Discussion:
Believers like to claim...
(too old to reply)
Machque
2005-04-17 03:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Believers like to claim that only believers should investigate God
because unbelievers are biased against Him. Yet, equally, a believer
cannot investigate God because they already accept that He exists.
God's existence must be examined from a scien-tific perspective which
demands skepticism, disbelief or at least sufficient doubt to be
effective. The Christian response is that God is not of this universe
and therefore he is not susceptible to scientific inquiry, but an
entirely transcendental God could have no effect on the universe and
might as well not exist.

Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
index finger in history, and answers prayers. If God exists and does
all this, he must be observable through science. If believers say God
exists but every test applied is negative, why should we, or they,
believe He does? When God does not interact with the world on any
scientific criterion, how can anyone continue to believe He exists and
answers prayers? If He exists somewhere else and does not interact with
the world, then what is the use of praying? (God's Truth; Dr M D Magee)

--
Bear

And I know it's my own damn fault.
Bible Bob
2005-04-17 05:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Machque
Believers like to claim that only believers should investigate God
because unbelievers are biased against Him. Yet, equally, a believer
cannot investigate God because they already accept that He exists.
God's existence must be examined from a scien-tific perspective which
demands skepticism, disbelief or at least sufficient doubt to be
effective. The Christian response is that God is not of this universe
and therefore he is not susceptible to scientific inquiry, but an
entirely transcendental God could have no effect on the universe and
might as well not exist.
Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
index finger in history, and answers prayers. If God exists and does
all this, he must be observable through science. If believers say God
exists but every test applied is negative, why should we, or they,
believe He does? When God does not interact with the world on any
scientific criterion, how can anyone continue to believe He exists and
answers prayers? If He exists somewhere else and does not interact with
the world, then what is the use of praying? (God's Truth; Dr M D Magee)
Machque,

I'm a believer and have never heard that only believers should
investigate God. In fact I can not remember ever hearing of anyone
trying to investigate God. Sherlock Holmes investigation techniques
won't work when it comes to investigating God because God can not be
investigated - known by the five senses; but the effects of God can be
known by the five senses. I also have never heard a Christian say
that God is not of this universe because the universe is within God.
It is true that God is not discernable via standard five senses
scientific inquiry but the effects of God are.

All science can do is investigate phenomena because phenomena exists
in the five senses world. Noumenon are a different story. Even Kant
had difficulty explaining the different relationship between the
noumenal and phenomenal worlds. Kant theorized incorrectly that
neither can be said to cause or be caused by the other. The truth is
that the noumenal is antecedent to phenomena; or, spirit is antecedent
to matter. The reason that matter exists is because spirit existed
first.

You say that if God created the heavens and the earth, then He must be
observable through science. But that is not true to fact because
science can not observe God because science is a weakly thing that
does not have the power needed to see God. Science is fine when
science is used for what God designed it to be used for - the study of
the natural world. But when sceince tries to be god, its falls flat
on its face at the feet of God.

You stated that "every" test applied is negative, then the smart thing
to do would be to get better test instruments. God does interact
with the world on a scientific basis but He uses superior science.
Our kindergarten version of science just doesn't have what it takes to
get the job done. Scientists playing in sand boxes can not know the
weightier things until they get their heads out of the sand. You see,
true science requires wisdom, common sense to work. Sceintists
forfiet findings because they refuse to use common sense.

A scientist will look out his window and see the effect of God's work.
He will see the ground, the mountains, a sky, the sun, a squirrel in
the tree and a bird in the sky. The normal person will say recognize
that these are the effects of God. The scientist don't dare even
mention God and has to throw out common sense and come up with a
theory to earn his paycheck. He can not be big and important if he
believes in God. To be big and important he must speak against God.

As he turns from the window he knocks over the lamp on hid desk which
falls to the floor in a big bang. He comes up with a new theory
called the big bang theory. No, he does not mention the lamp in his
theory he changes lamp to star.

Your problem is that you expect those of us who are right about God
and the works of God - those of us with common sense - to reject God
and the works of God because you say so. You sway some your way with
bribes and trickery and pseudo reasoning backed up with science mixed
in with unscience. But, many of us chose not to be deceived because
we know that there is more in it for us if we stick with the truth.

