So for you there is nothing that exists unless science says it does and science can only speak to the natural world so only the natural world exists.
I don’t believe things for which I have seen no evidence. Do you? If so, why?
I don’t understand how a person can be convinced that something is true, when they don’t have evidence for the thing. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Do you have evidence that there is some supernatural world out there? You’d need evidence to make any declarations about any supernatural world you want to assert exists somewhere out there.
There is evidence but you refuse to see it as evidence no doubt.
This entire discussion between us began with me asking for evidence. So far, nobody has presented any.
How is that demonstrated except that it comes true. In the Bible there are many that have come true.
It’s not demonstrated, as I said. Take note of exactly what I said:
“
I've yet to see any prophecy that was demonstrated to have come from any God.”
Simply stating that some prophecy came true doesn’t demonstrate that it came from any God(s).
First of all, you’d have to show that a person was actually able to predict the future. Then, you’d have to show how that person was able to predict the future. And even if we ascertained that a person was actually able to predict the future, you’d still have to demonstrate that said prediction came from some god, never mind the specific god you believe in. So just saying “a prophecy in this old book came true” isn’t enough to demonstrate that said prophecy was divinely inspired by the specific Christian god you believe in.
That doesn't demonstrate it. The only thing that can demonstrate it is if the other possibilities are eliminated. Science cannot do that.
Yes, it does. Math is used to demonstrate probabilities.
You've stated that something is impossible, again without any demonstration backing up your statement at all. You're making a claim about probability, which requires doing some math, not just making a statement.
Creation needs to be demonstrated, rather than just asserted.
You’re assuming “creation.” You don’t get to do that.
something dead being given life, …
What does that mean?
Have you demonstrated that can occur?
… the idea that time has existed forever in the past when that is logically impossible,
Have you demonstrated that is logically and mathematically impossible?
How long is the god you worship claimed to have existed?
a first life form coming about all by itself.
What do you mean?
We are at the edge of possibilities in science and at the places where God says He has done it.
Yes, we are. But you know what we do here? We see where science takes us.
We don’t fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge with Gods we haven’t demonstrated to exist in the first place.
I ask again, how do you know what God said about anything?
So you believe stuff that has no evidence just because you refuse the evidence of the supernatural?
No, I most definitely do not. Read what I said again, for understanding, this time:
“
I'm interested in believing true things and not believing in false things, so I require evidence for my beliefs.”
What evidence for the supernatural???
You mean you don't know but as long as it is something natural because you have eliminated the alternative because you don't like the evidence, and want scientific evidence because that is all that counts.
Nobody knows it. So we don’t get to say that we do.
Inserting God(s) into the gaps in our knowledge doesn’t actually get us anywhere, nor does it provide us with any actual explanation as to how it occurred.
That sounds honest but convincing evidence for you means scientific evidence, no believe in an invisible, undetectable God without scientific evidence. Honest but not completely imo.
Yeah, I want demonstrable evidence. Like you probably do in every other aspect of life, save for your religious beliefs. That’s about as honest as it gets. You should give it a try.
Perhaps you could explain how you’ve detected an invisible, undetectable being?
Could be but that is not the only reason. I look at the things around me and see design in them.
We ascertain design by comparing natural things with manmade things. That’s how we know that a house is designed, while a rock isn’t (well, one of the many reasons, anyway).
So, in your mind, you’re looking at a planet full of designed things, whether natural or manmade. So what comparison are you making to determine that rocks are designed, just like houses are designed?
I don’t see this design you speak of and evidence for this assertion doesn’t seem to be forthcoming.
I look at science as see where it is up to now and know it has no idea of where the universe came from and where life came from. There is nothing but speculation and there will always be nothing but speculation imo.
I say, “here is something we don’t know right now, so the honest answer as to where did it all come from at the moment is, “I don’t know.” And then proceed to investigate further.
