You were given an example of beliefs used in origin science. But feel free to retreat to parrot mode as usual. No problem.
You have failed to document a religious agenda for science.
Still waiting . . .
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You were given an example of beliefs used in origin science. But feel free to retreat to parrot mode as usual. No problem.
Odd, since you reject evolution.
Ah. The staff here have instructed me to put him on ignore.
You failed to read. Just because you use the word document does not mean that they do not use the beliefs cited.You have failed to document a religious agenda for science.
Still waiting . . .
lol, He would have to have a more competent or deft touch then, so as not to contaminate the samples? (just following your idea there)It does not show his fingerprints.
Ah. The staff here have instructed me to put him on ignore.
lol, He would have to have a more competent or deft touch then, so as not to contaminate the samples? (just following your idea there)
This does point to a basic idea I notice scripture though. In scripture, instead of proof/evidence, God wants those that will trust Him without proof, which is called 'faith'. It seems very clear He intentionally allows no evidence to be found, as that would obviate the goal.
Exactly.You are taking the analogy too far.
I meant that there is no evidence that God was involved.
Or maybe it points to the fact that there is no God and that's just an excuse thought up to justify why there's no evidence for God.
Exactly.
Given various hypotheses, if a person happened to want to know which if any were true, I think ideally one would attempt to test them. That's just my own preference.
For me, personally, I was aiming to test other things, and only ended up testing the instructions on finding God much later, because of things I learned, which over time began to suggest it could be possible God exists. Trying to test if God exists wasn't my initial goal, or my 2nd or 3rd or 5th goal, but came much later, after testing many other things, the instructions for a good life here and now (for immediate benefit here and now) on living this life well.
The ability to adapt and evolve itself indicates a wonderful creator!
As I meant to convey, and didn't write well or fully enough, I was only really testing what Jesus said to do. (Thus not actually testing if God exists precisely, but testing Jesus's instructions generally, and more of them over time) And that's how I ended up finding God. God is a being see, not an inert object, and you can only expect to be able to find Him if you meet his stated requirements for doing so.I'd be interested in knowing exactly how you were able to objectively test for God.
As I meant to convey, and didn't write well or fully enough, I was only really testing what Jesus said to do. (Thus not actually testing if God exists precisely, but testing Jesus's instructions generally, and more of them over time) And that's how I ended up finding God. God is a being see, not an inert object, and you can only expect to be able to find Him if you meet his stated requirements for doing so.
For clarity, let me redundantly paraphrase: God will let you find Him if and only if you meet His stated requirements.
It's sort of like you have a house and someone rings the doorbell and you have a look at them through a camera, and decide whether or not to answer the door. Like that, sort of. You have agency and an ability to choose, and to screen people, of course. God isn't less than you in that way.
I have seen too many theists that use a variant of a "Heads I win. Tails you lose." argument. The idea of an objective test is anathema for them. Especially since it soon becomes obvious that there is, as you pointed out, no objective test for their version of God.So to make a long story short, you have no objective test for God.
Can you give some examples of what and how you tested regarding jesus.As I meant to convey, and didn't write well or fully enough, I was only really testing what Jesus said to do. (Thus not actually testing if God exists precisely, but testing Jesus's instructions generally, and more of them over time) And that's how I ended up finding God. God is a being see, not an inert object, and you can only expect to be able to find Him if you meet his stated requirements for doing so.
For clarity, let me redundantly paraphrase: God will let you find Him if and only if you meet His stated requirements.
It's sort of like you have a house and someone rings the doorbell and you have a look at them through a camera, and decide whether or not to answer the door. Like that, sort of. You have agency and an ability to choose, and to screen people, of course. God isn't less than you in that way.
So to make a long story short, you have no objective test for God.
In the accounts of his sayings, the 4 gospels, Jesus gives a number of instructions for living life, here and now.Can you give some examples of what and how you tested regarding jesus.
By "objective test for God" I'm guessing you mean something like:
Is God available for your examination/observation in some way you can control or have on your demand?
The answer to that is "no." He has agency, and can refuse you, at His will. He can be unfindable by you, if you don't meet His requirements.
But if in contrast you mean a different question:
Is it possible to personally find out that God exists as objective fact?
Then at least some people will tell you the answer to that is "yes". (while others might say they are not sure, and some might say 'no')
Objective evidence is not available to any individual I think except that God allows them to have it. This is because He doesn't allow Himself to be found except by those that meet the requirements He has clearly stated in plain wording.So again, you have no objective evidence for God. No objective reason for me to believe God exists.
After all, if the knowledge is personal, then it's not objective, is it?