-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence God Is
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes to both.
I've already responded to that post. And it does not describe what you claim it does, anyway.
nPeace
Veteran Member
No. it is not demonstrable, observable nor repeatable.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes it is. Hence the reason the theory of evolution is the best evidenced scientific theory that currently exists. If you disagree though, it should be easy to falsify.
What's taking you guys so long to demonstrate that it's wrong, if it is so obvious? You've only had 160 years to do it.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
"Oceans don't exist because rain drops do."
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
There is something wrong with this last picture. I wonder if you can figure it out.What you said there seems to suggest that the Bible is a very good book, and it really is true that people become atheist because they think they can create an excuse that gets them off the hook with God.
"Oh, the Bible says this or that."
"Oh, the Bible has contradictions."
"Oh, the Bible is proven wrong by science."
"Oh, the Bible is not clear, because there are numerous interpretations."
........
Does that really get a person off the hook?
Do you really think that making excuses and going into hiding behind a self proclaimed righteousness like - "I live a good life, and don't do harm to others, and I am not like those self-righteous Christians out there arguing about the Bible." - Do you really think that excuses a person? Galatians 6:7 Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap;
Okay, so if it really is the understanding persons have of the Bible that disgusts or turned them from believing in any god, perhaps you can explain why they didn't just throw away the Bible, and join Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or some other spiritual group?
How did an understanding of the Bible make them godless?
It doesn't add up for me, because I know people who don't believe the Bible to be true, but they still believe in a god.
The reason is they believe a higher power must be responsible for the beauty we see around us.
Romans 1:20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
I mean, have you ever considered the beauty, and asked yourself,
"How could all of this be a result of random processes and evolution?
There is so much amazing stunning beauty around us.
There is some ugly too, but should that cause us to turn away from our creator?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.
No fossil has ever opened it's "mouth" and spoke, and said, "Nothing made me." So why reject the maker just because you don't like the Bible?
Really, god just means a mighty one, so some people don't think of the creator as being any particular god.
However, since you blame the Bible for rejecting all gods, and you haven't blamed Vishnu or Buddha, then most certainly there must be something special about the Bible.
Could it be that this is true?
Revelation 12:9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
Is there really an evil force trying to prevent us from enjoying this?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Yes, what is?
No.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
... is not demonstrable, observable nor repeatable.
Be specific please. If I disagree with what exactly?
Based on what you are referring to, you yourself have demonstrated them to be wrong.
If you disagree that the supernatural, and miracles have the best supportive evidence, then why don't you falsify them?
What's taking you so long, for the past 2 centuries and beyond?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Of course not. So why do some scientists make that speculation?
It's not nearly as beautiful as it really will be?
I'm not in it?
What?
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
So what exactly do all of these animals eat. And actually that picture is not nearly as beautiful as the world we live in. And you are in this world so appreciate it.Of course not. So why do some scientists make that speculation?
It's not nearly as beautiful as it really will be?
I'm not in it?
What?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well, this is actually a picture that's painted from Isaiah's prophecy about the future restored paradise, So to get the answer, we just have to go there.
Isaiah 11:6-9
6 The wolf will reside for a while with the lamb, And with the young goat the leopard will lie down, And the calf and the lion and the fattened animal will all be together; And a little boy will lead them. 7 The cow and the bear will feed together, And their young will lie down together. The lion will eat straw like the bull. 8 The nursing child will play over the lair of a cobra, And a weaned child will put his hand over the den of a poisonous snake. 9 They will not cause any harm Or any ruin in all my holy mountain, Because the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah As the waters cover the sea.
This is exactly the way animals lived and ate in the original paradise.
Genesis 1:29, 30
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.” And it was so.
That's why it puzzled me why persons were asking about the tons of meat that Noah needed to take aboard the ark to feed the animals, but I realized that those persons had not a clue of the Biblical account.
Jehovah alone has the power to bring peace. He is doing it with humans,
[GALLERY=media, 8808]Global Brotherhood by nPeace posted Dec 19, 2018 at 5:06 AM[/GALLERY]
...and he will do it with all the animals.
Have you ever noticed that peaceful people tend to have peaceful animals? So just imagine the whole earth like that.
What? What?
What do you find about this world that is better that a global peace, where animals and humans all live in peace, with no fear of anything or anyone?
Surely you don't enjoy having to lock your doors every time you leave the house, or at night before you go to bed, and perhaps having your wife ask you almost every night, "Honey, did you lock the doors?"
Would it not be a better world where you and your children can travel anywhere safely, without fear of being kidnapped, raped, or murdered.
Have you seen the news on the folks living in Venezuela lately... not to mention the rest of Asia, Africa... actually the entire globe.
You just floored me. I'm shocked.
Can you paint a picture of this world from your perspective? Perhaps I am missing something.
I appreciate life, and the joy of knowing my creator, and his purpose, and doing his will, as outlined in scripture. These I enjoy, and yes, I am in the world, but I don't enjoy it - with all its vice, and the exploitation of young vulnerable ones..
In fact, I look forward to the end of the world, so right now, I am no part of the world.
1 John 2:15-17; 5:19; John 12:31; 15:17-19
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Go read the post of yours that I was responding to.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]
... is not demonstrable, observable nor repeatable.
[/quote]
Are you not able to follow posts?
If you disagree ... with the sentence that directly precedes that one!
That sentence being:
Hence the reason the theory of evolution is the best evidenced scientific theory that currently exists.
How exactly have I demonstrated that evolution is wrong? I'd love to know, because I'd be the first to do so. Nobel Prize, here I come!
Evolution has met its burden of proof. That organisms evolve over time is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.
