God is disproven by science? Really?

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, no human being was alive to observe that, all scientists can do is say this may have happened. Show me how far back the human records go and that’s what can be shown. There are no witnesses and cannot be proven. The earliest legible records are when 6-7 thousand years ago?

Science has evidence to examine, like cosmic microwave background radiation, red shifts, star formation, etc.

You appear to have backed yourself into a corner here though ...
No human being was alive to witness your God supposedly creating the universe, so why do you believe that happened? Oops.

Nobody was there to observe every murder that ever happened, we only have evidence to go on, so I guess in your mind that means we can't ever find out who the murderer is, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I agree so probably drop the science theory, they have multiple theories on how life started. Not too promising and they leave God out of the picture, so they are wrong on all counts.

Science has provided us with all knowledge we currently hold about the world we live in. Religion, not so much. Even the "explanations" that religion purports to provide don't actually have any explanatory power at all, like scientific explanations do.
I'm gonna stick with science.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Science has evidence to examine, like cosmic microwave background radiation, red shifts, star formation, etc.

You appear to have backed yourself into a corner here though ...
No human being was alive to witness your God supposedly creating the universe, so why do you believe that happened? Oops.

Nobody was there to observe every murder that ever happened, we only have evidence to go on, so I guess in your mind that means we can't ever find out who the murderer is, right?

That’s true Creation is by faith, I can’t prove that but when I observe what God has created as well as the laws, architecture, engineering, and wisdom, I do see His handiwork. This is what caused me to seek Him and find Him, that’s when I got my proof, He answered me and gave me His Spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree so probably drop the science theory, they have multiple theories on how life started. Not too promising and they leave God out of the picture, so they are wrong on all counts.

Abiogenesis is the only existing one that I now of. And abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. There are different hypotheses within it. And there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. But the entire process has not been solved yet.

Meanwhile the so called scientists at various creationist sites cannot find any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s true Creation is by faith, I can’t prove that but when I observe what God has created as well as the laws, architecture, engineering, and wisdom I do see His handiwork. This is what caused me to seek Him and find Him, that’s when I got my proof, He answered me and gave me His Spirit.

Fairy tales are by faith too.

But once again, by believing that fairy tale you are claiming that God is a liar.

You also appear to have no idea of what "proof" is. You are not consistent in your views which makes them of little to no value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@ElishaElijah , it appears that you still have no understanding at all of evidence. Here is a very short video, one of the characters is a lot like you. See if you can recognize him and the flaws of his statements:

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s true Creation is by faith, I can’t prove that but when I observe what God has created as well as the laws, architecture, engineering, and wisdom, I do see His handiwork. This is what caused me to seek Him and find Him, that’s when I got my proof, He answered me and gave me His Spirit.

Thanks for the admission that you believe based on faith.

I have no use for faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. So faith cannot be a pathway to truth, since anything can apparently be believed on faith. That's why I have no use for it and instead stick with science which can demonstrate the veracity of it's claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Thanks for the admission that you believe based on faith.

I have no use for faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence. So faith cannot be a pathway to truth, since anything can apparently be believed on faith. That's why I have no use for it and instead stick with science which can demonstrate the veracity of it's claims.

See how you are misrepresenting what I said… Faith is the only way to God. You cannot get your proof of God before you believe He exists. All those who seek God find Him and get their reward. I have.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1-3, 6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
I don’t need faith to believe God exists because He gave me His Spirit. We communicate through prayer and His Word until I see Him face to face and receive His promise of a new body and to be with Him forever in Heaven. This is by faith because I haven’t received that yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See how you are misrepresenting what I said… Faith is the only way to God. You cannot get your proof of God before you believe He exists. All those who seek God find Him and get their reward. I have.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1-3, 6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
I don’t need faith to believe God exists because He gave me His Spirit. We communicate through prayer and His Word until I see Him face to face and receive His promise of a new body and to be with Him forever in Heaven. This is by faith because I haven’t received that yet.

Once again, how do you know that he gave him his spirit? Mere belief is not an adequate reason. Irrational thinking that relies on confirmation bias is not good enough either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

See how you are misrepresenting what I said… Faith is the only way to God. You cannot get your proof of God before you believe He exists. All those who seek God find Him and get their reward. I have.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1-3, 6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
I don’t need faith to believe God exists because He gave me His Spirit. We communicate through prayer and His Word until I see Him face to face and receive His promise of a new body and to be with Him forever in Heaven. This is by faith because I haven’t received that yet.

You said, "That’s true Creation is by faith, I can’t prove that but when I observe what God has created as well as the laws, architecture, engineering, and wisdom, I do see His handiwork. This is what caused me to seek Him and find Him, that’s when I got my proof, He answered me and gave me His Spirit."

So you said you can't prove creation and you believe on faith.
Now in this post, you're claiming that you don't need faith.

You're not making any sense at all. You've just re-confirmed everything I just said about faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God defines what born again means and that’s in the Bible.

I gave you the argument a few posts back for why the god to whom you refer doesn't exist. You did not refute it because you cannot refute it. Correct statements cannot be successfully refuted.

