Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Pilgrim Soldier]

You do not realize it, but you are calling your God a liar. You would have to learn to understand how you are doing that, but it appears that you want to refuse to learn. We can demonstrate that our ideas work, you . . . not so much.

you can demonstrate that your methods produce a result but there's no way you can claim their true accuracy unless you apply that little enigma method to them

 

[ratiocinator]

That;s exactly what I say about modern science "where is the evidence'

You've been given it but you simply deny it by claiming your god is a liar and that we haven't understood, while offering nothing but your own blind faith and circular reasoning as an alternative.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not denying that the evidence may appear to be true and it may appear to be same in many different methods of examination. What I'm trying to say is what if it was created old already. Like Adam was 1 minute old when scientists would have sworn he was 33 years old

Which is just a fancy way to say 'my myth trumps your evidence'. You are denying the evidence by saying it is irrelevant.

By doing that, you automatically say that no evidence will convince you your position is wrong. You are immune to any evidence at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

That sounds really funny coming from someone who is absolutely unable to provide one shred of evidence to justify your faith in what you believe

This is simply false. I have directly linked to two articles recently and the evidence for what I believe is all in the public domain and is supported by pretty much every scientist that studies the relevant fields and who doesn't have an obvious religious vested interest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that God created everything fully formed with the appearance of age to make them more interesting than just embryonic soups. Even if the scientific measuring techniques were accurate, they would still conclude that 6000 year old rocks were 4.5 billion years old.
God created things in such a way that it would fool the proud into arriving at false conclusions and it would reveal the truth to the humble.

No, that is mere belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. Tell us how are you going to support your claim? If you cannot do so rationally all you have is belief, just like those that believed in other gods over the ages.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone know how to draw an
Omphaloceratops?

 

[ratiocinator]

Billions of us don't believe that the scientific method has any credibility whatsoever.

Billions? The scientific method is what gave us modern medicine and technology, to say it has no credibility is beyond silly.

We believe it was hashed up by people with an agenda to replace true science with pseudo science.

Comical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you can demonstrate that your methods produce a result but there's no way you can claim their true accuracy unless you apply that little enigma method to them

What are you talking about? The scientific method and the concept of evidence is constantly applied. And if you want to know if reality is real, ask a friend to seriously slap your face. If he is a true friend the answer will be clear.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Nobody claimed that. The facts are public and readily available to those who educate themselves about them.

But, *you* are the one that claims to have this monopoly: by your own claims you say that those who disagree with you cannot obtain the real facts since they are withheld from them.

You are accusing others of what you, yourself, do.

I have no claim on any facts, all I have is 100% proof that God has all the facts and the monopoly on truth. He doesn't hide any scientific facts from anyone, they are freely available to all but He doesn't give everyone the privilege of understanding spiritual facts.
Carnal material facts are worthless in the long run, they are only useful temporarily like looking in the sky and seeing rain clouds then concluding that it will rain. But that type of knowledge becomes useless very quickly and only spiritual facts matter at the end of the day.
God promised to destroy this planet with fervent heat, so everything will melt like white hot lava, then He will create a new perfect world not like this cursed hostile planet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Billions? The scientific method is what gave us modern medicine and technology, to say it has no credibility is beyond silly.



Comical.

Of course it is not billions. He just insulted billions of Christians there. Being a Christian does not mean that one is a creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no claim on any facts, all I have is 100% proof that God has all the facts and the monopoly on truth. He doesn't hide any scientific facts from anyone, they are freely available to all but He doesn't give everyone the privilege of understanding spiritual facts.
Carnal material facts are worthless in the long run, they are only useful temporarily like looking in the sky and seeing rain clouds then concluding that it will rain. But that type of knowledge becomes useless very quickly and only spiritual facts matter at the end of the day.
God promised to destroy this planet with fervent heat, so everything will melt like white hot lava, then He will create a new perfect world not like this cursed hostile planet.