There's no need to falsify things that are asserted without any evidence. (For instance, how would you go about falsifying the existence of bigfoot?) There is zero evidence for the existence of the supernatural. As I've said before, asserting it's existence without evidence doesn't amount to much more than an argument from personal incredulity.
If you can show me that the supernatural exists, then I will have no choice but to believe it.
Claims about the supernatural have never been demonstrated using any rigorous scientific method.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I am very aware and do not like what is going on in our world. But still although becoming increasingly rare there is the ultimate beauty and wonder of our world. Yes humans need to wake up and stop destroying the very world that supports them. As population increases so to the pressures which create the bad things we are seeing. The difference though is not to believe in a fairytale world which is at best symbolic and certainly not real or to recognize that what we have on this planet is too precious to destroy in hopes of a fantasy world that we can conceive of. Bulls need more than just straw. Lions and cobras will starve and actually humans will not do well on straw alone. Yes it is a beautiful idea that all will live side by side but it is only an idea and is not or will not be real. Hoping for such will only decrease your resolve to fix what is real and what needs to be protected.
nPeace
Veteran Member
If, by world, you mean the earth, I agree there is beauty in the earth, but no beauty exists in this world. 'World' is quite a broad term. Tell me, do you accept that the word 'world' is also used to refer to to a system, and a part of humanity?
What do you consider a fantasy world - the promises in scripture? Why?
Have you not created your own fantasy world - hoping that man will some day wake up from his deep sleep, in which he seems to be snoring louder and louder?
Why do you think your dreams are reality, and the Bible's promises are fantasy?
Oh, by the way, I am sure you have seen monkeys, and horses, and other animals eat fruit and vegetables, so what makes you think the animals will starve? If you believe humans are animals, and humans survive without eating meat, does that not mean that all animals can survive without meat?
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.
inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly - i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences.
When we make an inference, we draw a conclusion based on the evidence that we have available.
inferred evidence
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.
How Scientists Make Inferences
Some scientists investigate things that they cannot observe directly. For example, scientists cannot see dinosaurs, the bottom of the ocean, or atoms and molecules. Still, scientists want to know more about these things, so they gather evidence about them in other ways. For example, they make observations of fossil dinosaur droppings or measure the amount of time it takes sound to travel to the bottom of the ocean.
Although atoms and molecules are too small to see, scientists use very powerful microscopes to gather evidence about them. Once scientists have gathered evidence, they use it to make inferences about the things they are investigating. For example, when scientists figure out what is in a fossil dinosaur dropping, they can then make inferences about what the dinosaur ate when it was alive. They are not observing the dinosaur eating—they are using evidence to make an inference.
Scientists answer questions by gathering and evaluating evidence. One way scientists gather evidence is through firsthand observation; however, sometimes scientists ask questions about things that are not immediately observable. For example, scientists cannot directly observe an extinct organism or the surface of a faraway planet. In these instances, scientists use inferential reasoning to figure out answers to their questions based on evidence gathered through observations and from information that they or other scientists have already discovered about the topic. Scientists understand that inferences are always subject to revision as new evidence becomes available or new ways of thinking emerge.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Very nice, though you should have made your source clearer. That is the Wikipedia article on circumstantial evidence. I prefer their article on scientific evidence. That is a more restricted version of evidence and as the name implies the one that scientists rely on:
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
Of course there are quite a few sources that have essentially the same definition, some of them quote the Wikipedia article.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Yes. Machines are designed. Remove a part and the machine stops functioning. Many plants and animals are capable of regeneration. Machines are not capable of self-replication. Life's main purpose is replication. Machines can be physically stopped and restarted. Once life stops functioning, it's dead. Machines do not feel pain. Life feels pain. Machines only ever do what they are instructed to do.
Life has self-awareness, understands it's limitations, and formulations solutions to get around its own limitations. Life has empathy for other life. Machines have no feelings.
If human beings were truly designed by intelligent beings we would be less susceptible to disease. For example, my arthritis in my knees is clear evidence we are not intelligently designed. The hair on the tip area of my ears that grows 1/4 inch in one day. Bad design!
I believe there's probably some form of vitalism beyond philosophical materialism based on the evidence. But I don't believe life is a machine in any way. There are just too many strange things about life that are NOT machine like:
nPeace
Veteran Member
It's a metaphor.
However, there are basic principles that apply.
"Dead" matter, or chemicals don't plan. They don't create information that goes into planning, for precise functionality of themselves, or anything else, as far as we know.
If you know differently, I'm open.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
The problem with scientific "evidence" is that it can sometimes not be objective. In fact, what is considered good objectivity is often decided by subjective judgments.
There are people like the philosophical materialists (pro-scientific mythology types) who believe we are not conscious either but are just machines. They claim our belief we are alive is a delusional side effect of the brain. The brain is simply material substance and our minds are just outputs of a machine.
I think there's something much deeper going on with what it means to be made up of the very stuff we are experiencing. The nature of our experience is analog not digital. Our brain is not like a computer but more like an analog radio receiver. The signal or the source of our thoughts and who were are as being alive is coming from a deeper connection that is currently demonstrated or limited by our understandings of molecular biology. You can perfectly map all the animal genomes and still have no idea what makes life alive!
Our minds are bathing in a pool of energy where there are vibrations in many more dimensions than our normal senses our perceiving.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Of course not. So why do some scientists make that speculation?
It's not nearly as beautiful as it really will be?
I'm not in it?
What?
I can tell you right not that's NOT New Jersey!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have that backwards. It is as objective as possible. It may not be perfect but I doubt if you can find anything better.
When objectively studied the brain appears to be just a complex machine. You were the one that brought up the term "objective". What evidence is there for something more?