So your answer to:
Here and now is your opportunity to present where this has objectively been demonstrated.
Please show me.
Remember it’s not about what anyone “says” but what can be objectively demonstrated.
Please share it with us!
Your best response is:
We all know the game already. "Show me objective demonstration or God has not had any effect on anything in the world".
So to you God is a thing that can be manipulated and tested and made to demonstrate certain things.
But that is an irrational ask and is no more than a game that atheists play.
A pretty pathetic dodge.
I’ll give you another opportunity.
Again, please present where “spirit/s” or “god/s” have been objectively demonstrated to have an effect in the universe.
How is it a game?.…
It’s what any rational person should insist on before accepting either of them as existing.
It’s
irrational to believe in things that have been claimed to exist without corroborating evidence to validate them.
God to me is a yet again failed claim which has not been demonstrated to exist.
So, if you have credible evidence why don’t you present it, rather than complain about rational people expecting rational reasons before accepting as of yet unsubstantiated claims?
My suspicion is that you know you don’t have any rational reasons and are at least subconsciously aware that your reasons are no more than taking it on “faith” and the cognitive dissonance of not being able to consciously admit it to yourself perpetuates your confirmation biases.
Giving of life and creating the universe.
OK, that’s your claim…..
Stating a claim is
not evidence
for the claim.
You’re missing the objectively demonstrated, falsifiable, testable evidence……you know;
the bit that makes it viable.
And no, I did not claim that science is biased, I asked you what you think about it.
The question you asked:
Do you think that science plodding on and coming up with potential answers that cross over into theology and deny it, is bias on the part of science, which is blind to the unfalsifiable evidence for God, and so has to end up suggesting wrong naturalistic answers even if a God exists?
The response I gave:
Please show me where science is “coming up with potential answers that cross over into theology and deny it”.
Your comeback:
I suppose that is a "no" to my question.
But you must know that science keeps trying to come up with naturalistic answers to the origins of the universe and life and that these cross over into theology and deny it.
But interestingly all science can do is make educated guesses about this stuff, and can never know if the guesses are correct and that they are what actually happened. But since the general public holds science up high and because of how the hypothesese of science are presented, the picture presented to us is that science knows or is getting close to an answer on these things.
And so the theology is being denied by answers that aren't even answers.
To which I replied:
It is not a “no” to your question.
Your question is unfounded and nonsensical.
It is an invitation for you to put-up or shut-up on your continued misrepresentation of the scientific method and substantiate your claim of bias on the part of science against your preconceived notion of God.
So let’s try again…..
Put-up or shut-up.
Consider your quotes;
Since atheists/skeptics like using science to show it points to no God, then that pointing must be in science.
It looks rational and scientific even but is really philosophy pasted over the top of science and wanting to discredit theology.
What it finds is basically not science even if it might be correct a lot of the time. It is reasoning, based on scientific principles and based on the idea that "We have not tested for spirits and so can presume a God did not do it."
But of course science is never going to say that God is needed because science cannot test for God and so cannot find God.
you also need to remember that any hypothesese for something like this are educated guesses with naturalistic answers as the only possibilities in science.
The reason for the origin of life being a problem is that science ends up saying that life is only chemistry for a start.
For a Bible believer, life is not just chemistry and is given by God.
I cannot see why the suggestion of a designer is banned from science and science has to push on with naturalism.
Science has the rule that if it cannot find a God or maker or designer then the only possible answers that scientists can give are naturalistic answers
Are you not presuming a bias in science here?
It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that science only takes into account things that have a demonstrable effect on those things being studied, and rightfully so.
There have been a multitude of tests attempting to show the existence and effects of supernatural beings…..all have failed.
Explain to me how it would be rational to then attempt to insert anything which has not shown any hint of existence when scrutinized beyond
somebody said so?
Particularly when all known objectively demonstrated phenomena within the universe and here on earth have been shown to work
without any supernatural catalyst.
Your credulity, and that of those whose opinions you cling to, towards “spirits” and “gods” as a possible cause where the answers have as of yet been discovered is a pitifully desperate special pleading that “
maybe just maybe this time” (unlike every instance before) “
gods or spirits will be the answer!”
That is the god of the gaps argument.
And, as time and science progress, the gaps keep getting smaller a fewer.
Your special pleading that the origin of the universe and the origin of life are different than any other previously unknown processes or phenomena that science has subsequently determined how it works is just that;
special pleading.
Your personal last hill for your god to die on, so to speak.
