Kevinb
-
Posts
423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kevinb
-
-
On 29/03/2018 at 6:37 PM, MorningGlory said:
Well I care abut the environment but I'm more concerned about people being hit by debris. Except Steven; he's ready.
Our environment is precious.. It's where we live. An atheist friend and I went to the beach today to pick up plastic. Big thing in the news here how we're polluting our oceans. Caught the news today on the British made satellite that's going to start mopping up our space debris. Not sure who Steven is... maybe pray for him☺
-
On 26/03/2018 at 1:17 AM, MorningGlory said:
I guess we'd better pray God puts this thing down in an ocean.
Well i don't see how God will do anything. This is a calculation based on the laws of physics and speed and trajectory.
Didn't the chinese do this before and let a satellite/craft break up in orbit? Now we've debris spread about our planet in high orbit. Even a fleck of paint doin 20k ish mph will cause damage up there. We're polluting our planet... now our orbit putting other craft at risk. Makes me sad... when will we learn to take care of the environment we inhabit
-
6 hours ago, Cletus said:
carbon dating has been proven inaccurate.
Untrue. It's very accurate... only good for 50k ish years though. Carbon dating encounters problems in circumstances like mussels ingesting "old" carbon 14 that's decayed and locked into limestone for example. This then manifests in the result of said creature. This is very rare and well very understood in the radiometric dating. However YEC use these results to say yep... carbon 14 dating is nonsense... unreliable. It's either ignorant or dishonest.
-
On 09/01/2018 at 9:31 AM, Sol Man said:
Carbon dating, millions of years old, the Bible doesn't account for that.
Maybe carbon dating is totally wrong but there is a conflict here with the Bible.
carbon dating is only good for 50k ish years and deals with half lives of carbon 14. There are dozens of radiometric dating techniques independent of each other that go into the millions and billions of years. They can be tested against each other in overlap and even give a margin of error.
There are several non radiometric dating techniques also. As to those who think radiometric isotopes vary in decay rates... this is patently ridiculous... please demonstrate this and falsify our understanding and win a noble prize. Let's not forget this is based upon those who 1st presuppose the age being accurate by adding up the ages of people living to 100s of years old in a particular religious book....erm...
-
On 19/03/2018 at 10:33 PM, hmbld said:On 19/03/2018 at 8:39 PM, MorningGlory said:
I'm not going to address your unnecessarily long post, Quasar. Except for the above. There may have been civilizations before Adam, I don't dispute that nor do I dispute science. But, since the Bible only addresses the world from Genesis forward, the rest is not relevant to our faith. And, btw, there is absolutely NO reason to quote yourself and post that long, long, long post a second time. Brevity will get people to read what you post; posting a million word diatribe will not.
But the Bible is clear there were no civilizations before Adam.
Okay and indeed the bible may indicate this hmbld. So how do you prove the bible claim? Or are you happy to go with the bible claims are true coz they're in the bible? Kinda circular don't you think. The quran claims are true coz they're in the quran. This applies to all religious texts surely. What needs to be demonstrated is any theistic claims are true in reality. In this case Adam... so what's the evidence for Adam to corroborate the bible claim?
-
3 hours ago, JohnR7 said:
Salvation is not based on what we do or our works. Salvation is a free gift from God. Like any gift the only condition is for us to receive the gift. Because we can refuse to receive the gift of eternal life that God wants to give us. If we choose to work or if we choose to serve God then we will receive rewards. We receive rewards here in this life and in the life to come. But doing good works for God is not a condition of salvation. Although some consider this to be evidence that they are saved. Because we become a new creation in Christ. The old passes away and all things become new.
Still like I explained life is a choice so each and every individual has to make that choice to live their life. For me to serve God is a part of my choice for the life I live. But like I said there is no requirement to serve God. That is just an individual choice that people make. This gets into quite a discussion about choice and our freedom to make choices in life. If you could contribute to the discussion on what makes life worth living I would be happy to hear what you have to say and why you feel your life has meaning and why you feel your life is worth living. Each individual has to find their own way in life. God writes the book of our life before we are even born. He gives us gifts talents and abilities that we need to develop. We should use what HE gives us to bring Him honor and glory. Although if we honor God with our life is out choice to make. Again each and every individual has to make that choice for themselves.
