Atheists - A Question...

[Hockeycowboy]

Me neither, and that is a good point, given that while the hat is symbolic to his image, a hat generally wouldn't be worn indoors and he wouldn't have been wearing it when he was shot, died or laid in state. If someone was inclined to imagine, believe or claim a sighting of his ghost though, they may well describe the public image.

Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced by the Churchill story in the Wikipedia article given how story-like it is and how it is told in the third person without revealing how anyone else learned about the indent.

Why something and not somethings? Again, we're talking about lots of different incidents, experiences an claims over an around 100 year period. Why would we leap to the conclusion that there must be any singular cause across the board?

Not confused as much as misdirected, but it seems the end-point is essentially the same.

Yes, the “clothes” -thing should be a dead giveaway that something else is going on. I mean, I’ve never heard of a *nude* ghost… unless it was “Lady Godiva” — but then, the (nude) entity would be riding a horse, I guess?
It would be the only way to recognize her, maybe?

The point is, some kind of intelligent deception is going on… again, clothes don’t ‘turn spirit’.

I will go into further detail later on. But I’ll be glad to let @nPeace take over and explain, if he’d like; we share the same understanding of what happens at death, and how all these incidents of “seeing ghosts” are part of an elaborate, global scheme to mislead humankind from searching for accurate knowledge of Jehovah God.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[HonestJoe]

The point is, some kind of intelligent deception is going on… again, clothes don’t ‘turn spirit’.

Quite possibly, but the most effective form of deception is self-deception.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Quite possibly, but the most effective form of deception is self-deception.

I agree. It happens quite frequently, when people don’t examine all the evidence. Or at least, aren’t open to it.

And there are a lot of misleading influences in this world, for the time being. That’s part of my pov.
Every one of us, to a lesser or greater degree, has some misunderstandings.

I’ll explain & clarify my POV at a later date.

Take care.

 

[nPeace]

My apologies to all, for not responding before now.
Somehow, I missed these posts. I don't know if I was notified, but I was away for a few days.

So how does it happen?

Something goes wrong.
In other words, like my computer that's supposed to follow the commands I input, but instead does something weird... The designed is subjected to corruption.
Perhaps that's how we got viruses. Although...

Something to consider.
What you call a virus, has another name to the designer's.
Bacteria, is abundant, and possibly... possibly naturally in your body - your gut, etc. for example.
Nevertheless, they simply serve the purpose for why they were designed..

You have heard the term - Good bacteria. Bad bacteria.
...just as not all gut bacteria are intrinsically bad, not all viruses on our body are malevolent. Some viruses actually prevent infection.
Why is bacteria bad? What makes them bad?

Well, all we have to do is ask, why is anything bad... including humans? Do things become bad?
We both know the answer... Yep.

They can also be good, under right conditions... barring corruption.
While both [bacteria and viruses] can cause disease, bacteria also serve other vital and healthful roles in nature.

#NotAllViruses
Although some two hundred kinds of viruses are known to infect, sicken, or kill us, as the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 has most recently hammered home, that’s only one part of the picture. Viruses also keep us alive. They form part of the body’s microbiome and safeguard our health. They can be harnessed to treat illness, deliver vaccines, and diagnose infections.

“Viruses basically regulate ecology and biogeochemistry on a global level.” From the origins of life to technologies that preserve it, learning about viruses can transform people’s opinions on what once seemed like straightforward agents of disease and death.

That information is interesting... at least I find it to be.

So did God create these viruses, as we call them? He didn't have to.
Considering that we know, things change, and can go from good to bad.
God created bacteria... of all kinds. Are these bacteria what man calls viruses? Seems more likely to me.
They could be a form of bacteria, or something of the kind... but regardless, serving a beneficial purpose... like the bacteria, which is abundant in the earth.

I know he didn't create bad bacteria. In the same way he did not create bad humans.
So, he did not create viruses in that context.