You say God does not answer prayer. I say God does answer prayer when
prayers are prayed His way. I know through scientific analysis that
this is true. You have nothing but your words and the words of others
that are subject to error.




Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net

BB
Bear
2005-04-17 06:40:28 UTC
Permalink
"Bible Bob" wrote
: It is true that God is not discernable via standard five senses
: scientific inquiry but the effects of God are.

If not discernable by the five senses he does not exist. What evidence do
you have that the effects that you ascribe to god is actually god's doing?

: All science can do is investigate phenomena because phenomena exists
: in the five senses world.

What evidence do you have they anything exists beyond what can be discerned
by the five senses?

: Noumenon are a different story.

How does one go about discerning noumenon in order to show that noumenon
exist?

: The reason that matter exists is because spirit existed first.

Can you demonstrate that conclusion?

: You say that if God created the heavens and the earth, then He must be
: observable through science. But that is not true to fact because
: science can not observe God because science is a weakly thing that
: does not have the power needed to see God. Science is fine when
: science is used for what God designed it to be used for - the study of
: the natural world. But when sceince tries to be god, its falls flat
: on its face at the feet of God.

Have you ever objectively considered that the reason science cannot observe
god is because there is no god.

: You stated that "every" test applied is negative, then the smart thing
: to do would be to get better test instruments.

What instruments would you suggest?

: God does interact
: with the world on a scientific basis but He uses superior science.

Please give some examples of this superior science.

: A scientist will look out his window and see the effect of God's work.

Where is your evidence that this is god's work?

: He will see the ground, the mountains, a sky, the sun, a squirrel in
: the tree and a bird in the sky. The normal person will say recognize
: that these are the effects of God.

Only because they are programmed to believe it.

: The scientist don't dare even
: mention God and has to throw out common sense and come up with a
: theory to earn his paycheck. He can not be big and important if he
: believes in God. To be big and important he must speak against God.

That is merely your opinion.

: Your problem is that you expect those of us who are right about God
: and the works of God - those of us with common sense - to reject God
: and the works of God because you say so.

No, actually I am speaking against those superstitious enough to believe the
myths concerning god without common sense and attempt to force those
unproven superstitions on to the rest of us.

: You sway some your way with
: bribes and trickery and pseudo reasoning backed up with science mixed
: in with unscience. But, many of us chose not to be deceived because
: we know that there is more in it for us if we stick with the truth.

But you are the deceived ones.

: You say God does not answer prayer. I say God does answer prayer when
: prayers are prayed His way. I know through scientific analysis that
: this is true. You have nothing but your words and the words of others
: that are subject to error.

Wrong! There is no evidence that god has answered prayers. All you have are
the myths Zoroastrian Persians foisted on the rest of the world.
--
Bear