For me to use the gifts, talents and abilities that God give me to honor Him is the right and the correct choice to make. But we can write our own book or we can let satan write the book of our life if we do not want to follow God and the plan that He has for us and our life. It is your choice. Each and every individual has to make that choice for themselves. I really would rather not choose and I would rather not have to take the responsibility for that choice. But that is one thing we do not have a choice in. We have to choice and we can not make a choice NOT to chose. Although there is always a default if we refuse to choice. Or if we choose not to choose.
Interesting. My position is we can choose what to do with our lives.. to a reasonable degree. What we believe in a sense of whats true about reality ie is there a god... then which God or are there no gods. This isn't a choice...i don't choose to not believe in any of a thousand gods. We don't all have our own truths on reality. We should be compelled to believe and follow the evidence. If we care about what's actually true then demonstrable levels of evidence must dictate our beliefs. Else it's picking what we like and want... what our particular local religion just so happens to be.. what religion we're grown up believing by our parents or indoctrinated into.
The only default should be to not accept any claims until there's evidential warrant. Evidence should form beliefs not beliefs form our evidence.
-
10 hours ago, JohnR7 said:
I do not know about you but I dream about world peace and the end of war. I dream about children that do not cry themselves to sleep at night because they were just assaulted by an adult that they trusted and betrayed them. Do you want me to go on and on and on and on about all the many, many, many things that are not right with this world. For me we are either a part of he solution or a part of the problem. The only thing that makes life worth living is our hope that somehow, someway we can be used by God to be a part of the solution and do something to make this world a better place to be.
I'd want the things you outlined also. As a non believer I'd disagree with the only thing that makes life worth living is we'd be used by god to achieve this.
We... society need to pull together... influence our governments to make the world a better place. I see no involvement by any God getting us there . Unless you've some evidence this has ever happened?
-
On 04/03/2018 at 4:48 AM, JohnR7 said:
The issue with evolution is that they do not take the fallen condition of creation into consideration. They do not take God's plan of restoration into consideration. Some area do better than others though. Evo Devo for example. Even most of the research on DNA centers on trying to fix the problem and get rid of genetic diseases and disorders.
1st sentences... correct because there's no evidence or reason to take it into account. Presupposing this or accepting supernatural claims have added nothing in 500 years of science. Where has the supernatural added to our understanding of the universe above and beyond the testing of the natural?
-
53 minutes ago, one.opinion said:4 hours ago, Kevinb said:
Regarding fringe... most who write on this are Christians who start with the presupposition of accepting prior to writing.
That may very well be true, but there is plenty of evidence from secular writers to accept that Jesus was a historical figure. You and I agree that majority opinion among experts is meaningful and it is true that most historians accept it. Claims that go beyond Jesus as historical figure are debated with more fervor, and there probably are threads already discussing them. I’ll see what I can find.
The majority "experts" are Christians.. they've already accepted the proposition and base work on other Christians who've already accepted it. An issue for me is there are religions pre Christian that have sons of god...saviour gods..resurrections after 3 days even. Osiris of Egypt...Romulus of Roman tradition who even on top of this underwent a passion. More modern notions of Christianity were taken from pre-existing Persian after they invaded Judea... the Persian Zoroastrianism stuff added Good God vs evil...heaven and hell were adopted from the persians. I'd have to buy the Jesus stuff in christiantity is true... after the analogous pre dates it. Makes it look like God based the Jesus "truth" on pre existing fables and stories of other civilisations. OR has just been adopted from other cults with a saviour swapped for another.. this has happened often...pre Christian.
-
On 07/03/2018 at 1:55 PM, one.opinion said:
I think I've mentioned it before, but I believe the best place to start looking for evidence of a "particular God" starts with the claims surrounding Jesus Christ. It is only a fringe minority of historians that argue against Jesus as a historical figure.
