Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[outhouse]

God created us,

there is ZERO evidence to support this faulty position.

then provides for

NO evidence of this at all.



Im not sure you even know what god is or isnt.

 

[outhouse]

I do not believe it is possible to, “prove,” whether or not God exists, whether to the atheist, or to anyone else for that matter. We can present factual evidence (which we can not prove is factual, funny how that works) for the unbeliever to weigh and consider as a part of the process necessary to develop his or her individual faith, but we simply cannot, “prove,” there is a God because we are not God. What I mean is this: God will prove Himself to each and every person that takes his or her first step of faith; God tailors the inner, ‘spiritual witness’ that He feels is best suited and unique to each individual, and therefore HE is the ultimate, “proof,” of Himself and His existence.

So you admit god doesnt exist outside of imagination?

 

[riley2112]

It is not our place to prove that God exist or not. We can only tell the tale and hope that it puts an interest in the heart of the ones we tell. That will put them on the journey that will led them to faith and to God. Their belief is left to them as your belief is left to you.

 

[outhouse]

If something exists, then we should be able to demonstrate it's existence by some means.

and yet you cant do this for creation or a creator.

 

[outhouse]

It is not our place to prove that God exist or not.

If you make a claim you need to prove it.

In this case you claim god is not only real but also this magic sky daddy is also a creator of which there is no evidence for and there is no place where a gods hand was ever needed in nature.

 

[Tristesse]

If this is sarcasm its not needed in a serious discussion.

Not sarcasm. I wanted to know what the evidence was(still waiting on that) and I also explained that if the evidence was suffiecient he could win the nobel prize, which is very true, not sarcastic.

This is easy, but first explain how matter isn't created?

Well, matter can't be created or destroyed. So, please give me an explanation.

Definition, God created us, then provides for, and has created everything with a biological time( it will die), then he will give it life again, like the first time. He is manifest to those whose obey Him, which is for their own benefit.

Evidence for this would be great, otherwise it's just an assertion.

When He wills something He merely says BE and it exists.

And you know this how?

 

[riley2112]

So you admit god doesnt exist outside of imagination?

Is that really what you got out of what I posted? Really? NO I don't admit that God only exist in imagination. But you can imagine I do.

 

[~Amin~]

If you can't quantify it's exisistence, then how can you make the statement that it exists?.

Through acts of worship, He will introduce Himself to you, and you will experience it.

How do you define existence?

Something that is "real''

And what other approach can we take?

A spiritual one.

Is there a better method of knowledge then science?

Not better, but complimentary.

I appologize for asking so many questions, but your statement doesn't answer anything, and only leaves me asking questions.

No problems.

 

[outhouse]

Their belief is left to them as your belief is left to you.

That would be great if theist followed that advise.

But they dont, some fight science and progress failing at that trying to use a myth as a alternitive view that really doesnt hold water.


the point of this thread is what if evolution was wrong, what would take its place. So far a magic sky daddy hasnt cut the mustard as a replacement guess

 

[outhouse]

Through acts of worship, He will introduce Himself to you, and you will experience it.

ah percieved through faith only. sounds like imagination to me.

 

[camanintx]

The evidence from my point of view, is not evidence from your point of view, read previous post, if you dont mind let me ask you what is inconsistent about our evidence?

It's not the evidence I find inconsistent, it's the definition of God that has problems.

 

[riley2112]

If you make a claim you need to prove it.

In this case you claim god is not only real but also this magic sky daddy is also a creator of which there is no evidence for and there is no place where a gods hand was ever needed in nature.

Magic sky daddy, I kinda like that one. Why would I have to prove it. Do you not claim that God does not exist. I don't feel the need for you to prove it. Because you can't. And don't throw up the Flying Spaghetti monster, that one is getting old.

 

[Tristesse]

I do not believe it is possible to, “prove,” whether or not God exists, whether to the atheist, or to anyone else for that matter. We can present factual evidence (which we can not prove is factual, funny how that works) for the unbeliever to weigh and consider as a part of the process necessary to develop his or her individual faith, but we simply cannot, “prove,” there is a God because we are not God. What I mean is this: God will prove Himself to each and every person that takes his or her first step of faith; God tailors the inner, ‘spiritual witness’ that He feels is best suited and unique to each individual, and therefore HE is the ultimate, “proof,” of Himself and His existence.

Not "prove", but provide sufficient scientific evidence, can you do that?

Oh, you need faith. Well, faith as I define it plays no role in my life and it saddens me that many people feel the need to have faith. Because with faith you can't determine reality from fantasy, or god A over god B, and it's utterly useless.

 

[~Amin~]

It's not the evidence I find inconsistent, it's the definition of God that has problems.

Example please?

 

[Tristesse]

Through acts of worship, He will introduce Himself to you, and you will experience it.

Did that for many years, I was never introduced.

Something that is "real''.

What do you mean by "real?"

A spiritual one.

What does Spiritual mean?

Not better, but complimentary.

If it's not better, then why use it? because obviously the better method would turn out better results.

 

[outhouse]

Magic sky daddy, I kinda like that one. Why would I have to prove it. Do you not claim that God does not exist. I don't feel the need for you to prove it. Because you can't. And don't throw up the Flying Spaghetti monster, that one is getting old.

Its not a matter of proving something doesnt exist. I can personally show how man has created all deities and then show exactly how your god evolved into what you believe.

But i dont get in a debate over attributung mytical powers like creation to a deity I cannot prove exist.

 

[Tristesse]

It is not our place to prove that God exist or not. We can only tell the tale and hope that it puts an interest in the heart of the ones we tell. That will put them on the journey that will led them to faith and to God. Their belief is left to them as your belief is left to you.

Ok, then best not waiste your time, the only thing I will accept is reason and evidence and if you have none, then I don't see that your belief is justified, nor should you expect to change my mind. And it's sad that people have such low standards of evidence, that they're willing to accept such extreme claims based on "faith."

 

[~Amin~]

If it's not better, then why use it? because obviously the better method would turn out better results.

I didn't say science is better, all these branches of knowledge should be looked at together, to get a complete and overall picture.

 

[outhouse]

I didn't say science is better, all these branches of knowledge should be looked at together, to get a complete and overall picture.

there are no other branches of knowledge outside of science.

 

[Tristesse]

I didn't say science is better, all these branches of knowledge should be looked at together, to get a complete and overall picture.

What other branches? The only branch of knowledge we've determined to be usefull is science. You have to demonstrate that another method is useful for determining knowledge and not assert that it is.