DannHuff 0 #676 May 7, 2008 Quote Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Done. So, uh, now what?That's great! Now what? My suggestion is wait patiently and expect an answer. If your question was sincere, your answer may come within a day, or perhaps it will take a lifetime. God's timing is His own. Everything God does is with eternity in mind, rather than just our short lives on this earth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #677 May 7, 2008 Quote There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event. Science does not claim that, so where are you getting your information? Directly from God?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #678 May 7, 2008 Quote Quote Why don't you gather evidence for yourself. Tell God you don't believe in Him, and if He is really there, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Done. So, uh, now what? That's great! Now what? My suggestion is wait patiently and expect an answer. If your question was sincere, your answer may come within a day, or perhaps it will take a lifetime. God's timing is His own. Everything God does is with eternity in mind, rather than just our short lives on this earth. An omnipresent, omnipotent God has no reason to delay, does she?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #679 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuote Which one? Trying all of them would take a very long time. Yes, you have a point. I'm happy to provide a recommendation to help you expediate the process. I tried your favorite when I was a teenager. 50 years later and I'm still awaiting a response. An omnipresent god has no reason to delay.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #680 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuote There was no time before the Big Bang, there was no space before the Big Bang, and there was no matter before the Big Bang; there was no "before" before the Big Bang. The universe is expanding, so it had to have a beginning-- the Big Bang. This isn't an assumption. What you wrote above is speculation only. Everything started with one event. Science does not claim that, so where are you getting your information? Directly from God? She already said, a few posts back, that she didn't get it from anywhere. It's common sense. :) linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #681 May 7, 2008 >On what basis should I conclude that such a jump would work? You asked others to gather evidence that God exists. That would be some solid evidence indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #682 May 7, 2008 QuoteWhere is your evidence of an "eternal cycle"? The universe is, by its very nature, eternal. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. Cosmologists have several theories regarding the fate of the universe. Some imply a cyclic or oscillating universe, others do not.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #683 May 7, 2008 QuoteSure there is. You just reject it as evidence. It's called eye-witness testimony. We have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. And they back up what they said with their lives. You must have a person present and breathing and able to speak, here, now, today in order to have an eye witness. Faith is believing in something with out evidence. That is required to believe in God, Right? If you have all this "evidence" then why do you need faith? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #684 May 7, 2008 Just some random thoughts here. It is apparent that every Christian that has argued the existence of God here on this forum is severely lacking in critical thinking skills. I really don't understand why they insist on claiming evidence that does not actually qualify as evidence. A good critical thinking tool is asking at least 5 questions about how you "know" something is true. If you can not answer those questions then you really don't know it to 100% true. Always question your source of information. This is what science is all about. Faith is not a part of science and never has been or ever will be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #685 May 7, 2008 I believe when people talk about seeing evidence of God, they are not talking about scientific evidence; there is a difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #686 May 7, 2008 They think there is a difference but there really isn't. Evidence is either there or it isn't, other wise faith is required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #687 May 7, 2008 QuoteI believe when people talk about seeing evidence of God, they are not talking about scientific evidence; there is a difference. What exactly is the difference? As far as I know evidence is evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,032 #688 May 7, 2008 QuoteI believe when people talk about seeing evidence of God, they are not talking about scientific evidence; there is a difference. "God" is just giving a name to ignorance. "God works in mysterious ways" is just a cop out used to explain why a god of love and kindness would kill 22,000+ people in Myanmar with a typhoon.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #689 May 7, 2008 QuoteThey think there is a difference but there really isn't. I think there is a difference too. If they say that they see a flower as evidence of God, then that is accurate according to the dictionary definition of "evidence." ("A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." or "Something indicative; an outward sign.") To me, it might not be evidence of God, but to them it is, because it helped them come to the conclusion that there is a God. When using the word "evidence" in a non-scientific context, it does not necessarily imply something that has to be provable or even testable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #690 May 7, 2008 Just because they see a flower to be evidence of God doesn't mean it is evidence of God. When trying to convince others of the validity of your claim then yes it must be testable and provable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poe62 0 #691 May 7, 2008 Quote*** You must have a person present and breathing and able to speak, here, now, today in order to have an eye witness. I don't understand why they have to still be "present and breathing." Maybe you can explain this a little more for me please. I'd like to think that an eye witness is present and breathing at the time and place of what they're witnessing...but not necessarily OUR time and place. I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning. I just think I'm missing something in what you wrote.