Also, there is nothing in scripture that doesn't read like an ancient human being wrote it. The opinions of those writers are theirs, not mine.

Have you ever seen the quizzes that cite scripture and Shakespeare, and then ask you to guess which is which? Nobody unfamiliar with the words can do it. Watch these people try:

Any meaning contrary to that is wrong.

To me, you're wrong.

Show me how far back the human records go and that’s what can be shown. There are no witnesses and cannot be proven.

We don't require eyewitness accounts of the universe or life forming. You've been told that before, but for whatever reason, nothing sticks. Observation in science means observation of things in the present, not things in the past. Time travel is not required. And reproducibility refers to things recently done, such as an experiment, not reproducing the expansion of the universe or abiogenesis. What would it take for you to learn that, or at a minimum, learn that empiricist believe that, so that you can stop making this error? This time? Next time?

This is a record of the universe going from opaque to transparent over 13 billion years ago:

they have multiple theories on how life started. Not too promising and they leave God out of the picture, so they are wrong on all counts.

Not too promising? Tell that to the governments and research facilities pouring millions or billions of dollars into abiogenesis research. And make sure and tell the scientists devoting careers to this research. They consider it promising.

But why shouldn't they? Science has an excellent track record, which is why billions were poured into designing and building the Large Hadron Collider to find the Higgs boson (successfully) and LIGO and LISA to find gravity waves (also successfully). I think I'd bet on them succeeding here as well, although I don't expect them to come up with the precise pathway of the chemical evolution or the precise structure and biochemistry of the first living cells. Biology isn't physics.

And of course they leave gods out. The concept of a god adds no predictive or explanatory power to any scientific theory, law, or fact. Try it yourself: "Water freezes at 0 deg C" and "Water freezes at 0 deg C because God wants it to." Both of those statements are useful for predicting when a tray of ice cubes being cooled will freeze, and nothing else. We can do this with every scientific pronouncement and adding god never makes the science more useful.

Faith is the only way to God. You cannot get your proof of God before you believe He exists.

And how do you suppose an empiricist understands that, that "God" is only visible through a confirmation bias?

All those who seek God find Him and get their reward.

I can vouch that that is incorrect.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Shakespeare?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Not too promising? Tell that to the governments and research facilities pouring millions or billions of dollars into abiogenesis research. And make sure and tell the scientists devoting careers to this research. They consider it promising.

And that’s how science is corrupted, biased and bribed. I will tell the scientists, all that money and nothing to show for it. They have to go that route and God laughs at that, so do I.
I don’t answer half the things people say because I consider them foolish questions. Your truth is just that your truth that is only based what you think.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You said, "That’s true Creation is by faith, I can’t prove that but when I observe what God has created as well as the laws, architecture, engineering, and wisdom, I do see His handiwork. This is what caused me to seek Him and find Him, that’s when I got my proof, He answered me and gave me His Spirit."

So you said you can't prove creation and you believe on faith.
Now in this post, you're claiming that you don't need faith.

You're not making any sense at all. You've just re-confirmed everything I just said about faith.

You don’t understand what I said? Some things you need faith for but once you received what you had faith for you have it.
Maybe an earthly example: Your Dad said he was going to buy you a car for your birthday. Do you need faith to believe he will buy you a car? Yes How long do you need faith that he will buy you the car? What about when your birthday comes and the car is right there and he gives you the title and keys to the car, do you need faith for the car anymore? No

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Passes my requirements. She was a Christian with a few extra beliefs. Have you ever seen Christians speaking in tongues? They claim to be mediums channeling the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't bother me when a pious Christian claims that I was never a Christian myself, whether it's because of my psychic abilities as a medium or if it's something else that they believe doesn't align with their preferred interpretation of the Bible. As I explained in another post yesterday, Christians are deeply divided and don't agree much about anything. As a matter of fact, I've had Christians tell me that my abilities as a medium are a gift from God and I should use them to glorify him, and I've had Christians tell me that my abilities are demonic. To be honest, I've decided not to pay attention to either one, because it doesn't matter to me what they think of me or my abilities. Their opinions are irrelevant to me. I'm not upset by the criticism because I anticipated it when I made the decision to be more open about my abilities as a medium. It wasn't a decision that I made lightly either, because I hid my abilities from others while I was growing up. As I mentioned in my previous posts on the topic, my husband was the first person I ever told, and I didn't tell him until after we were married. Fortunately for me, and a credit to his good character as a Christian, he believed me, he didn't judge me, and he has always been supportive and encouraging. But I continued to keep my psychic medium abilities secret for several years after I told my husband because I was afraid of what other people would think of me. I feel like I lived in the shadows all those years.

Admittedly, the most crucial turning point for me fully accepting my psychic medium abilities was watching the Ghost Adventures documentary back in late July 2007. It was this documentary that inspired me to not only stop trying to suppress my abilities, but also to start investigating haunted locations and researching the paranormal myself. Now, 15 years later, I'm a seasoned paranormal investigator with a very nice collection of ghost hunting equipment. I travel in-state and out-of-state to investigate haunted locations. I use my abilities when I investigate haunted locations, and I've used them to help other people when I feel like they're open to hearing what I have to say. But more often than not, I don't even mention what I can do when other people are around me because I can feel what other people are feeling when I'm around them, so I can sense if they're open to listening to me or not. It helps to be an empath.