And I know it’s my own damn fault.
Bible Bob
2005-04-17 07:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
: It is true that God is not discernable via standard five senses
: scientific inquiry but the effects of God are.
If not discernable by the five senses he does not exist. What evidence do
you have that the effects that you ascribe to god is actually god's doing?
What proof do you have that He does not exist? It's not my job to
prove the existence of God or the truth of the Word; that is God's job
and each individual's responsibility to weigh the eveidence in their
own minds.
Post by Bear
: All science can do is investigate phenomena because phenomena exists
: in the five senses world.
What evidence do you have they anything exists beyond what can be discerned
by the five senses?
Ask Kant?
Post by Bear
: Noumenon are a different story.
How does one go about discerning noumenon in order to show that noumenon
exist?
Get saved.
Post by Bear
: The reason that matter exists is because spirit existed first.
Can you demonstrate that conclusion?
Look out your window.
Post by Bear
: You say that if God created the heavens and the earth, then He must be
: observable through science. But that is not true to fact because
: science can not observe God because science is a weakly thing that
: does not have the power needed to see God. Science is fine when
: science is used for what God designed it to be used for - the study of
: the natural world. But when sceince tries to be god, its falls flat
: on its face at the feet of God.
Have you ever objectively considered that the reason science cannot observe
god is because there is no god.
Before I became a Christian. No. I wasn't into thinking much back
then. After becoming a Christian? Of course not, I could never get
my IQ down to that level:)
Post by Bear
: You stated that "every" test applied is negative, then the smart thing
: to do would be to get better test instruments.
What instruments would you suggest?
Holy spirit.
Post by Bear
: God does interact
: with the world on a scientific basis but He uses superior science.
Please give some examples of this superior science.
Look outside your window.
Post by Bear
: A scientist will look out his window and see the effect of God's work.
Where is your evidence that this is god's work?
Where is your evidence - not theory or hypothesis or guess- that it is
not?
Post by Bear
: He will see the ground, the mountains, a sky, the sun, a squirrel in
: the tree and a bird in the sky. The normal person will say recognize
: that these are the effects of God.
Only because they are programmed to believe it.
Who programmed them? Who put it in their DNA?
Post by Bear
: The scientist don't dare even
: mention God and has to throw out common sense and come up with a
: theory to earn his paycheck. He can not be big and important if he
: believes in God. To be big and important he must speak against God.
That is merely your opinion.
Actually, I was using a little hyperbole
Post by Bear
: Your problem is that you expect those of us who are right about God
: and the works of God - those of us with common sense - to reject God
: and the works of God because you say so.
No, actually I am speaking against those superstitious enough to believe the
myths concerning god without common sense and attempt to force those
unproven superstitions on to the rest of us.
Superstition would imply wrong. Christians are not superstituous
because they are right. God is not a myth, what some people say about
God are myths. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I was
asked a question and I gave an answer. You've been around long enough
to know that I won't cower to tyrany, injustice, superstition, or myth
propogated by those who stand against me.
Post by Bear
: You sway some your way with
: bribes and trickery and pseudo reasoning backed up with science mixed
: in with unscience. But, many of us chose not to be deceived because
: we know that there is more in it for us if we stick with the truth.
But you are the deceived ones.
I'm not the one trying convince me about supersititious myths so I am
not decieved. It's been my expereince that deceivers are the ones
that are decieved. Vain philosophy doesn't impress or motivate me.
Post by Bear
: You say God does not answer prayer. I say God does answer prayer when
: prayers are prayed His way. I know through scientific analysis that
: this is true. You have nothing but your words and the words of others
: that are subject to error.
Wrong! There is no evidence that god has answered prayers. All you have are
the myths Zoroastrian Persians foisted on the rest of the world.
No. Right. And you can not prove otherwise. I have scientific
evidence that prayer does work. You have nothing but superstituous
myths blabbered by pseudo philosophers and pseudo scientists.

Bear, I thought we agreed not to try to convert one another. You will
not win an argument with me when it comes to God and the things of
God, unless you do it God's way. I do not post to the groups to
debate or argue the Word. That is not my job. My job is to share
what I have learned with those who want to know it. So unless you
have a sincere honest question please refrain from trying to get me to
lower my standards.



Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net

BB
Bear
2005-04-17 16:26:01 UTC
Permalink
"Bible Bob" wrote
: What proof do you have that He does not exist? It's not my job to
: prove the existence of God or the truth of the Word; that is God's job
: and each individual's responsibility to weigh the eveidence in their
: own minds.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positve claim.

: >: All science can do is investigate phenomena because phenomena exists
: >: in the five senses world.
: >
: >What evidence do you have they anything exists beyond what can be
discerned
: >by the five senses?
:
: Ask Kant?

Just throwing things out that you don't really understand?

: >: Noumenon are a different story.
: >
: >How does one go about discerning noumenon in order to show that noumenon
: >exist?
:
: Get saved.

LOL!!!

: >: The reason that matter exists is because spirit existed first.
: >
: >Can you demonstrate that conclusion?
:
: Look out your window.

How does that demonstrate your assertion?

: Before I became a Christian. No. I wasn't into thinking much back
: then. After becoming a Christian? Of course not, I could never get
: my IQ down to that level:)

In other words, you have not considered all the possibilities.

: >: You stated that "every" test applied is negative, then the smart thing
: >: to do would be to get better test instruments.
: >
: >What instruments would you suggest?
:
: Holy spirit.

That is a figment of your imagination.

: >: God does interact
: >: with the world on a scientific basis but He uses superior science.
: >
: >Please give some examples of this superior science.
:
: Look outside your window.

I see evolution when I look out my window.

: >: A scientist will look out his window and see the effect of God's work.
: >
: >Where is your evidence that this is god's work?
:
: Where is your evidence - not theory or hypothesis or guess- that it is
: not?

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the positve claim.