So where did they come from?
I hope I answered that question.

 

[nPeace]

Science doesn't work with absolutes. But the closest you can get is any scientific theory, as they explain why something is a fact.

They have been proven?

I highly doubt it, otherwise I'm pretty sure that it would be all over the news

Really. Nah. Remember, certain things are blocked from the public. You know this, right?

That is why you have scientific theories. It is not about whether someone agrees with it or not. It's about what has been demonstrated to be true. And you might try to claim that they ain't certain or they might just be guessing or whatever. But the fact is that we have computers, planes, cars, medicine etc. If all these theories were wrong, my guess is that we would still be living in caves.

The fact is, we have people who are globally active in declaring the message Jesus preached; globally united in love as Jesus said, and in teachings; willing to face death for doing so, and in some cases are - yes, persecuted for righteousness sake, as Jesus said... We also have this

From which we get this.

Interesting how you point to physical things to support your belief in theories, but ignore physical things, that support belief in an actual creator.

 

[nPeace]

I think it depends on just how closed the door is.

Not even to let a foot in... Well that says it all, does it mot?
Billions and Billions of Demons

Richard C. Lewontin
January 9, 1997 Issue
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

I'm sure you have heard the expression "the god of the gaps". This follows a progression in human thinking, as the things that are attributed to gods shrinks and the things that are explained naturally grows. God is squeezed into a smaller and smaller area of explanation as more and more of the natural world is explained by science. In many people's view the "god area" is now very small, and some believe it to be gone altogether. Personally, I apply my skepticism to my skepticism, and will never say I am 100% sure of anything. That doesn't mean I consider the likelihood of everything to be the same, or even close in many cases.

The god of the gaps is really a cover up, imo.
It's more like a "god replacers" - philosophical ideas to replace God.
"god of the gaps" is an impossible invention, where God has always been.

Closing any door totally is unwise in my opinion. By all means don't waste time on it if you consider the probability is very low, but leave just a crack in the door. There were black swans after all.

"Crack in the door". I say take a look outside, and really investigate. That calls for opening the door... Unless one is afraid of what might come in... Something they don't want to.

It's only fair though to turn the question back on you. If you demand a limit to certainty from us, do you demonstrate a similar skepticism about your own beliefs? If not, then who is closed minded?

I'm fully open, alien. I have investigated. Why do you think I make these posts.... Where Do You Put Your Faith? ; The Bible - Why Trust It ; Evidence God Is ... and, this one... My health?

 

[nPeace]

This thread will do.

Fine.

The penguin's flipper is an adaptation of a bird's wing. It is shaped and moves similarly to the wing, but doesn't work for flight. Incidentally other birds, like the cormorant "fly" under water, so it's not a great stretch.

You believe the penguin's flipper is an adaptation of a bird's wing. I don't.
I can't prove that it isn't. You can't prove that it is.

When you say "it's not God doing things", do you mean you think God didn't design and create it? Explain please.

God does not have to alter anything.
We know that no small wolf like creature evolved to a whale, but you believe it.

How many different kinds of cat's, dogs, rabbits, ... are they? Many, many, many.
Some have stumpy feet; stumpy tails; stumpy ears, but none has a camel's hump.

According to Genesis, "God created the great sea creatures and all living creatures that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind.. . . (Genesis 1:21)
They produce according to their kind. that's what we see. Don't we?

So, when you see the penguin family, in their many varieties, and you think they were once birds flying in the air, I suggest you have a belief which is not true... and we don't see that. Do we?
God created flying creatures - fowl of the air, and fowl on land... domestic animals, and wild animals.

There was a purpose, but you don't believe that. You believe otherwise, so that explains it.

If God set up the whole world and how it works, I don't see how that's little girl's condition is not ultimately his responsibility. But that's another much discussed subject.