Maybe start a thread for the evidence for Jesus if it starts there? Regarding fringe... most who write on this are Christians who start with the presupposition of accepting prior to writing. I know of little outside the bible to give evidence for the bible.
-
On 08/01/2018 at 9:11 PM, missmuffet said:
The overwhelming evidence that life cannot come from non-life is a powerful indication that naturalism is not a realistic worldview. Life either had a natural origin (abiogenesis) or a supernatural origin (intelligent design). The scientific impossibility of abiogenesis is an argument for, at least, a supernatural originator. The only way to create even the most basic building blocks of life is in non-natural, highly designed, and tightly controlled conditions. That, by itself, makes it reasonable to presume that life cannot begin without intelligent intervention.
There is no evidence life can't come from non life. Where are the peer reviewed tests of ALL variables and conditions of the early solar system that proves it's impossible? This is so far from having been done. This is the burden of proof you have when say this. Else it's an appeal to our ignorance. It's also a logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance to say when we don't know how thus far ergo God. Some of the building blocks and even some complicated chemistry has been discovered naturally... even in asteroids that have fallen to earth. We know prior to this stars make atoms as well. Let's not forget in 400 years of science so far we've only discovered natural laws without the requirement for any supernatural tinkering. So God involvement is now shifted back here? God of the gaps? Look at everything that was attributed to gods pre science... it just appeals to our ignorance unless you can prove God did it and one God over a 1000 others did it? Besides in the absence of evidence and causality of any problem or question the answer rationally is don't know.... not don't know therefore this... this or any other this must be demonstrated to avoid fallacious arguements.
-
On 26/02/2018 at 4:01 PM, simplejeff said:
This is true. In part. But it won't save anyone, will it ? No.
By faith has always been the truth, revealed by faith, to those , to everyone, who seeks God. Not to others. No matter what you think, or they think, it doesn't matter, does it, if it cannot save anyone from their sins ?
Faith in God, Faith in His Word, hand in hand, LIFE instead of death.
In Jesus. No other way. Ever.
What religion and God or gods couldn't we believe on faith? Faith is the justification all theists give to accept their view. How is faith a reliable path to truth when it gets people to any of 1000 gods and religions. This is what happens when humanity doesn't have any good evidence of god or gods.
All theists in the course of our history have believed their religious view to be correct... as an non believer it seems A God has done an awful job of announcing himself to the planet...it appears religious beliefs seem to be of local cultural notions based upon our lack of understanding of the world back then. God notions have evolved over time... now we're outside of the universe but that didn't use to be the case. Cultures have borrowed ideas off each other..tweaked and made it more personal to them. Resurrection and saviour gods... floods.. this isn't unique to christiantity and predates it.
-
On 04/01/2018 at 10:34 PM, one.opinion said:
I have read numerous posts here suggesting that scientists are more interested in maintaining their own pet hypotheses than pursuing truth - to the point of elaborate cover-ups of truth. Does this retraction by a well-known scientist bring that suggestion into question?
I've no doubt some scientists are this way... thankfully we've a plethora of scientists in all fields to peer review and hold them to account.. that's how it works right. Something doesn't become true because one scientist says it is... that needs to then be validated and falisified by his or her peers. This case from a singular authority without corroberative evidence and peer review isn't reliable... that's why we need peer review. The argument from authority stuff seems to be that of religions. It doesn't make sense to me when those who readily question authority when it occurs in the scientific but don't apply the same scepticism and reason when they look at religious books.
-
On 04/01/2018 at 10:34 PM, one.opinion said:
At what point will the atheistic version of life origins have to change to account for the lack of progress in this regard?
Hi one. Been a while... hope you're well and having a good 2018
You and I agree on Darwinian evolution if I recall. How long did it take for humanity to come to understand evolution as explanation for diversity of life?
We've certainly evidence of building blocks but a definitive actual answer as to how chemistry became life I'm not so sure. Some here say it's impossible... that would require knowledge and testing of all possible variables and conditions of the early solar system and maybe beyond. Clearly that's not been done. Not been done and therefore God is an argument from ignorance fallacy. The God and then a particular God needs to be demonstrated. Same as those who think aliens did it or we live in a matrix or anything else.
The question itself is an immensely tough one to answer. Maybe we'll come up with a model or models of how it could happen.. maybe we'll be able to show it did happen a certain way. Say it takes 10 years or 100 years... does that not make it valid? Essentially don't know on any subject in our history remains don't know.
-
8 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
Revelation 8 KJV
10And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
12And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
30 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:interpret that passage to mean artificial winter brought on by the asteroid/meteor creating massive amounts of debris that hangs in the atmosphere for a time. Much as scientists believe happened sixty five million years ago when the asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula. I'm sure others may interpret it differently.
I initially read into it starting to talk about coronal mass ejections from the sun but the rest doesn't follow or make sense. This is the problem when things are so non specific vague.
I'm kinda with you on passage 1. The trouble is we're reading what we know back into this... it's kinda leading the evidence.
-
55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:2 hours ago, Kevinb said:
So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate?
No Problem, Please provide a Time Machine...?
Ah okay.. so nothing besides biblical assertion... shame.
55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:QuoteI referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4.
1. This is Incoherent, could you rephrase...?
The bible indicates a day and night days before the sun.
55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:QuoteYour point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim.
Huh?? You're somewhat confused...
My Point 3: "Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...?" <--- This is a request for SUPPORT.
Is in response to "YOUR" Claim: "Science doesn't support Adam and eve". <--- This is a CLAIM.
"YOU" made the Claim. So How in the World can I be Shifting the Burden of Proof, Pray Tell...?
Not going to relive evolution again. Clearly science doesn't support Adam and eve. If you feel it does please give evidence... if it doesn't on what do I accept Adam and eve?
Re the flight and such... we've done this many times too... such that as the earth curvature "falls" so does the plane based on atmospheric pressure to maintain height.
The rest of the copy and paste and the container stuff I agree on the theory however the issues are only there is you have presupposed flat earth. Done all this stuff before. Just for others to see the knot people get in vs reality when they've already accepted the biblical before assessing evidence. Therefore you've got to not accept evidence for black holes... General relativity and so forth. Spherical planets.. stars and so on coz you've bought into the bibles flat earth.
55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:QuotePlease explain what drives the sun and moon?
How does a compass work?
What are the northern lights in the magic dome model?
How far are the sun and moon?
What causes the sun to produce light?
The moon produces light also right... by what means?
Where do asteroids come from and suspended how?Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) x7.
You have the prevailing "Narrative"; Ergo...You Scientifically Validate EACH:
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified.These are legitimate problems for flat earth and dome. You've just dodged.
snarkily calling me professor doesn't help matters. Back on block before things deteriorate...i don't want to be the reason for you to get thrown from another thread.
55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:Ya see professor
-
2 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
Revelation 8 KJV
10And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; 11And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
12And the fourth angel sounded, and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise.
Of course ancient people would have observed asteroids and meteors same as we do now. Minus the angel bit... we don't attribute that now.
How do you interpret the 2nd paragraph ?
-
2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:
2. Plants were created on the Third Day. The Sun on the Fourth Day. Are you saying plants can't survive 1 Day without the Sun?
What about "Night Time"?? lol
So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate? I referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4...erm..
2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:3. Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...
Scientific understanding supports evolution. Your point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim. Please demonstrate evidence for the Adam and eve claim.
2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:Really?? So there's no DOME/Firmament?? OK...
How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...
"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER".
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.htmlPlease, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...?
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!!Agreed. However to have this problem ... as you do you must presuppose flat earth 1st.
Please explain what drives the sun and moon in the magic dome.? How does a compass work? What are the northern lights in the magic dome model? Stars are angels too in your model if memory serves? Angel telescope pic if you please? How far are the sun and moon? Earth is on columns... what are columns on? What causes the sun to produce light? The moon produces light also right... by what means... why does it have a shadow and why doesn't the moon show its own light in the dark areas? The other planets are flat too yet we see them as spheres and their moon's travel past... disappear behind and reappear the other side? Where do asteroids come from and suspended how... they must be inside the dome already? Why is there no evidence of firing something into a dome to easily prove it?