You say, “here is something we don’t know right now, so I’m going to say that the specific God I believe in did it.” And that’s that. No demonstration of anything is given. Just an assertion to a question we don’t actually know the answer to
Which do you think is the more rational position?
If someone wants scientific evidence for a naturally forming universe and life out of dead matter you will be waiting a long time, you will be dead. Science won't find the answers and science won't find a God in the natural world. To believe things happened naturally takes faith.
I want demonstrable evidence before I can reach a conclusion. Like, if I told you there was an elephant in my garage, you’d most likely want to see it, right? You probably wouldn’t just take my word for it, right?
So we have no demonstrable answers to these questions, but you have an answer anyway? How does that work? When did you demonstrate that your answer is the correct one? Do you think that’s rational?
To believe things happened naturally takes no faith. We can demonstrate the existence of the natural world. We can demonstrate things happening within that natural world.
The fact that you keep trying to drag science down to the level of religious faith is very telling.
The faith comes in when you assert there is some undetectable supernatural world exists, that you have somehow detected but can’t demonstrate the existence of to anyone else.
Of course it was written by humans and records what God said and did.
You just keep asserting that without any demonstration whatsoever.
Why do you think I keep asking how you claim to know what God(s) think or say?
The Bible was written by humans. That we know, for sure. You’re going a step further and claiming that the words those humans wrote down were first said and done by the specific God you believe in. I’m asking how you know that and getting zero answers so far. Just more assertions.
I haven't, I have just declared it.
Yes, I know. That’s the problem.
If you want a demonstration then you will have to ask God for that. Maybe that is what it will take for a skeptic.
I have. I haven’t received any convincing answers, evidence or anything at all.
In fact, I got the exact same response I would get if God didn’t exist at all.
Dude, I used to be a Christian. Then I realized I didn’t have good reasons to believe, and after I read the Bible, that finished off my conversion to atheism. Too much immoral stuff in there for me and lot of stuff that just doesn’t add up.
That is what I did and it worked even though I did not get a 100% clear demonstration.
What kind of demonstration did you get?
And if you didn’t get a clear one, what reason do you have to accept it then?
Certainly a willingness to believe something other than science helps.
Why? What good does that do anybody? I have to suspend normal logical ways of thinking in order to find this God you worship? Why did this God create a logical world and my logical brain if it wants me to reject reason and logic in order to “find” it?
I dismiss the speculations of science about the start of the universe and life,,,,,,,,,,,,no evidence.
What speculations?
Now you’re concerned about evidence? Like, only when it comes to science, but not your own beliefs. That’s rich.
All the evidence points to a life giver and an intelligent and powerful first cause.
You mean the evidence you haven’t provided?
All you’ve got are assertions.
You dismiss the evidence of the obvious in nature and the evidence of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible, so there is evidence but it is overlooked.
The nature that is so obviously designed that you can’t provide any demonstration or evidence that it was actually designed? That nature?
I won't seek God because there are too many possibilities.
They can be broken down into a few types of God for a start.
Then the scriptures can be broken down into types also.
It's a journey for most people, and they don't just necessarily magically get it right.
So my point stands. Please get back to me when you can all agree what God you are worshiping and what your holy books say.
There are way too many Christian denominations to be taken seriously.
Yes I believe in science when it is science but it is not the way for a serious person to look for God.
You believe science when it comes to pretty much everything except the God you believe in. Then you reject it. That’s quite telling, I hope you realize.
Even an ignoramus can see that there is a designer, we do not need science to see that even if believing scientists like to find out how God did stuff.
I’d point out that even an ignoramus should be able to demonstrate something that is so glaringly obvious but that might be insulting to you.
Dude, science is just a tool and a methodology we use to discover the world around us using observation, experimentation,
You don’t seem to have a better method for discovering the world around us, given that you haven’t provided any evidence in all these thousands of words we’ve been exchanging between us. Your argument boils down to “even an ignoramus can see that there is a designer, but I can’t demonstrate the existence of a designer.” Think on how weird that statement is.