: >: He will see the ground, the mountains, a sky, the sun, a squirrel in
: >: the tree and a bird in the sky. The normal person will say recognize
: >: that these are the effects of God.
: >
: >Only because they are programmed to believe it.
:
: Who programmed them?

Zoroastianism.

Who put it in their DNA?

Nobody.

: Superstition would imply wrong.

Exactly.

: Christians are not superstituous
: because they are right.

Wrong.

: God is not a myth, what some people say about
: God are myths.

No, God is a myth.

: I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. I was
: asked a question and I gave an answer.

No one said you were, but you certainly haven't answered the question
either.

: You've been around long enough
: to know that I won't cower to tyrany, injustice, superstition, or myth
: propogated by those who stand against me.

What tyranny? I don't know about cower, but you have allowed yourself to be
deluded by superstition and myth.

: >: You sway some your way with
: >: bribes and trickery and pseudo reasoning backed up with science mixed
: >: in with unscience. But, many of us chose not to be deceived because
: >: we know that there is more in it for us if we stick with the truth.
: >
: >But you are the deceived ones.
:
: I'm not the one trying convince me about supersititious myths so I am
: not decieved. It's been my expereince that deceivers are the ones
: that are decieved. Vain philosophy doesn't impress or motivate me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything; I am merely stating the fact
that the bible, and therefore, god is nothing but superstition and myth. You
are free to believe differently if you so choose.

: >: You say God does not answer prayer. I say God does answer prayer when
: >: prayers are prayed His way. I know through scientific analysis that
: >: this is true. You have nothing but your words and the words of others
: >: that are subject to error.
: >
: >Wrong! There is no evidence that god has answered prayers. All you have
are
: >the myths Zoroastrian Persians foisted on the rest of the world.
:
: No. Right. And you can not prove otherwise. I have scientific
: evidence that prayer does work. You have nothing but superstituous
: myths blabbered by pseudo philosophers and pseudo scientists.

Wrong! You are the one who believe superstituous myths as incorporated in
the bible.

: Bear, I thought we agreed not to try to convert one another.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. I am simply not going to stand by while
somebody tries to put forth myths and superstition as truth.

: You will
: not win an argument with me when it comes to God and the things of
: God, unless you do it God's way.

I'm not attempting to win anything.

I do not post to the groups to
: debate or argue the Word. That is not my job. My job is to share
: what I have learned with those who want to know it. So unless you
: have a sincere honest question please refrain from trying to get me to
: lower my standards.

My job is also to show people what I have learned and I refuse to lower my
standards by allowing people to pass off ancient fairy tales as truth. So,
unless you have empirical evidence that what you say is true, don't bother
making unsupported assertions.
--
Bear

And I know it’s my own damn fault.
Thore Tocis Schmechtig
2005-05-06 22:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Just for the record, true Christians do encourage non believers to
investigate God and His writings in the Bible.
Just for the record, there is no such thing as a "True Christian" - or
rather, there's as many definitions of that as there are denominations.

The only definition known to me that both makes sense and encompasses
everyone of all those believers is "A Christian is one who believes in
Jesus Christ as the Savior".
Of course, by that definition, many people who belong to the most disgusting
scum of humankind, like Hitler for example, are/were christians too... an
obvious reason for "christians" to invent all manner of different
definitions to conveniently exclude such persons.
And, just to refer to some currently living persons, the hatemongers of
www.godhatesfags.com and www.tencommandments.org are also (true? ;) )
christians by the reasonable definition I stated. Think about that.
And you may be surprised to know that the Bible itself tells us to
investigate religious teachings.
So what? Other verses in the bible command the believer to keep his hands
off other faiths. I won't even mention, here and now, the OT commandments
to kill all unbelievers.
The mere fact that you can state a verse supporting your agenda doesn't mean
anything unless no one can state another verse saying the opposite.
If you walk into a Wal-Mart store and see all of those items on the
shelves, do you automatically assume that most of them were made by
blind chance over time, and that some Wal-Mart employee went out in
the field and just collected them? Of course not, for one thing they
have the 'mark' of human intelligence in their design.
Typical fallacious anti-science argument. You present "examples" that aren't
alive, have never been alive, and there's no plausible scientific
explanation for their current form either - and thus _of course_ they can't
have come into being by something else than design (by humans, in this
case).
I could just as well claim "As you obviously can't break down Granite with a
pencil, Granite is proven to be absolutely indestructible".
It is similar with God and His creations. Such complex things such as
human beings show an intelligent 'mark' on its design. (at least to
many of us)
And how do you think can we tell design from non-design then? According to
christian doctrine, your idol created _everything,_ so wherever we look, we
see design. According to your doctrine we _can't_ know how "non-design"
looks like because we never saw it.
So in conclusion, genuine Christians try to take the word of God to
all people, including unbelievers, and they encourage all to
investigate the Holy Bible.
Self-proclaimed "genuine christians" have force-converted unbelievers a la
"turn or burn!" because they had no good arguments to peacefully make them
into christians, they have burned tens of thousands of "witches" and other
"heretics" at the stake, et cetera ad nauseam. Wanna bet that, if we could
talk to the perpetrators right now, they could easily quote the bible
verses that "command every christian to do that"?
And we can see evidence of God by the
things He created. Ro 1:20,
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his
eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being
understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
(NIV)
Jep, that's perfect proof that everything was created by... ALLAH.
What you "True Christians(TM)" never learn is that you arrive at your
"logical conclusions" only by excluding pretty much everything right from
the start which isn't compatible to what you desire to prove.

