Originally posted by RJHindsAnd the air is evidence for the airer, the grass is evidence for a grasser, the stone is evidence for the stooner?
Just as a painting is evidence of the painter and a building is evidence of a builder, the creation is evidence of the Creator God.
Of course not. That's animism.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf faith is required to see the evidence as you do, it seems to be a waste of time for you to argue about evidence with those who do not have faith. Your logical progression should be to get people to agree with your faith, and only then talk to them about evidence.
I believe you are pointing out one of the problems with the atheists not seeing evidence of God in His creation all around them. They don't have faith that God exists so they don't see the evidence of his existence even when it is pointed out to them.
This is one of the purposes of my questioning the theory of evolution and the so-called millions and bil ...[text shortened]... t faith in Christ and the truth of the Holy Bible one side interprets that evidence differently.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt would be true that science can’t address the question of a deist god, but it could possibly address the question of a god like the Christian god. A deistic god just sets things in motion and doesn’t intervene after that, so it would be virtually impossible to detect a god like that. However, the Christian god is portrayed as a “living god” that routinely interacts with the world and humanity. A god like can possibly be tested for.
No scientific proofs are needed for the existence of god. Why? Because god is not a part of science. You cannot test god to see if he exists. Either he does or either he doesn't. But it is outside the domain of science to even deal with existence of god. That's why it's called religion.
The only thing needed is faith. Either you have it, or you don't. That's all.
The only way a god like that could not be tested for is if it successfully covered up all evidence of its existence. Once a god like that has shown itself (as Christians claim it has), and shown evidence of itself (as Christians also claim it has), then the claim enters the realm of science, and can be put to scientific scrutiny.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakHow would you set up an experiment that conclusively proves the existence of a christian god? faith is not enough, we need repetitive experiment that gives the same result whenever it is done and whoever who does it and wherever it is done. When you set up this experiment, do you really think you will get a conclusive result?
It would be true that science can’t address the question of a deist god, but it could possibly address the question of a god like the Christian god. A deistic god just sets things in motion and doesn’t intervene after that, so it would be virtually impossible to detect a god like that. However, the Christian god is portrayed as a “living god” that routinely ...[text shortened]... laim it has), then the claim enters the realm of science, and can be put to scientific scrutiny.
I say that science is science and religion is religion, and the two will never meet, and is not meant to meet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasFirst, it is unnecessary to set up an experiment that conclusively proves the existence of the Christian god. That is not what science does. There is no such thing as an experiment that conclusively proves quantum mechanics or the standard model of particle physics or the theory of relativity. What science does is test individual claims and predictions, and then form broader conclusions from the results of these various experiments.
How would you set up an experiment that conclusively proves the existence of a christian god? faith is not enough, we need repetitive experiment that gives the same result whenever it is done and whoever who does it and wherever it is done. When you set up this experiment, do you really think you will get a conclusive result?
I say that science is science and religion is religion, and the two will never meet, and is not meant to meet.
Second, the burden is on the positive claimant. When a Christian makes a claim that has real world results (Jesus rose from the dead, or god answered their prayer) the burden is on them to substantiate the claim. Only Christians who claim that there is absolutely no evidence of their god should have any possibility of immunity to this requirement.
Third, I can think of at least one experiment that has been done, with results against the Christian god hypothesis (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer).
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe only way that you can keep science and religion separate is to claim that God has no observable effect on the universe. Once you admit that he has an effect then he falls squarely within the domain of science and we can start to look for such observations.
I say that science is science and religion is religion, and the two will never meet, and is not meant to meet.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakThere are other people that do what you say. But I do not choose to do that, because I have free will.
If faith is required to see the evidence as you do, it seems to be a waste of time for you to argue about evidence with those who do not have faith. Your logical progression should be to get people to agree with your faith, and only then talk to them about evidence.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI do not see why I have to constantly try to disprove this kind of thinking in this forum.
If faith is required to see the evidence as you do, it seems to be a waste of time for you to argue about evidence with those who do not have faith. Your logical progression should be to get people to agree with your faith, and only then talk to them about evidence.
There happen to be some theists who do not subscribe to the kinds of literal, unimaginative theories that these YECs claim are true. Their "truth of the Bible" comments are egotism in the extreme. What they mean is the "truth of their interpretation of the Bible", which is a far different thing.
There are plenty of theists out here who embrace science. Religion and science are both sides of the same truth coin. That each side derides the other as somehow false is ridiculous.
04 Jun 14
Originally posted by SuzianneIt was a young-earth-creationist to whom his post was directed. I don't think you should feel any need to leap to RJ's defense here.
I do not see why I have to constantly try to disprove this kind of thinking in this forum.
There happen to be some theists who do not subscribe to the kinds of literal, unimaginative theories that these YECs claim are true. Their "truth of the Bible" comments are egotism in the extreme. What they mean is the "truth of their interpretation of the ...[text shortened]... sides of the same truth coin. That each side derides the other as somehow false is ridiculous.
Penguin