In conclusion, I decided to share my gift because I wanted to address the negative stigma attached to it and I don't want to give other people the power to control me by shaming me into rejecting my abilities and shaming me into silence. To be honest, I don't care if other people accept it or not. As I said in one of my previous posts (here), people can accept or reject what I say about my experiences as a medium in communication with the spirit world. It's entirely their decision. Any religious objections to my abilities or any doubt about whether they are real or not won't change the reality that I've lived with these abilities all my life and I refuse to suppress them again in fear of what other people will think. I know that it's a total waste of my time and energy to argue with antagonistic skeptics.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And that’s how science is corrupted, biased and bribed.

You've shown none of those things to be the case, merely claimed them. There is no evidence that science is corrupt. The opposite is the case. It's purpose is to discover how the world works, and it has never done anything else but report what it has uncovered, all of it, and gifts it to humanity at no charge. Nothing is more pure or honest than that.

Science is biased, but in the positive sense of the word - rational biases, like insisting on empiricism and rejecting faith as a path to truth. That's why we look both ways before crossing. We're biased against crossing blindly by faith, and prefer empirical data such as the state of the street traffic before deciding when to cross. Only irrational biases like bigotry are undesirable. Rational biases are called knowledge.

And it sounds like you don't know what bribery is. What do you suppose the scientists are being bribed to do? Science? Lie about science?

all that money and nothing to show for it.

You don't know what they have discovered. How could you? You'd have to look. All you know is that the work is unfinished, like a building under construction. Don't confuse that with an empty lot.

But worry not. Elucidating the pathway is no threat to faith. Nothing is. You can probably guess what the responses will be when that has been accomplished. I can. "All that has been shown is intelligent design in the lab. Nobody saw it happen, so you're just speculating. You can't reproduce the process of spontaneous abiogenesis. Life has still never come from non-life." How am I doing? Any of that sound familiar?

They have to go that route and God laughs at that, so do I.

With all due respect, the scientists aren't listening to either of you. Why would they? How could they? One of you isn't audible, and the other is out of earshot.

Your truth is just that your truth that is only based what you think.

This is a stunning comment coming from a person who treats his opinions as facts. Didn't you just tell me that my definition of Christian is wrong as if that were a fact?

My truth is demonstrably true, or I wouldn't call it truth. My truth is empiric truth. Yours isn't, meaning that it can't be demonstrated and therefore cannot be called truth. Yours is the kind of "truth" one arrives at when chooses what he conditions his mind in order to believe, because there is nothing to see or show.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is a stunning comment coming from a person who treats his opinions as facts. Didn't you just tell me that my definition of Christian is wrong as if that were a fact?

The definition of “born again” comes from the Bible, as Jesus defined that. So for you to contradict that definition is fine with me but that’s not being born again according to Jesus and the Bible.
So born again of a different spirit

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

This is a stunning comment coming from a person who treats his opinions as facts. Didn't you just tell me that my definition of Christian is wrong as if that were a fact?

My truth is demonstrably true, or I wouldn't call it truth. My truth is empiric truth. Yours isn't, meaning that it can't be demonstrated and therefore cannot be called truth. Yours is the kind of "truth" one arrives at when chooses what he conditions his mind in order to believe, because there is nothing to see or show.

Many Christians use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy as an argument strategy, but I don't pay any attention to the Christians who try to use it against me. I know they like to rely on "what the Bible says," but I ignore that as well, because Christians disagree not only about what the Bible teaches but also about which version of the Bible to use. I know Christians who will only read the King James Bible, and I know Christians who try to read and study the Bible in its original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to ensure authenticity. As I've stated before, Christians don't agree on much of anything. They are very divided. If you ask a broad collection of Christians about the same theological subject, you will receive varying responses, and each Christian will cite the Bible as a source to support their position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well science is wrong about billions of years and has no clue. They take liberty because it won’t be proven until the end of this age is when we meet our Maker.
And your definition of a Christian is also wrong. You aren’t a Christian just because you say you are.

How can you tell a Christian from a non-Christian when they both succumb to the same temptation? Are you claiming that Christians cannot be tempted and sin?

How do you tell the quality of a Christian? The only real criteria I am aware of is that a person accept Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.

You seem to be claiming powers for yourself to see into the hearts of people. How can I know that you have that power and aren't just pulling my leg?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree so probably drop the science theory, they have multiple theories on how life started. Not too promising and they leave God out of the picture, so they are wrong on all counts.

There are currently no scientific theories for the origin of life. Just a growing body of evidence and many hypotheses.

There is no physical evidence to include God in scientific analysis. Are you suggesting that scientists just make up stuff about God and include that? That doesn't fit a Christian paradigm.

I'm guessing that your take on science is fairly trivial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Go ahead, you do you

What is wrong with using science that is the product of the mind and abilities that God gave us? Are you suggesting that we ignore these gifts and abilities?

I'm a little confused on the particulars of your version of Christianity.