By the way, this ludicrous desire to "prove your idol" is in and of itself a
sign of weakness of your faith. If your faith was really that strong, you
WOULDN'T NEED ANY PROOF. And if the bible really was such an obviously
Divinely-inspired work then you wouldn't need to show "proof" to the
unbelievers either to hopefully convert them.

You are a weakling. Face it.
--
Regards

Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Antagonist for God
2005-04-17 14:18:48 UTC
Permalink
On 16 Apr 2005 20:44:45 -0700, "Machque"
Post by Machque
Believers like to claim that only believers should investigate God
because unbelievers are biased against Him. Yet, equally, a believer
cannot investigate God because they already accept that He exists.
Has it occurred to you that there are believers who
haven't always accepted that He exists?
Post by Machque
God's existence must be examined from a scien-tific perspective which
demands skepticism, disbelief or at least sufficient doubt to be
effective. The Christian response is that God is not of this universe
and therefore he is not susceptible to scientific inquiry, but an
entirely transcendental God could have no effect on the universe and
might as well not exist.
The truth is, you cannot put God in a test tube. If
you could, you would be God, not Him.
Post by Machque
Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
index finger in history, and answers prayers.
And you believe none of it. That makes you
unscientific.
Post by Machque
If God exists and does all this, he must be observable through science.
Well, let's see. Jesus lived. We have more
documentation for that than anyone else in ancient
history. You don't believe it.

Jesus' body was missing. It was guarded. Even the
Jews admit that. You don't believe it.

Jesus performed miracles. That is attested to. You
don't believe it.

The list can go on and on. And of course, there's the
ghost hunters, who claim to be able to record them,
using scientific equipment. The "skeptical" have not
other explanation, but you don't believe it.

And then there's the people who had prayer sessions and
their cancer went away, etc., etc.. You don't believe
it. You write it off as something else.

You see, it isn't about "science". It's about YOU and
what you WANT to believe. There is no amount of
scientific evidence that would convince you of
something that you don't want to believe. Especially
when to believe it, means getting down on your knees
and giving up control and worshipping God. Your ego
would take a big beating. :) And I'm sure you don't
want to be laughed at by others, who are like you are
now and don't believe. You see, you can play the
"science" game all you want. But we both know that's
not really what it's about.
--
Antoagonist for God


Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide


http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
Bear
2005-04-17 16:31:10 UTC
Permalink
"Antagonist for God" wrote
: Has it occurred to you that there are believers who
: haven't always accepted that He exists?

Of course.

: The truth is, you cannot put God in a test tube. If
: you could, you would be God, not Him.

If there is no empirical evidence of his existence, he does not exist.

: >Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
: >world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
: >world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
: >index finger in history, and answers prayers.
:
: And you believe none of it. That makes you
: unscientific.

No, see below.

: >If God exists and does all this, he must be observable through science.
:
: Well, let's see. Jesus lived. We have more
: documentation for that than anyone else in ancient
: history. You don't believe it.

Where is your objective evidence that Jesus lived?

: Jesus' body was missing. It was guarded. Even the
: Jews admit that. You don't believe it.

