down to what we believe vs. what we can show. Inherently adversarial.

That make it better?
 
OrphanSlug said:
I did not issue an absolute that there *could never be* any model that points to the Creator in the sense the OP would have us believe, I said in today's terms there is *no accepted peer-reviewed model from any flavor of science that concludes* with what the OP would have us believe.

It is always possible that some one down the road will bridge the gap between systems of process and systems of belief, but to date no one has done so in the manner the OP is trying to suggest has.

In that sense the absolute still holds for now, and I continually challenge the OP to find that system of process that concludes with "the Creator/Designer is the God of Abraham." Until then, the matter comes down to what we believe vs. what we can show. Inherently adversarial.

That make it better?
Click to expand...

Remember something else, models are predictions, guesses ......they are not actual answers. In fact when we speak of God as the Creator, well no one even has a clue what to look for. Is God big or little? What if God isn't the "sky daddy" that some joke about, what if God is nano-sized? And I'm sure there would be lots of other considerations.
 
American said:
Remember something else, models are predictions, guesses ......they are not actual answers. In fact when we speak of God as the Creator, well no one even has a clue what to look for. Is God big or little? What if God isn't the "sky daddy" that some joke about, what if God is nano-sized? And I'm sure there would be lots of other considerations.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but behind the models from systems of process are something of substance to get there. No matter if we are talking about complex mathematical calculations, or statistical models, or even association models they are all based on some series of data points, and/or problems with existing models, and/or rationalizations based on other accepted systems of process conclusions that lead us to a new conclusion worthy of peer-review. What they are not is just raw guesses or beliefs in hopes it sticks like throwing a dart at a board.

With systems of belief there is no such process, just a story presented in a manner of authority. It is not even the point of systems of belief to give you a "process" of how to get to the conclusion, just the teaching of what is simply because core tenets of a system of belief.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Agreed, but behind the models from systems of process are something of substance to get there. No matter if we are talking about complex mathematical calculations, or statistical models, or even association models they are all based on some series of data points, and/or problems with existing models, and/or rationalizations based on other accepted systems of process conclusions that lead us to a new conclusion worthy of peer-review. What they are not is just raw guesses or beliefs in hopes it sticks like throwing a dart at a board.

With systems of belief there is no such process, just a story presented in a manner of authority. It is not even the point of systems of belief to give you a "process" of how to get to the conclusion, just the teaching of what is simply because core tenets of a system of belief.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they're even talking about the potential for faster than light speed, if we could ever get the materials. They use to say you couldn't travel faster than light. So knowledge is changing rapidly.
 
American said:
Yes, but they're even talking about the potential for faster than light speed, if we could ever get the materials. They use to say you couldn't travel faster than light. So knowledge is changing rapidly.
Click to expand...

But that does not mean, even by association, that we have an accepted systems of process model today that points to "the Creator/Designer is the God of Abraham."

They used to say that we could not break the speed of sound. Broken. They used to say that we could not break the speed of light. At least by math, possible now. Bridging the gap between systems of science and systems of belief would be a monumental event. If anything is the next barrier it would be dealing with the inherent complications of accelerating matter and accelerating light. Those are two entirely different things, based on today's understandings. Driven home by the realization from other models, especially that if Big Bang model holds true then expanded acceleration from the "expansion" period just after had to be faster than the speed of light. Empty space is not matter, therefor empty space expansion does not have to be held back by the complications of matter moving faster than the speed of light.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But that does not mean, even by association, that we have an accepted systems of process model today that points to "the Creator/Designer is the God of Abraham."

They used to say that we could not break the speed of sound. Broken. They used to say that we could not break the speed of light. At least by math, possible now. Bridging the gap between systems of science and systems of belief would be a monumental event. If anything is the next barrier it would be dealing with the inherent complications of accelerating matter and accelerating light. Those are two entirely different things, based on today's understandings. Driven home by the realization from other models, especially that if Big Bang model holds true then expanded acceleration from the "expansion" period just after had to be faster than the speed of light. Empty space is not matter, therefor empty space expansion does not have to be held back by the complications of matter moving faster than the speed of light.
Click to expand...
I never claimed there is such a model. Can anyone explain where space came from?
 
American said:
I never claimed there is such a model. Can anyone explain where space came from?
Click to expand...

In our context, the best answer is *sort of* based on the Big Bang models and even alternate "Bulk Universe" infinite models do. Only by association, then again we are still in dispute over the concept of Dark Matter. Clearly there are answers to obtain, which is the beauty of systems of process. They push us to continue for new understandings where systems of belief do not.
 
OrphanSlug said:
In our context, the best answer is *sort of* based on the Big Bang models and even alternate "Bulk Universe" infinite models do. Only by association, then again we are still in dispute over the concept of Dark Matter. Clearly there are answers to obtain, which is the beauty of systems of process. They push us to continue for new understandings where systems of belief do not.
Click to expand...

I think I was taught that matter must have mass.
 
American said:
I think I was taught that matter must have mass.
Click to expand...

The best explanation to date about Dark matter. Yes, it has mass as we can detect gravitational effects on normal matter based objects then associate that to dark matter based on calculated movement, or expansion, or retraction. No, the mass of Dark matter does not seem to interact strongly in any other way that we can detect (as in light.) Best we can tell there are inherent complications with looking at models for empty space (expanding, contracting, or neither) vs. looking at dark matter in any condition. I only brought it up to point out often models we conclude from really tell us to continue looking for answers.
 
Riveroaks said:
Tosca my dear friend, you must remember historically speaking, that it was Moses who wrote the early books of the Bible.