~Nikki http://www.facebook.com/poe62 Irgity Dirgity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #692 May 7, 2008 If you go into court with a written document that has not been signed by any witnesses or is even the original document in the original language and claim it as an eye witness testimony the judge will not accept it. For a judge to accept an eye witness testimony the eye witness needs to be present for cross examination. Kind of hard to do when the "eye witness" is dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #693 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteSorry, don't have the source for the other list. Maybe you can find it. The sources who mentioned Tiberius Caesar and what was said about him are irrelevant to me. So you're just flinging unsubstantiated claims around, then? Uh... no. And I don't have time to find it... as though it would make any difference to you!Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poe62 0 #694 May 7, 2008 This can be the same in science too. Just because you see a cause and effect relationship over and over--doesn't equate to evidence. It could be coincidence over and over in your lifetime. Consider paradigm shifts...obviously our "evidence" may not be correct, so we readjust our ideas regarding them. Just as you say someone may see the flower as evidence of God doesn't mean it is just as much as someone looking over an oceanic horizon assumed someone's ship sailed off the edge of the world...So how does something as flawed as "evidence" prove existence of God or the lack of such thing...??? I know my ramblings don't make a lot of sense, I'm just trying to understand why such weight is placed on evidence in either realm...? Personally, I see evidence as Faith just as much as their Faith is their evidence.~Nikki http://www.facebook.com/poe62 Irgity Dirgity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #695 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteWe have NO reason not to believe what those witnesses wrote down for us or told others to write down for us as testimony. So you believe Herodotus when he talks about gold digging ants the size of dogs, and tribesmen living in the desert with their faces in their chests? After all, he says that all his information comes from eyewitnessess. sounds pretty far-fetched; wonder who he was trying to scare.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #696 May 7, 2008 Quote Just because they see a flower to be evidence of God doesn't mean it is evidence of God. It is evidence to them. Quote When trying to convince others of the validity of your claim then yes it must be testable and provable. Right, so there is not much chance that their personal evidence will convince an atheist of the existence of God. (Which was probably your point in the first place, until I had to go into some silly semantics thing. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poe62 0 #697 May 7, 2008 QuoteIf you go into court with a written document that has not been signed by any witnesses or is even the original document in the original language and claim it as an eye witness testimony the judge will not accept it. For a judge to accept an eye witness testimony the eye witness needs to be present for cross examination. Kind of hard to do when the "eye witness" is dead. Fair enough in that regard, but what about outside a court system? That's a pretty narrow perspective. You're view is only derived from a chosen political theory on how to be fair in society. I'm wondering about a larger scale...~Nikki http://www.facebook.com/poe62 Irgity Dirgity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #698 May 7, 2008 QuoteHowever Christians make it different. After they allege that God exist, they start claiming that this God requires all of us to behave in some specific way, and doing so will benefit everyone. This is where we start getting problems, since the stake is now much higher, and therefore we need at least some evidence to support those changes. That's why nobody really challenges existence of Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, and you see little to no people challenging existence of Buddha, but you see a lot of people challenging existence of Christian God. In what specific way do you think Christians are claiming that God wants all of us to behave? QuoteSince you cannot prove the existence of your God, and cannot explain why your God cannot prove it himself - being supernatural it should not have any problem to him. All the evidence you need for his existence is in logic. People in denial can't see the logic. All the evidence you need to understand that Christ is the son of God is his resurrection. People who have made the choice not to follow him have talked themselves out of believing the evidence. So please stop with the questions as though you don't know the answers. May God bless you with an unbiased mind as you think about these things.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #699 May 7, 2008 Statement UV light is harmful to humans Expose humans to prolonged UV light and measure the effects. God can not be tested to exist. Evidence at it's best could be said to flawed, since humans do not always do things consistently or perfectly. But if you have no evidence of something to test then you requre faith. Science does not rely on faith because science is always questiong everything. If you can provide evidence that is testable and can be recreated by others that a known and accepted scientific notion is false then it will be accepted. This is not true of religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mockingbird 0 #700 May 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteMatter cannot be eternal because of entropy. Please, please, for the love of God, stop getting your science from creationist websites. Haven't been to any creationist websites; sorry to disappoint. I know what entropy means and implies for the universe.Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