First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.

: Jesus performed miracles. That is attested to. You
: don't believe it.

First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.

: The list can go on and on. And of course, there's the
: ghost hunters, who claim to be able to record them,
: using scientific equipment. The "skeptical" have not
: other explanation, but you don't believe it.

Yes, the list does go on and on without a shred of rational, objective
evidence. In other words, mere hearsay.

: And then there's the people who had prayer sessions and
: their cancer went away, etc., etc.. You don't believe
: it. You write it off as something else.

If you could show an absolute connection between the prayer and the results
of the prayer it could not be written off as something else.

: You see, it isn't about "science". It's about YOU and
: what you WANT to believe.

No, it's about truth for which one needs rational, objective evidence to
reach an honest conclusion.
--
Bear

And I know it’s my own damn fault.
Bible Bob
2005-04-17 16:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bear
: Has it occurred to you that there are believers who
: haven't always accepted that He exists?
Of course.
: The truth is, you cannot put God in a test tube. If
: you could, you would be God, not Him.
If there is no empirical evidence of his existence, he does not exist.
Now that is just plain silly, Bear. What is or is not observable
evidence for you may be observable evidence for someone else and visa
versa. You gave yourself away when you used the phrase "There is no
impirical evidence" which is pseudo speak for I haven't a clue about
what I am talking about so will try to sound scientific. But then you
contradict yourself by adding "he does not exist." Think about it.
All true scientists know exactly what I am saying.
Post by Bear
: >Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
: >world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
: >world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
: >index finger in history, and answers prayers.
: And you believe none of it. That makes you
: unscientific.
No, see below.
I did and above and below is unscientific baised methodology.
Post by Bear
: >If God exists and does all this, he must be observable through science.
: Well, let's see. Jesus lived. We have more
: documentation for that than anyone else in ancient
: history. You don't believe it.
Where is your objective evidence that Jesus lived?
What is your's that he did not? Please prove that God does not exist
and that Jesus does not exist. Please prove the negatives. Your
arbitrary and capricious statements are void of scientific reasoning.
Post by Bear
: Jesus' body was missing. It was guarded. Even the
: Jews admit that. You don't believe it.
First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.
First prove that He did not. You are the scientist.
Post by Bear
: Jesus performed miracles. That is attested to. You
: don't believe it.
First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.
First provide objective evidence that he did not. You are the
scientist.
Post by Bear
: The list can go on and on. And of course, there's the
: ghost hunters, who claim to be able to record them,
: using scientific equipment. The "skeptical" have not
: other explanation, but you don't believe it.
Yes, the list does go on and on without a shred of rational, objective
evidence. In other words, mere hearsay.
So far all of your hearsay and vain imaginations has not proven even
one point of what you affirm. You are the scientist - prove that Goid
and Jesus Christ do not exist using only pure science. Put up or shut
up.
Post by Bear
: And then there's the people who had prayer sessions and
: their cancer went away, etc., etc.. You don't believe
: it. You write it off as something else.
If you could show an absolute connection between the prayer and the results
of the prayer it could not be written off as something else.
No one has to show you anything Bear. You are the one that is trying
to prove negatives. So go ahead and prove the negatives using pure
science. Put up or shut up.
Post by Bear
: You see, it isn't about "science". It's about YOU and
: what you WANT to believe.
No, it's about truth for which one needs rational, objective evidence to
reach an honest conclusion.
Bear, you have deomonstrated that you have no clue what truth is or
how to find it. I know I said put up or shut up and I mean it, but
not in a bad way. Evidently your inability to separate truth from
error is causing you some problems and the sooner you learn how to
separate truth from error the sooner you will become free of the
mental bondage that enslaves you. Let good win the battle that is
going on within you.





Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net

BB
Bear
2005-04-17 19:12:10 UTC
Permalink
"Bible Bob" wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: Now that is just plain silly, Bear. What is or is not observable
: evidence for you may be observable evidence for someone else and visa
: versa.

Explain please.

: You gave yourself away when you used the phrase "There is no
: impirical evidence" which is pseudo speak for I haven't a clue about
: what I am talking about so will try to sound scientific.

Then I'm sure you can provide empirical evidence for your god?

: But then you
: contradict yourself by adding "he does not exist." Think about it.
: All true scientists know exactly what I am saying.

My bad. Only because we cannot go to all corners of the universe to find
god.

: What is your's that he did not? Please prove that God does not exist
: and that Jesus does not exist. Please prove the negatives. Your
: arbitrary and capricious statements are void of scientific reasoning.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

: >: Jesus' body was missing. It was guarded. Even the
: >: Jews admit that. You don't believe it.
: >
: >First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.
:
: First prove that He did not.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

: >: Jesus performed miracles. That is attested to. You
: >: don't believe it.
: >
: >First, provide objective evidence that he ever existed.
:
: First provide objective evidence that he did not.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

: >: The list can go on and on. And of course, there's the
: >: ghost hunters, who claim to be able to record them,
: >: using scientific equipment. The "skeptical" have not
: >: other explanation, but you don't believe it.
: >
: >Yes, the list does go on and on without a shred of rational, objective
: >evidence. In other words, mere hearsay.
:
: So far all of your hearsay and vain imaginations has not proven even
: one point of what you affirm. You are the scientist - prove that Goid
: and Jesus Christ do not exist using only pure science. Put up or shut
: up.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

: No one has to show you anything Bear. You are the one that is trying
: to prove negatives. So go ahead and prove the negatives using pure
: science. Put up or shut up.

I am not trying to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the one making
the positive claim.

: >: You see, it isn't about "science". It's about YOU and
: >: what you WANT to believe.
: >
: >No, it's about truth for which one needs rational, objective evidence to
: >reach an honest conclusion.
:
: Bear, you have deomonstrated that you have no clue what truth is or
: how to find it.

It is you that has emonstrated that you are the one without clue concerning
truth.

: I know I said put up or shut up and I mean it, but
: not in a bad way.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

: Evidently your inability to separate truth from
: error is causing you some problems and the sooner you learn how to
: separate truth from error the sooner you will become free of the
: mental bondage that enslaves you. Let good win the battle that is
: going on within you.

That is mere rhetoric. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive
claim.
--
Bear

And I know it’s my own damn fault.
Bible Bob
2005-04-17 16:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:18:48 GMT, Antagonist for God
Post by Antagonist for God
On 16 Apr 2005 20:44:45 -0700, "Machque"
Post by Machque
Believers like to claim that only believers should investigate God
because unbelievers are biased against Him. Yet, equally, a believer
cannot investigate God because they already accept that He exists.
Has it occurred to you that there are believers who
haven't always accepted that He exists?
Post by Machque
God's existence must be examined from a scien-tific perspective which
demands skepticism, disbelief or at least sufficient doubt to be
effective. The Christian response is that God is not of this universe
and therefore he is not susceptible to scientific inquiry, but an
entirely transcendental God could have no effect on the universe and
might as well not exist.
The truth is, you cannot put God in a test tube. If
you could, you would be God, not Him.
Post by Machque
Science investigates phenomena that manifest themselves in the real
world, and Christians claim God does manifest Himself in the real
world-He created it, appeared on earth in human form, wiggles His
index finger in history, and answers prayers.
And you believe none of it. That makes you
unscientific.
Post by Machque
If God exists and does all this, he must be observable through science.
Well, let's see. Jesus lived. We have more
documentation for that than anyone else in ancient
history. You don't believe it.
Jesus' body was missing. It was guarded. Even the
Jews admit that. You don't believe it.
Jesus performed miracles. That is attested to. You
don't believe it.
The list can go on and on. And of course, there's the
ghost hunters, who claim to be able to record them,
using scientific equipment. The "skeptical" have not
other explanation, but you don't believe it.
And then there's the people who had prayer sessions and
their cancer went away, etc., etc.. You don't believe
it. You write it off as something else.
You see, it isn't about "science". It's about YOU and
what you WANT to believe. There is no amount of
scientific evidence that would convince you of
something that you don't want to believe. Especially
when to believe it, means getting down on your knees
and giving up control and worshipping God. Your ego
would take a big beating. :) And I'm sure you don't
want to be laughed at by others, who are like you are
now and don't believe. You see, you can play the
"science" game all you want. But we both know that's
not really what it's about.
Very well said.

Sometimes I think Bear likes to argue just to argue; but there is
something likeable about him that deserves some of my attention.




Non-commercial website where everything is free.
http://www.biblebob.net

BB
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...