How it works?
That reminds me of the man who brought this appliance. Took it home. refused to read the manual. Started using it. After a few minutes. PAX. Took it back to the store and complained. This does not work
On investigation, it was discovered that the man, failing to follow the instruction manual, caused the damage.

No. God created the earth, and set two humans on it... giving them instructions.
Those humans failing to follow the instructions, are responsible for how the world works.

The world, as we know it, is not even God's. It's controlled by the wicked one - 1 John 5:19. However, because of God's love, he opened a way out for those who act wisely. John 3:16

Please don't get confused with the word world. It's not the same as the earth.
(1 John 2:15-17) 15 Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; 16 because everything in the world - the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life - does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. 17 Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever.

So you started off with the correct word. If God set up the whole world and how it works... He didn't. Not according to scripture.

 

[nPeace]

it never seriously questions matters of faith by testing them to see if they work in the real world. It doesn't change its mind when ideas don't work.

That's not true. You obviously don't know much about that, do you.

 

[Jose Fly]

So viruses might really be bacteria, and penguins aren't birds.

Thanks @nPeace ....that was....um....fun.

 

[Nimos]

They have been proven?

Yes, scientific theories are considered proven as they explain why something is a fact. But again, doesn't work with absolutes.

Really. Nah. Remember, certain things are blocked from the public. You know this, right?

In some countries more than others, but I doubt something like that could be hidden

The fact is, we have people who are globally active in declaring the message Jesus preached; globally united in love as Jesus said, and in teachings; willing to face death for doing so, and in some cases are - yes, persecuted for righteousness sake, as Jesus said...

Someone spread the teaching of someone is, without said person having been proven to be who they claim and even if what that person is saying is true, can not be considered objective truth.

That a small seed can turn into a tree can be observed by anyone, even without scientific knowledge and the process of how it is possible is well understood.

Interesting how you point to physical things to support your belief in theories, but ignore physical things, that support belief in an actual creator.

I don't ignore it. But merely don't think that a clear connection between the physical and that of a creator has been demonstrated.

What (physical) argument would make in regard to that a seed growing into a tree, that would demonstrate a creator?

Keep in mind that I don't claim that a seed's capabilities of doing this in the first place, weren't done by a creator, simply that I see no evidence that would suggest this to be the case. How it is possible in the first place, I have no clue about, so my answer to that is "I don't know".

 

[Alien826]

You believe the penguin's flipper is an adaptation of a bird's wing. I don't.
I can't prove that it isn't. You can't prove that it is.

The theory of Evolution is now so well supported that it nears proof, though in science nothing is absolutely proven. Pardon me if I don't respond to specific arguments that I have read, and seen refuted, more times than I can count, over the years I have been frequenting religious forums.

This response applies everything you have posted that I don't cover in the following.

How it works?
That reminds me of the man who brought this appliance. Took it home. refused to read the manual. Started using it. After a few minutes. PAX. Took it back to the store and complained. This does not work
On investigation, it was discovered that the man, failing to follow the instruction manual, caused the damage.

For the umpteenth time. If an all powerful, all knowing being created the Earth and the creatures on it, knowing full well that his creation (humans in this case) would screw things up, yet he went ahead with creation anyway, we can only conclude that he wanted it to turn out that way. In that case, he bears the ultimate responsibility for what happened. Of course if God is not all powerful and all knowing, I'll give him as much of a pass as I would to any incompetent person, provided that he was doing his best.

The world, as we know it, is not even God's. It's controlled by the wicked one - 1 John 5:19.

Which had to have been predicted by God, and allowed to proceed.

However, because of God's love, he opened a way out for those who act wisely. John 3:16

A way out of the mess that he himself, directly or indirectly, created. I would hope so!