Abraham is just a traditional character in his narrative which both Jews and Muslims have grown to accept as a real person in their history.

So the God of Abraham whom you are also calling the God of the Bible is really the God of Moses and His name is YHVH.

Also, the Bible has 2 parts, and older part, and a newer part. The older part covers 1450 B.C.E. at the times of Moses to 450 B.C.E. up to Nehemiah and Ezra. The newer part covers 5 B.C. to 90 A.D. from the times of Jesus to St. John the Apostle.

Each of these two parts describe totally different Gods, if you read them both carefully enough.

The God of the older part is a single God who goes by many names of which YHVH is only one of them.

The God of the newer part goes by only one name and he has a Son by a mortal Woman. This Son promises to send yet another God when He himself departs. That's THREE GODS Tosca my dear lady -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Count them -- THREE GODS.
Click to expand...


I don't want to get in any discussion about the Trinity and all that.

Yes, I say God of Abraham (and the God of Moses, Jacob, Isaac etc..,)...after all, I'm including Abrahamic religions.

The Abrahamic religions refer to three sister monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that claim the prophet Abraham (Hebrew: Avraham אַבְרָהָם ; Arabic: Ibrahim ابراهيم ) as their common forefather.

Abrahamic religions - New World Encyclopedia



If I'm not mistaken, even Muslims believe that the God of Abraham (which we also know is the God of Moses, Isaac, and Jacob, etc...) is the Creator of all things.
 
Riveroaks said:
Let me give you a more literal translation out of the Hebrew for this sentence. It probably does not matter much, but there is a slight difference:

IN BEGINNING CREATED(masculine singular verb) ELOHIM (plural Hebrew word for "judges") THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.
Click to expand...

Did the meaning of the verse change?

Does your translation negate or veered away from the message in any way at all, that God created the heavens and the earth?
That's all that's relevant here as far as Biblical translations go.
 
Jerry said:
This isn't particularly useful information, though. Ok, God created everything...now what? How does that help me in any way?
Click to expand...

Why, where does it say that it's been created to help YOU - and only you - in any way?

I suppose if it's useless to you, it shouldn't be posted at all? :lol:

Anyway....this must be boring to you.

You're not trapped to remain in this thread, you know. As far as I know, you're not in Hotel California. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
If I'm not mistaken, even Muslims believe that the God of Abraham (which we also know is the God of Moses, Isaac, and Jacob, etc...) is the Creator of all things.
Click to expand...

But they do not agree on context or description, in some cases no where near each other in take on God's motivations and attributes.
 
OrphanSlug said:
But they do not agree on context or description, in some cases no where near each other in take on God's motivations and attributes.
Click to expand...

They believe in Him as the Creator!

They believe Him to be the ID's "DESIGNER!"

All Abrahamic religions do!

That's all that's relevant here!
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
They believe in Him as the Creator!

They believe Him to be the ID's "DESIGNER!"

All Abrahamic religions do! That's all that's relevant here!
Click to expand...

Then you would think they would agree on so much more. Yet we ended up with history books of conflict, division, hatred, conquest, cruelty, and loss of life because they clearly do not agree on much at all. Think about that a little.
 
American said:
Yes, but they're even talking about the potential for faster than light speed, if we could ever get the materials. They use to say you couldn't travel faster than light. So knowledge is changing rapidly.
Click to expand...

There's a few subtleties. One is that in specific relativity, the speed of light is the "speed limit" of the universe, and this includes information. General relativity, however, delves into higher order transforms using Lorentz invariance. It's not entirely clear if the speed of light is unbreachable here, as it depends on the particular gravitational transform in use.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Then you would think they would agree on so much more. Yet we ended up with history books of conflict, division, hatred, conquest, cruelty, and loss of life because they clearly do not agree on much at all. Think about that a little.
Click to expand...

We're not talking diffference of doctrine! FOCUS!

The topic is GOD of ABRAHAM is the CREATOR ("DESIGNER")

Bringing in irrelevant stuff to the discussion.....is a common ploy by those who can't find anything relevant to rebut!
Some see it as an act of despreration.
 
tosca1 said:
We're not talking diffference of doctrine! FOCUS!

The topic is GOD of ABRAHAM is the CREATOR ("DESIGNER")

Bringing in irrelevant stuff to the discussion.....is a common ploy by those who can't find anything relevant to rebut!
Click to expand...

Well, since you have failed to produce *anything* to support your OP assertion what else do we have to talk about?

(BTW, the use of colors and text size is becoming entertaining.)
 
tosca1 said:
Why, where does it say that it's been created to help YOU - and only you - in any way?

I suppose if it's useless to you, it shouldn't be posted at all? [emoji38]

Anyway....this must be boring to you.

You're not trapped to remain in this thread, you know. As far as I know, you're not in Hotel California. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
If it's not useful information, why make a thread about it? It doesn't matter either way. Pointless.
 
Jerry said:
If it's not useful information, why make a thread about it? It doesn't matter either way. Pointless.
Click to expand...

Why are you still here? I thought I heard you slam the door on your way out?
 
tosca1 said:
Why are you still here? I thought I heard you slam the door on your way out?
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not seeing your point. God created everything, got it. Now what?
 
Jerry said:
I guess I'm not seeing your point. God created everything, got it.
Click to expand...

Good.



Now what?
Click to expand...
:shrug:

Why....the rest is up to you. If you want to hang around, you're welcome. If you find it pointless, you don't have to stay....

My topic does not include, "now what?"....:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom