The first claim would be much closer to the claim that "it is plausible that God exists" than the claim that "it is more likely that God exists than not."
The second claim would be much closer to the claim that "it is more probable that God exists than not" than the claim that "it is a possibility that God exists."
Consider the following two claims:
1. It is a possibility that God exists.
2. It is more likely that God exists than not.
Are you saying that both statements are synonymous, and that for all practical purposes mean the same thing, and that the second statement does not imply a stronger probability that God exists than the first statement does? If so, I disagree, and with your permission, I will start a new thread just on this issue, and I will quote what you have said about this issue, and I will quote what I have said about this issue. I would not be discussing anything except for proper English grammar.
I am somewhat perplexed. Why are you nit picking with semantics? What are you hoping to achieve by bring grammar to the forefront of the discussion. Are you trying to discredit my intelligence by saying "look folks, he cannot even use correct grammar, so why should we take him seriously, " or are you trying to say that I have changed my story, mid discussion, which makes me dishonest and quintessentially stupid.
I do not see anything constructive in this line of discussion. To me the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The English dictionary says that "likely" and "possibly" are interchangeable. In its Thesaurus it uses the word "possible" to describe "likely". Yes the two claims mean the same thing, but even if they didn't, you would still be able to decipher what I am trying to say, because the both describe the same thing, even if you think to a greater or lesser degree, unless you are determined to rock the boat.
Maybe I should have said that there is a "good chance" that he exists. Would that be before "likely" but after "possible" in accuracy, or would it be less then the both of them, or even more probable. Oh no, it could be probable as well.
Anyway, you have not shown that science shows that it is more likely, or more probable that God exists than not.
I wasn't trying to. I know what science believes about it. It believes the only thing it can because God does not have an. empirical value to him. It will say that it does not know how the big bang happened and remain commentless on the God possibility, likelihood, chance or probability.
This link will tell you what science thinks
https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/who-or-what-banged-the-big-bang/
What I obviously meant was that those issues are currently beyond explanation by science. That is why science cannot show that it is more likely, or more probable that God exists than not.
What, like I obviously meant "possible" and "likely" to be comprehended as the same thing. Is this a clarification or are you changing you stance?
I have already said why God cannot be used in any scientific experimentation. It is not just beyond scientific explanation, it is outside of every single naturalistic law that we have. We do not have a clue how the universe expanded faster then the speed of light. We probably never will because our current laws are not even understood. Quantum physics, the most complex of all sciences, obeys our current laws and we cannot fully understand that. But us Christians have our own theory.
As you must know, most physicists have said that it is very difficult to study what happened before the Big Bang, and why it happened.
String theory, or multiverses is thought to explain it, but, they are not provable
Do you have any evidence that the NAS has spent millions of dollars studying abiogenesis partly for the purpose of trying to discredit theism? It would be absurd for scientists not to try to create life. Even if scientists were able to create life, that would not necessarily discredit theism, and it would not necessarily prove that naturalism is true. Trying to find the truth is a noble enterprise, including trying to create life.
No, it is purely Anecdotal. Sometime it is best to just leave things as they are. If it ain't broke then do not try and fix it. The antitheist movement in the UK has removed religion from our lives. Morality is lower now then it has been for centuries. The government has started an investigation into why and one area of concern is the absence in religion in our lives. They are considering a reintroduction of religion, especially in the schools, to cause a moralistic revival. Even if you are an atheist you have to know that religion gives people a real deterrent. If when they die there is nothing, well, who is going to be able to do anything about it. If it is true then you have edged your bets. What do you get in return, a comp, isn't society having lower crime rates and happier citizens. That is why we were commissioned to do a poll for the government.
Wikipedia says:
Millions of Christian laymen, and thousands of Christian experts approve of that approach since they know that science cannot adequately study supernatural events.
How do you propose that scientists should study the possibilities that God created life on earth, and that aliens brought life to earth?
Well, I have not said that science can prove the existence of God. It can't. I said that using science one could come to the conclusion that a God exists.
Now you have finally departed from science, which is good since you should not have discussed science in the first place. If supernatural events point to design, then obviously there is no need to discuss science.
I disagree as the big bang incorporates science, as does abiogenesis and fine tuning. Religion does not try to explain the phenomenon it uses the phenomenon to corroborate it's belief in God. I do not believe that I have used the science behind they theory. I believe that I have just used the theory. Science is not equipped to prove the existence of God.
Discussing supernatural events will take months of discussions just to get started, so please present your evidence of supernatural events that were caused by the God of the Bible. The Bible promises eternal rewards only to Christian theists, not to all theists, so merely proposing that an unknown God has causeda supernatural events to occur is not helpful from a biblical perspective, partly because the Bible says that Satan can perform miracles, and partly because many non-Christians claim that God performs miracles, but the Bible says that non-Christians will not have eternal life.
Oh my word. That is to much of a tall order to fulfil, I am afraid. I dare say that I will touch on most of it over time here but the subject is vast.
I have never heard of Satan being capable of performing miracles. I was under the impression that his powers are limited when God said to him,
Genesis 3
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
I am under the impression that Satan can only influence us.
Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How could Paul have known that? Why isn't it just as possible that God is an imposter? If God was an imposter, how would you be able to know that?
A really simple answer. The Holy Ghost, who testifies of that which is true. Without him, I would not be a Christian today