 

[joelr]

Scenario :

You are in the waiting room of a medical facility.
There are about 30 people in the room.
A man enters the main entrance. Stands in the doorway. Looks around the room at everyone, and then leaves.
You see people looking at others, and reacting as if they are having mixed reactions... and some get up and start exiting the room.
You and the few remaining are looking at each other.
You feel it. You are assuming they feel it too.
Feel what? You no longer feel like when you came to the doctor.
Whatever you were experiencing - runny nose / headache / stomach cramps / ___ was gone.
Not wanting to look like an idiot sitting there by yourself (everyone else has left), you get up... to leave.​

Wait a minute.
Maybe you need to see the doctor, to be sure you are fine.
You could say, "Doc. I have... had... this awful pain a few moments ago..."

Atheists... If this happened to you, would this convince you that the spiritual side of life is a reality - that miracles and the supernatural are real?
Or would you attribute it to a 'natural' phenomenon - perhaps associated with some scientific experiment or mind altering technology?

How would you rule out an unknown cause?
If the cause was unknown why would you assign supernatural causes to it?
Do you know what "unknown" means?

What I would want to know was if there was some type of actual healing happening here then why isn't this person right now driving (I will go with them) to a childrens cancer hospital and curing cancer. I will forfeit my healing if we can go directly to a childrens cancer ward so Mr Healer can demonstrate his powers on children with cancer.
They never do that do they? Nope. It's always someone grown up who isn't paralyzed but has trouble walking. Then the adreneline gets them walking. Later they feel worse.


- Religious belief in divine intervention does not depend on empirical evidence of an evidence-based outcome achieved via faith healing.[2] Virtually all[a] scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6]

The American Cancer Society states "available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments".[8] "Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses."[8] When parents have practiced faith healing rather than medical care, many children have died that otherwise would have been expected to live.[13] Similar results are found in adults.[14]

Nice hypothetical scenario , here is a real world scenario -
This is from the American Cancer Society

One review published in 1998 looked at 172 cases of deaths among children treated by faith healing instead of conventional methods. These researchers estimated that if conventional treatment had been given, the survival rate for most of these children would have been more than 90 percent, with the remainder of the children also having a good chance of survival. A more recent study found that more than 200 children had died of treatable illnesses in the United States over the past thirty years because their parents relied on spiritual healing rather than conventional medical treatment.

Although there are few studies in adults, one study conducted in 1989 suggested that adult Christian Scientists, who generally use prayer rather than medical care, have a higher death rate than other people of the same age.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, scientific theories are considered proven as they explain why something is a fact. But again, doesn't work with absolutes.

"considered proven" by whom?
Last I heard science proves nothing. How often has it been repeated to us believers that science does not deal with proof.
You are disagreeing then?

In some countries more than others, but I doubt something like that could be hidden

A lot of people don't even know what's going on. So what's new.

Someone spread the teaching of someone is, without said person having been proven to be who they claim and even if what that person is saying is true, can not be considered objective truth.

Again, proven by whom? See how that goes?

That a small seed can turn into a tree can be observed by anyone, even without scientific knowledge and the process of how it is possible is well understood.

I don't ignore it. But merely don't think that a clear connection between the physical and that of a creator has been demonstrated.

It's a case of what you believe and what you don't. Isn't it?

What (physical) argument would make in regard to that a seed growing into a tree, that would demonstrate a creator?

You believe the seed evolved from unguided processes right? From what?
Or are you stuck with a 'chicken and egg' problem?

Keep in mind that I don't claim that a seed's capabilities of doing this in the first place, weren't done by a creator, simply that I see no evidence that would suggest this to be the case. How it is possible in the first place, I have no clue about, so my answer to that is "I don't know".

What would be evidence to you?
If you see a man build something, that requires no evidence. You saw it. They do call it direct evidence though.
If you did not see the man build it, what would be evidence that he did?

 

[nPeace]

The theory of Evolution is now so well supported that it nears proof, though in science nothing is absolutely proven. Pardon me if I don't respond to specific arguments that I have read, and seen refuted, more times than I can count, over the years I have been frequenting religious forums.

You too? Proof?
Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

This response applies everything you have posted that I don't cover in the following.