If you can demonstrate evidence for these claims we can progress to page 2s problems with your hypothesis.
Anyways as it's Christmas thought I'd try again and unblock for a spell... you didn't answer this stuff last time.
Hope you're well and had a good Christmas.
-
On 22/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:
Science is a logical method devised to investigate God's creation
Yet scientific understanding contradicts the biblical 6 day creation story let alone it's in the wrong order . Ie day and night several days before the sun. Science doesn't support Adam and eve... this is biblical presupposition.
On Enoch... he won't like black holes discussed here because they came about by Einsteinian physics pre observations...as did hawking radiation. This is because of his biblical presuppositional stance of flat earth... as described in the bible... firmament magic dome and such. I must say I agree the bible indicates this but being a non believer... it's not supported by evidence... along with the rest of the claims. Pre supposing prior and believing before investigation and a shred of evidence is the entire problem.
-
On 24/12/2017 at 5:06 AM, MorningGlory said:
I think the appearance of this asteroid is just a natural ocurrance but it's nearness to Earth is worrisome. I don't think I will worry overly much about it though; it won't hit us unless the Lord allows it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/incredibly-creepy-skull-shaped-asteroid-going-cruise-earth-152944797.html
The sheer number out there sure is worrying. We've found the biggies but the numbers are huge... even small ones would be devastating. This bombardment is how planets form. Remember Schumacher Levi 9 in the 90s? Thankfully for us...jupiter has hoovered up more than its share. Just says the solar system is not the finished article.
We had many hit is in the past though..our surface is more dynamic than the moon... check the hits there.
Don't know why we need to add God influencing or allowing... how to show causation... we have nothing beyond physical laws at work. If we're due a big impact let us hope it's far enough in our future we can do something to stop it hitting by then.
On the shape...asteroid shape isn't unduely influenced by gravity... in that they aren't big like planets so wouldn't need to be spherical. Lots don't look like anything.. it's seeing shapes in clouds. Maybe this will miss and in 100 years one that looks like a teddy bear will hit☺
-
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:
“Faith as defined is.. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof - wiki Or Hebrews 11.1 faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see - bible. ”
The first definition is incorrect (as one might expect from a wiki). The second definition is correct. Faith is confidence in a claim for which no direct observation exists.
They amount to the same thing...religious belief without proof. Even if you want to stick with the later... it's hope without what's not seen.... or observations . Do you honestly think that's a good pathway to truth.... what I hope for and have zero observations and proof of? How is that different from dillusion. Plus I could hope for and have no observations of intelligent life at the core of mars. That has nothing to do with what's actually true.
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:“This isn't not how scientific understanding works although theists attempt to equivocate they are comparable explanations.”
The limitations on past and supernatural claims are logically identical (i.e. the inability to subject the claim to direct observation). The logical methodology used to investigate such claims are also identical (i.e. compare the current facts to the model making the claim). Whether or not they qualify as “scientific” is a matter you can debate with @Enoch. But they are logically the same approach. There is no equivocation in my claim.
This is an equivocation... your presupposition of supernatural prevents you from understanding. Okay.. I'll try again. If a scientist who's a religious creationist was to investigate the world and universe they find themselves in... the tools at their disposal would be an understanding of physics...experiments... equipment.. labs.. tools. There are of course people of all religions doing this science.. around the world including cooperatively at cern. A non believer conducts themselves in the same way. The religious person is the one adding supernatural notions based on no proof... what is hoped for and not seen and for these reasons the non believer isn't convinced. To say positions are identical is an equivocation. Or please justify how I can add supernatural.
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:“So the scientific.. explanation of universal to planetary origins.. ie big bang was lead by Einsteinian physics initially...(even Einstein didn't like where the physics lead)... that's been tested... attempted to be falisified..corroberated by cmb and red shift and more”
This is all unsupported fluff and bluster. The idea of a Big Bang arose from a thought experiment where we took the available knowledge of an expanding universe, and put the whole system in reverse until it collapsed into a singularity.
