There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Polymath257]

More beliefs not supported by evidence, therefore they are not science.

Possibilities supported by scientific proposals. They are yet to be tested, but are still science in the mean time.

It's interesting how nothing is science that you disagree with, even if actual scientists say otherwise.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Possibilities supported by scientific proposals. They are yet to be tested, but are still science in the mean time.

It's interesting how nothing is science that you disagree with, even if actual scientists say otherwise.

What is the meaning for nothing in science?

 

[Polymath257]

What is the meaning for nothing in science?

I was pointing out that if they disagree with something, it is automatically 'not science' even if actual scientists say otherwise.

 

[KWED]

It's the whole point. The question is if life can come from non life.

And the answer is - yes, we know it can.

 

[KWED]

I don’t have a problem with natural processes because in Genesis God shows us that very thing and what I was saying in the word salad. Now put your favorite dressing on it and eat up and enjoy.

So if you accept that natural processes are responsible for the stuff we see, why is there any need for god?
Pointing at a tree or mountain or planet and saying "God made that, through explainable natural processes" is hardly an argument for god. It is simply an argument for natural processes.

 

[KWED]

And the evidence, historical record with eyewitness testimony, whether you want to use it or accept that is your decision.

This has been done to death here.
The Bible is not "eye-witness testimony", it is "hearsay, long after the event". And even if it was eye-witness testimony, are you seriously claiming that people can't lie about events they witnessed?
There is very little in the Bible that historians accept as historically accurate or reliable - certainly none of the magical adventures.

 

[KWED]

And you saying the Bible can’t be used as evidence is just your opinion, it can be used and people will be held accountable at the last court appearance for it.

No, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the veracity of the contents of the Bible. That is Circular Logic 101!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the meaning for nothing in science?

You are asking the wrong person. It is creationists that claim "You believe in something from nothing". That means that it is the creationists that need to define what they mean by nothing since they are the ones that use that term.

For some odd reason, even though this has been @Wildswanderer has made he refuses to define what he means by "nothing".

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, the Bible cannot be used as evidence for the veracity of the contents of the Bible. That is Circular Logic 101!

When you’re talking about Jesus Christ and when He was here on Earth, yes the Bible record is the historical record, the testimony from the eye witnesses and should be and is used as evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This has been done to death here.
The Bible is not "eye-witness testimony", it is "hearsay, long after the event". And even if it was eye-witness testimony, are you seriously claiming that people can't lie about events they witnessed?
There is very little in the Bible that historians accept as historically accurate or reliable - certainly none of the magical adventures.

Not all the Bible is eye witness testimony but a lot of the Bible is eye witness testimony.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So if you accept that natural processes are responsible for the stuff we see, why is there any need for god?

I didn’t say natural processes are responsible for the stuff we see, but without God everything would cease to exist because He holds everything together.
God created vegetation with seed to be able to continue to grow vegetation and multiply. Same with the animals, human beings etc. He gave the ability to multiply their offspring.

 

[Wildswanderer]

For some odd reason, even though this has been @Wildswanderer has made he refuses to define what he means by "nothing".

Lol...if you don't know what nothing is, I suggest going back to grade school.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And the answer is - yes, we know it can.

No one has demonstrated that to be the case.

 

[Muffled]

I do not think that there is any such rule. If one says "I know" one must be ready to demonstrate how one knows. If one can't do that then it can be called proselytizing or preaching.

I believe I have had warnings for less so I try to walk the straight and narrow. What does one do with the concept of "I think I know but can't explain why?"

 

[Wildswanderer]

They are yet to be tested,

Then they aren't science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol...if you don't know what nothing is, I suggest going back to grade school.

I do know what "nothing" means. Like most words it has multiple definitions based upon context and usage. It is you that cannot define "nothing".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then they aren't science.

This claim would carry a lot more weight if you understood the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have had warnings for less so I try to walk the straight and narrow. What does one do with the concept of "I think I know but can't explain why?"

Then one needs to accept the correction that what one has is a belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs may or may not be demonstrable. If one cannot show why one is right then one only has mere belief even if one thinks that one "knows" something.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This claim would carry a lot more weight if you understood the concepts of scientific evidence and the scientific method.

Science has to be testable or it's just opinion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Knowledge is demonstrable. Beliefs may or may not be demonstrable.

Then demonstrate life from non life.