For the umpteenth time. If an all powerful, all knowing being created the Earth and the creatures on it, knowing full well that his creation (humans in this case) would screw things up, yet he went ahead with creation anyway, we can only conclude that he wanted it to turn out that way. In that case, he bears the ultimate responsibility for what happened. Of course if God is not all powerful and all knowing, I'll give him as much of a pass as I would to any incompetent person, provided that he was doing his best.

Explain all knowing Alien.
I don't mean a vague statement or two.
Give me a detailed explanation of all knowing, please.

Which had to have been predicted by God, and allowed to proceed.

Says the guy who knows little, if anything about the Bible... since he says "Which had to have been...", and not "Which was...", because he knows he never read it, but is making assumptions - the common atheist' mistake.
Asking for help doesn't hurt, you know.

A way out of the mess that he himself, directly or indirectly, created. I would hope so!

Neither of which assumption is correct.

 

[Nimos]

"considered proven" by whom?
Last I heard science proves nothing. How often has it been repeated to us believers that science does not deal with proof.
You are disagreeing then?

Yes.
It's not in regards to whom. Like there is some scientific committee deciding whether or not something is proven or not, and if they give it a green light then we just all have to accept it. What you are asking is equal to asking who decided that 2+2 = 4.

Equally to someone demonstrating to you, that 2+2 is in fact 4, likewise will a scientific theory serve as a demonstration of why something is a fact, it is simply a much more complicated demonstration than 2+2=4.

And nothing prevents you or me, or anyone else who might believe that it is not the case, to examine the theory and try to prove it wrong. As I mentioned to you earlier, I doubt there is any "scientist" on earth that wouldn't love to prove Einstein wrong. Because a huge part of science is to figure out what is definitely not true and you can do that, by disproving a scientific theory. This is part of the reason I have mentioned several times that science doesn't work with absolutes. A scientific theory is what is considered the best explanation we have. That doesn't mean that there might not be uncertainties within the theory. Such as Evolution theory, which is also a scientific theory. Even though there are lots of unknowns, these are not in regard to the overall theory, but rather to details within the theory.

I think this serve as a good example:

Neither of us know exactly what happened in the image. But we could put forward some ideas.

1. The rodent was dead and the person painted over it.
2. Maybe the rodent crawled underneath the paint before it dried and died.
3. Maybe aliens lifted the paint on top of the rodent.

I might claim that (1) is the correct answer and you might disagree. So what I could do is provide you with a demonstration of how (1) could actually happen. Whereas you might think that (3) is most likely to be true, so either you have to prove that what I'm saying is wrong or provide your own proof that aliens do in fact go around doing these things.

Obviously (1) is the most likely explanation, but we can't be 100% certain that it wasn't one of the others, so we don't work in absolutes, simply that (1) is the best explanation until it is disproven or something else provide a better explanation.

A lot of things are like this in science, because we simply weren't around when some of the stuff happened or we might not be able to get there, like in space etc.

Again, proven by whom? See how that goes?

No, proof is not simply about whether someone accepts something or not.

You can't simply decide that 2+2 = 4 is not true, because you disagree. And if you do, then the issue is with you and not the proof. That is why science requires you to disprove something rather than simply disagree.

If I claim to be Jesus 2.0, you ought to demand me to prove it. That is the first step in science. You make a claim you have the burden of proof. Jesus or the religious people claiming that Jesus was who he said has not met this burden. This is why atheists and people that don't agree with those religions will be sceptical about it until a prove has been presented. Equally to you questioning someone's else religion.

Those making the claim have to provide proof.

It's a case of what you believe and what you don't. Isn't it?

No, because you can buy a seed and put it in the ground and see it grow. That should be enough prove to at least accept that a seed can turn into a plant. If you want a more detailed explanation you can find some biology explanations that will go into great detail about exactly how it works.

You believe the seed evolved from unguided processes right? From what?
Or are you stuck with a 'chicken and egg' problem?