Incorrect... it is supported by the laws of physics proposed initially from Einstein and substantiated by Lemaitre in the 20s ..friedmann and others. The physics predicted a cmb years before it was found. Please give the alternate not just natural laws God did it hypothesis and factors we can check and then your God as opposed to that of the rest humanity has proposed?
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:“Plus unlike the laws of physics that initiated big bang theory”
Not without making naturalistic assumptions they didn't.
We can only investigate the naturalistic as explained.. it's never helped progress understanding dropping in any particular supernatural claims has it if so where? The default is to examine and explain what we can see not to add what isn't seen and hoped for.
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:“Indeed as bonky said religions have already started with all answers before investigation. Believes forming evidence instead of evidence forming beliefs.”
This is equally true of all belief, including secular beliefs. We all start with an unverifiable premise. The raw, uninterpreted facts don't speak specifically to any story of the past being true.
Equivocation again...i say it often as you cite it. Laws of physics and evidence drive an atheistic confidence in our models of reality. As per big bang discussed. If we find other evidence to tweak models that becomes our new best. So the biblical is based upon invesigation? How old is the universe as per the bible? Evidence for Adam and eve. The assertions from authority have what evidence? The claims are pre any investigation not warranted by evidence and post added to.
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:“Plus theists deny knowledge and evidence because of this bpresupposing supernatural”
What “knowledge and evidence” have I denied? Critical reasoning provides me with every rational right to question any interpretation of any fact, but not the right to deny the existence of the fact (unless maybe the source of the observation is questionable – but generally not).
Erm... big bang or evolution... you've not denied that? What's the God did it alternative or addition? By what info can I factor that in?
On 25/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:We can, absolutely “investigate the supernatural”, but only indirectly – since supernatural claims are beyond the logical scope of natural observation (as are all claims about the unobserved past). We cannot generate scientific, mathematical confidence in either past or supernatural claims.
Please outline the methodologies where I can investigate the supernatural?
In terms of the forced to come to conclusions part in the absence of evidence. Addressing big bang initiation... we've examples coming from nothing... multiverse stuff but we're not there yet. I'm happy to say I don't know. You would assert God did it... how... based on what info?
-
33 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
You're entitled to your opinions, Kevin, but if you don't understand faith then nothing I, or any believer, tells you about it will make sense to you.
I do understand faith... so far yes appealing to faith by those of any religion hasn't swayed me... same as all other religions and their gods humanity has ever put forward haven't appealed to you to follow...i just add yours to the same faith pot explanation that we both don't align ourselves to
-
50 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
I gave you the evidence that is relevant to me; it's up to you what you do with it. And yes, this is the forum for nonbelievers to engage with Christians but this is NOT a science forum. You can't dictate what believers post and, IMO, you can't understand faith as evidence.
I'm not dictating what you post... everyone posts what they like personal attacks aside. You gave me what you considered as evidence and I replied with how I view that.
This is the science and faith forum. However it's not as black and white as that it's also how people reason and evaluate and we have different opinions.
Yes I don't take religious faith claims as good evidence. If people had evidence for claims then they need not appeal to faith. Besides faith is what's gotten people to 100s of gods...ergo i don't see it as a reliable way to truth.
-
1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:
As a Christian what I quoted to you IS my evidence. If you are looking for scientific proof, Worthy is not the place to be as this site is for sharing our faith. There are scientific sites for that. Science Weekly is a good place to start.
Yep I see that IS your evidence. However... this is the claim... the claim then has to be supported... ie God did it as per john1:3. Egyptians would say in answer to looking at the sun moving across the sky... evidence for their gods would be their scripture Ra and his chariot and thousands of other examples from all religions. Again this isn't evidence...its a claim... again unsupported by evidence. Thinking this way is a great way to be wrong. I could just say magic pixies did it unless i can demonstrate that it's just faith without any evidence to corroberate in reality.
This part of worthy invites seekers and non believers to engage with Christians.
Btw scientific proof well maybe... any that's compelling would do.
China's out of contol space station is due to reenter the atmosphere
in Science and Faith
Posted
The 1st sentence sounds like we've no evidence. If we can't see God doing something how can we be rationally justified to say he does.