And no, you don't. This is a falsehood. The only thing saving it from being an outright lie is that you probably believe your claim.

Tell us, if you have "100% proof" why do you constantly fail?

You need to learn the difference between belief and knowledge. Here is a simple rhyme for you, it might help:

If you can't show it, you don't know it.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have no claim on any facts, all I have is 100% proof that God has all the facts and the monopoly on truth.

You keep asserting that you have this '100% proof' (which is actually impossible, even in principle, for that sort of question), yet you have never even posted even the slightest hint of any evidence, let alone proof. Where is it?

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Which is just a fancy way to say 'my myth trumps your evidence'. You are denying the evidence by saying it is irrelevant.

By doing that, you automatically say that no evidence will convince you your position is wrong. You are immune to any evidence at all.

I'm actually saying your methods are fine and reliable, the only problem is the matter you're examining doesn't conform to the laws that you have placed upon it. The matter was created to appear as something it's not so the problem is not with the dating method it's with the subject being examined. The subject matter is not what it appears to be so there in lies the problem

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thank you for admitting that you blindly follow yourself, and for admitting that you don't know the truth since you may change your mind tomorrow.
My faith may be blind since I don't know what God has in store for tomorrow but it's not blind in the sense of His existence. I have no doubt about that as I have an intimate close personal relationship with Him

How can I be blindly following myself if I am investigating what other people have to say? That is the OPPOSITE of blindly following yourself.

And here is the thing: changing your mind is a GOOD thing. Because it prevents someone from stubbornly believing a falsehood for the rest of their life.

Your faith is blind and you blindly follow what you cannot prove. Your idea of a personal relationship is an emotional crutch. It is just feelings. It is the same thing that all those claiming to be Christians say.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You keep asserting that you have this '100% proof' (which is actually impossible, even in principle, for that sort of question), yet you have never even posted even the slightest hint of any evidence, let alone proof. Where is it?

He also admitted to me that he cannot prove anything, therefore there is no proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm actually saying your methods are fine and reliable, the only problem is the matter you're examining doesn't conform to the laws that you have placed upon it. The matter was created to appear as something it's not so the problem is not with the dating method it's with the subject being examined. The subject matter is not what it appears to be so there in lies the problem

And what is your evidence for this claim?

 

[Sunstone]

Anyone know how to draw an
Omphaloceratops?

Stand back, everyone! I've got this one!

I can fake knowledge of anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a single one of the hundreds of Bible prophecies, or one of the hundreds of God's promises ever failed to come true I would immediately abandon my faith and become an Atheist.

So have all the many verses wherein Jesus promises that the Son of man would come in the clouds come true?

i'm also willing to sell everything I poses and give the money to anyone who can find an error or contradiction in the bible.

is all I can say to that. What you really mean is 'what YOU consider' to be an error or a contradiction.
I am sure many people can find 'what they consider' errors and contradictions in the Bible.

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

And no, you don't. This is a falsehood. The only thing saving it from being an outright lie is that you probably believe your claim.

Tell us, if you have "100% proof" why do you constantly fail?

You need to learn the difference between belief and knowledge. Here is a simple rhyme for you, it might help:

If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Have you forgotten that spiritual things are invisible? I mean, the wind is invisible but it will slam into you and send you flying through the air like a rag doll.
This is also true of spirits, one single angel killed 186.000 Assyrian soldiers. So don't underestimate the spiritual realm, it's infinitely more powerful and wise than puny humans could ever be

 

[Sunstone]

So, you are denying the evidence to keep your particular set of views?

The possibility that ALL the methods give the same answers in any given situation *is* the evidence and any true scientist would accept them based on that alone. But we also have the theoretical understanding.

To use the Omphalos argument is simply denying the evidence and nothing more.

E. O. Wilson has revived the old term 'consilience' to designate different lines of evidence or knowledge pointing to the same fact, truth, hypothesis, etc.

Obviously, spellcheck doesn't read Wilson's books.