I believe that the seed evolved over time as everything else.

Not, I believe the egg came before the chicken because it has been around the longest

Whether life is guided or unguided I have no clue, personally, since I don't believe in god(s) I strongly lean towards it being unguided until someone proves otherwise.

What would be evidence to you?
If you see a man build something, that requires no evidence. You saw it. They do call it direct evidence though.
If you did not see the man build it, what would be evidence that he did?

If you are talking about a specific man? then he could show me a video of him building it and in some cases, it might not be possible to provide evidence.

If you are just talking about a random man/human, then we can recognise that it is constructed/designed and maybe tools have been used etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So where did they come from?
I hope I answered that question.

Nope. You dodged it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So did God create these viruses, as we call them? He didn't have to.
Considering that we know, things change, and can go from good to bad.
God created bacteria... of all kinds. Are these bacteria what man calls viruses? Seems more likely to me.
They could be a form of bacteria, or something of the kind... but regardless, serving a beneficial purpose... like the bacteria, which is abundant in the earth.

Viruses aren't a form of bacteria.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? Viruses are as different from bacteria as we are from bacteria.

 

[Alien826]

You too? Proof?
Common Misconceptions About Science I: “Scientific Proof”

That's what I was referring to. What's your point?

Explain all knowing Alien.
I don't mean a vague statement or two.
Give me a detailed explanation of all knowing, please.

"All knowing" means "knowing all", or knowing everything, or omniscient. I don't know how I can be more detailed than that.

If you are disputing the idea that God is all knowing, then say so. My arguments don't apply if that assumption is not made.

Says the guy who knows little, if anything about the Bible... since he says "Which had to have been...", and not "Which was...", because he knows he never read it, but is making assumptions - the common atheist' mistake.
Asking for help doesn't hurt, you know.

Oh yes, I'm so stupid, I've never read the Bible and only make assumptions. Sometimes I just make stuff up, just to be annoying. Please help me in my benighted ignorance, oh mighty one!

Neither of which assumption is correct.

Says the guy who tends to make unsupported statements from a position of assumed superiority!

 

[nPeace]

Yes.
It's not in regards to whom. Like there is some scientific committee deciding whether or not something is proven or not, and if they give it a green light then we just all have to accept it. What you are asking is equal to asking who decided that 2+2 = 4.

Equally to someone demonstrating to you, that 2+2 is in fact 4, likewise will a scientific theory serve as a demonstration of why something is a fact, it is simply a much more complicated demonstration than 2+2=4.

So telling someone 2+2 may be 4, is not the same thing as 2+2 is 4. Correct?

And nothing prevents you or me, or anyone else who might believe that it is not the case, to examine the theory and try to prove it wrong. As I mentioned to you earlier, I doubt there is any "scientist" on earth that wouldn't love to prove Einstein wrong. Because a huge part of science is to figure out what is definitely not true and you can do that, by disproving a scientific theory. This is part of the reason I have mentioned several times that science doesn't work with absolutes. A scientific theory is what is considered the best explanation we have. That doesn't mean that there might not be uncertainties within the theory. Such as Evolution theory, which is also a scientific theory. Even though there are lots of unknowns, these are not in regard to the overall theory, but rather to details within the theory.

I think this serve as a good example:

Neither of us know exactly what happened in the image. But we could put forward some ideas.

1. The rodent was dead and the person painted over it.
2. Maybe the rodent crawled underneath the paint before it dried and died.
3. Maybe aliens lifted the paint on top of the rodent.

Good. Maybes don't cut it. You haven't proved anything with maybes.
Whirlpool might be better.

I might claim that (1) is the correct answer and you might disagree. So what I could do is provide you with a demonstration of how (1) could actually happen. Whereas you might think that (3) is most likely to be true, so either you have to prove that what I'm saying is wrong or provide your own proof that aliens do in fact go around doing these things.

I don't know where you came up with aliens from.
I say 4) The rodent was rolled in the paint, or 5) Someone painted a yellow stripe on the rodent and placed it in the road, or 6) the rodent is a plain yellow bellied critter.

Obviously (1) is the most likely explanation, but we can't be 100% certain that it wasn't one of the others, so we don't work in absolutes, simply that (1) is the best explanation until it is disproven or something else provide a better explanation.

Nope. Why is (1) the most likely explanation, and not (4), or (5)? Tell me please. I'm listening.

A lot of things are like this in science, because we simply weren't around when some of the stuff happened or we might not be able to get there, like in space etc.

No, proof is not simply about whether someone accepts something or not.

Good.

You can't simply decide that 2+2 = 4 is not true, because you disagree. And if you do, then the issue is with you and not the proof. That is why science requires you to disprove something rather than simply disagree.

Not only science.
We ask this of you as well, but you just disagree.

If I claim to be Jesus 2.0, you ought to demand me to prove it. That is the first step in science. You make a claim you have the burden of proof. Jesus or the religious people claiming that Jesus was who he said has not met this burden. This is why atheists and people that don't agree with those religions will be sceptical about it until a prove has been presented. Equally to you questioning someone's else religion.

No one is asking you to believe anything. Do you feel that way?
How many people are skeptical about what you believe? More than those who believe.
Why, even scientists don't believe what other scientists believe.
It's a case of what you believe and what you don't.

Those making the claim have to provide proof.

Which they often can't... Which is why it's a belief... Theirs, and yours... a case of what you believe and what you don't.

No, because you can buy a seed and put it in the ground and see it grow. That should be enough prove to at least accept that a seed can turn into a plant. If you want a more detailed explanation you can find some biology explanations that will go into great detail about exactly how it works.

I believe that the seed evolved over time as everything else.

From what did the seed evolve Nimos?

Not, I believe the egg came before the chicken because it has been around the longest

You believe. Glad to hear you admit that.
So you believe eggs evolved from eggs?

Whether life is guided or unguided I have no clue, personally, since I don't believe in god(s) I strongly lean towards it being unguided until someone proves otherwise.

You haven't proved that life is unguided. No one has.
So you lean toward unguided, because...? You want to believe it. Thank you. It's a case of what you believe and what you don't.
Is there another reason? I'm listening.

If you are talking about a specific man? then he could show me a video of him building it and in some cases, it might not be possible to provide evidence.

If you are just talking about a random man/human, then we can recognise that it is constructed/designed and maybe tools have been used etc.

"we can recognise that it is constructed/designed". Thank you.
How exactly can we recognise?

 

[nPeace]

That's what I was referring to. What's your point?

You said... The theory of Evolution is now so well supported that it nears proof...
That didn't sound like what you say you were referring to.
Sorry. I'm no good at reading minds.

"All knowing" means "knowing all", or knowing everything, or omniscient. I don't know how I can be more detailed than that.

Knowing everything as in knowing all there is to be known already, so that there isn't a need to know?
Or knowing everything, as in having the ability to know anything?

If you are disputing the idea that God is all knowing, then say so. My arguments don't apply if that assumption is not made.

I'm going by the Bible. I leave assumptions for those who don't know the Bible.

Oh yes, I'm so stupid, I've never read the Bible and only make assumptions. Sometimes I just make stuff up, just to be annoying. Please help me in my benighted ignorance, oh mighty one!

Um... Alien... People read the Bible, and don't know it.
That doesn't mean they are stupid.
I read the Bible for years and didn't know, nor understand it.

People will tell you that you may read verses many times, and read those verses some time later, and understand it different to when you read it previously... or get something new from it.
This is because you are building on knowledge - knowledge increases.

Says the guy who tends to make unsupported statements from a position of assumed superiority!

No, that would be you.
I can, ad do support what I say. I don't make assumptions.
If I do, I woul say so.